Palestrina Musical Quarterly

Palestrina
Author(s): Leo P. Manzetti

Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Jul., 1928), pp. 320-338
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/738432 .
Accessed: 05/12/2012 10:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Musical
Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.230 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 10:02:34 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PALESTRINA
By LEO P. MANZETTI
W ERE true art, which of its nature is immortal,never
to resurrect
fromits ashes,its loss would be incommen-
surable.
Over a centuryago, whenmodernbuildingsceased to display
any originalityof artistic forms,people naturallyturned to the
architectureof formerages forideas and beauty of expression,and
the Gothic was revived.
Over half a century ago, when it was finally considered
anomalous for the Church to vie with the world and entertain
audiences withthe same styleof music,the Chant of St. Gregory
and the vocal polyphonyof the Old Masters also arose fromtheir
urns. It happened that musicians had somewhat reeistimated
their philosophiesconcerningthe monodic music of the Middle
Ages and the polyphonicart of the Renaissance. They brought
back these ancient formsto the attentionof the musical world
and it was foundthat, taken as termsof comparisonwithmodern
music,they stood out as marvellousand unparalleledexpressions
of the art of sounds fromboth a religiousand artisticpoint of
view.
It is true, the Sistine or PontificalChapel, with its famous
choir,ever kept intact,if not always in the best style,the tradi-
tion of both formsof music, neverthelessthe Church at large,
even in Rome, wanderedfar fromits guidingexample and influ-
ence. Even now, some twenty-five years afterthe publicationof
such a legal document as the Motu Proprio of Pope Pius X on
Church music, theirrevival is circumscribedwithinthe limits of
a few model parish choirs and, strange to say, of some secular
musical organizations. It is unfortunatelyextraneousas yet to
the generalmovementintendedforthe whole Church.
In 1904 there was celebrated in Rome the thirteenthcen-
tenaryof the death of St. Gregory. The year beforelast saw the
commemoration,in his own town, of the fourthcentenaryof the
birthof the greatestexponentof vocal polyphony. The latter is
superiorto all artistswho have bent theirgenius to the art and
scienceofputtingtogethermusicalsounds eitherforthe recreation
of the human intellect,for sheer love of the beautifulor for the
320
ARd
srda.
PETRALOYSIUS
IOANNES PRAENESTINUS
Imayo secundum prototypurn irr Archiv, rnmisico
Basilicac Valicanae conservajurn.
A77r
Prrript, mu.sic~n sacc'Te .~ur-.
-
auoyrp,
Palestrina 321
enhancementof divine worship. His art is as yet unexcelled,and
such an opinionis borne out not only by his contemporaries,
who
styled him the Prince of Music, but by historiansand well-read
modernmusicians. I am concernedhere withthis great musician
and honorableson of the Church,Giovanni Pierluigida Palestrina.
Giovanni Pierluigi was born in Palestrina, the ancient Proe-

neste of the Romans, a small town some twenty-four miles from
the Eternal City, the name of which he was to make known to
the whole world. His familyname was Pierluigi,but he was and
still is knownby the name of his birthplace. In the ages of faith
familynames wereof but clanish or tribalinterestand men would
be called mostlyby theirbaptismal name, the most cherishedof
all as representingtheir spiritual birth. However, when living
outside their native town, the name of the birthplacewas com-
monlyused as moreindicativeof the individual.
We do not knowthe exact date ofPalestrina's birth,although
we know that he died on February 2nd, 1594, at the age of 68
years. His birthday,therefore, must be looked forbetween Feb-
ruary,1525, and February, 1526. His mother,Palma, died in 1536,
and in 1537, at the age of 11, we findthe son "putto cantore,"
boy singer,in St. Mary Major in Rome. His firstchoirmaster
and teacher was Rubino Mallapert. He had a second, whose
familyname is unknownto historians,probablyLef6rin,but who
goes under that of Robert. His thirdteacher who, to all indica-
tions, perfectedthe young Palestrina in the best traditions of
singing and composition,was the Frenchman Firmin Lebel, of
Noyon, also a choirmasterin St. Mary Major. At the age of 18,
probably shortlyafterthe mutationof his voice and when fully
equipped in the technique of the organ and theory of music,
Palestrina returnedto his native town to accept the position of
organistat the Cathedralof St. Agapit. Cardinal GiovanniMaria
Del Monte was then bishop of Palestrina. Six years later, the
Cardinal became Pope under the name of Julius III. While in
Palestrina, he must have appreciated the musical attainmentsof
Pierluigi,for,one year and a half afterhis accession to the throne
of the Vicar of Christ,his formerorganistof St. Agapit received
the importantappointmentof choirmasterof the Giulia Chapel
in St. Peter's. Palestrina thus succeeded his firstteacherRubino
Mallapert who had passed from St. Mary Major to other churches,
then to St. Peter's. Our Pierluigi was then about 26 years of age
322 The Musical Quarterly
and must have been the object of admiration,if not of envy, for
Roman musicians. His firstvolume of compositionsdates from
that time. In this he published four masses. One of them is
called Ecce Sacerdos Magnus and was dedicated to Pope Julius.
This fact seems to show that the Pope's influencehad not been
extraneousin his appointmentas organistof St. Peter's. There
is in Rome, however,a higher musical organization. It is the
Sistine or PontificalChapel. Whilst the Giulia Chapel sings at
all functionsheld by Cardinals and otherBishops, it is the exclu-
sive privilegeof the Sistine Chapel to sing wheneverthe Pope
officiateseitherin St. Peter's or in any other church. Pierluigi
was made a memberof this organization,even against the rules
of the Chapel itselfwhich admitted to its ranks none but single
men,for Palestrina had been marriedsince 1547. An exception,
therefore,had to be made forhim and it certainlyspeaks well for
the candidate's musical ability. This great honor,however,was
not to be enjoyedverylong. ShortlyafterwardsPope Juliusdied
and was succeeded by Pope Marcel II, who reignedbut 22 days.
His successor,Paul IV, revived the rule excludingmarriedmen
fromthe PontificalChapel, and as a consequence Pierluigi,with
others of his colleagues, was excluded fromthat famous body.
The new Pope, a just but kind man, did not turnout thesefamous
singerswithoutsweeteningthe sternmeasuretaken against them.
He allowed them,fromthe Pontificaltreasury,a monthlypension
for life. Palestrina, of course, could not go back to his former
employmentas choirmasterof the Giulia Chapel since his friend
Giovanni Animuccia had succeeded him in that capacity; but,
within the same year, he was fortunateenough to obtain the
importantappointmentof choirmasterin St. John Lateran, the
Mother of all churches,since it is the seat of the Pope as bishop
of Rome. He workedtheresome fiveyears until he was engaged
forSt. Mary Major, wherehe had been "putto cantore"some forty
years before. Chroniclesof the time recordthat, althoughsixty
years old, they still called him by the pet name, Gianetto, or
Johnnie,by whichhe had been knownwhen a boy singer.
It has never been elucidated whetherPierluigigave up this
position, or circumstancesforced him to do so, to accept the
humblechargeofa teacherofsacredmusicin the Roman Seminary
wherehe could place two of his sons in returnforhis workand a
small salary. Upon the completionof the education of his boys,
he was able to apply himselfagain to the more honorablework
of a choirmasterin a basilica. He obtained the appointmentof
the Giulia Chapel in St. Peter's leftby his friendand successorof
Palestrina 323
previousyears,Giovanni Animuccia. It was the last position,as

