SLOVENSKA AKADEMIJA ZNANOSTI IN UMETNOSTI ACADEMIA SCIENTIARUM ET ARTIUM SLOVENICA RAZRED ZA ZGODOVINSKE IN DRUŽBENE VEDE CLASSIS I: HISTORIA ET SOCIOLOGIA Dela — Opera 33 DRAGOTIN CVETKO IACOBUS HANDL GALLUS VOCATUS CARNIOLANUS LJUBLJANA 1991 ISBN 86-7131-043-4 DRAGOTIN CVETKO IACOBUS HANDL GALLUS VOCATUS CARNIOLANUS Accepted at a meeting of the Department of History and Social Studies of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts on May 5, 1990, and at a meeting of the Presidency on September 27, 1990. Edited by Emilijan Cevc, regular member of the Academy Translation into English: Margaret G. Davis and Lili Potpara CIP — katalogizacija v knjigi Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana 78497.12) :929 Gallus CVETKO, Dragotin Iacobus Handl Gallus vocatus Carniolanus / Dragotin Cvetko ; [translated into English by Margaret G. Davis and Lili Potpara.] — Ljubljana : Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. 1991. — (Dela / Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. Razred za zgodovinske in družbene vede = Opera / Academia scientiarum et artium Slovenica. Classis I: Historia et sociologia; 33) ISBN 86-7131-043-4 22783488 SLOVENSKA AKADEMIJA ZNANOSTI IN UMETNOSTI ACADEMIA SCIENTIARUM ET ARTIUM SLOVENICA RAZRED ZA ZGODOVINSKE IN DRUŽBENE VEDE CLASSIS I: HISTORIA ET SOCIOLOGIA Dela — Opera 33 DRAGOTIN CVETKO IACOBUS HANDL GALLUS VOCATUS CARNIOLANUS LJUBLJANA 1991 CONTENTS Foreword. 7 Gallus’ Origin. 9 Gallus’ Youth. 13 Choro Praefectus in Olomouc. 25 Regens Chori in Prague. 31 Creative Impulses. 39 Gallus’ Opus. 87 Reproduction .109 Gallus’ Personality.115 Supplement. 137 Selected Bibliography.157 Abbreviations .159 Index.161 . . FOREWORD The musical Renaissance of the sixteenth century was in many re- spects both prolific and diverse. Voeal polyphony gained ground and con- tinued to be practised even later, though it gradually gave way to the early Baroque monody. Three musical forms in particular reached their peak: the mass, motet and madrigal. Hence the technique of cori spezzati was estab- lished, which multiplied the number of voices and thus enriched sonority and expression. Imitazione delle parole, affects, coloratura, figures, the gradual combination of voeal and instrumental mušic and other novelties in composition technique, ali this was established in the motet and even more distinctly in the madrigal of the second half of the sixteenth century. Thanks to the Venetian school, both technique and expressiveness became more and more refined, and the dependence on the Netherlands and Roman schools gradually weakened. The Renaissance influence was also refleeted in Protestant art, although its exponents at first distanced themselves from the Italian Renaissance in the belief that it could have negative effects on the new religious doctrine and lessen its importance. During that period, musical publications and theoretical discussions about mušic (Gioseffo Zarlino) also gained ground; theoreticians treated the characteristics of har- mony and the laws of polyphony. The changes in composition were excep- tionally intense in the last decades of the Renaissance. Despite the tradition which was stili relatively strong, these changes marked a turning point which was clearly refleeted in the newly established artistic views. Many composers worked in this period of great importance for musical development, fusing the traditional with the new styles; they included Luca Marenzio, Gesualdo da Venosa, Orlando Lasso, Philippe de Monte, Gio- vanni Gabrieli, William Byrd, Tomas Luis de Victoria, Giulio Caccini, Hans Leo Hassler, and Jacobus Gallus (Handl, Handl). The last mentioned called himself Carniolus to indicate his origin. With his characteristic, often daring composition and autochthonous expression he can be ranked among the most prominent Renaissance composers, that generation which was torn between the declining tradition and the new, freshly budding artistic concepts to which Gallus himself made a significant contribution. The present book aims to acquaint the English-speaking world with the basic characteristics of Gallus’ life and work, and to enable researchers studying the musical Renaissance to compare his work with that of his contemporaries and thus add to the knowledge of his period accumulated so far. For the benefit of readers versed in Latin, the introductory texts which were published in Gallus’ musical collections are given in an appendix. 7 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl The notes accompanying the text of this edition refer to the latest publications on Gallus’ life and work. Previously published footnotes are not repeated here as they are available in the author’s German monograph on this composer (Jacobus Gallus: Sein Leben und Werk, Munich, 1972). The present book does not contain any biographical or bibliographical information on other persons mentioned in the text. This can be found in lexicons. 8 GALLUS’ ORIGIN Following after the centuries-long tradition, which already in the Middle Ages had provided the conditions and laid the foundations for the development of sacred and secular mušic, came the Renaissance. Europe, and especially its central and western parts, were perturbed in the middle of the sixteenth century by religious and social upheavals and peasant rebellions resulting from unbearable tax obligations and the subordinated position of the lowest social class. The struggles between the nobility and townspeople became more pressing, disastrous wars followed each other, bloody if not extensive, relations with the Roman Catholic Church dete- riorated and the Reformation gained ground. In this tumultuous period Jacobus Gallus was born in 1550. This date is also mentioned in the text on the original woodcut from 1590 bearing his portrait. The text reads: “Iacobus Handl Gallus dictus Carniolvs : Aetatis svae XL: Anno M.D.X.C.” This is how Gallus himself signed his name: Iacobus Handl / Gallus vo- catus / Čarniolus (or Carniolanus). Some other sources quote his name as Han, Haehn, Hanel, Handel, Coq, Le Coq, Kohoutek; the names he was given depended on the chroniclers or the language of the country where they were mentioned. It seems that Gallus’ original name was Handl, but he was generally known as Gallus. This was the name he most often used, ”Handl“ was rarely put in the first plače. It would be very difficult to explain why Handl decided to call himself Gallus. He probably wanted to Latinize his name as was customary at that time; another reason may have been that he was short of stature, or even that he underestimated his artistic gift. The last reason does not seem feasible, considering the work he accom- plished. It seems more credible that the composer added the name Gallus because of the excitement which sometimes resounded in his compositions, which was his reaction to negative judgements of his work. This hypothesis is indirectly substantiated by a line in the poem Ad authorem in the first volume of Gallus’ Opus musicum collection. The poem has been interpreted in many different ways; the poet, a certain S. I. S., asked what Gallus was doing and continued: “Does he not awaken hearts with his singing? Does he not excite them when they are overcome with lazy sleepiness?” This, of course, is just one explanation, but a comparison between Gallus’ sing¬ ing and that of a cockerel is possible in this context. 9 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl To the two above-mentioned names Gallus added Carniolus (Carnio- lanus), to indicate that he was from Kranjsko (Krain, Carniola). How- ever, we do not know whether he wanted to emphasize the country of his birth or his nationality. The former is more probable, although traces of national awareness can be discerned in the Slovenes of the time who fol- lowed the example of Primož Trubar. This hypothesis seems the more credible because at a later period Gallus was considered to be of German, Austrian, Bohemian or even Italian origin by some writers. Gallus felt that he did not belong to any of these nations. A passage from the introduction to the first volume of his secular compositions can clarify the issue. Among other things the wrote that “countrymen like to hear what is in their lan- guage”. He did not specify whom he considered his countrymen, but he used the word nostrates, indicating people who spoke their own language (idiomatis sui). However, this language could not have been his mother tongue, nor German, Czech or Italian, because the texts of his compositions and his introductions were in Latin. The question therefore remains who Gallus’ “countrymen” were. The available sources shed very little light on the matter. But we are upon surer ground with Gallus’ statement that he was a Carniolian and that he originated from the Slovene ethnic territory, i. e. the then Duchy of Carniola. There is no known record of the exact date and plače of his birth. There are various hypotheses about the latter, but none is convincing enough. In the sixteenth century the family names of Handl and Gallus were quite common in many Carniolian villages, but none of the people bearing these names can be identified as Gallus the composer. Many of the parish registers from that period have been lost, and later sources concerning Gallus do not give any accurate information on the time or plače of his birth. The only tangible record of the year of his birth is the above-mentioned woodcut. Another question is how his family name was pronounced. It was pro- bably Germanized, but opinions on this stili differ. The practice of this and later periods must in any čase be taken into consideration. It was customary for people of Slavonic origin, among whom were ali kinds of artists, to adapt their names to foreign pronunciation when they sought employment and often settled in the western countries. They Latinized, Romanized or Germanized them. The same was probably true of Gallus; beyond doubt he intentionally Latinized his name, but we can only spe- culate on whether he Germanized it or not, which speaks in favour of a Slovene origin for his name, of which there is unfortunately no known record. In the introductions accompanying the collections in his opus the composer often alluded to its meaning (cockerel), but this does not allow the conclusion that he wanted to point to the fact that his name was ori¬ ginal^ Slovene. Moreover, Gallus never used the Slovene variant of his name. He signed ali his publications, mušic and texts, with the names of 10 Gallus’ Origin Iacobus Gallus Handl and Gallus, and he was recorded under these two names in ali the extant sources, few though they are. His brother did the same; he was called Georgius Handelius Carniolus, without the additional “Gallus”, and the name of “Handl” appeared with a Latin ending. Despite the Latin char- acter of the name, Jakob’s brother was similarly born in Carniola, and originally called Georg Handl. 11 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hšndl From the above it can be concluded that the name of the composer we are going to talk about should primarily be quoted as Gallus or Handl, and that the Slovene or some other variants can only be mentioned in parentheses. However, when referring to him, we should also use the name of Carniolus, on which the composer decided himself not only to indicate his origins, but also in order to be distinguished from ali the other people who bore the same name. During his lifetime there were many artists with the same name in different countries. However, it is also possible that by calling himself Carniolus he wanted to emphasize his link with his home- land. 12 GALLUS’ YOUTH There is no known record clarifying Gallus’ early youth, so we do not know whether he lived in a town or a village, or what his early interests were. He probably spent his childhood days in carefree play, without major problems. Formal education was not obligatory at the time. Parents decided on sending their children to school if they noticed their special talents. Gallus was obviously a gifted boy, but nothing is known about where he received his basic education. Various authors investigating his childhood years have suggested different places, but the only “proofs” they had were actually suppositions or information surviving through oral tradition. Unfortunately there is no firm assurance in any of the existing sources that would give an insight into this phase of Gallus’ life. Suppositions do not lead to any final Solutions, oral tradition is often not reliable, as it depends on the person who communicates it and the time of communication, and personal opinions are very often a result of emotionally rather than rationally con- ditioned conclusions. In short: the beginning of Gallus’ education remains a mystery, and it seems most credible that he gained his first knowledge in Stična (Sittich). In Stična there was a monastery where, especially under the influence of the Council of Trent, boys and young men were educated, and a special emphasis was put on mušic. It is also not known when Gallus left his home province to continue his schooling abroad. He must have had good reasons for leaving his home. According to some authors concerned with his life, the main reason for his decision to go abroad was the Reformation, which at that time was spread- ing in the Slovene lands. Judging by this hypothesis, we should consider the future composer to have been opposed to the Reformation, being a de- voted Catholic. We might seem to find support for this in the poem in the first volume of the Opus musicum collection, which was addressed to the Church, and in which Gallus condemned heresy, that is, the Reformation, but he wrote these lines around 1586, many years after his departure from Carniola. If his religious beliefs were rather orthodox in the mid 1580’s, they were probably less orthodox when he first went abroad. The pen- ultimate decade of the sixteenth century was not so intolerantly Catholic as to exclude the composer’s broader ideological and religious views. The further light to be thrown on Gallus’ personality will confirm this. 13 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hšndl The pressure of the Reformation was therefore not the reason, or at least not the only one for this expatriation. Another factor was the musical situation in Slovenia, which was not ideal or encouraging, although it can be interpreted in various ways. Catholicism was on the decline, and con- sequently musical activities connected with it, which drew on Italian Re- naissance-oriented mušic, gradually faded. The Reformation movement did not at first favour such a musical orientation, because its adherents be- lieved that it would strengthen Catholic influence. They became more open-minded in this respect when Protestantism gained ground, and the attitude towards Renaissance mušic based on Catholic ideas gradually changed. Protestants became more tolerant and finally allowed gradual penetration of Renaissance currents into Protestant musical expression. None of this, however, left any important traces in the development of mušic, with the exception of the composition of a Protestant cantor Wolf- gang Striccius, who worked for some time in Ljubljana towards the end of the sixteenth century. Links with the Italian Renaissance were more distinctly reflected in the reproduction of mušic, especially where the environment created favourable conditions for it. Renaissance mušic was cultivated at the courts of aristocrats, for example, at the Court of the Khisl Barons, who are known to have entertained direct links with some prominent Italian Renaissance composers. The Carniolian nobility were mostly devoted to the Reformation, but were not opposed to the Renais¬ sance, rather the contrary — they accepted and cultivated Renaissance mušic. Although the Reformation espoused a rather narrow-minded attitude towards mušic, it nevertheless exerted some influence on Renaissance mušic. The Protestant chorale with that style of singing was introduced and encouraged in Protestant churches and schools. Here it should be stressed that singing in church was done in unison, which meant that mušic, although simple, spread throughout the various social classes. The chorale was also cultivated in schools, together with figural singing. In the Ljubljana Protestant church, and possibly in other places where technically feasible, Instruments were also occasionally introduced. In Ljubljana, the Capital of the Duchy of Carniola, instrumentalists were musicians in the Service of the town and provincial estates, which were dominated by Pro¬ testants. The musical activities of the Slovene Reformers were from this aspect, therefore, effective. The number of musical connoisseurs percep- tibly increased, especially after the publication of the first Slovene Pro¬ testant Hymnbook in 1567, which was very popular and provided strong encouragement for the future. Another result of this spread of mušic was the larger number of cantors of Slovene origin who considerably contri- buted to the work of foreign, i. e. German cantors, whose presence was of vital importance for Protestantism in Slovenia. The musical work carried out by the Slovene Reformers was very positive. However, it never reached the artistic level which would tempt 14 Gallus’ Youth The monastery of Melk in the mid-seventeenth century young Gallus, with his outstanding gift for mušic, to stay in his homeland and exercise his talent there. He yearned for higher education which could not be provided by the Reformers, he wanted a broader experience, škili and reputation in mušic, which he could not achieve in Slovenia. Many talented Slovenes therefore moved to places where the conditions for their development were more favourable and where religious intolerance was less sharp — Graz, Innsbruck, Prague and elsewhere — to the courts of princes, archdukes, and the emperor and ecclesiastical courts, where there were important mušic chapels and other conditions for the realization of their ambitious desires. In that period there lived many singers, instru- mentalists and composers whose dispositions allowed the hope that they would achieve abroad what they could only dream about at home. These included Mihael Voglar (Carbonarius), Krištof Kral, Jurij Knez (Khness, Khnes, Khuess, Khiiess) and probably many others who adapted their names to a foreign pronunciation and can no longer be recognized as Slovenes. Gallus was also one of these Slovene musical emigrants; musicians were leaving Slovenia before him, and in even larger numbers in the period after his death. He was initiated into mušic in his native country when he was stili a boy. In the introduction to the first volume of his masses he wrote that he had dedicated himself to mušic as a boy, “not thinking of possible profits, but driven by an inner urge”. He said that he had 15 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl studied and absorbed mušic when he was stili a child, almost imbibing it at his mother’s knee. He remained devoted to this art, and declared: “I will, if life be granted me, adorn mušic even when I am old; dead or alive I will not desert it.” These words are a quotation from Gallus’ introduction to the third volume of his motets (1587), when his childhood was long past. In this introduction he assumed that many reputable consuls, senators, patricians, citizens and patrons, to whom the collection was dedicated, knew what he had been doing since his youth, saying: “certainly many, if not ali, know what I have done and considered.” He emphasized that of ali the arts he had chosen mušic, and that he had spent his years and his strength pro- ducing it, and had dedicated ali his thoughts through mušic to God. These words illustrate his youth, and they are also very persuasive. They teli us that he decided on mušic very early in his boyhood, or at least when he grew into a young man. He must have felt a strong inclina- tion towards it, and was soon convinced that he would succeed. As previously mentioned, it is not known where he gained elementary knowledge about mušic, or who was the first to instruct him. Judging by what we know, young Gallus must have had a good voice, which probably caught the attention of some religious or secular prominent person. Espe- cially the former would be able to use him in a choir and later recommend him to more important chapels in churches or at courts abroad. It seems most credible that Gallus’ first musical classroom was in the Stična mo- nastery, where mušic was cultivated and relations with other monasteries entertained. Talented novices and day-pupils were sent to the parent Ci- stercian monastery of Reun to increase their musical knowledge. This was especially the practice from 1549 to 1566, when the abbot of the Stična monastery was Wolfgangus Neffius, in the period when Gallus’ career was to be decided on. This hypothesis seems to be the most acceptable. Although no records have been preserved, it seems that Gallus went abroad very early, even before his voice broke, probably so advised and recommended by Neffius. We assume that he went first to the Benedictine monastery of Melk, certainly before 1565, when the current abbot was I. Pernatz, who was presumably of Slovene origin. 