it had been the first,that Palestrina held in Rome, forhe himself
went to his Creatoron February9nd, 1594.
It is hard to tabulate Palestrina'sworksas a composer. Their
publicationby the house of Breitkopf& Haertel, in 1894, at the
hand firstof Rauch and Proske,thenofDe Witt,Espagne Commer
and finallycompletedunder the late Dr. D. X. Haberl, comprises
32 volumes in folio. It includes over two hundredmotets,one
hundredhymns,some seventy-five nearlyone hundred
offertories,
masses, about one hundred and fiftymadrigals, spiritual and
secular, then an infinitelist of lamentations,responsories,litanies,
psalms, sequences, antiphons and canticles. In 1919, Raffaele
Casimiri published a Codex 59 found in the Lateran library,an
autograph manuscriptthat had escaped the perspicacityof Dr.
Haberl. In all, Palestrina's compositionsreach the number of
some eighthundred.
* *
Palestrina's lifewas devoid of excitementand agitation,with

the exception,perhaps, of one incident: Afterthe death of his
firstwife,he soughtthe Holy Father to allow him to enterSacred
Orders. But then, suddenly,he turnedaside fromthis purpose,
and abandoning the idea of the priesthood,marriedagain. His
life was quite uneventfulwhen compared with the tragic one of
Dante, the patheticexistenceof Michelangeloand the adventurous
one of Benvenuto Cellini. However, although insignificant in a
worldlysense (if we can call insignificanta life spent in all the
magnificentsplendorof the Roman basilicas and in contact with
the best that art and religionhad to offer),it was supremely
significantby reason of the work which the Providence of God
gave him to do.
He lived, indeed, in a time, in an environment,which was
itselfeminentlysignificant. His lifecoincidedwiththe movement
of the Latin and Christiangeniusreactingagainst what had been
definedas the pagan art of the Renaissance. Of the Popes under
whomhe lived,nearlyall had takena deep concernin thisreaction.
It became their task to restore in all arts, that spiritual note
whichhad characterizedtheiroriginbut fromwhichthe Renais-
sance had divorcedthem. It was also the time when the Council
of Trentwas discussingand proposingrepairsto the havoc brought
to the body of the Churchby thedefectionof the Christiansof the
North of Europe. It was the time when Saints like his friendand
spiritualadviser,Filippo Neri, Ignatius of Loyola and otherswere

intentin maintainingpure the morals of the faithfulwithinthe
fold. Palestrina grew in that atmosphereof religiousreconstruc-
tion. No doubt such an atmosphere had a bearing upon the
mindof the greatmusician. I may say that it was in part respon-
sible,if not forhis genialityas an artist,forgeniusesare born and
not made, at least forhis sound sense of trulyreligiousart.
Such was the man and his simple life. His memory and
achievements,however,graduallypassed into a quasi-oblivionin
the subsequent ages, when music, forgettingits noble originand
the marvellousstridesmade at the hand of its vocal polyphonic
masters,became too worldlyto express any furtherpure intel-
lectualityand serene spirituality. With the advent of chamber
and opera forms,music leaned moreand moretowardssensualism
in orderto depict dramaticsituations,worldlyfanciesand operatic
lascivities. With the manipulationof harmoniccombinationsit
lost, for a mere sonificationof concomitant notes, its highest
element,the ever essential"melos" of the ancients. But trueart
is immortal and we, of the twentiethcentury,have begun to
realize that not all is well with the music that we call our own.
We are now able to raise a parallelismbetweenthe two and, with
apology to no one, not even the gigantic Bach, we reclaim for
Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina the honor of being the greatest
representativeof the art of simultaneoussounds,just as we claim
for St. Gregorythe Great the glory of being the molder of the
highestformof melodic music. We think that both should be
replaced in their honored niches in the hall of fame,not as con-
tributorsto a dead art but to the two greatestliving formsof
music.
Let us now venture a glance into the music of Palestrina's

time, and then into his own masterlyart. It is worthwhile to
study over this period of formationand viability of polyphonic
expression in the art of sounds. Many ask themselves what
polyphonicmusic is.
The Chant of St. Gregoryis writtenin unison and, forthat
reason,is called monodic. It is made up of one singlemelodyor
vocal part. It was the music which preceded all continuous
attempts at making differentnotes sound at the same time.
Simultaneous music is called polyphonic, when each part or voice
is built as a melody, independent of the others, although not
Palestrina 325
harmonically. All its parts move symphonically. In the tech-

nical sense as accepted by musicians,symphonicmusic is that in
which several melodic entities sound together. The name of
symphonynowadays is given to a certain externalformof com-
position, mostly orchestral,that has its origin in this technical
arrangement.In polyphonicmusicno part is, therefore, secondary.
All parts have an individualityof their own by reason of their
melodiccontent. In modernmusicone of the voices oftenis given
the melodic substratumwhilst the others merelyaccompany it.
This is not polyphonicmusic.
If simultaneoussinging,froman acoustic standpoint,may be
considered an artistic achievement and a progress upon the
unisonalformof the Gregorian,it is, in a sense,but an artificeand
even a regressionfromthe untrammelledflow and spontaneous
characterthat only monodic music can have. The concurrence
of differentmelodies that have to be heard to advantage and
produce proper concomitanteffectnecessarilybrings with it a
diminutionor curtailmentof the melodicand rhythmicpowerthat
any singlemelodynaturallypossesses. This simultaneousmove-
ment of parts, although introducinga new musical element,
harmony,was never so conceivedby the polyphonistsas to make
the lattera primaryend of the composition.
Now the whole historyof polyphonicmusic reveals melody
as paramount in the minds of its creators. They were thinking
notes in horizontal and not vertical lines. They could not do
otherwise,for they had been trained in the school of monodic
music, which meant to them notes formingmelodic words and
rhythmicaldesigns,musical phrases and sentencessucceedingone
anotherin linguisticfashionand not as piles of notes of different
pitches sounding more or less agreeably together. They had
come from the school of the Gregorianistsof old who had no
accompanimentin mind when they were writingtheir wonderful
monodicmelodies. Yet, we may be sure,that it was not because
these musicians rejected an accompanimentas such, but simply
because they did not know how to procureone. The science of
harmonyhad not yet been disclosed to the world. The men-
tality of the polyphoniststhereforecontinuedto conceive music
horizontally,whilst the vertical feature of harmony was but
secondary. Though unconsciously,they thus happily kept the
nature,characteristicsand functionsofboth the old and new forms
of music withintheirproper sphere. Let it be said incidentally
that this littlehistoricalfact,viewed fromits psychologicalstand-
point, will throwsome light on the much-discussedand mis-dis-
cussed questionof whetheror not the characterofthe Chant would

permitof an accompaniment,and if so, what stylewould best suit
its purelymelodicnature. Many maintainthat it should not be
accompanied,yet, when necessitycompels,they do so with mere
harmonicblocks. Nothingis more remotefromthe mentalityof
the firstaccompanists,the discantorsof the centuriesthat pre-
ceded the age of polyphonicmusic. The wholehistoryof discant,
falsobordone,diaphony and even polyphonicmusic proves that,
for six centuries,musicians never thoughtharmonyin formsof
blocks. Harmonyforharmony'ssake began to be cultivated in
the seventeenthcentury. Now, imagine a paintingof Cimabue,
Giotto or Fra Angelicoretouchedor engrossedwiththe technique
of cubism. The word "discant" is self-explanatory.It means
an added melody that was not of the Chant, hence "dis-chant"
or "discant."
When musicians,therefore, began to thinkthat melodiescould
sound agreeablytogethertheyadded anotherto that of the Chant
and had both move in parallel fashionat the distanceof a fifthor
of a fourth,the invertedfifth. It is not true to say that thirds
and sixths were abominated. They were eitherunknownas yet
or not preferred, whilethe formerwerenaturallyselectedbecause
theywereperfectconsonances,as indeed,theyare. Yet the Celts
of the North were using thirds in their "Gymel." The penta-
phonic scale of the Scots contained two of them. The earliest
samples of discant show that they were also somewhatused on
the continent. Thirds were used in England in connectionwith
the Chant and the so-called formof the "falsobordone." This
use of parallel fourthsand fifthsconstituted,of course,verycrude
harmonicexperimentsbut musiciansknew no betterand it is now
sheer folly and ignorance of the historyof harmonyto try to
follow their childish attempts to write concomitantnotes. If
Gregorianistsof old were masters in the art of writingmonodic
music,theywerebeginnersin the scienceof harmonizingmelodies.
It took GregorianChant fivecenturies,afterSt. Gregory,to reach
the perfectionof its melodic form. It also took harmony six
centuriesto show that complexof scientifically proven rules that
go to forma complete technique of simultaneoussounds. The
sixteenthcentury,the centuryof Palestrina,can be called, indeed,
the centuryof polyphonicand harmonicmusic; for,soon afterthe
firstexperimentsof the discantors,the added voices began to
assume an independentcarriage,an entityof theirown. Imita-
tions, canons, fugues were taking form in the minds of musicians.
Their importance in the musical structure brought forth a new
Palestrina 32.7
style in the art of sounds, polyphony,a combination of both
monodic and symphonicforms. From that time these go hand
in hand in friendlycompanionship. Harmony,however,was then
consideredthe resultantofthe concomitanceof the voices at hand,
nay, even as it should be, the servantof the melody. A century
later, Monteverdi emancipated it and even allowed it to compel
melody,the mistressof the house, to reduceherselfand polyphony
to the r6leof Cinderellasand it has been done ever since. I have
just mentionedmodernmusic.
Far be it fromme to throwstones at modernmusic,but the
philosophercan hardly close his eyes to historicalfacts. While
the GregorianChant and polyphonyhad characteristicsof their
own,essentiallydifferent fromone another,modernmusic can lay
no claim to new fundamentalsor originalelements. Whenevershe
wishesto remainmusic,she has to move withinthe spheresalready
explored by her two predecessors. No doubt she has searched
them more diligentlyand comprehensivelythan ever was done
beforeand manyharmonicnuances and coloringshave been added,
but even this has not always been done with a correct under-
standing of artistic ideals. Modern music leans more to the
material than to the artistic side of the art. Has not melody,
music's only intellectualcharacteristic,fallen with her fromthe
heightsof linguisticart to the level of conventionalforms? Has
not melody been torn to flinderswhen compared with the lofty
melismsof the Gregorianand the vocal undulationsof polyphony?
Afterall, it takes geniuses to create originalmelodies while any
arithmeticiancan build harmony. It does not take great artistic
vision to pile, one upon the other,thirdsof all calibersup to their
last and infinitesimal relations,then call the resultchords. They
are truly chords as long as they retain some thread of physical
kinship,but manya musicianflattershimselfto have touchedwith
magic fingersthe firmamentof heavenly harmonieswhen he has
but sewed togethersounds that are no closerrelatedto each other
than forty-second cousins. Take also the ancient scales of the
GregorianChant. There wereeightwell-definedmodes that bore
individual lineaments,an enormous wealth of moods in melodic
contents. In the hand of modernmusicians,theyhave frittered
away intobarelytwo,the so-calledmajor and minorscales. Aside
fromthefactthatthelatter'suppertetrachord, whenmade melodic,
is equivalentto its nominalmajor,the remainingthreetetrachords
are now also beclouded by meaninglesschromatismsor centrifugal
alignmentsof polytonalor atonal automatons. With the Greeks,
musical tetrachords made for intellectual or syntactic groupings.
3,8 The Musical Quarterly
In all arts groupingmakes forclearnessof perceptionand beauty.