1 Gallus definitely stayed at Melk for about 10 years, 2 but we do not know whether he stayed anywhere else be¬ fore he went there. Proof of his stay at Melk is the collection of his masses, the fourth volume of which was dedicated to the “most honoured Father and spiritual guide in Christ, Johann, vigilant abbot of the Zwettl monastery etc., my revered guardian”, who was first a monk at Melk, probably be- tween 1572 and 1574, and later (1595) abbot of the Cistercian monastery in Zwettl, and then until 1599 in Heiligenkreutz. The above-mentioned 1 Strahova, Th., Jakob Handl-Gallus und die bohmischen Liinder, MS. 2 Flotzinger, R., ‘Die Ave Maria-Kompositionen des Jacobus Gallus’ J. G. & H. T., Ljubljana, 1985, pp. 64, 65. 16 Gallus’ Youth The monastery of Zvoettl in the sixteenth century monk Johann was Johann Rueff (Ruof, Ruef), whom Gallus had direct con- tacts with. The nature of their relationship during their stay in Melk is seen in the introduction to the above-mentioned publication. Gallus wrote: “When I remember the time, reverend Father, which we once spent to- gether, and when I look back at our friendly union, I cannot think of any- thing more pleasant than your personality, anything kinder than your pa- tience which captivated me so much that I cannot forget you. When counting my friends and choosing the best among them, to whom I owe gratitude for their kindness, how could I wonder where to plače you who have always been among the first.” Gallus stili further stressed his praise: “It is in my nature (if you know me) to believe that real friendship depends more on harmony in virtue, faith and love than on the greatness, usefulness or number of favours. Your dignity was established then, but it is even greater and nobler now; I greet it devotedly and acknowledge it with my very soul. Your virtue bestowed so many adornments on you long ago, and if you affix it with a nail of continuance and never let it flow away with titles of honour, and if you stili enlarge it, I will congratulate you together with ali well-meaning people.” The close relation between Gallus and Rueff which continued even after they had both left Melk cannot be defined with any precision. One of 2 Iacobus H&ndl 17 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hšndl the reasons was probably Rueff’s devotion to mušic and the support he gave Gallus for his compositional work. It seems that Rueff had a strong in¬ fluence on Gallus in every respect, especially concerning his art. In the abovementioned text we further read: “You did not forget what you did in those days when we were together, when one time you humbly en- couraged me, another time gently warned me and stili another, made friendly and respectful queries; there was no imperiousness in your voice, just as there was no vanity in your soul. And now I am publishing (rightly, I hope) that part of my nocturnal creations you so ardently begged, almost demanded me to.” In Melk Gallus started composing his masses which were published in 1580; in the text addressed to Rueff he said that he composed them in “times past”. We can therefore assume that he was quite well versed in composition when he arrived at Melk, and that he was initiated into its techniques even earlier. What were his duties in Melk? Was he a singer, an organist or simply a guest? The last assumption is unlikely, since it does not seem credible that he spent long years in the monastery without any obligations. He must have had certain tasks, and they were beyond doubt of a musical nature. He probably also composed, although composition was not his pri- mary activity. According to his own words he mainly composed during the night, not only on his own impulse, but also encouraged by Rueff. Gallus obviously respected his monk friend, and their relationship was not based on feelings of inferiority or superiority, but on mutual esteem. The results were very fruitful: Gallus composed masses, and Rueff was pleased because his influence led to positive results. In Melk Gallus also became closely acquainted with Abbot Johann Špindler, who admired mušic. Influenced and encouraged by the archducal and imperial chapels, with which he had close links, he improved the qua- lity of the monastery kantorei. To achieve his aims he needed good mu- sicians, and Gallus was therefore a welcome and useful guest at the mo- nastery mušic chapel. Gallus never mentioned Špindler in his writings, but the abbot must have had a positive influence on his opus, which can be as- sumed from a gesture of Gallus’: when his fourth volume of motets was published (1590), he remembered Špindler, who was at the time abbot in Kremsmtinster. He sent him a copy of the publication as a gift, and Špind¬ ler thanked him in Latin, and sent him six and a half guldens. Gallus and Špindler therefore maintained relations even long after the time they spent in Melk and in a way cooperated. During his Melk years Gallus met ali the musicians who were mem- bers of the monastery mušic chapel. Among them was the composer Lam- bertus de Sayve, who worked there as a choir master between 1569 and 1577. Gallus did not mention him in his introductions, which allows the supposition that he did not consider him very important, and that he had no major influence upon his career. Gallus probably did not take his works 18 Gallus’ Youth as an example; at least there is no evidence for this. However, it is certain that they knew each other and in a way cooperated, although probably only in the reproduction of mušic. Another question remains open, namely, why Gallus left Melk. We may assume that this monastery no longer provided the conditions for his artistic advancement and recognition. The imperial chapel in Vienna seemed far more promising, since it consisted of vocalists and instrumen- talists. A special tutor worked there who instructed the members of the chapel not only in mušic but in other humanistic subjects as well. Had Gallus joined it early, as a boy, he would have been a Singer, Cantorey, or rather Capellsingerknaben, and his preceptor could have been Johann Plu- vier, who is recorded as having worked there from 1564 to 1570, and who was succeeded by Jacob Regnart (Regnard). The court kapellmeisters dur- ing that time were Jacob Vaet (1564—1567) and Philippe de Monte (from 1568). Nevertheless in the 1560’s Gallus was not a member of the Court chapel. If he had been, it would not have been difficult to answer the question where he became acquainted with composition technique and where he developed his musical talent. Vaet was at the time a renowned composer, and Gallus later studied his works, and to a limited extent modelled his own art on his. The same is true of Regnart and de Monte. A trače of their influence can be felt in his compositions. Gallus joined the Court chapel just before 1574, when it was recorded in the Court ledgers that on 14th. March twenty florins were paid to Georg Hahn, “der Rom. Khay. capelnsingerkhnaben, Jacoben Hanns vattern.” He was paid this amount because he had travelled a long way to visit his son, and brought another son with him, but no documents have been preserved about where and how this son was employed. However, the records show that Jacob’s father stayed in the Capital of the monarchy for a longer pe¬ riod, at least until 30th. December, 1574. An entry in the ledgers says that on that day Georg Hahn was given two additional florins. Georg (Hahn) and Jacob (Hann) were father and son, although there is a slight difference in their surnames in the ledgers, due to the accountant. Georg’s son and Ja¬ kobi brother was also called Georg, later known as Georgius Handelius Carniolus. Jakob (Hann) was therefore a member of the Court chapel; this is the first written record about him, according to which he was a boy singer in 1574, which seems impossible since he was then twenty-four years old and therefore grown up. He was entered as such according to earlier records, but he was probably a tenor or a bass singer, belonging to Capellsinger- khnaben-extraordinarii, the title then given to adult singers. The addition extraordinarii is absent from Gallus’ record, but there is no doubt that he was in this category of singers. In Vienna Gallus associated with Regnart, de Monte and assuredly with other musicians active at the Court and elsewhere. These included the Dutch organist Paul van Winde, who was a member of the Court chapel. 2* 19 Dragotin Cvetko — lacobus Handl Gallus therefore lived in the centre of the current musical endeavours, which provided abundant opportunities for his development. He undoubt- edly took full advantage of them, from the point of view of composition technique and reproduction. He was young and ambitious, and he wanted to excel in every respect. Gallus almost certainly left the Court chapel some time in 1575. It is not difficult to answer the question why. He probably felt confident enough regarding his composition skills, he had already formulated his basic stylis- tic concepts, which could later be expanded and polished, he was educated and knew the main musical streams in Western Europe in the early 1570’s. We may assume that he wanted to leave the Capital, aware that it could pro~ vide nothing new for him. It seems that after Vienna he wanted to go his own way and free himself from binding examples; however, this does not mean that in the future he completely rejected other people’s models, but he wanted more extensive knowledge than the Court chapel could offer. He spent some of the following years travelling. Some information about this can be found in the second volume of his Opus musicum (1587), which he addressed to the “most honoured and eminent monastery superi- ors, abbots, and other clergy, monsignors and patrons, who deserved ali res¬ pect.” He therefore visited predominantly monasteries, churches and other religious institutions. In the above-mentioned text he further stated that he did not see “only one of your dwellings, I visited many, especially in Austria and Moravia; I spent some time in monasteries,” in which I often “enticed forest songs from a little flute, just like him.” By “him” he meant the Latin poet whose lines he borrowed from his first Eclogue. Gallus also wrote about ali these travels in the third volume of the above-mentioned col- lection. He recorded having visited numerous towns in Moravia, Bohemia and Silesia. Everywhere he observed that they were “not only favourably inclined, but devoted to mušic, which was secretly cultivated in the homes of the townspeople and even senators, and publicly cherished in the House of God.” Judging by this quotation, we may assume that Gallus frequented the homes of the townspeople and nobility, and listened to secular mušic as well as sacred. He was obviously broad-minded, and did not strictly limit himself to religious institutions. The available sources show that after 1574 Gallus visited Zwettl, Bruck near Znojmo, which is probably the present Klosterbruck (Louka), Brno (Briinn), Zabrdovice (Obrowitz), Olomouc (Olmiitz), Kromeriž (Kremsier), Prague, Rakovnik (Rakonitz) west of Prague, Wroclaw (Breslau), Gorlitz, (Zgorzelec), Nisa (Niesse), Legnica (Liegnitz), and many other places. He therefore travelled a great deal not only within Austria, Moravia and Bohemia, but also as far afield as the German countries, too. These jour- neys cannot be dated with precision, but it seems they mostly took plače before 1580. During his travels Gallus met many prominent personalities of the ec- clesiastical and civil hierarchy. Proof of this is the first volume of Opus 20 Gallus’ Youth Wroclaw in the former half of the seventeenth century musicum which he dedicated to the »honoured and renowned« princes and bishops. Among them he quoted “Monsignor Martin, Archbishop of Pra- gue”, “Monsignor Stanislaw, Bishop of Olomouc” and “Monsignor Andreas, Bishop of Wroclaw”. He probably considered them the “noblest”; the two most important people for him were the bishops of Olomouc and Wroclaw. The exact dates or places of Gallus’ meetings with these famous people are not known. He probably met Wilhelm Prusinowsky, another such per- son, in Kromeriž. Gallus mentioned him in the introduction to the first vo- lume of his masses, otherwise dedicated to Bishop Pawlowsky. He praised Prusinovsky, and said of Pawlowsky (Pavlovsky) that he nobly followed “in the footsteps of Wilhelm, who once lived in the same town”, i. e. in Olomouc, and that in mušic he did not want to be “less than him”. He said that he had assured himself of this “with his own eyes”. He therefore knew Prusinovsky personally, otherwise he could not have compared him to Pawlowsky. According to the records available “Monsignor Andreas” was at that time provost in Wroclaw Cathedral. He maintained friendly relations with Pawlowsky, who was of Silesian origin. We may conceive that Gallus met Pawlowsky in Wroclaw for the first time between 1575 and 1578. However, they could have met in Zabrdovice near Brno, where Pawlowsky was a Premonstratensian monk, and Gallus a singer, organist or guest, but of course before 1580. 3 The hypothesis that Gallus stayed in Wroclaw for a longer period may be correct. Many of his manuscript compositions, studies of motets and other compositions that were later published have been found 3 Sehnal, ‘La mušica alla corte dei vescovi di Olomouc dal sec. XIII alla meta del sec. XVII’, Quadrivium, 11, Bologna, 1970. 21 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl there, for example, Passio Domini nostri Jesu Christi in a manuscript from Wroclaw dated 1580, Elisabeth vero impletum and Elisabeth Zachariae. The latter two compositions are in manuscript, and are dated 1575. They can be ranked in the category of motets he composed along with his masses. The question remains whether he wrote them in Wroclaw, because they could have been brought there from somewhere else, since compositions by various composers frequently circulated in that period. In any čase, there is no doubt that Gallus stayed in Wroclaw before 1580; his first stay in Prague also dates from the period just before 1580. Proof of this is Missa super Levavi oculos meos in Graduale latino bohemi- cum from 1578. 4 5 He may have visited the Bohemian Capital considerably before the time he settled there. The above-mentioned Graduale was owned by St. MichaePs Church in Prague, and it was written in the seventies in white mensural notation. It contained divine offices with texts in Czech and Latin by numerous authors, for example Jiri Richnovsky, Jan Trojan Turnovsky, Arcadelt and Ada- mus Wulfius. s The Bohemian compositions in this Graduale represent an interesting and characteristic document of the work of Bohemian poly- phonic composers in the Renaissance. The text in the tenor part of this mass of Gallus’ reads: “Officium Sacrum de Annunciacione Beatae Mariae — Adam Rosa pro decore Christi sumptu privato curavit Anno Virginei Partus 1578: Introitus-Rorate coeli / Officium Jac. Handl Gallus ‘Levavi oculos meos’ / Kyrie-Gloria-Laus tibi Christe-Mittit an virginem-Patrem-Beata es virgo Maria.” We do not know whether Gallus wrote it for A. Rosa, who perhaps encouraged him, or for St. MichaePs literary brotherhood. It is characterized by the absence of Sanctus, Benedictus and Agnus. It is composed in the imitation technique with homophonic contrasts. The composer, v/ho also used counterpoint in this piece, employed tone painting to depict the word “ascendit”. Individual passages are reminiscent of the melodies in Bohemian graduals and Bo¬ hemian folk songs. This mass dates from Gallus’ early composition period. It seems that he composed it before 1578, probably in 1577 or even earlier. Judging by its structure and expressiveness, the composer was technically well versed and creatively independent quite early in his career. Gallus’ composition before 1580 is illustrated not only by Officium su¬ per Levavi oculos meos, but also with a series of divine offices, owned by Gallus’ contemporary Jan Trojan Turnovsky. There are no detailed records about this, but our assumption seems justifiable. Of ali the countries he travelled in, Moravia was especially dear to Gallus, and he visited many towns there. It seems that he spent some time 4 Snižkova, J., ‘Jacobus Handl und Prag in drei Dokumenten’, J. G. & H. T., 1985, pp. 134—137. 5 Ib„ p. 135. 22 Gallus’ Youth in the Premonstratensian monastery of Louka near Znojmo, where there was a mušic and singing school after 1576; some of the teachers there were members of the Court chapel. Gallus might have been among them, since he was at the time musically well educated. He had certain connections with this monastery, which is evident from the fact that he sent a copy of the first volume of his masses to the then abbot, Sebastian Freytag. He thanked the composer and sent him ten ducats. Gallus’ habit of sending his works to various people shows that he wanted to make his compositions known to a large public. Apart from that he probably wanted to improve his modest financial status, since his publications involved great expense. Gallus had a closer relation with the Premonstratensian abbot C. Scho- nauer in Zabrdovice than with Freytag. He stayed with him for some time, either as a guest or working as a musician. Numerous documents illustrate the relation between them, for instance the introduction to the third vo¬ lume of Gallus’ masses and the lines by Ioannes Ierger (Jerger, Irger) pu- blished in the first volume of masses and dedicated to Gallus. There we read that ”while we enjoyed a pleasant rest during the summer months and our bodies, wearied with labour, were embraced in sweet sleepiness“, Apollo was, admiring Gallus, playing melodies. In the final lines the poet summoned the composer to publish his works. He said that he, admired as he was by many musicians, should not fear the slanderers who opposed and insulted him. The event Ierger described probably took plače in the summer of 1579 in Zabrdovice. Ierger’s poem allows the hypothesis that Gallus became famous as a composer quite early. However, some of his contemporaries were probably displeased with his youthful success or his methods of composition, which they did not agree with. Ali the evidence points to Gallus’ youth being restless and dedicated to searching for new and individual ways. He travelled from monastery to monastery, visited many towns, and everywhere his experience was broadened and his knowledge enriched. He was ambitious even before he entered the Court chapel; when he left it, he directed ali his efforts into widening his horizons. 23 ' ’ ■ CHORO PRAEFECTUS IN OLOMOUC When Gallus was thirty years old, the restless period of his life was over, and by that time he had become an experienced musician, acquainted with various schools and techniques of composition. He realized it was time he settled down. The decisive event changing the course of Gallus’ life was probably his encounter with Pawlowsky in Zabrdovice. The latter invited him to stay at his court. It is not entirely clear what he expected from him nor how he planned to employ him, but the post was definitely of a musical nature. We know that Pawlowsky, who was elected Bishop of Olomouc (1579) and confirmed by the Pope between llth June and 27th August, 1585, needed an organist. It seems that Gallus was originally chosen for the post, but he was soon promoted. A document dated 26th July, 1585 states that the composer was Musicorum capellae nostrae choro praefectus for five years, from the middle of 1580 on. The document was written and signed by Pawlowsky. Pawlowsky must have known Gallus’ talents for and success in mu¬ sical composition and reproduction, otherwise he would not have entrusted him with such important responsibilities. He also had respect for Gallus, just as Gallus respected his superior and employer. Upon his election he honoured him with a ceremonial choral piece Undique flammatis, which proves his presence at the bishop’s court and his musical endeavours at the turn of the 1580’s. There evidently existed more candidates for the post Gallus had with Pawlowsky. This can be at least indirectly deduced from the compliments addressed to Pawlowsky upon his election by a certain Jetrich from Ku- novice. On that occasion Jetrich also asked Pawlowsky to employ the organist he had recommended. The name of the musician was not men- tioned, but it was obviously Gallus whom he had in mind. When Paw- lowsky thanked Jetrich for the compliments on 6th August, 1579, he in- formed him that he had taken his advice. Gallus was first employed as an organist, but was soon promoted and became kapellmeister. At Pawlowsky’s court Gallus worked full time, and it as not only sacred mušic that he was concerned with nor only with the cathedral choir. Secular mušic at the Kromeriž court was also in his competence. In Olo¬ mouc he mostly composed sacred mušic required by the cathedral choir. 25 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hšndl He might also have composed a number of secular works to meet the needs of the instrumentaliste and singers in Kromeriž. Gallus directed ali these musicians and trained them, ensuring that there were always enough of them and that their performance was immaculate. He accompanied Paw- lowsky on his travels together with the chapel he took to represent him. Gallus thus had a chance to meet various ecclesiastical and civil people of importance, and of course, foreign musicians. He probably distributed his publications and manuscripts; proof of this are copies of his works found outside the borders of Moravia and Bohemia, and in numerous inven- tories at various places. The sources for the work of Pawlowsky’s mušic chapel are rather limited, but the modest records nevertheless illustrate the endeavours of this institution. So we learn that Gallus introduced his compatriot Michael Restel to the chapel in the second half of 1580, but that he left the court as early as 12th. November, 1581, saying that he wanted to visit his re- latives and his homeland. The main reason for his departure was probably the low pay. He never returned and ali trače of his further activities was lost. Another person to work in the episcopal chapel at the same time as Gallus was Andreas Ostermayer, who joined it in 1585 on Gallus’ recom- mendation. Ostermayer was a tenor singer, and he soon became vicema- gister. He stayed in Olomouc for three years and left on 8th March, 1588; he stated similar reasons for his departure as Restel, but the main cause was probably poor earnings. What we know about him shows that he was diligent and that he noticeably contributed to the work of the chapel. Gallus had excellent relations with Pawlowsky, which continued even after he ceased to be his kapellmeister. After five years of Service for the bishop Gallus wanted to leave and asked to be released. Pawlowsky obliged and issued him with a testimonial describing “the faithful Service of Jakob Handl, a Carniolian, musician, and his release from the court”. The text further read: “We, Stanislaw Pawlowsky, by the grace of God and the Holy See the Bishop of Olomouc, with this document notify ali and every- one concerned that its bearer, our dear, honest and learned Jakob Handel, Carniolian, musician, was by our grace and benevolence received into the number of our servants, and was the director of the musicians in our chapel. After five years of faithful and diligent service as behoves an honest Catholic, he, partly to change the climate, which did not suit him best here, and partly for other good and justifiable reasons, asked to be released from our court. Since we wanted to oblige and help him find greater happiness elsewhere, we released him from the previously men- tioned service with the same grace as we received him, and we believe that he should be honoured with our writing to testify to his honesty and diligence in the accomplishment of his duties. We love and recommend him with the highest mark of favour to ali and everyone he goes to; he is a good and honest man with exceptional excellence in his art, and we de- mand that they aid him with their benevolence and acts of Christian love, 26 Choro Praefectus in Olomouc Olomouc (Olmiitz) at the end, of the sixteenth century even more, that they respect him as they should respect ali good and honest men renowned for their qualities in free art. Let them love and esteem him, since they will thus do us a favour, which will be very dear to us and repaid on every occasion with similar favours.” The letter of discharge was “given in Kromeriž at our castle on 26th. July in the year of our Lord 1585”. Pawlowsky did not specify what the “good and justifiable reasons 11 for Gallus’ departure from Olomouc were, although he probably knew them at least in general outline. Gallus’ work in the cathedral and at the court was probably too hard and demanding, and this hindered his composing, which had become more intensive during the five years of his stay in Olo¬ mouc. Because of the results he achieved in his art he had important plans for the future. He thought of printing his works, and he wanted to publish them at the same printing press that produced his masses in 1580, at the Prague printer Nigrin (Georgius Nigrin-Jirik Cerny), who belonged to the circle of Prague humanists and was in touch with many Bohemian poets. Nigrin published numerous compositions, and his publications were of high technical quality. Gallus and Nigrin were not j ust acquaintances, but friends. When Gallus’ masses were being printed at Nigrin’s, the composer almost certainly supervised the printing, since he was concerned about the accuracy and quality of the publication. In this way he also acquired va- luable experience he wanted to use to his advantage. In 1585 his criteria concerning the quality of his printed works were even stricter than before, 27 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hšndl C nufzj Uu/o/zjL HutJtii/ efeuirtie U mjhr, "gnitij Pl'/ Atdittj •jnf* (KfKhTU<&i4#{ / 3l TtlTMTi ti/6?i eMiUli^lhtftfeu vutiuiu sp/xnzi%i A? Pfiiie# Jrit/Uiu/Ottf f/ni cjujtd. 'jtžPi/it (Q /u (ffu*tfv/L in Jjtmtt antm/ni/* kpr/i/h ''yMiJti/tu($2 U*m čPUtim fna/iM/tJ (Pfa/uPu M/ ifUnsMpnc/ti/^Uti - iztfpuu 6tPin e ffPPtii, 0- ZeJttmittiL vmj ^ imtJcTtk ffifj/htJ !ui : lffu $KM-£tfju mt miatn/KM! Pf^n/ tu den/hfii. met jntf.' Ptim. at% £ni 'stffaCCh C&fati/iftUS Jc&t/l/ n/ j/j isfiMceuMju&m zef/rP&fn/ti e/ficftifizJjji/ntt ity/s »u%t /jfiufjtfljrfot mnimzdPt/ akt., eitifo. £jfc*xf. -dmu ~?xx~ ‘ ^ ^ \\(uJ>o < 7 UnJl §An Mufu# q _ \\ d p** M*/*** Ut* j) - J /ktnf Cs>+ <■ i&'-**+, 2 ' u mn n {onnmdfitoid llnizu ?m/jJZ* d*n efJtiu/M, izičti/lMu niprjtuULttr K temile /a/JtevtJ: zj nizu dtMum %aiut*/4uf Stf/jitic/JtM, t/^friu^uidhxd, mficmf d pf^/tdau m/ nsttdr, lU/Htii jj/f/fctate .' (pi/j 9 i 1 ct m tiftizt)mič}Z jul (det*. ($*(*& M’Kt Ho /tii&mtfj /j# Pawlowsky’s letter to Gallus, 1590 Choro Praefectus in Olomoue mm !/&, ACU7U&U .V C^U r*i)%£ st * MT oj^§ celini! kttJ trti at% ttJ*vntiti Je&uuCi hud.ceefi*te,ii^fjutiejtpJdt*^tr^t/u^U ; fCACil~S L*-/l t tA- • 1 4 (ii trti m 'Uto trmi m* t 'uiv^jpktie ftbemi ufittrnj fh /-n &(JuJwfo'ch>mm. fZtfMt' TOKjp/fa/ J J d*% jt2 rt^, 'oluyuntf e £0*0 Pawlowsky’s letter to Gallus, 1590 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hšndl and in his plans for future publications he became more and more de- manding. It seems credible that around 1585 Gallus was interested in close co- operation with the Nigrin printing press, and that this was the real “justi- fiable” reason for his departure from Olomouc. He believed that it would not be possible to have effective links with Nigrin if he stayed in Olomouc, because Prague was quite a long way from the Moravian Capital. This reason apart, Olomouc no longer provided enough opportunities and encou- ragement for his Creative development. In comparison with Prague, this city was artistically limited and not important enough for the aims Gallus wanted to achieve. Gallus weighed his decision very carefully, and not even his close relation with Pawlowsky could sway his resolution. Pawlowsky highly esteemed his talent, respected him as a person and as a musician, and was always kindly disposed towards him. He probably understood his desires and supported them, although he knew that it would be difficult to main- tain the artistic level in his mušic chapel without him. He must also have realized that in letting Gallus go, he would lose the composer who had vvritten many a musical work for his cathedral and his court. In that period virtually ali the kapellmeisters composed, but not ali of them were as suc- cessful and artistically mature as Gallus was. Thus Pawlowsky must have been sorry when Gallus left his residence and the work he had been en- trusted with there. 30 REGENS CHORI IN PRAGUE Gallus’ farewell to Olomouc was probably not easy. He had many friends among the musicians there and he achieved more than at any time before — he perfected his skills in the reproduction of mušic and composed a great deal. However, his departure seemed a necessity. With great expec- tations he moved to Prague, which in the second half of the sbcteenth century was musically very varied. Musič was apparently cultivated every- where, not only in churches and homes, but also in the streets, where it was performed primarily by students. They liked singing; when carolling from house to house they performed songs by Jan Campan (Campanus) Vodniansky, for instance, and the Latin version of the song Run, little hare, whose original version has not been preserved, but Gallus used its text in one of his compositions (Harmoniae morales, 3). Musič played an important role in Prague, and was also cultivated in schools. In addition to singers and various instrumentalists, trombonists were very important, and in 1585 they acquired their own regulations dietating their rights and obligations. Instrumental mušic and singing were very popular. Both kinds of mušic were welcome on various occasions, at weddings, christenings, funerals, town festivities and the like. Secular mušic flourished in the homes of noble and rich bourgeois families. Records show that almost every nobleman had at least one musician in his Service; richer aristocrats hired more than one. These musicians, mainly instrumentalists, sometimes even composed. Their compositions have either not been preserved, or their authors have remained anonymous. When Gallus settled down in Prague, the city was the residence of the Emperor Rudolf II. This naturally exerted some influence on musical life, which flourished especially in that period. The Emperor apparently showed no special interest in mušic, but he had a mušic chapel at his Court consist- ing of instrumentalists and singers, who each represented an independent group. They took part at court festivities, since mušic played an important role in the ceremonies. With mušic the Emperor honoured his important guests, and his mušic chapel accompanied him on his travels. Membership in the imperial chapel was enticing for many musicians; those who ma- naged to get work there probably considered themselves lucky, although the pay was not very good. 31 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hšndl The Prague imperial chapel must have consisted of people who could meet its high demands, that is, talented and skilled instrumentalists and singers. When Gallus arrived at the city on the Moldau, the kapellmeister was Philipp de Monte, and one of the members of the chapel was Charles Luython, who first worked as the Court organist, and later became the Court composer. The musical atmosphere in Prague was therefore very stimulating, Where did Gallus find employment? Different sources give different infor- mation about this. According to some he became the Court kapellmeister , or had some other tasks at the Court chapel. There is not the slightest hint of such employment in Pawlowsky’s letter of recommeridation, nor do the available records concerning this institution say anything in favour of Gal¬ lus in this respect. It must also be said that he could not have been kapell¬ meister at the Court of Rudolf II, because then two eminent composers would have worked there side by side, which is inconceivable. Such a prac- tice was unknown and Gallus and de Monte could not both have had the same function; the above-mentioned hypothesis, therefore, is without foun- dation. Nevertheless, it is true that after his arrival at Prague Gallus became organist and choirmaster in St. John’s Church (sv. Jan na Brehu). (The church was built at the beginning of the twelfth century. Originally de- signed in Romanesque style, it was later rebuilt and given a Gothic appear- ance. So it remained for centuries until demolished in 1896.) It was within the competence of the Archbishop of Prague, and its patron in Gallus’ time was the Emperor. It was not of central importance, a fact reflected in its income. Gallus nevertheless decided to work there, possibly because there was no other employment in sight, but more probably because it suited his modesty. He did not aspire to farne in some important church, he had different plans for his stay in Prague. In the small church of St. John’s he probably did not have too many obligations that would interfere with the work he wanted to dedicate the coming years to, and which he obviously considered more important than musical reproduction in the church. What relations and how many of them Gallus had with the musicians in the Court chapel is potentially an interesting question, but it cannot be answered for lack of information. He definitely had links with de Monte, his former superior; Gallus probably sought his company, if only occasio- nally, in order to discuss with him problems concerning style and compo- sition technique. It seems that he also knew some other important people who had no direct connection with mušic, but supported it, and were of importance at the imperial Court. Among them was Jacobus Chimarrhaeus, who was also a tenor singer, but above ali the Court chaplain (1574). The Court entrusted him with various tasks. In 1579—1580 he travelled to Low Countries, his homeland, to find singers for the Court chapel. Chimarrhaeus had closer links with mušic than the other prominent people at the Court 32 Regens Chori in Prague Prague in 1562 Gallus associated with. Records show that he was well versed in mušic, he was apparently known as an able violinist and zither player. He also composed in polyphonic technique. He had close connections with Bohe- mian poets, which placed him in the humanist artistic circle of Prague. The wide range of his activities helped him obtain the honorary title of comes palatinus in 1585. He favoured Gallus and supported his Creative efforts. To thank him and repay him for ali the favours he had done for him, Gallus dedicated to him a six-part ode entitled Chimarhaee tihi io, set to a text by Gecrgius Carolides. The composition was later published in Philipp Schondorf’s collection (Odae suavissimae in gratiam et honorem ad modum reverendi ac illustrissimi Domini D. Jacobi Chimarrhaei Ru- remundani. S. C. M. supremi Eleemosynarii a diversis excellentissimis mu- sicis partim V., partim VI. voc. decantatae). Schondorf is mentioned in a document from 1590 as an imperial musician and trumpeter. Gallus had other acquaintances among the performers and composers at the Court, for example, an Italian musician Alessandro Orologio. In his work Gallus by no means limited himself only to his church. He himself did not say much about this, but in the introduction to the first volume of his madrigals he nevertheless mentioned that the church choir had worked without interruption for three whole years. He composed some pieces for it which the worshippers listened to and sang almost every day, and he would have composed even more, but the given circumstances did not allow it. He added that his art was stili alive, but the capacities of the printing-press were inadequate. He therefore said very little, but nevertheless clarified some points. His words, for instance, confirm that he was regens chori and that the detail concerning his employment in St. John’s Church is accurate. The above-mentioned text dates from 1589, and one might assume that he supervised the work of the choir from 1586 on, but we tend to believe that he wrote the introduction prior to the publication of his first volume of secular choral works (although it was dated in Prague, 1589). 3 Iacobus Handl 33 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl Gallus’ arrival in Prague and assumption of responsibilities with the choir in St. John’s Church can be ascribed to the year 1585, soon after he left Olomouc. The quotation from Gallus’ introduction that his work. in the church went on “without interruption” is probably correct, since as regens chori he had to be constantly present and active. The question, however, remains which pieces were sung there “almost every day”. Were these new compo- sitions, or were they part of his earlier repertoire? Most probably both, since he constantly added new works to his opus. The remark that printing represented a serious burden and that he was anxious about such problems should also be taken into consideration. He undoubtedly took an active part in the technical realization of his works and corrected the mistakes so that the final result was as accurate and as aesthetic as possible. He was probably disturbed by the fact that the printing did not advance as quickly as he desired. What he said leads to the asumption that he had a variety of problems with the printing-press, but he overcame them, and with much effort ensured that almost his entire opus was printed during his lifetime. Possibly he felt that his life would be cut short, so he hurried. on with com- posing and publishing his works. Gallus died in 1591 in Prague, and not in Rome, which has also been mentioned as the plače of his death. 