Is sucha fallingaway fromfundamentalprinciplesofart a progress?
Furthermore,since writingmusic in bars of equal mensuration,
as against its syntactic structure,came into existence,modern
rhythmhas lost the pulse of innerlife that is natural to all intel-
lectual movements. Is that a progress? The complexity of
modern scores made to fit modern instrumentationmay have
added to the growthof harmonicdevices and developed the bulk
of music's material sounds, but complexityis no more art than
quantity is quality. A man may be an erudite musicologistbut
not necessarilya musician. Multiplicityof harmonicartificesdo
not make up forthe loss of basic principles. Why, therefore,say
that music has made more progressin the last 300 years than it
had in theprevious3000? Historyand philosophyare too accurate
informants,when read aright,to uphold such shallow assertions.
Why also pique ourselvesand deceive our young generationsinto
believingthat the greattraditionsof the past can be handed down
through contemporarymasters? History again unmistakably
shows that modernmusic has wroughthavoc withthe veryessen-
tials of the music of the past. Who has ever seen the art of the
Primitive or even the Renaissance painters conveyed through
cubism and like pictorialforms?
It has oftenbeen said that men make history. I thinkthat

the reverseis also true. History makes the man and sometimes
both mottosrepresentan identical reality.
Such was the case withPalestrina. He was neitheran inno-
vator nor a reactionary. He was a genius. Iconoclasts may
destroyeveryvestigeof the past and even the present,demolish-
ing all around forthe sake of erectingpedestals for new ideas,
mostly their own. Geniuses, on the other hand, let the flux of
hereditaryand traditionalideas stand, not on meaninglessfigures
of age, but on intrinsicmerits. In like mannerthey welcomethe
tide of novelties ready as they are to weigh them, not by the
appearance of youth, but on the strengthof theirproper signifi-
cance. Traditions and modernityare just a question of time to
them. It is art, withits basic principlesthat makes them assent
to or reject forms bearing proper or heterodoxvalues, which,
they know, will forciblysurvive or naturally fade with man's
fickleness.
Palestrina 329
Contraryto whatVictorHugo says in his "Rayons et Ombres,"