6 There exist different versions about the time of his death. According to some he died on 4th., and to others on 12th. July. Stili other sources quote 18th. July, which we believe is correct. The superscription on the obituary notice bears this da te. There also exists some uncerta.inly about the year of his death. In this connection let us quote the text published in the posthumous edition of his madrigals in 1596. In the introduction his brother said that Gallus “four years ago passed from this world into eternity — as we devotedly believe”. Judging by this item of information, the composer died in 1592. Yet this quotation should be interpreted differently. Gallus’ brother Georgius cer- tainly wrote the introduction at an earlier time than its printing, probably in 1595, but he dated it when the edition was printed (Dabantur e Praga veteri 20. Martii, Anni salutis humanae supra Millesimum DXCVI); he never corrected the date which could lead to confusion. The cause of Gallus’ death remains unknown. He died suddently, which can be deduced from the lines by J. Matthiol dedicated to the “immortal glory of the singer” (Cantorum decus, immortale / Jacobus Handelius mor- tis falce necatus obit). The composer probably died of some acute disease. In the document written in Czech (24th July, 1591), Gallus’ estate was re- corded as follows: “Leta panie 1591 w strzedu v Wigilij s° Jakuba apostola stal se popis partes a knich po niekdy Jakubowi Handlowi kan toru przi ko- 6 Hout-Pleuroux, P., Histoire de la musique religieuse des origines d nos jours, 1957, p. 123. 34 j -v* /WMi*W ft^Jk jfajftiS W>W,- '~rZtC&, ‘%*.lri~&t~!>r><,. > ; «^S<»<-.^Jwiir Jr mS* £vt w Wk« &* J-*~~** **A -»**•(• ,V»~»*»*^'/t 'i/fitJjV*. J^s~S&tys~Sj&; >V t /» ^ <7 1$* f&tA* f^v- }■»—’*■ ty*-- ' v *' jy:~ts ^Y}-*y£br*2s y *t>^. v.wwy *~r .k'- .'?... ,y**t fiff fci y£*-tiy~j £J*y Or K-,*-* ^1-' yAl J {' j 7 J-ienrrrOnr**** ) J- t ^ .'^Tvw4 . ^ ^'^f»’/nw4 £}fh»r*dt rrr**~*y6y !?**'*.“?* ; ^ LikUyt>1 rrf+Tr^r****^/ > £y -/t ' di y to M in Z*»*v« £/-v , »»~-‘»»‘*i y>/«y«c»/*> r jr* 9 /«#»' -«-•/** j yr A«-v* », ^ 7 *~T rv . - S ' - -V ’ ^ -- >+***+ 0 6 ~*+w~~ J}^* ' ( >«Wiwr/ i5 From the official record of the late lacobus Gallus ’ property, 1591 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl stela s° Jana na Brzehu.” Apart from his brother Girzik (Georg) it was signed exclusively by Bohemians: Tomas Šolchman (Šoleman, Scholckman or Pfolckman), Jan Šuman (Ssuman), who published humanist literature, and Pavel Pichavy (Pawel Pihavy or Pihani), notary public, who was re- quired to be present. This text was followed by a list of musical works found in Gallus’ library, where only Flemish and German composers (Lasso, Lechner, Dressler, Lindner, Lobwasser) were represented. No Bohemian works were recorded, probably because they were in manuscript, while the above-mentioned compositions were printed. 7 Other works were found in Gallus’ cellar, but they were defective and in bad condition (Všelijakych defektnich mnoho v temž sklepu jest). The document does not specify the authors of these works; some of them may well have been composed by Gallus himself. Gallus’ estate was therefore very modest, but the inventory was pro- bably not complete. If it was, it would be possible to reconstruct who else Gallus was interes.ted in and possibly had links with. Much of the material has probably been lost and therefore forgotten, which prevents a more detailed insight into Gallus’ art. After the composer’s death an announcement in Latin was published, entitled In tumulum Jacobi HandeUi Carnioli insignis musicae practicae Artificis. It was printed on a large sheet and is included in the musical col- lection compiled by Vaclav Dobrensky (1550—1599), who was an important Prague humanist. His collection contained four- and five-part Latin and Czech compositions that played an important role in Bohemian musical art at the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth centuries. Gallus’ obituary was accompanied by his portrait depicting him at the age of forty. Latin poems followed, but their authors were quoted only by their initials. Ali the four texts praise Gallus’ farne. 8 They were written by Bohemian poets, which proves that they had contacts with the late com- poser, teliš something about their attitude towards him and illustrates the cultural atmosphere in Prague at the time. The author of the first poem was M. I. K. Plz., magister Jan Khernerus Plzenus, rector of the humanist school at St. Gilgen, later at St. Henrik’s in Prague, and from 1585 on a professor at Charles University. The second ode (Hic situs Handelius) was signed Mart. Gal. F. — Martin Galli, a hu¬ manist poet. From 1591 to 1592 he was rector of St. Henrik’s school, which had a good reputation; many important Bohemians involved in culture worked there. The third poem and the final steodistichon were written by J. M. V. The initials evidently stood for Jan Matthiolus Vodniansis, who was succentor of St. Henrik’s school in Prague and also belonged to the humanist circle. J. B. Dlabač was of the opinion that the initials stood for Jan Mylius, yet he did not live in Prague at the time, but in Slovakia. He 7 Cf. Snižkova, J., ib., p. 137. 8 Cf. Snižkova, J., ib., pp. 137—140. 36 Regens Chori in Prague had no close links with the Prague humanists. He had probably not had contact with Gallus either and it would be almost impossible to ascribe the poem to him. It has also been queried whether J. M. V. was Jacobus Mar¬ tini Vratislaviensis, who studied in Olomouc. However, he was stili young at the time of Gallus’ death, and most probably they never met. According to ali the given facts, the author of the third poem could only have been Jan Matthiolus Vodniansis, who probably knew Gallus personally. This latter assumption is supported by the fact that in his praise to the composer he enumerated the places where Gallus had worked, and described the connections that Gallus had had in Bohemia. The fourth poem was signed I. S. C.; its author was undoubtedly Jan Sequenides Czernovicenus (Čer- novicky), a respected Citizen of old Prague and, like Khernerus and Mat¬ thiolus a member of the Prague humanist circle. He was a relative of Martin Gallus, who was not Jacobus Gallus’ son, although certain authors interested in Gallus’ biography believed he was. Gallus was most probably never married, although he was not a monk . 9 The poems differ in form and content, depending on the talent and technical expertise of their authors. The first consists of eight lines speak- ing about the composer’s sweet tunes and about the fact that churches and schools bore testimony to his artistic gifts. The second praises the deceased composer with the following words: “Here rests Handelius placed in this humble urn, / worthy of a heap of pyramids to cover his bones. / The spheres brought farne to the Syracusan master / and he shall in mušic earn equal renown. / Let his efforts put into many memorable works bear wit- ness / compositions deserving to be sung by Apollo. / We would erect lofty constructions in praise of his merits and living monuments as in former times! / Phoebus himself should desire to carve out your face, / bring life to stone with his skilful hand! / Though dead you will have this consolation, that praise to you will never be quenched. / Let pale envy rage as bitterly as it wishes, / by the crystal waters of the Vltava (Moldau) your name will live. / Yes, as the sun outshines ali other heavenly bodies / when at dawn it bathes the earth in rosy light, / so shall farne proclaim you, o magus, above others / as long as the starry host ascends into the silent vault of heaven.” The poem contains some difficult points. The line “the spheres brought farne to the Syracusan master” refers to Archimedes, while magus is a Persian sage, magician and conjurer. The comparison with Archimedes points to the great reputation Gallus had during his lifetime. The third poem comprises fourteen lines, in which the author extols the composer’s praise and glory, and illustrates his attitude towards Bohemians. Gallus’ posthumous collec- tion Moralia was dedicated to the poet who wrote the fourth poem; he was a member of the Prague City Council (Amplissimo celeberrimogue veteris Pragae senatvi). The reason for the dedication was probably the fact that 9 Cf. Raček, J., Češka hudba / Od nejstaršich dob do počatku 19. stoleti, 1958, p. 79. 37 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl the “respected and illustrious Council” financially enabled the printing of the edition. There were stili other poets who mourned for Gallus, those he knew and whose works he had set to mušic. One such was civis novae Pragae, the Court poet Georgius Carolides, whose ode in honour of Chimarrhaeus Gal¬ lus set to mušic in 1588. Carolides’ poem is entitled Ad cantorem modulo- rum Handelium and it reads: “The news spread abroad that Handl is dead / when the urn received his decaying corpse; but it is not trne that Handl is dead, / Handl, who does not feel the grave. / What was mortal, what sprang from the earth, / envious death has returned to the native soil; / but Handl lives on far above the stars, / Handl stili lives in the world, / above the stars his gentle špirit lives, / and here on earth the eternal genius of his works. / Behold how he lives, whoever knows better how to celebrate morals / to polish artistic songs / and calm the tempest of the špirit! / These virtues overflow in the volume / that shall live forever in his genius. / Take it up, whoever exalts the chosen Muses!” What Carolides meant by “the overflowing volume” is not clear. Per- haps he wanted to indicate Gallus’ entire printed opus, which he knew and admired, or he may have wanted to draw attention to the collection of madrigals ( Harmoniae morales, 1590), the last musical publication before Gallus’ death. Among the pieces Gallus composed in the last period of his Creative life is the choral piece Dulces exuviae, rich in melisma. Its structure is poly- phonic, although it is conceived chordally. The composer used Virgil’s lines for it ( The Aeneid IV, 651—654): “O relics once dear, while God and Fate allowed! / Take my špirit, and release me from my woes! / I have lived, I have finished the course that Fortune gave; / and now in majesty my shade shall pass beneath the earth.” Did the composer sense that his life was drawing to a close ? It is quite feasible, for he evidently wrote this piece after the publication of the madrigals in 1590. 38 CREATIVE IMPULSES Gallus himsef wrote that he became interested in mušic very early, but he never said when exactly, just as we know nothing about where he learned the basic musical skills. As was mentioned previously, nothing is known about how and where he started systematically studying mušic, the art to which he decided to dedicate his life. We assurne that he gained knowledge in monasteries and ecclesiastical mušic chapels, from the com- posers he met, and from his own studies of their works when he was sufficiently experienced to benefit from this. His post at the imperial chapel probably played an important role in his musical development. How- ever, the process which led to the technical and stylistic expertise his works demonstrate cannot be reconstructed in much detail; ali we can do is sug- gest various hypotheses derived from the available sources. One thing is certain, namely, that Gallus had a great musical talent and that mušic was his vocation. There is no known record of his other possible gifts. Gallus therefore could not evade mušic; it became the mainspring of his life. In the introduction to the first volume of his madrigals he said that everybody surrendered to mušic. However, not everybody to the same extent, it depended on the listener, performer and composer. Gallus dedi- cated himself utterly to mušic, putting ali his efforts into it. Musič was thus constantly present in his life. He thought about it when he worked and selected the texts he used for his compositions. These texts reveal Gallus’ concept of his art and the meanings he ascribed to it. Though the texts were not his own, they reflected his thoughts and matched them in substance and špirit. Many of them, whether religious or se- cular, suggested that mušic should be a faithful companion of poets and ali people, that a song, a sweet lullaby, should repulse the enemy’s chal- lenge to battle, that poetry should live long and love the home of the Muses. From the lines he set to mušic he learned that mušic was the force which inspired singing, and that it was made to bring joy to human hearts and to Heaven. Its voice can triumphantly establish friendship among people, its power is so great that neither the Muses nor Apollo can take away its absolute priority. No other goddesses have this power, but mušic, which is dear to the angels, will live forever. The composer, indeed, wanted mušic to resound eternally, for it is precious to the heart of God himself. 39 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hdndl Gallus expressed the thoughts summarized above in his introduction to the first volume of his masses dedicated to “the most honoured Father in Christ and noble prince”, Bishop Pawlowsky, “my gentle monsignor”. He also said that there were many things in life which deserved glory, but mušic was above them ali; it resounded among ali the nations and was used and cherished everywhere. He ventured the remark that some people might find this claim strange, but there was nothing the ears could hear or the eyes see that was not embraced in gentle mušic and enraptured by its magnificent charms. According to him, mušic, so carefully cultivated by many and bearing within itself the highest praise and glory, was honoured by ali. Its power was so great that it not only reassured the anxious, streng- thened the weary, and comforted the čast down, but also calmed the anger of gods and inspired the best in them. He mentioned how Orpheus, endowed with its great power alone, achieved farne which no era, Science or song could match. Gallus could enumerate Apollo, Amphion, Chrysogone, Ter- pander and many others, whom foolish people considered equal to the gods. He concluded that ali these fictitious popular tales should be abandoned, because it was far better to quote examples from pious David and wise Sa¬ lomon. He explained that they cherished mušic and found it suitable for praising God’s name, and that is why they carefully selected and at great cost educated the men who extolled God’s glory night and day before the Ark of the Covenant. Nor did the Church in its infancy neglect this custom. Its followers looked upon it as an example and perfected this art, enriching it with luxurious rhythms and sounds so that at the present time not a single temple, be it ever so insignificant, not the smallest corner was with- out mušic. It seemed that there was no thing that could divert human hearts from profane matters and lift them up to reflection on heavenly melodies with a strength equal to music’s. The Holy Scriptures declared what singing and hymns resounded in Heaven, the dwelling of eternal glory, where Alleluia echoes forever. With these words addressed to Pawlowsky Gallus wanted to express respect for his superior, who so passionately strove for mušic. Their style was appropriate for the collection of masses, which the composer modestly called the result of “great efforts”, and the bishop probably liked it. The composer wanted to make his thoughts and mušic public, “for the greater glory of God.” In this connection another question arises, namely, whether the author of this introduction and the others was really Gallus or one of the hu¬ manist friends he probably had links with as early as 1580. If it was Gallus who put ali these thoughts in writing, he must have been a many- sided and indeed learned man. Probably he was, but his erudition did not result solely from his own studies; the environment in which he lived provided opportunities for meeting many highly educated people. The text leans on mythological models, classical concepts and the biblical interpretation of mušic. It emphasizes its beauty and healing power. 40 Creative Impulses An unknown poet ascribed the same kind of power to Gallus; his poem was published in the first volume of his masses. The poet also pondered over Gallus’ surname and wondered why he was called after the bird that heralds the day. He believed that Gallus’ singing was similar to a cockerel’s: did he not awaken hearts with his song? Did he not excite them when they were defeated by lazy sleepiness? Did he not command us to remember eternal light by announcing the rosy glow of the dawn? The poet con- cluded that Gallus’ mušic chased sorrow from people’s hearts and was re- miniscent of heavenly melodies. The thoughts Gallus expressed in his introductions were inspired by the ethos of mušic. He was interested in the substantial meaning of mušic, including that intended for religious purposes. Gallus was not too orthodox in his beliefs, although in principle he rejected wanton and frivolous texts. In his introduction for the first volume of his masses he expressed the opinion that mušic, which was almost a divine art, should not be desecrated by profane words. He believed that he was allowed to com- pose only what was able to “kindle pious souls and rejoice the hearts of God’s angels.” Later he became more broad-minded. Proofs of this are the texts of his secular choral works, which were not always profane but often advocated immanent truths and basic laws people should obey. But even these works revealed a hint that mušic should also serve secular, earthly purposes. In the introduction to the first volume of his madrigals we read that many of his friends liked them, and encouraged him to add some merry tunes alongside his cares. They said that he should descend from the church chancel and go among the people by composing witty and secular pieces. It seems that Gallus hesitated for some time, but in the end he took his friends’ advice. He realized that they meant well and that it was not just ephemeral amusement they had in mind. He avoided earthly elements in mušic for a long time, but finally he started enjoying them. He felt a need to enrich his composition in this manner; however, he always selected texts which were balanced between the secular and the sacred, very few of them were without any religious implications. His thoughts were so deeply rooted in religion that he could not completely abandon himself to earthly feelings. He believed that sacred mušic was not only more difficult, but also more serious, while he considered secular mušic simple and lighthearted. This was not in accor- dance with the špirit of the Renaissance, but Gallus believed it was right. It is easier to understand his reasoning if we take into account the fact that he lived and worked in strictly religious environments. The main impulse which urged Gallus to compose was undoubtedly his talent. However, mere talent was not enough, and he probably would not have been able to achieve so much, had he not known the špirit of Renaissance mušic and acquired the necessary knowledge of sixteenth century technique and style. Ali this left a noticeable trače in his work. The 41 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl period in which he lived and his knowledge influenced his artistic views, which were manifested in his compositions. Gallus’ talent did not remain unnoticed. He was obviouslv early en- couraged by people who realized his abilities, in church, school and else- where. He probably caught the attention of prominent mušic lovers who admired his extraordinary gift. Some of them later became his patrons, especially those who were directly involved in mušic because of their per- sonal preferences or professional orientation. Gallus’ own words in his introductions confirm ali this. Among the important personalities who influenced Gallus’ musical work we should mention first of ali the abbot of Zwettl monastery, Johann Rueff. In the introduction to the fourth book of the composer’s masses we read that Rueff offered to cover the expenses for its printing. Gallus ap- parently thought that the compositions which were supposed to be pub- lished in this collection were “rough” and not yet polished. But he gladly accepted Rueff’s offer; by paying for the publication Rueff wanted to ex- press his respect for the young artist and mušic in general. Gallus ventured the hope that Rueff would not grow weary of his mušic, and that he would remain faithful to it and to the works of other composers. He emphasized the influence mušic had on people, the topič he had already treated in the introduction to the first volume of masses. Upon the publication of the fourth volume he developed. these views stili further. He also referred to the patroness of mušic, St. Cecilia. He asked Rueff to love and respect her, and at the same time embrace him and accept his coarse voice which he allowed to be heard solely because he, Rueff, encouraged him. It seems that Abbot Rueff and Gallus liked each other. Gallus dedi- cated the last, fourth volume of his masses to him, while the first three were dedicated to Pawlowsky and Schonauer. When deciding who to dedi- cate his publications to, Gallus probably considered the hierarchy and his own personal links with the people he wanted to honour. Rueff was ob- viously the third person Gallus owed acknowledgement to for his under- standing and support. The introductions to the editions allow the suppo- sition that Gallus and Schonauer were especially close. We can find con- firmation of this in his foreword to the composition Epicedion harmonicum, The words and part of the composition were written in memory of “de- voted and unforgettable Caspar”, i. e. Schonauer, who died in 1589, and whom Gallus considered irreproachable in ali respects. He was eloquent and learned, and a patron of mušic. In the text of this composition which was “with deep respect” and “instead of consolation” dedicated to Ambro- sius Teleczenus, “legitimate successor” of Schonauer, Gallus said he be- lieved that he, Teleczenus, would also be his friend and patron. Then he stressed that one should mourn the death of patrons, because one felt a need for them and suffered when they were gone. He deplored Schonauer’s death because it left him bereft of protection, but he consoled himself with the belief that there were other prelates who favoured the muse the de- 42 Creative Impulses ceased abbot had cherished. Gallus continued with praise of his talents and virtues, which had brought him the farne of a senator. According to Gallus, Schonauer never shirked any efforts; he was pious, he took čare of the monastery, which had been almost derelict, but he returned it to its former splendour, and he was enterprising outside the Church, although even these activities were for the benefit of the monastery. While praising Schonauer Gallus also said that it was due to him that his Muses “not only emerged, but also grew”, and that it was right to pay tribute to his memory with this composition and dedicate it to him as to his father. The composer described Schonauer in detail. He depicted him as the man he liked best of ali his patrons and who meant the most to him. From his words we can see that the deceased abbot always treated him with respect, honouring and admiring him. In the introduction to the third vo- lume in 1580 Gallus emphasized Schonauer’s exquisite taste for mušic, which was also reflected in the appreciation he had for the composer. Schonauer also showed his respect with material favours, and not only with words. Because of ali this the composer made every effort to express his gratitude and firm loyalty, which could not become “torpid, hurt by the dishonesty of some base slanderer or cunning hypocrite.” Here he was ap- parently aiming at people who were opposed to him and who tried to de- fame him in the abbot’s and possibly even Pawlowsky’s eyes. He added that he had long been preparing the third volume of masses, dedicated to Schonauer, labouring on for his “meagre attempts” to mature. Gallus was therefore assiduous, and he wanted above ali to perfect his technique and style. In this he succeeded. Judging by the attention Gallus paid to Schonauer, he was more than a patron to him; he was his adviser and encourager, but we do not know exactly in what sense, because Gallus never revealed much about it. As a humanist and erudite scholar he probably enriched Gallus’ knowledge and influenced his aesthetic orientation. He himself was an aesthete and was therefore able to evaluate Gallus’ compositions, which he obviously had a good opinion of. The composer took his judgement into account. When the first volume of his motets was published, he said that he was encouraged by many, but no encouragement was more effective than that of the “honourable Monsignor Caspar”, who was “himself a musician and a matchless patron and lover of mušic who never ceased to hearten his Gal¬ lus.” Schonauer was certainly not a professional musician, but he was evidently versed enough in this art in order to judge what was good and what lessened its value. Records show that Abbot Schonauer always supported Gallus’ work and with this support earned an important plače in his life. Let us quote the collection of madrigals from 1589, which was dedicated to “my friends and the friends of mušic”, but the first composition in it was dedicated to Schonauer, proof of which is the superscription C.A.Z.S., which should un- 43 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl doubtedly be read: “Casparo abbati Zabrdovicensi ac Syloensi.” The text which was the basis for this composition summoned the gods to bring gifts to Caspar if they cared for good people, if there was justice in the world and if there remained any common sense. His honour, reputation and glory should be undying. Another person who influenced the course of Gallus’ life was Stani- slaw Pawlowsky. He was of knightly origin and was ordained in 1567 by Bishop Prusinowsky. He first assumed his responsibilities as a canon, and later continued his studies in Rome, from where he returned to Olomouc, where he became a provost in 1575, a scholastic in 1577 and finally a bishop. When Gallus became the director of his mušic chapel their relation- ship became closer. That is when Gallus dedicated the first and second volumes of his masses to him (1580), because Pawlowsky was not only his superior but also his patron. In the introduction to the first volume Gallus said that he chose none for his patrons but those men who sought only the heavenly on earth. Although he had in mind Rueff and Schonauer as well, he gave priority to Pawlowsky because, he continued, he could not think of anybody more suitable than him, and had he not been afraid of being considered a flatterer, he would have said even more. He praised his fervour for the Church, the best proof of which was the progress of “the faith of our fathers” in Moravia under his rule. Gallus also emphasized Pawlowsky’s great esteem for his mušic and explained that this was the reason why he dedicated his first book to him —■ the volume consisting of seven- and eight-part masses which, he said, he had composed at night. He added that there was nobody he owed more to than Pawlowsky, and thus he could dedicate to him the firstfruits of his efforts with greater justification and confidence. At the same time he admitted that this meagre work could not possibly compensate for every- thing Pawlowsky had done for him. Gallus’ thoughts in the introduction to the second volume of masses were similar. He said that he did not wait to hear the news of how his first volume was received, but he was already preparing a new volume. He as¬ sumed that Pawlowsky judged the first publication favourably. He said that from the very beginning he had been certain of his benevolence, with which he enveloped his glorious acts in silence in order for them to remain •secret. Gallus continued that Pawlowsky praised and defended other people’s works even if they were insignificant, ali that mattered was that they were related to religion and the benefit of the Church. He assumed that Pawlowsky judged his, Gallus’ works according to the same criteria. When he disclosed his reasons for publishing his masses he was of the opinion that they were not good enough to be worthy of Pawlowsky. He appealed to him not to reject his mušic although it was inexpert. It seems that Pawlowsky also helped Gallus financially and thus en- abled the printing of the first two volumes of masses, and possibly even of the following two, that is, the entire collection. He helped him during 44 Creative Impulses the time he was his kapellmeister, and even after the composer had left Olomouc. Some of this can be deduced from Pawlowsky’s letter to a Spa- nish Jesuit, Hurtad Perez. Pawlowsky wrote that he had sent Gallus fifty thalers by his envoy Valentin Lauban to cover the costs for the first vo- lume of his motets. He informed Gallus of this in a letter dated 15th Novem¬ ber, 1586, addressed to “Jakob Handl, Carniolian, musician.” Pawlowsky no- tified Gallus that he had gratefully received the result of his work. He em- phasized that he approved of the composer’s efforts ali the more because he hoped they would be for the benefit of the Church of God. He added that as he desired to compensate him for the costs involved in the publication, he was sending some money towards them, also because of the longstanding appreciation he had always felt for him and which was characteristic of their relationship. Pawlowsky’s kindness to Gallus lasted even after that. They remained in touch, and Gallus stili felt respect for his former superior and continued to send him copies of his compositions in the following years. In a letter dated 24th December, 1590 Pawlowsky informed Gallus that he had been happy to receive his Opus musicum, and he enclosed ten ducats. Pawlowsky praised his čare for the Church and the attention he showed for his friend and former bishop. Another of Gallus’ patrons was Ambrosius Teleczenus, who was prob- ably from the town of Teleč (Telecz, Teltsch), southeast of Karlovy Vary. He was mentioned in connection with Gallus only after Schonauer’s death. The composer first referred to him upon the printing of the composition Epicedion harmonicum, which was arranged so as to praise the new abbot. It comprised three parts: the first was an eight-part choral piece in which Gallus mourned over Schonauer’s death, the second (Legitimo successori) consisted of a greeting to the new abbot, Ambrosius, while in the third (Ambrosi selecte Deo), which was a fourpart choral piece, Gallus congratu- lated Teleczenus. Epicedion was set to a text by the Court poet Georg Berthold Pontanus a Breitenberg, who was a writer of Latin songs, a canon in St. Guy’s church in Prague (1582) and later (1586) dean of the chapter there. Gallus expected similar understanding and fondness from Teleczenus as he had received from Schonauer. In the foreword to Epicedion he ex- plicitly mentioned that. He spoke through the mouth of the deceased abbot, who had apparently said that he had himself nominated Teleczenus as his successor to ! be his support in old age. He asked him not to disappoint him and to embrace those whom he, Schonauer, had protected with fatherly love, because they served him faithfully and contributed to the adornment of the monastery. He assumed that Teleczenus would know whom he had in mind, and he asked him to act accordingly. Gallus explained the mean- ing of these words to the new abbot. He also explained why he dedicated the first part of the above-mentioned compositon to Schonauer, and the second two to him in the hope of obtaining his respect. Gallus said that 45 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl Teleczenus should follow the example of the deceased and excel as his new superior, if not financially then in the virtues he had enumerated. He placed his efforts and himself in his hands, because they were for the benefit of the Church. At the end the composer summoned the abbot to love those who loved him, by which he primarily meant himself. Gallus did not hope in vain. That Teleczenus did not disappoint him can be deduced from the introduction to the fourth volume of motets dedi- cated to him. Gallus wrote that he had once orally congratulated the new abbot, but on that occasion he wanted to do it in writing because of his virtues and honourable position. Gallus added that he also congratulated himself because God, the source of mušic, was so favourably inclined to- wards his efforts. Further proof of this was the fact that He sent Ambrosius in Caspar’s plače, Ambrosius who provided a safe sanctuary for him. Then Gallus described the concept of his last volume of motets. In the first three volumes he had included compositions suitable for the major feasts. Now he was publishing works about the saints, keeping the order prescribed by the Church. The Holy Mother was followed by the apostles and evangelists, then martyrs, witnesses and finally virgins and holy women. In order not to leave anybody out, he composed a final part intended for ali the resi- dents of heaven. The parts were arranged so that eight-part songs came first, six-part second, five-part third and four-part last. He concluded the collection with the technically demanding psalms of victory. After having explained the stiructure of Opus musicum, the composer revealed why he dedicated the volume to Ambrosius. He was led by the belief that at the moment he knew “nobody more appropriate for the pur- pose, closer to the contents and myself, nobody I would consider worthier of this small work than the revered Monsignor in whom ali the reasons for this dedication are united.” He stressed that Teleczenus had encouraged him in his work just as Schonauer had done, his greatest and most reliable patron and adviser on the previous publications. He continued that his successor Teleczenus so cultivated mušic and favoured musicians that it seemed his aim was to enrich this art, and not only to defend and protect its dignity. Gallus believed that the very name of Ambrosius had a sym- bolic meaning. It appeared to him that the new abbot wanted to imitate the great merits his predecessor had achieved. From the same source we also learn that Teleczenus’ role towards Gallus was the same as Schonauer’s had been — he was his patron and friend, and he cherished his mušic. Gallus was obviously referring to Ambrosius in one of his secular compositions (Harmoniae morales, 45). The text of the piece sang of a famous man, a patron of art, who made mušic triumph and people applaud when he arrived. To “the exemplar of our singing” he wished a long life, with mušic also calling to him “live, live for many years.” Gallus repeatedly emphasized his respect, thanks and praise for Rueff, Schonauer, Pawlowsky and Teleczenus. The reason for this was probably 46 Creative Impulses that they supported him most in the composing and publishing of his works. However, he had many other patrons, judging by the dedications on his compositions; some of them he dedicated to the Archbishop of Prague, the Bishop of Wroclaw, “the principals of monasteries, abbots, superiors and other church dignitaries”, to people whose names he did not mention •— »respected consuls, senators, patricians, citizens”, and to “friends and the friends of mušic.” These patrons were quite numerous, belonging to dif- ferent, though mostly the upper social classes, both ecclesiastical and se- cular. They probably supported him financially as well, and either covered the printing costs for his editions or sent money for the compositions they received from the composer, whether stili in manuscript or printed. Among them were Abbot Johann Špindler from Kremsmunster, whom Gallus sent a copy of the fourth volume of his motets, and who in return sent Gallus a letter of thanks and six and a half guldens, Chimarrhaeus, Wilhelm von Oppersdorf from Oppersdorf (Oprostovice, Oprehtice) in Moravia, and others. Gallus probably met Oppersdorf quite early, around 1577, when he was in contact with Andreas Jerin. Between 1579 and 1587 Oppersdorf was the mint-master of the Bohemian Monarchy. When he died — in 1587 or 1588 — Gallus composed a funeral choral piece on a text by Salomon Frenc(z)elius, who was in Oppersdorfs’ Service as a kind of family poet, and after his death a professor at the University of Helmstadt (1593—1599) and later at the University of Riga. He was famous as a poet; in 1588 Ru¬ dolf II crowned him with a laurel wreath and in 1589 bestowed the title of “noble Friedenthal” on him. His best known poetry anthologies were Epigrammatum libelli guatuor (1588) and Epigrammatum silvulae (1593). The Oppersdorfs supported him in everything, and in return he often men- tioned them in his poems. It seems that he had many friends, Gallus and the Prague printer Nigrin being two of them. Gallus composed the above- mentioned funeral piece either on his initiative or because Frencelius was his patron and he owed him recognition. Ali the dedications were expressions of gratitude to people from whom the composers received or expected support in the realization of their Creative endeavours. Gallus obeyed the same generally accepted rule, and his brother Georgius followed his example. There are records about Geor- gius’ stay in Vienna in 1574, but it is not known where he went after that to acquire printing skills. It is possible that he went straight to Nigrin’s in Prague, where he was working at the time of Gallus’ death. Some years later he published Gallus’ second collection of madrigals (Moralia), which had a high artistic value. The finances needed for the publication were provided by the “senate of old Prague” and “respected men, rulers and patrons deserving honour and patrons deserving honour and respect” to whom the collection was dedicated. Georgius did not quote their names, but they probably ali belonged to high and influential Prague circles. The financial support given to Gallus by his patrons did not always cover ali the expenses for the printing of his compositions, so the composer 47 Dragotin Cvetko — Iaoobus Handl had to use his own meagre savings. He wrote about that in the introduction to the second volume of Opus musicum. Gallus said that his financial prob- lems interfered with his friends’ wishes that the collection be quickly published. He added bitterly that the planned and finally realized public- ation reduced him to poverty since he had spent his savings on printing. But he did not regret it since the compositions were for the benefit of ali they were addressed to. He did not expect any profit, since if he had, he would have published only what brought much money. He renounced this, because what was important to him was the glory of God and the Church. This, and the knowledge that he pleased his patrons versed in mušic was enough payment for him. He was content with the money that was left, which met his everyday needs. From what Gallus wrote we can deduce that Olomouc was financially more favourable for Gallus than Prague. It seems that in Prague he led a modest existence, and that most of what he earned was spent on printing. But it also seems that he did not worry much about this. He