that Palestrina is the creator of the living world of sounds,
Pierluigi'sstyle of music did not leap fromhis mind as Minerva
sprang all armored from the brain of Jupiter. These things
happen onlyin the mindsof poets and in mythology. Palestrina
did not blaze a new trail. He simplyworkedwith the tools left
himby his predecessors. Michel Brenet,his best biographer,says
that he made use of the same musical material as was known to
his contemporaries,adding to it nothingin the way of novelties,
but that he knew how to blend togetherthese same polyphonic
formswith such an ingenuityand delicacy as to create works of
the greatestperfection. He workedon a themetaken eitherfrom
the Gregorianrepertoire,as had been done forcenturies,or from
some popular song and built on it one of those superb vocal
structuresof musical architecturein whichhe and his contempo-
raries were all past masters. I have been unable to detect, in
his works,any melodicor rhythmicformulaor harmonicmaterial
that had not been used by others. His, however,was such a well-
balanced mindthat he kept the currentpolyphonicformsin proper
boundsand proportionsas befitting a trueartisticand ecclesiastical
art. No wonder the Venetian choirmaster,Gian Matteo Asola,
in dedicatingto him a book of his own compositions,called him,
thoughsomewhatmagniloquently: "the ocean to whichall rivers
converge as to a fatherto find repose in the bosom of his per-
fection." Such an estimationof Palestrina's genius shows that
he was consideredthe greatestmusicianof his time,and also that
the idiosyncrasiesof the innovators or modernistsamong his
contemporariesand predecessorshad not offuscatedthe minds of
all musicians,although,at the hands of many, polyphonicmusic
had become a jumble of artistic caprices. These showed only
technicalskill and complicationsof imitationsin the multiplicity
of theirmelodic artifices. In the crucible where,so to say, was
brewing the fluid of their polyphonic concoctions, not a few
polyphonistswere casting at random all sorts of musical metal,
fromGregorianmelodiesto love-songsof the troubadours. Then
they were watchingthe result of theiradmixtureand, no doubt,
gloryingin the amalgamation of theiringredients. It was poly-
phonic music,indeed,but the artisticaim of music was lost in its
own technique. The discantorsof the XIVth, XVth and XVIth
centuriesdelightedin intricacies,engagingin wagers as to who
could put more melodies one on top of the other. Compositions
ranging from ten to twenty differentparts were but child's
play to them. Complicated problems of notation, enigmatic,
retrogradand reversiblecanons, fantasticpulsations of rhythmic

movements gave them the sensation, of course, of having
won great triumphsin the realm of simultaneousmelodies. Evi-
dently they did not want to be ultra-conservativeeither, but
anyone, with the simplestnotion of proprietyin art, could see
that all thesemarvellousmusical exertionswerebut mereartifices
of technicalstructure. Art is somethingelse. True art conceals
the effort;indeed, it effacesitself. Technique is only a means to
an end. To these discantors the text was but a pretext for
erectingstructuresof sounds that could readily be compared to
our piles of steel and stones, called skyscrapers. They were
necessarilyearbreakersas the latterare now neckbreakers.
Various voices were singingdifferent texts. Thus in a mass
of the Flemish composer Hobrecht, while one voice was singing
"Et Incarnatus Est," another was mumbling"O Clavis David."
In another of the same author, the tenor would sing "Je ne vis
oncques la pareille"-"I never saw the like." At the Sanctus it
sang "Gracieuse gente meuniere"-"Charming miller's maid."
The Benedictus was on the well-knownmelody "Madame, faites-
moi savoir"-"Madam, let me know." In Italy it was common
to hear in church,coupled with the liturgicaltext, the popular
song "Mio marito mi ha infamata"-"My husband has defamed
me"; or "Baciate me, cara"-"Kiss me, dear." In France, it was
the famoustune "A l'ombre d'un buissonet"--"In the shade of a
little bush." It is recordedthat even Josquin des Pres, one of
the greatestpolyphonists,had composed a mass and dedicated it
to King Louis XII, on the theme "Memor esto verbi tui servo
tuo"-"Remember the promisemade to thy servant," to remind
him of a promisethat the king had never kept.
Indeed our centurymay not have a monopolyof inappropri-
ately using secular and altogetheruncanonical music in church
functionsand our hymnologymay not springfrombettermelodic
sourcesthan the music of the old polyphonists,but if thereis any
difference, it is in the technicalachievement,fortheirs,although
showingsuperfetation, was the nec plus ultraof ability,whileours
displays the cheapest and the most vulgar technical devices.
When we read of the decretal of Pope JohnXXIII, issued from
Avignonas early as 1322, and of the effortsof succeedingPopes
even up to the famous Council of Trent to have church music
returnto its artisticand sacred origin,we realize that Pope Pius
X was but one in the long line of Pontiffswho had to keep church
music withinthe bonds of decencyagainst the whimsof musicians
and the carelessness and ignorance of the clergy. Then, by way
Palestrina 331
we may say that even secular music is also indebted

of reflection,
to these pontificaladmonitions,for they but aimed at keeping
music in artisticand appropriateforms.
Such was the atmosphereof musical quackery and religious

gaucherie in which Pierluigi found himself upon entering his
musicalcareer. A radical reformwas, indeed,necessary. In 1546
a certain Sirleto, who had been preceptor of Cardinal Marcel
Cervini's nephews and later had also become a Cardinal, called
the latter's attention to a certain style of music sung in some
Roman churches, which he considered out of place. Marcel
Cervini became Pope under the name of Marcel II. He reigned
only three weeks. Accordingto historiansof the times, he was
looked upon as the "living image" of that reformof the Church
of which others were only the "talkers." It is but natural to
suppose that mutual esteem,based on commonviews concerning
the reformof churchmusic,had grownup between him and the
memberof his Chapel fromPalestrina. It could not otherwisebe
explained why the latter would have simplynamed afterhim or
even dedicated to him his most famous mass, the "Missa Papae
Marcelli." While still a Cardinal, Pope Marcel had taken part,
with Cardinal Giovanni del Monte, bishop of Palestrina, in the
decisionsof the Council of Trent and, no doubt, he took a lively
interestin the questions relevant to liturgyand sacred music.
Contraryto what many writershave stated, the idea of ostra-
cizing polyphonicmusic fromchurch functionsdoes not appear
fromthe minutesof the decisionsof the Council. It is possible
that some of the Fathers may have had in mind such a radical
measure, for chroniclesof the time portrayits moral conditions
in the most violent colors. A certain CornelioAgrippa writesof
obscene songs being mixed with sacred prayers,of neighingand
bellowingof voices, recallingsounds of animal origin. The noto-
rious Erasmus himself harshly criticised the improprietiesof
singers,their pretentiousvocalizations and ridiculous attitudes.
Bishop Cirillo Franco wrotea virulentdiatribeagainst the music
sung in church. The impressionleft on the public by this pub-
licationlasted so long that, one hundredyearslater,King Johnof
Portugal,an admirerof the eccentricitiesof musicians,thoughtit
worthwhile to replyto it. The only decision,however,taken by
the Council, in its twenty-second session, was to exclude from the
churches, which should remain "houses of prayer," all music
mingled with "impure elements,profaneactions and language."