put ali his ef- forts into the realization of his aim, regardless of the consequences. He was so determined because he wanted farne and glory, and not only in order to please his patrons and the Church. The words of a composition of his ( Moralia, 8) are quite instructive. Among other things they stated that art was no longer valued as it had been in the old days, and that čare for it was effort in vain. But one should nevertheless work for glory, for who would have known of Homer had his Illiad remained hidden? Gallus most likely referred here to his own opus, although perhaps not consciously. The text most possibly reflected his outwardly concealed desires. However, the financial support Gallus received from his patrons should not be undervalued. Many donated generously, although the money did not always cover ali the costs. In the introduction to his second volume of motets Gallus wrote that he was grateful to the abbots for ali the favours he would never be able to return. By this he also meant financial means and not only encouragement. He expressed similar thoughts in other intro- ductions, just as many texts he used for his compositions proclaimed si¬ milar ideas. One of the texts claimed that law, nature, the sky, God and ali justice punish the ungrateful and regret their birth if they do not hold their genteel benefactors in fond remembrance. They do not deserve praise, and neither do they deserve love (Harmoniae morales, 51). Why did ali these patrons, who had no direct link with mušic, and poets so devotedly encourage Gallus, support his work and enable the publication of his numerous collections? It is not difficult to answer this question for those poets who hoped their works would spread if they were set to mušic. With some of them Gallus had friendly links, so they cooperated. However, this hypothesis is justifiable only for the poets who wrote the texts for the madrigals, a predominantly secular musical form which was a temptation for the composer himself. In order to answer the question concerning pa¬ trons we need to view it from a different angle. It should be remembered 48 Creative Impulses that Gallus composed mainly for the Roman Catholic Church before and during his stay in Prague. He was a devoted Catholic from his early youth. His work for the Church is so much more significant because he did it in the period when Catholicism needed it most. In the sixteenth century the Hapsburg Monarchy was perturbed by the Reformation, which also spread to Moravia and Bohemia. Catholic circles were opposed to the Reformation and used ali possible means to fight it, including mušic. Musič was just as important for the preservation of Catholicism as it was for the spread of the Reformation. Both Catholics and Reformers appreciated mušic, more from the point of view of its usefulness than its aesthetic or artistic value. Pawlowsky, who was a fervent opponent of Protestantism and one of the most important Catholic activists in Moravia, realized the benefits mušic could have for the Church. Other Catholics in the area were probably not so determined, but they also judged everything from the point of view of religion and the Church. Regardless of how much the compositions were really worth, Pawlowsky defended them only if they agreed with his re- ligious concepts. This attitude of his obviously suited Gallus. In the intro- duction to the second volume of his masses he stressed that his superior “in these hard times loyally and bravely keeps watch, and makes sacrifice for the Church.” By “hard times” he undoubtedly meant the Reformation. Gallus and Pawlowsky probably did not agree in everything. Gallus never undervalued works of art because of his religious orientation, he always primarily judged their quality, and despite the emphasis on the religious aspect, Pawlowsky also found and appreciated the excellence in Gallus’ compositions. Devotion to Catholicism was beyond doubt a strong stimulus in Gallus’ composition. He was well aware of his contribution to the re-establishment of Catholicism. Let us quote various places in his texts, for example, the passage in the introduction to the fourth volume of his masses in which he wished Rueff a long life in those “hard and dreadful times.” In the lines following the introduction of the second volume of motets he expressed his regret for the Church being oppressed in ali possible ways — he meant by the Reformers. In the third volume of motets there were some poems which were probably his own, saying that in the fight for the Church he also distinguished himself by “singing day and night on guard.” He added that he would continue writing apostolic hymns if he saw that the compo¬ sitions in the third volume of Opus musicum were received with the same fervour that he devoted himself to the Church with. Gallus definitely composed sacred mušic on his own initiative as well, but primarily encouraged by his patrons and poets, among whom were the authors of the poems published after the composer’s introductions to his musical collections: Wolfgangus Pyrringer, Ioannes Ierger, Valentin Kamp and S.J.C. and S.I.S., who have remained anonymous until the pre- sent day. The texts Gallus used as the bases for his compositions apart 4 Iacobus Handl 49 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl from the masses and motets were by Georgius Carolides, Nicolaus Selnec- cer, Georg Berthold Pontanus a Breitenberg and Salomon Frencelius. Gal¬ lus probably had personal links with ali of them, because their humanist attitudes had a considerable influence upon him. Gallus therefore had ali the necessary conditions for the work he achieved: talent, strong will-power, patrons, themes and the texts he set to mušic. His time also provided enough opportunities; many important ecclesiastical and civil personalities wanted to take advantage of his gift in order to achieve their own aims, and he himself was ambitious and wanted to win farne once he realized he possessed Creative power. He was encouraged from ali sides, and firmly believed he would overcome the obstacles that stood in his way to success, feeling that the impulses which directed his career were stronger. 50 THE CREATIVE PROCESS When he became interested in mušic — he himself said that was when he was very young ■— he first had to learn basic technical škiliš. However, we assume that he felt more intimately inclined towards this art. He pro- bably began singing as a child, continued as a young man, and probably sang even later. Gradually the range of his activities widened. He played the organ and probably some other instruments, and he constantly studied. There is enough evidence to suggest that he also became kapellmeister, leading choirs and possibly even instrumental or mixed ensembles in va- rious monasteries and cathedrals. His numerous travels, and his stays in Olomouc and Prague broadened his experience. Not only his talent, but also the sense of duty he felt as a professional musician, forced him to dedicate his time to composing in addition to reproducing mušic. In the sixteenth century, that is, in the time of Jacobus Gallus, there were three predominant musical forms: the mass, motet and madrigal. Cantus firmus was stili an integral element of the mass, but its signi- ficance slowly declined. The current usage allowed a composer to assert himself from the technical as well as the Creative point of view. Especially popular was the so-called parodic or transcribed mass, in which the basic technique was associative rather than imitative. A composer took a poly- phonic composition or part of it as a model — a motet, chanson or some similar musical work. The composer then worked on the model in various ways; he was also allowed to change it. The development of the motet from its origins to the sixteenth century was fairly long. The motet reached its final form at the beginning of the Renaissance. The technique used was imitation, and it was usually written for voices. It was normally based on biblical texts in Latin. The most fa- mous composers of motets were Josquien Desprez, Palestrina, Lasso, Andrea and Giovanni Gabrieli, Morales, Byrd, Hassler, Praetorius, Regnart and many others. The madrigal — a homophonic or polyphonic choral composition — also emerged early in Western and Central European mušic. It was based on secular, sometimes also moralistic text. It gained ground in the Renaissance and flourished especially in the second half of the sixteenth century. Mad¬ rigal composers included de Rore, A. Gabrieli, Palestrina, Lasso and de Monte. The madrigal vas originally polyphonic, but polyphony was gra- 4 * 51 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hand.1 dually abandoned in favour of the newly introduced monody, which tech- nically and stylistically announced important changes. Did Gallus know the general attitude and the particularities of the mušic of his time and did he follow its development? And if he did, what was his contribution to it? When did he start composing? It is virtually impossible to answer the last question. It is supposed that around 1575 or maybe around 1577 or 1578, when his Missa super Levavi oculos meos was recorded. R. Flotzinger 10 considered this question. He mentioned that in addition to the two well-known compositions, dedicated to Mary, which were published in Gallus’ collection of motets, there are two more which are supposed to be by the same composer. Both are in manuscript and are kept in the University Library in Graz. They are both dedicated to Mary and show the characteristics of Gallus’ composition. They both contain the “Holy Mary” prayer, which had been used since 1568. This, however, does not necessarily prove that their author wrote them as early as 1568, but it demonstrates that the composer used various text versions for various pur- poses. It also needs to be stressed that the two quoted manuscripts do not only indicate devotion to Mary, but also point out the composer’s relation tovvards the reform of the Church after the Council of Trent. If the above- mentioned manuscripts are Gallus’, they were probably written between 1568 and 1584. It is impossible to establish the exact date, but we are in- clined to believe they were written in 1584 rather than in 1568. The struc- ture of the two compositions leads to the conclusion that their conception was mildly influenced by, for example, Simon Gattus, Georg Herner, Bar- tholomaus Heinrich, Jacobus Vaet, Lasso and other contemporaries, also Georg Prenner. * 11 The latter was born around 1520 in Ljubljana and was an Augustinian. Among his various occupations he was also the provost in the Herzogenburg monastery in Lower Austria; he opposed the Refor- mation and advocated recatholization. He composed motets, which were typical of Counter-Reformation tendencies. Many of his motets were publi¬ shed in various anthologies, but some of them are stili in manuscript. 12 Around 1568 Gallus probably knew the works of the above-mentioned composers, as well as the works of various other composers, of which he learned in Melk and possibly elsewhere. He was only eighteen at the time, and presumably quite familiar with composition techniques, but probably not enough to be able to carry them out in the form the two manuscripts demonstrate. Therefore it seems that the two manuscripts are of a later date, the 1570’s or the early 1580’s, when he already had ali the necessary knowledge and experience, and when he gradually built up his own concept of expression. 10 Flotzinger, R., ‘Die Ave Maria-Kompositionen des Jacobus Gallus’, JG & HT, 1985, pp. 59—69. 11 MGG, vol. 10, pp. 1611—1612. 12 Federhofer-Konigs, R., ‘Zur Uberlieferung der Motetten von Georg Prenner’, JG & HT, 1985, pp. 149—161. 52 The Creative Process What we know about Gallus despite the limited sources leads us to the conclusion that his first compositions were masses, which were also the first to appear in later editions of his works. But it is nevertheless possible that he started composing motets as early as the seventies, although probably not in such an organized manner and in such large number as later on. Except one, ali his masses are parodic. In addition to other people’s works he also used his own works as models. The composer always used only certain parts of compositions as mo¬ dels, never the entire composition. He obviously did not want to depend entirely on the model; in his masses he wanted to assert his own creativity and concept, what he felt in himself, and what he saw as an integral expres- sion of his work. This was his leading principle in both composition tech- nique and the style chosen. Gallus’ motets, however, are different. The themes characteristic of this kind of composition are of a different origin. The composer sometimes based them on the chant, monophonic liturgical singing, which emerged in the early Christian period and later developed. The themes remained un- changed or were only partly modified; the composer arranged them accord- ing to his conceptions, but stili took into consideration their particularities, which enables us to establish their origin. Not ali Gallus’ motets were based on the chant, some of them were inspired by folk melodies (e. g. in Op. mus. I, 44, III, 21). Among them are also German songs (Op. mus. II, 61), a Bohemian Christmas song (Op. mus. I, 30: Ey co se diwyte) and many others. Gallus’ arrangements prove that he also used secular themes for his motets, although the motet was originally a sacred musical form. Especially striking is the similarity between the themes of the motet Praeparate corda vestra (Op. mus. III, 34) and the Slovene folk song Sel sem, šel čez gmaj- nico. The two opening themes are melodically and rhythmically identical. In the motet, the alto appears first, part of its theme is then taken over by the tenor and bassus, and finally by the cantus, the conception of which is the same as that of the tenor and bassus. The continuation is freely ar¬ ranged, but in some places the composer used certain elements of the first and the second parts — the opening motive appears modified, reversed or rhythmically different. However, the similarity or even identity of the themes of the above- mentioned motet and folk song does not necessarily prove that the song was the model for the motet. It is not known when the song first appeared — in Gallus’ time, before or even after. The composer might have heard it in his youth. It is also possible that he was inspired by his native environ- ment and that the leading motive of his motet later became part of popular tradition. There is no firm proof for either of the two hypotheses. The implied similarity might be pure coincidence. It is nevertheless interesting that Gallus favoured the above-mentioned motive — he used it in various other compositions of his, for example in the 53 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl choral pieces Proditur est ut Hypocrita and Pascitur in vivis livor, post jata quiescit, which were both published in the Harmoniae morales coi- lection. In the latter composition the words ponder over the unworthiness of the envious and the permanence of honest work. The composer probably chose this text because it thematically suited his opinion of those who raised objections about his Creative work. They probably did not like the composition; it is characterized by long melisma and successive ornaments, sung to one syllable of a word (‘vi’ — ‘vivam’). Gallus first used the above- mentioned motive in a motet (1587) and later also in madrigals (1589, 1590). This proves that the thematic sources for his motets were also of a secular nature; he adapted certain themes from secular choral works. The same motives could therefore serve different purposes, sacred and secular. It seems that Gallus was broadminded in this respect; in his mušic he used elements that matched his feelings, without changing the character or the form of the composition in the process. His masses, however, are considerably different from his motets and madrigals, although ali the three forms show certain similarities. He mainly used other motives as models, not his own, as the base for his masses. This, however, affected the entire arrangement in which he could not be entirely free, but his personal touch can be felt in independent variations or pas- sages. In Gallus’ masses and other compositions the themes not his own are relatively rare, but they demonstrate that composers were not very sensitive regarding originality. Their motives were of different origins, and their main tendency was towards textual and melodic attractiveness, and if possible secular in nature as well as close to the people. Nevertheless, composers did not want to depend too much on foreign models, but their own creativity was the marker of how much they actually succeeded in remaining independent. This principle prevailed in ali the components of a composition; it is also characteristic of Gallus. As far as melodics are concerned, the most important element was intervals, which directly affected Gallus’ musical expression. Gallus’ me¬ lodics were very varied and in accordance with the strict rules of counter- point, which dictated the use of mainly perfect, major and minor intervals within the range of fifths and octaves, moving upwards or downwards. An exception was the minor sixth, which could only be an ascending progres- sion. It was asserted as such by Palestrina, and the example was followed by his contemporaries and later composers. This practice started changing towards the second half of the sixteenth century. The use of augmented and diminished intervals allowed new combinations and therefore enriched the melody. However, this new technique was not immediately accepted. Even Gioseffo Zarlino, the founder of the new harmony, in his book L’in- stitutioni harmoniche (1558) advised composers against using augmented fourths and diminished fifths, which were supposedly used by ‘modern’ mušic writers. 