A commissionof eight Cardinals was appointed by Pope Pius IV
to see that the decisions of the Council were observed. The
question of music was looked afterby St. Charles Borromeo,the
holy Cardinal-Archbishop of Milan and Cardinal VitellozzoVitelli.
The secretaryor "pointer" of the Sistine Chapel marks in his
registerthat, on the invitationof Cardinal Vitelli, on April 98,
1565, singersof the PontificalChapel went to his house, where
they sang a fewmasses beforethe two Eminences,who wanted to
see if the text could be easily understoodand if the music was as
they wishedit to be. Who the singerswere and what music was
rendered,historydoes not tell us. It is possible that one or more
masses were by Palestrina, although he was no longer at that
time a memberof the Chapel. The silence of documentaryevi-
dence in this regardis no proofthat Palestrina's music was not
selected for the test. To discreditthe so-called legend that he
was commissionedto compose masses forit, is to be as rash as to
say that he was. If no documentshowsthat he was, no document
eithershows that otherswere. One thingis sure,Palestrina was,
at that time,not only the most prominentmemberof the musical
professionin Rome and knownas such also in ecclesiasticalcircles,
but the greatestexponentof that reformationof religiousmusic
whichbroughtthe two Cardinalsto ask fora test by singersof the
Pontifical Chapel. If Palestrina was no more a member of it,
being a marriedman, his name was representativeof all that was
best in true church music in Italy and in Europe. Indeed we
read in the recordsof the same Chapel that, in June,of the same
year, only a few monthsafter the meetingat Cardinal Vitelli's
house, he received,by a Motu Proprioof the Pope, an increasein
the amount of his pension "in considerationfor various masses
which he wrote and for others which he was commissionedto
writefor the service of the Chapel." Who then can fail to see
that,ifmasses wererenderedat the test,somewerehis and, having
been found in accord with the dictates of decency and religious
import,that he was commissionedto writeothers? How could a
test of such importancebe held and the music of the greatest
living composer be left out of consideration? We know that,
thougheverymemberofthe Chapel was a musicianand composer,
Palestrinawas officiallyrequestedto writeforits service. Modern
criticshave gone to the otherextreme. They have deniedoutright
an eventwhich,to all appearances,is of mostprobableauthenticity.
We have a tendency,in these days of generaliconoclasm,to
waste much valuable time in looking up dates and historical
Palestrina 333
details in the lives of our great men, whilst more consequential

issues are lost sight of. It is somewhatinterestingto know the
date of Pierluigi's birth,the name of his teacher and whetheror
not his famous mass of Pope Marcel really saved the day for
polyphonic music, but, when we realize that pure vocal poly-
phony itself is now unknown to modern musicians and even
Catholic choirmasters,historians and scholars would render a
betterserviceto the musical world,weretheyto show us the folly
of this disregard,point out its marvellousand unsurpassedtech-
nique, its estheticbeauty, the intellectualityand religioussym-
bolismof its melodicexpression. That Palestrina may have been
born in 1595 or 1596, on a sunnyor rainyday, that has no impor-
tance whatever,except to the musicologistor archeologist,but
what counts is to know the characteristicsof his style, how it
compares with that of his contemporariesand with our own.
Many a modern musician of rank, even many teachers in Con-
servatorieswould be at a loss to tell what is the substratumof
vocal polyphony,to writein its stylesor to differentiatebetween
vocal and instrumentalpolyphony. It is one thingto have heard
the name of vocal polyphonyor even to uttera fewhigh-sounding
words to portrayits general features,but it is quite another to
point out the technicalmake up of its highestate.
$*
If historymade Palestrina, he, in his turn, made history.

While the discantorsof the precedingcenturiesindulgedin intri-
cate technicalitiesand absurd melodic pyramids; while, even in
the plastic arts, Michelangelo and Raffaele,schooled under the
influenceof the Renaissance, were disregardingthe spiritual
featuresof the art of the primitives,to become exponentsof a
beautifultechniqueindeed but one of merelynatural and material
beauty, the Prince of Music, bent his genius and energyto keep
polyphonicformsin the comprehensivebounds of an intellectual
and sincereart. Here his genius markedhis name in gold letters
on the pages of history. His musical palette was the same as
that of his colleagues,but his vision of artisticlines and religious
conceptionsdictated to him the material,the technique and the
coloringmore apt to express the purpose for which his musical
ideas were broughtinto form. He would not indulgein making
music an end unto itself,all the while he combined the musical
formulasof his own time with the ever worthyestheticsof pre-
ceding ages. His style,indeed, is nearest to that linguisticform
of the intellectualand spiritualart of monodic music which had