54 The Creative Process How did Gallus react to these debatable new tendencies and what was their influence upon the composition of more modernly oriented com- posers? To what extent did he remain faithful to tradition or accept the newly introduced concepts? Did he, using his knowledge gained from ex- perience, search for new ways of expressing his own originality? Aug- mented seconds appear rather frequently in his works, and therefore some scholars doing research into his composition have concluded that he fa- voured the above interval, and by no means avoided it. He was not alone in this approach, many of his contemporaries followed it, including de Sayve. The augmented or diminished intervals in Gallus’ compositions are usually in harmony with the course of the melody and harmonic sound, and especially with the concept the composer had about the structural and ex- pressive character of his work. But every now and then it seems as if Gal¬ lus’ choice of individual accidentals diverged from the principles which were customary with his contemporaries. Gallus also often used major and minor seconds; the major second appears throughout his work. Less frequent is the minor second, which does not seem to be absolutely indispensable and is contrary to the strict rules of composition. The question why the composer used it is similar to the question why he used the signs changing the pitch in a way which deviated from the current rules. Similar is his use of the tritone (diabolus in mušica), an interval consisting of three consecutive whole toneš which result in an augmented fourth — the interval which was contrary to the principles of composition then in use. The tritone was also quite frequent in the works of Gallus’ contempo¬ raries. Gallus himself used it for example in his composition entitled O mors quam dura, quam tristia sunt tua iura (Harmoniae morales, 42) in the B-C-D-E progression. The melodic compasses of Gallus’ compositions, which are sometimes also characterized by melisma, are different. Sometimes they are very wide, in the range of the tenth or the ninth (e. g. in the madrigal called Musiča noster amor, Moralia, 28), but most often they are of a limited range. The melodic course was set by the composer, who was guided by the meaning of the text in order to achieve a harmonious whole. The way in which Gallus composed melodic progressions is evident from examples taken from his work. In his choral piece In terra summus rex est hoc tempore nummus ( Harm. mor., 34), the melodious cantus moves from the starting tone a minor second down, returns, and then ascends over a perfect fifth and a major third into an octave. The word “summus” is characterized by rhythmically differentiated melisma. Similar examples can be found in various other compositions of his — madrigals and motets. Judgements of melodics as conceived by Gallus differ. Certain experts find his melodies reserved, others consider them relaxed, expressive or me¬ lodious. The course of the cantus in his madrigal En ego campana nunguam denuntio vana (Harm. mor., 43), for example, is rounded and pleasantly 55 Dragotin Cvetko — Iaoobus Hšndl sounding. Generally speaking, Gallus’ melodies in his motets and madrigals are pleasing and smooth. Although they are not complex. but in their struc- ture rather simple, they express the Creative power of the composer. It would be impossible to maintain that they are elegant and sophisticated, as are for example the melodies in Palestrina’s works. Gallus’ mušic is different and effective even when it sounds somewhat unusual and gives an impression of hardness and sharp accentuation. What is the origin of these characteristics? How to explain them? There are various explanations. First of ali it has to be stressed that Gallus’ melodies are very often close to popular sentiments; Gallus himself was probably of simple birth and he absorbed the popular songs of the country- side where he grew up. The period in which he lived favoured popular sentiments. Madrigal composers in Gallus’ time were influenced by po¬ pular mušic; popular influence can be traced in motets as well. Of course it depended on each individual composer how he adapted these influences to his experience and way of perception. Hence the melodic differences between Gallus and his contemporaries. They have a lot in common in style and composition techniques, but Gallus’ expression is original. The expressiveness of the melody was to a large extent conditioned by the current perception of the relationship between word and sound. In the Renaissance the function of the word changed a lot and became different from what it was during the reign of counterpoint. Zarlino, who considered the differences between mušic and grammar to be small (“la mušica e la gramatica sono poco differenti”), was aware of this; the two previously separated disciplines were brought closer together and became related. Many changes resulted from this belief. Accentuation tended towards har- mony and balance between word and sound; sometimes the stress was actually on the word. Claudio Monteverdi believed that speech should be the master and not the servant of harmony, as it was before (“L’orazione sia padrone delTarmonia e non serva”, Scherzi musicali, 1607). The first traces of such an attitude emerged in the period of classical polyphon.y, when voices were melodically rather independent. In the late Renaissance this approach was put into effect and more or less became a convention. The importance of speech was also backed up by the Council of Trent, which pointed out the significance of the text in the liturgy. The Council, however, could not have foreseen the consequences of this demand, which resulted in an essentially different perception of artistic creativeness. Imitation of the word — imitare le parole — was introduced. This tendency had been present since the end of the fifteenth century, but it had existed merely as an idea. In this process it was not only accentuation, which earlier depended on the counterpoint, that was important; the belief prevailed that the stress should be used in such a way as to give the words enough expression. The melody was to be subordinated to the text and not vice versa. The relationship between word and sound, as realized by Pale- 56 The Creative Process strina, started changing; the word and its stress prevailed. This naturally affected the techniques composers used to form melodies. The changes taking plače also influenced Gallus’ composition to a certain extent. His views of the text were rather subjective; he gave little consideration to the rules dictating the position of words in the individual parts. He formed his own conceptions and to him counterpoint was merely a means of reinforcing the meaning of the word. That is why certain in- consistencies in Gallus’ melodies are understandable. On the one hand the composer was linked with the past, and on the other he started accepting new ideas. Various examples from his work testify that his melodies very often diverged from the criteria of classical polyphony, which frequently rejeeted melodiousness. Gallus used the parlandi which were reminiscent of speech. Sometimes they were close to the recitative, which was not in accordance with the principles of classical polyphony. Gallus’ melodies were to a limited extent conditioned by harmony, which was not yet homophonic. The majority of his compositions remained polyphonic, the individual parts were mainly independent. The melodies in Gallus’ works therefore played the dominant role, while harmony was of lesser importance. Analysis confirms that Gallus did not entirely and consistently accede to the new tendencies. He considered the meaning of the text and correct accentuation, but not always. In his madrigal Musiča noster amor, the me- lody accompanying the words “vivat io magnis” is tripartite despite the fact that the word “magnis” would require a different meter. In this čase the composer adjusted the stress of the word to the musical stress — the very opposite to what the new concept found desirable. This, of course, was not his habitual technique, very often the words and the mušic were in harmony. It is therefore impossible to generalize on the basis of the above example; it is also impossible to deny the composer’s aspiration towards the new concepts, although they are not always clearly evident from his works. Gallus’ composition demonstrates that he did not always conform to the rules which in his time dictated the shape of the melody. He was not rigid; in his creativeness he was flexible and broad-minded. He adopted generally accepted rules to a limited extent and adjusted them to his own belief. Fairly often he ignored the rules regardless of whether they were traditional or modern. He expressed his own feelings; his Creative force was independent and strong enough for such decisions. It seems that the com¬ poser was fully aware of this, and this awareness enabled him to give his melodies a considerable individual character. These characteristics can be seen throughout Gallus’ composition. We can trače them in the free passages of his masses, in the motets, where he used his own themes, and in madrigals, where he achieved the greatest free- dom. In these works he was less dependent on the text, and could give way 57 Dragotin Cvetko — Iaoobus Handl to more intimate expression, be it in any kind of composition. His melodics always unveil an artist searching for ways to materialize his inner self in the most original, emotionally oriented shapes of melody. Considering that Gallus composed vocal mušic, it is clear that the voice was his main preoccupation, not only from the point of view of melodics. To ali the elements important for a composition he wanted to allot a role that would be in agreement with melodics and their characteristics. In this aspiration he had to take into consideration the general musical situation of his time, regardless of whether it was absorbed in the declining past or giving way to new Creative concepts. Among the many existing techniques, the question of the leading voice was to be considered for each composition. In the sixteenth century the function of the voices changed consider- ably. The role of the previously leading tenor declined. This decline was slow, because certain composers stili considered it to be the voice indis- pensable for cadences. However, gradually the cantus became the leading voice, being the bearer of the melody. It was no longer considered an error if the tenor did not end with the final note (nota finalis) of the church modes. The rules started changing. Compositions stili usually began with the tenor, which was followed by the cantus, bassus and alto, but this was no longer the obligatory sequence, and it was not considered wrong not to obey it. The role of the bassus changed as well. It gradually became the funda- mental voice. Zarlino stated that the bassus supported, stabilized and rein- forced the other voices. Adrian Petit Coclicus (Coclico) was of a similar opinion. How did Gallus react to these changes? Various examples from his work show that he was well versed and efficient in some of the new tech- niques, but in some instances he remained faithful to tradition, which was also the čase with other composers. It was possible that one voice opened a composition, sometimes two or more, but ali the voices together continued it. If the cantus was the first to appear, it was usually followed by the tenor and finally the other voices. Gallus obviously gave priority to the cantus while not neglecting the tenor and other voices. The way he arranged ali the voices together shows his sense of differentiation, which can be noticed throughout his work. It seems that this technique was not accidental but well calculated. Why so? The way the voices enter in Gallus’ work offers various explanations. The structure and therefore the number of voices was very important. The fewer voices there were, the more opportunity for their successive entries. In four-, five-, six- and seven-part compositions the voices usually enter in succession, while in four-part they enter simultaneously; this is more often the čase in madrigals than in motets. Synchronous incipit of the parts is also characteristic when there are stili more voices, right up to twenty- 58 The Creative Process four. Such large ensembles, however, required more than one choir; the voices of individual choruses usually entered simultaneously. Again the composer used his individual procedures, without following some abstract, actually nonexisting rule. In technically more demanding compositions Gallus made use of va- rious techniques. What were they and according to which principles did he decide upon them? The main stress was on the theme. He wanted to give the motives to- gether with the text the strongest possible expressive character. There are a lot of interesting examples proving this. In his choral work Diligitur nemo (Moralia, 32) the cantus, alto, tenor I and tenor II enter first. In the first phrase the leading motive is sung by tenor II, and then taken over by the bassus, where it is even more expressive. The same motive is then repeated in the intermediary passages by tenor I. This was not the com- poser’s usual technique. He must have decided upon it after thorough re- flection; he used it to give the theme a greater importance and thus rein- force the expressiveness of the whole composition. The chosen theme, usually the only one, was in ali respects the most important element. If the composer introduced another theme, he thus wanted to achieve a contrast. The text was also very important; at the beginning of the composition the entire text or its parts, sometimes even only one word, were presented. This can be seen in Gallus’ motets as well as in madrigals. For example, the composition Vos, qui nulla datis, sed sumitis omnia gratis ( Harm. mor., 27) starts in the bassus with the summons “vos”. After a rest the theme is continued. The tenor, alto and cantus imitate the theme in the same way. Also very interesting is the piece O fortuna potens quam variabilis (Harm. mor., 2); its words are about justice, injustice and the variability of fortune, which ali have to experience. The ideas expressed in the text are probably the reason why ali the voices enter at the same moment and continue in unison almost consistently throughout the composition. The choice of the succession of parts was therefore not accidental. Gal¬ lus must have decided upon it according to the meaning of the text; other criteria were his own conception of the entire structure of a composition and his desire to achieve inner contrasts in the text, themes and the sound effects he warited to realize. His works testify that in most cases he suc- ceeded, thanks to his striking intuition, sensibility and rational creativity. He drew inspiration from various sources, which sometimes surprise and bear witness to his ingenuity, typical of ali his works. The succession of parts was also important for the structure of Gallus’ works. His personal style was best expressed in four-part compositions. However, he did not stop there, but went on composing for even larger choirs. If a composition had more than six or seven parts, he divided the voices into choral groups. From six voices he formed a six-part or two three-part choruses, from seven a three- and a four-part chorus, from eight two two-part, from nine a four- and a five-part chorus, from ten two five- 59 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl part, from twelve three four-part, from sixteen four four-part, and from twenty-four four six-part choruses. His composition is therefore character- ized by differing formations, leading to cori spezzati, which required special techniques and procedures. Cori spezzati were especially favoured by the Venetian school of com¬ position, where Italian and Flemish composers worked together from the first half of the sixteenth to the beginning of the seventeenth century. Apart from its founder, A. Willaert, the Venetian school had many im- portant followers, for example de Rore, A. and G. Gabrieli, Zarlino and Merulo. The cori spezzati soon gained ground and spread ali over Europe. In Gallus’ masses, motets and madrigals the voices entered in many different ways. The upper chorus usually began (chorus I, chorus superior), and was followed by the lower (chorus II, chorus inferior), or vice versa. Sometimes ali the voices of both choruses entered together. In some com- positions the voices of both choruses were combined. In cases of composi- tions for three (chorus superior, chorus medius, chorus inferior) or four choruses, the composer used the same technique as in two choruses. Gallus’ works are therefore very varied in this respect. It should also be mentioned that the second chorus does not always necessarily repeat the text and the motives of the first one, but can be entirely different. There are also some compositions in which the first chorus starts with the text which is then continued by the second chorus, although it has a different thematic and chord structure; it enters on the last chord of the first chorus. Gallus used numerous variants. Motet No. 3 in the Opus musicum col- lection is a typical example; it has sixteen parts and is sung by four chorus¬ es. Each of them represents one period in the human life (pueri, iuvenes, viri, senes). The choirs enter one after the other, and are then united singing the same text. The rhythmical structure of the text is such as to produce tense, very effective contrasts. The choirs again follow each other, and the composition ends with ali of them singing together. About the structure of this composition Gallus wrote that there should be four groups of four voices; they will always sound harmonious regardless of whether the choirs sing together or separately. Where there are rests, ali the voices should sing together, and if the rests are omitted, each group can sing alone. Thus boys, young, middle-aged and old men can sing and praise the Lord to¬ gether or separately. Gallus left it to the performers to choose between the two possible ways. Similar is the structure of the motet Resonet in laudibus (Op. mus., I, 59), which was written for two choirs, singing together or separately. Gallus used the same technique when he wanted to achieve an echo effect; this technique was also used by other composers of the time. It was applied in the play of words, and it very effectively intensified the sono- rity and combinations of voices. Gallus applied it many times, also in his motet Quo mihi, crude dolor, tantum dominare (Op. mus., 33). At the end 60 The Creative Process of every phrase the second choir takes over with the last part of the first choir’s last word. This last part of the word is the starting point for a new word with a changed meaning. The second choir enters on the last syllable of the word “dominare” with the first syllable of the word “minare”; the last syllable of the word “clamor” results in the word “amor”. The compo- sition continues in this way. The incipits and succession of parts characte- ristic of Gallus’ cori spezzati were not much different from the teehniques he used with only one chorus. When the voices did not enter together, they followed each other in imitation. Gallus used the imitation technique to establish relations between choruses in cori spezzati. New concepts therefore did not reduce the role of the mentioned tech- nique to a very large extent. It was also present in parodic masses. It enabled the models to follow each other successively to the end of the mass despite the free passages which interrupted them. The number of models varied from mass to mass, and the composer used them in many different ways, Comparatively speaking, the composition technique was more or less the same in ali masses. In Kyrie and Gloria the opening theme of the model was generally used. In the middle of the first movement of the mass the themes were either taken from the middle of the model or substituted by free passages. Čredo was the same at the beginning as the beginning of the model; certain parts of the model later appeared freely, but their origin had to remain clear. Sanctus began with a slightly modified opening motive and ended either with the concluding progression of the model or freely arrang- ed. Hosana could be differentiated: the beginning middle or conclusion of the model were used. Benedictus was usually freely arranged, but stili reminiscent of the model, while Agnus again introduced the original model, either literally or at least adapted. Agnus ended with the conclusion of the model, its central theme or the composer’s original progression. The themes of the models in Gallus’ masses occur completely or partly modified; however, very often they are original, with the composer’s per- sonal touch. He modified the models in various ways. If they were five- part, the composer very often reduced them to four-part. Reduction as a technique was in use also in imitations. The themes as well were subjected to changes; Gallus sometimes simplified them and gave them a different rhythmical pattern. When he took the entire composition as a model, he was able to change the structure of the passage; he sometimes changed horizontal lines into vertical and vice versa. It seems that he had no scruples about ali these numerous alterations; he probably found them indispensable in conveying his ideas. Gallus was very individualistic in this respect. His modifications were either simple or complex, and they always affected the characteristics of the model. Sometimes he radically rearranged it — if it was homophonic, he sometimes gave it a polyphonic character, and according to his own judgement freely adapted the theme. 