reached its apogee in the tenth century. I do not say that he
knew the Gregorianbetterthan we do, even now,afterits restor-
ation at the hand of the Benedictinemonksof Solesmes. In this
again he was the son of his time. GregorianChant was then in
fulldecadenceas a livingart. The verymanipulationofpolyphonic
arrangementwas, in part, the cause of its deterioration. There
were, no doubt, Gregoriantraditions,and they permeated the
whole polyphonicstructure;but, changes in its rhythmicalnota-
tion and modal characteristicswere takingplace. Yet, while the
technique of the monody went somewhat to pieces, its soul,
namely intellectualityand spirituality,continued to vivify the
new form of music. To be understood,therefore,Palestrina's
polyphonicmusic must be read horizontallyas the Chant is, and
not vertically,as is the case with most modernmusic. No bars
or regularmeasures trammelthe flowof its melodic words, syn-
tactic groupingsand phrases. Its musical line is not held in
leash by the steel chain of regular metrical divisions, but is as
freeas the rhythmof a language. Indeed, if not as spontaneous
as that of the Chant of St. Gregory,it is as flexibleas a living
tongue. This feature,althoughcommonto all polyphonicwriters
of his centurywhencomposershad not yet falleninto the puerility
of rhythming music witha ruleror a pedometeras has been done
since modernwritingof dance musiccame into the world,receives,
at Palestrina's masterfulhand, an idealism and nobilityof com-
posure that is unique. In this respectnone of his contemporaries
has reached the soaringheightsof intellectualityto whichhe has
attained. He is an eagle amongmaster-minds in the art of sounds.
Palestrina's music, therefore,must be listened to with the
intellectand the heart,not with the senses alone, for to these it
does not appeal. It does not draw the attentionto its external
make-up. It does not carry any material or sensational pomp.
It does not interposebetween the feelingsof the hearers any
mediumwhichpreventsit fromreachingthe soul.
It is truePalestrina wrotealso in the so-calledrepresentative

style. Gregoriancomposers,long beforehim, had done likewise,
but neithertheir music nor his is ever subjectivelyrepresenta-
tive. It is always objectively expressiveand never impression-
istic. Unfortunately the musical world, since the seventeenth
century, has suffered from the opinions of musicians who hold
lk I .__JLjL
ir fI~ y~;~X A~
IL
rt
9
trt
It
ArFnc~t 4&1
~? I
AA
90 1f
17
."a
-.-
Nr
A ..
. .. . . .... .: .. . ., .. . .
Sm?
"Popule Meus."
Fac-simile of the original manuscriptof Palestrina's motet, "Popule Meus."
Palestrina 335
that music is, in the main, emotional,hence they have naturally

made harmonythe all-importantfactorof theirart. Even those
nowadays who thinkthat they can writechurchmusic in accord-
ance with its loftyand spiritualideals, show only too clearlythe
school in which they have been trained,the school of sentimen-
talism. They thinkthat churchmusic can be expressedin mere
harmonic,variegated,forms,if not in chromaticoddities. If the
floridmasses of Mozart, Haydn, Cherubiniand the like exude,
all through their scores, the conventionalismof the so-called
classic style, the works of these new writers,while somewhat
avoiding the conventionalformsof the eighteenthand nineteenth
centuries,show emotionalismin everychord and an utterabsence
of intellectualspirituality. They seem to thinkthat far-fetched
chords,everchangingharmoniesand discordsmay compensatefor
the poverty of their melodic ideas, but a ton of sentimentality
has never equalled an ounce of logic. We are so saturated and
impressedwith this harmonicsensualism,afterthreecenturiesin
which modern music has held an undeserved sway, that even
those who attemptto put togetherthe two formsof musical art,
the monodic and the harmonicin givingthe Gregorianan accom-
paniment,disdain the diaphonicway to fall into the anachronistic
manner of adding to it a mere harmonicadjunct. This is also
done by those who are supposed to have imbibedto the last drop
the lineal formand intellectualityof the Chant of St. Gregory
fromthe verymanuscriptstheyare so cleverin deciphering. We
will have trulydecided on a formof Gregorianaccompanimentas
well as on that of an artisticand trulyreligioussacred music when
we shall have succeeded in unfetteringourselves fromour false
conceptionof music, when we shall have returnedto its melodic
intellectualityand make use of harmony,as the polyphonistsdid,
as means to an end and not as the end itself. No doubt the task
is immense for we have to turn back on our whole musical
education.
Obviously there is no spiritualityin music without intel-

lectualityand the formeris paramountin churchmusic. Spiritu-
not sentimentality. It is a matter
alityis religiousintellectuality,
of the soul, of the interiorman, consciousof transcendenttruths.
The interiorman does not stop at the externalformsof things.
Through reflection he reaches their marrow. Therein he finds
truth, logic, order and peace, a foretaste of heavenly happiness.
Now Palestrina's music externatesthe spiritual marrow of the

sacred textthat it translatesinto sounds. Throughthe objective,
logical, orderlyand peacefulintellectualityof his musical lines he
bringsinto reliefthe simpleand great truthsof the religioustext.
It expressesits ideas not its figures. A German philosopherhas
called it: "Die Kunst der Innerlichkeit,"the art of the interior.
By its loftyformsof expressionand reverentialmusical designsit
constitutesan art, so to say, of reflection. It exposes simplefacts
and thingswhile making no pretenceto array them in adorned
splendor. If thereis any splendorin it, it is that whichis inherent
to noble deeds. It speaks, explains,deepens,but never cajoles;
it is unable to recreatethroughthe senses. It uses them only as
vehicles to reach the soul. It bears coloring,of course, since
harmonyis part of its make-up,but never for the senses or the
nerves. Few primarychords and fewermodulationssufficeit to
portraythe noblefeelingsat hand. It is a sungprayer. It adores,
it praises,supplicatesand singsjust as thepious man does,without
eccentricimpulsesand restlessness. It shows no effortof daring
steps,no melodicor rhythmicstunts. It moves witha continuity
of swiftmovementand lines that carriesthe mind withit without
jolts or jerks. It is eminentlyvocal. It does not show sonorous
or dazzling vocal rockets that make you tremble or give you
thrills. It has lyricismalso, but a lyricismthat comesfromabove
and illuminesthe soul withoutperturbingit. It does not trans-
portyou out of yourself. It makes you, on the contrary,recollect
and composed. Some say that it is not dramatic. I thinkit is.
In the whole historyof human passions and drama thereis none
greaterthan that of Calvary. If dramaticismlies in stage-play
and make-believeforms,then thereis none in Palestrina's music
just as thereis none in the tragedyof Golgotha; but, if drama lies
in the grandeur of conflictingsituations, in the poignancy of
antagonisticaction,in the contrastof characterin its actors,there
is no greaterdramaticmusic than his, forit imbibesits grandeur,
poignancyand contrastfromthe very source of religioustruths
contradictedby man's passions as enacted and exemplifiedin the
drama of Palestine, fromthe mangerto the death of the Prince
ofPeace on the cross,and in everydrama that stilllingersbetween
Christ'sdoctrineand the maximsof the world.
To hear Palestrina's music and then to turn to that of the
so-called classics or to the tormentedone of the modernwriters,
makes one feel as though he were passing from the calm and
celestial atmosphere of a huge cathedral to the passionate one of
an opera house, as though he were falling from spoken spirituality
Palestrina 337
to merehuman chat. It makes us also estimateat its true value

the so-calledreligiousmusicof themall. All theirclanging"Tuba
Mirum," theirtheatricallydramatic"Dies Irae," even the admir-
able Passion of St. Matthew, the monumentalB Minor Mass and
the majestic Messiah, all unfoldingtheirrolling,thunderingfugues
and their breath-takingchoruses that devour notes, flats and
sharps,by the thousands,convince us that these grand pieces of
conventional and impressionisticmusic but representa restless
humanity. We recognizethenthat if force,enthusiasmand noise
belong also to the Lord of Hosts, it is more in the nature of re-
deemed mankindto adore Him in humble submissionand grati-
tude, in gentle prayer and contemplation,that noise and fracas
belongto the world,peace and quietnessto the Christian.
When we read the biographiesof Palestrina's contemporaries

and the praises bestowed upon them by historians,we are told
that they,too, excelledin musical genius,in power of expression
and in masteryof technique.
The Flemish Josquin des PrOs and Adrian Villaert, the
Venetian and Italian Andrea and Giovanni Gabrieli, Giovanni
Asola and Ludovico Viadana, the English William Byrd, Orlando
Gibbons, Thomas Morley and JohnDowland, the GermanOrlan-
dus Lassus, the Spanish CristoforoMorales, Francesco Guerrero
and Thomas Ludovico da Vittoriawerepolyphonistsof veryhigh
achievements. They were conspicuous for geniality, vitality,
smoothnessof part-conductingand even grandeuror tenderness
of language. Some were giants in the art of constructingscores
of vocal architecture. Yet, when we speak of polyphonicmusic,
Palestrina remainsits greatestrepresentative. If his contempo-
raries were mastersof the art and theirmusic was all that tech-
nique and expressioncould desire,it was too muchtheirs. Besides
surpassingthem all in the essentialsand in the artistryof poly-
phony Pierluigi,as a man and an artist,disappears in his music.
He has effacedhimselffromit. His is an impersonalart. In his
ingeniousand comprehensivevision of art, he has forgottenhim-
self to thinkof music alone and of the purpose forwhichhe was
givingit existence. He has viewed it, so to say, fromthe aspect
of a collective mankind. He has clothed himselfwith the intel-
lectuality and spirituality of the community at large. No doubt,
his music is alive but not of his own life, rather of the life of a
worshippingworld; it is not a decorationforholy ceremonies,but

an integral part of God's cult of praise and supplication. It
reaches the life beyond where the supernatural radiates and
illuminesthe natural. It can be called the art ofboth the musical
world and of the Communion of Saints. If Carlyle could say
that ten silent centuriesspoke throughthe lips of Dante, sixteen
centuriesof art and faith sang with the lyre of this Prince of
Music. Herein lies the unique and impersonal greatness of
Giovanni Pierluigida Palestrina.

Palestrina Musical Quarterly

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Palestrina Musical Quarterly

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Palestrina

Author(s): Leo P. Manzetti

Giovanni Pierluigi was born in Palestrina, the ancient Proe-

previousyears,Giovanni Animuccia. It was the last position,as

Palestrina's lifewas devoid of excitementand agitation,with

spiritualadviser,Filippo Neri, Ignatius of Loyola and otherswere

Let us now venture a glance into the music of Palestrina's

harmonically. All its parts move symphonically. In the tech-

cussed questionof whetheror not the characterofthe Chant would

In all arts groupingmakes forclearnessof perceptionand beauty.

It has oftenbeen said that men make history. I thinkthat

Contraryto whatVictorHugo says in his "Rayons et Ombres,"

retrogradand reversiblecanons, fantasticpulsations of rhythmic

we may say that even secular music is also indebted

Such was the atmosphereof musical quackery and religious

mingled with "impure elements,profaneactions and language."

details in the lives of our great men, whilst more consequential

If historymade Palestrina, he, in his turn, made history.

of the intellectualand spiritualart of monodic music which had

It is truePalestrina wrotealso in the so-calledrepresentative

that music is, in the main, emotional,hence they have naturally

Obviously there is no spiritualityin music without intel-

Now Palestrina's music externatesthe spiritual marrow of the

to merehuman chat. It makes us also estimateat its true value

When we read the biographiesof Palestrina's contemporaries

worshippingworld; it is not a decorationforholy ceremonies,but

You might also like