61 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl The composer’s interventions were therefore radical and unique. They were probably encouraged by his individualist tendencies and his remark- ably independent perception of artistic expression. They illustrate Gallus’ broad-mindedness and preference for chord- and harmonic structures which deviated from strict polyphony. To a certain extent the same characteristics can also be traced in Gallus’ motets and madrigals. They are, however, not consistent. It would not be reasonable to expect consistency, since the composer was stili matur- ing; but the process inevitably perfected his technique and deepened his artistic expression. He became more and more independent in his motets and especially in madrigals, in which he skilfully implemented these new techniques without renouncing the methods he used in his motets and masses. However, he was in no way exclusive and had no visible aspirations towards changing the conceptual stream of the European mušic of his time. If we compare composition technique and expressiveness, he gave priority to the latter. In his motets Gallus frequently used imitation, which was often free rather than strict. He allowed himself considerable freedom; sometimes he changed the melodic and rhythmic patterns of the themes. Proof for this is many of his compositions, among them a madrigal entitled Qui fugat intrepidos, magis ille fugat fugientes (Harm. mor., 4). Along a continuous sequence of bars, in intervals moving up or down, the cantus theme is repeated in the alto, tenor and finally in the bassus. The cantus’ motive remains unchanged only in the tenor, while in the alto and bassus it ap- pears slightly modified, sometimes even in the same way. Structurally a little different is his madrigal Cum moritur dives (Mor., 44), in which the cantus’ theme appears slightly altered in the alto, enter- ing at the same time as tenor I, which is considerably different in com- parison with the previous part. It is followed by the rhythmically changed and melodically reduced tenor II. The bassus is the last to enter, and is thematically slightly different from tenor II. Successive or simultaneous use of two contrasting themes is some- thing Gallus also practised in some other compositions of his, as in the madrigal Anna soror, soror Anna meae male conscia culpae (Harm. mor., 9). Gallus’ practice of theme imitation was varied and showed great in- genuity. He was not averse to canon, although he rarely applied this tech- nique, which was the strictest form of imitation, in which the voices re¬ peated each other along the designated intervals. He used this technique in his masses and more frequently in his motets, in one čase even crabwise (Op. mus. II, 15). It seems he was thoroughly initiated into the mysteries of techniques and forms of composition. Like many other composers, Gallus did not apply canon in his madrigals; canon found expression very rarely, for example in the work of G. M. Asola (1578). 62 The Creative Process Imitation was one of Gallus’ most frequent techniques, not only in themes, but also in choral works and cori spezzati, in which he established imitative relations. An example illustrating this is his madrigal Cede re- pugnanti cedendo victor abibis (Mor., 4), in which the parlando technique is occasionally used. Chorus inferior alternately imitates chorus superior. The motives as well are imitated, in the same succession or counterwise, with rhythmic variations. Gallus’ cori spezzati are very ingenious: the choral parts were sometimes completely different from each other, e. g. in the madrigal Mor., 3, where part I is completely different from part II. Both parts are independent, thematically distinguished, based on free ra- ther than strict imitation. There was no rule about which chorus started first. Gallus was aware of that, but in most compositions of his it was the first chorus that entered first. Gallus’ work shows great variety, which is evident from numerous examples, like the above-mentioned choral piece or a similar madrigal, Tempore felici, in which the second chorus enters on the last chord of the first choir; the second chorus, however, is modified after its second entry. The rhythm, melody and chords of the two choruses are contrastive; they keep changing throughout the composition, being almost the same in some places and completely different in others. Their structure indicates that the composer wanted to emphasize the meaning of the text, using musical means. He used imitation, and united both choruses at the end of the last two bars into an eight-part “eris, solus eris”. To Gallus, imitation did not represent a mere formality, he had good reasons for using it. Firstly, he wanted to achieve greater sound contrasts and thus a stronger impact, and secondly, he used imitation to show his sensitivity towards the text and bring out the most significant words. Imitation is a very important, almost central feature of Gallus’ com¬ position. Along with imitation he introduced another technique, which not only affected the linear, basically independent melodic lines, but also the vertical arrangement of voices, that is chords, which had nothing in com- mon with imitation and polyphony in general. Just the opposite — this technique diverged from polyphony and considerably changed the structure of the entire composition. If we compare Gallus’ composition techniques we must, however, con- clude that polyphony was nevertheless predominant, even though there are certain passages which are closer to homophony. This can be seen in his masses and even more explicitly in his motets and madrigals; however, it is a characteristic of ali his compositions that neither polyphony nor in particular homophony is consistent. For instance, imitation is the prevail- ing technique in the madrigal Multum deliro, si cuique placere requiro (Mor., 30), where the text states how pointless it is to want to please every- body. This was probably also the composer’s personal view. The compo¬ sition is characterized by melisma, and imitation is constantly present. The 63 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hšn-dl madrigal Barbara, Celarent, Darii, Ferio (Harm. mor., 32) is different; it is mainly homophonic, but imitation is also present, which, however, does not significantly change its basic structure. It is evident from Gallus’ work that in more than five-part compo- sitions he gave priority to polyphony and consequently imitation. This technique facilitated the entire arrangement and particularly the arrange- ment of voices and thus considerably added to the homogeneity of a com- position. He used it even when his composition was closer to homophony, especially in four-part madrigals and other four-part musical works. When ali the voices sang together — this, however, does not necessarily point to homophony ■— he frequently employed imitation, for example in the mad¬ rigal Gallus amat Venerem, cur? (Harm. mor., 6). He also used imitation in his motet Ecce, quomodo moritur iustus (Op. mus., II, 13), but not to such a large extent. In the above-mentioned motet ali the voices enter together and it is distinctively homophonic. Gallus’ composition shows other characteristics; one of them is that in works for two or more choruses the relation between them was of a poly- phonic nature, although individual choruses were entirely or mostly homo¬ phonic; another possibility was that the relation between choruses in cori spezzati was polyphonic, and individual choruses were polyphonic as well. The composer was therefore technically well versed, and where technique is concerned, his artistic creations based on his unique ideas show great diversity. The combination of polyphony and homophony in cori spezzati re- sulted in tension and considerable technical concentration; so much more so, because homophonic choral parts were in contrast with each other. In this way compositions became very expressive. Linear and vertical struc- tures could be contrasted; that was possible in both relatio-ns — homo- phony : polyphony or polyphony : polyphony. The latter resulted in double polyphony, which was very complex, making a composition effective and sophisticated. In discussing Gallus’ composition we come across other problems, concerning chords and tonality, for example. There are various opinions about the tonality he used. Harmut Krones 13 discussed it with A. B. Skei, 14 who was of the opinion that the major-minor tonal system in places found full expression in Gallus’ compositions. He claimed that the madrigal No 6, Nec veneris, nec vini, published in the Moralia collection, started and con- tinued in C major. As a characteristic he pointed out frequent modulations from C major to G major and D minor. He believed that madrigals showed only remote traces of church modes. Krones did not agree with this inter- pretation, quoting Bernhard Meier and his explanation of classical poly- 13 Krones, H., Tonalitdt und Modernitat bei Jacobus Gallus, 1988, typed do- cument. 14 Skei, A. B., ‘Jacob Handl’s Moralia’, MQ, 1966. 64 The Creative Process phony. ls He substantiated his thesis with some examples: the madrigal Si vitare veliš (Mor., 15) is in the Dorian mode, and the madrigal Gaudia principium in the Hypodorian. The cadenzas in the Moralia collection are also in accordance with modal and not the contemporary usage. Krones concluded his reflection on the problem stating that Gallus’ compositions were based on church modes. He added, however, that where modality is concerned, the composer went his own way. He took advantage of ali the techniques, even the ones which gave his mušic air of ‘modernism’, because they were a step forward. He emphasized Gallus’ expertise in tonal expression. Although in many ways Gallus remained faithful to tradition, he sometimes neglected the rules and did it his way, which announced new concepts. However, he did not renounce modality, and he never fully accepted the major-minor tonal system. In the late sixteenth century he showed an affinity towards the new trends, but he was not consistent. It would be impossible to say the same about the early period of his creati- vity. Various musicologists have carried out research into the relation between the traditional and the modern in Gallus’ works, among them Wolfgang Boetticher. 16 Despite the more and more intensive tendencies towards the new con¬ cepts, which were gaining ground among younger composers in the last decades of the sixteenth century, Gallus on the whole remained a tradi- tionalist. In his composition he used church modes, which were in use in the Renaissance and even in the early Baroque, when they gradually gave way to the major-minor tonal system. Most currently used were the Do¬ rian, Phrygian, Mixolydian, Aeolian and lonian modes, and also some of their variants — the Hypodorian, Hypophrygian, Hypomixolydian, Hypo- aeolian and Hypoionian modes. The Lydian mode was very rarely used. Gallus used them in his masses and motets. In his motets and madrigals he most frequently employed the Dorian, lonian and sometimes Mixolydian modes. Fairly common was also the Phrygian mode, although it was declining at the time. Which principles governed the composer’s choice of tonality? It seems that he was guided by the current usage and tradition, but these were probably not the only reasons. He must also have been in- fluenced by the new concepts, which related the tonal characteristics to the problem of expressiveness. Zarlino considered the major mode (lonian and Mixolydian) lively, and the minor mode (Dorian and Aeolian) agreeable and gentle. To him, the Dorian mode was a means of expressing the power- ful, and at the same time calm, and the Phrygian of expressing the exciting. In short — each mode was characteristic in some way, and it affected the expression of a composition. The major (modi laetiores) and minor modes 15 Meier, B., ‘Rex Asiae et Ponti. A work of homage by Cyprian de Rore’, MZ/MA/, vol. VI, Ljubljana, 1970, pp. 5—11. 16 Boetticher, W., ‘Jacobus Gallus und Orlando di Lasso. Einige Betrachtungen des Stilvergleiches im Motettenrepertoire’, MZ/MA/, vol. XXII, 1986, pp. 5—14. 5 Iacobus Hcindl 65 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus H&ndl (modi tristiores) became more and more important. A composer’s choice of mode was therefore an important one, and it required thorough reflec- tion, since each mode was attributed its very special character. In Gallus’ time, the major and minor modes were clearly manifested, and Gallus must have been familiar with the new concepts. Nevertheless he stili hesitated and tried to incorporate them in his work, although the church modes remained the focus of his attention. In ali his creativity, regardless of whether he introduced new elements or remained faithful to the old ones, he was guided by his own artistic views. The chord structure of Gallus’ works is evident from the overall struc- ture of his compositions. The role of the chord was different in polyphonic than in homophonic pieces; in polyphonic mušic the chord was a harmonic pattern without functional significance, while in homophonic mušic, it was not merely a result of independent musical functions. According to Zarlino, major and minor chords had a different character and sound. The Spanish theoretician, Francisco de Salinas, was of a similar opinion. He stated that the sonority of a major chord (divisio harmonica) was more complete than that of a minor chord (divisio arithmetica). If a chord cannot be understood in terms of polyphonic composition, then the focus of Gallus’ attention was the third, which defined the har- mony in the major : minor relation. The third was considered to be an in- complete consonant interval, as opposed to the fifth, octave and twelfth, which were considered complete. The sixth and the tenth had the same status as the third. Although the tendency towards the independence of harmonic sound already existed, Zarlino stressed the importance of adding a third and a fifth or a sixth above the bassus, which directly affected the stability of a chord. His disciple, G. M. Artusi, had different views on chord structure. In more than two-part compositions he found it indispensable to have full triads. He believed that was the only possible way to achieve “la richezza delTharmonia”. Zarlino’s views influenced the development of mušic in the second half of the sixteenth century; to a certain extent they also affected Gallus’ composition, in which triads tended towards major and minor chords, especially at the end of a piece. His compositions rarely ended in a double third without a fifth, even less often in a fifth or octave. Such cadences were at the time in current use. Gallus was no exception, but he sometimes strayed from the established rules. Gallus also used parallel fifths and octaves, which was not found de- sirable. Parallel fifths occurred between the inner, but not the outer voices. Hidden fifths and octaves as well were relatively frequent in his composi¬ tions; they can also be traced in works by Palestrina, who strictly obeyed the rules. Some of Gallus’ pieces reveal parallel fourths, for example the madrigal Linguarum non est praestantior ulla latina ( Harm. mor., 49). The cantus and tenor sing in parallel fourths, although thirds would probably 66 The Creative Process be more appropriate. The composer probably decided on fourths because of the text — to stress the “nil scit” passage. The use of triads, the preparation and resolution of the six-four chord, the progression of chords and melodic and harmonic forms support the thesis that traditional and modern elements found their plače in Gallus’ composition, and that church modes started declining, giving way to har¬ monic concepts. Another proof for this is some other characteristics of Gal¬ lus’, for example modulation, as formulated by A. Willaert, and practiced by de Rore and Vicentino. When hexachord cadences finally disappeared from mušic, even more changes of tonality occurred. The traditional con¬ cepts gradually gave way to new, different ideas. Even in this respect Gallus was very broad-minded. In most cases he concluded his compositions with dominant, and only occasionally with sub- dominant chords. The chordal progression from the beginning to the end of his works was not accidental, but very carefully considered. His modulations were rather abrupt. This is evident from his work, for example from the madrigal Lex et natura, Coelum, Deus, omnia iura ( Harm. mor., 51), which also has a very interesting structure: homophony and polyphony are intertwined with numerous melisma. Modulation, which is a characteristic of Gallus’ works, sometimes had very unexpected effects. He used chromatic alterations which affected the nature of a mode, and alternating toneš on the subdominant which had been in use even before his time. They can be found in the works of Henricus Isaac, Palestrina, Lasso, de Monte, H. L. Hassler, M. Praetorius, W. Byrd. In Praetorius’ compositions the subdominant was usually hidden, as for example in his magnijicat super In te Domine speravi. If the sub¬ dominant was not resolved, it resulted in an unusual sound, which charac- terizes for instance Byrd’s madrigal In fields abroad. The alternating subdominant was favoured from the late fifteenth to the late sixteenth century. Composers of various nationalities used it, and neither the new concepts of the chord nor modulation lessened its import- ance. Composers were probably impressed by its archaic sound. Gallus liked it, and used it many times, for example in the motet Ecce, guomodo moritur iustus, where it appeared in the phrase “et erit in pace memoria eius” on the second syllable of the word “memoria”. It sounded tense, its effect was truly magnificent, and it seems that Gallus cherished it. He employed it in many of his madrigals and also sacred compositions. On the grounds of its frequent occurrence we believe that he used it intention- ally, and that he was fully aware of its role in mušic. It was not only its sound effect, it also matched the meaning of the text either in its en- tirety or in part. But the alternating subdominant did not always produce the same effect, its final sound depended on its preparation and resolution. There were no rules for that. The chords directly preceding the alternating sub- 5* 67 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hdndl dominant differed from composition to composition, resulting in different harmonic sequences and therefore different sound effects. This was also the čase in Ecce. The occurrence of the alternating subdominant was conditioned by va- rious factors. This can be seen in Gallus’ compositions, where it did not occur consistently, which is in principle true of other chords as well. In the madrigal Quid sis, quid fueris, quid eris semper mediteris ( Harm. mor., 41, pars II) the opening chord is the same as the opening chord in the motet Ecce, quomodo moritur iustus, not only harmonically, but also where the tonality is concerned. But the chords progress differently. Also “ergo” in the composition Epicedion harmonicum is partly the same as in Ecce (Op. mus., II, 13); the two texts which served as the basis for the mušic are also very similar. The current usage was therefore very varied, and Gallus’ works are a good example. The motet Ecce, quomodo moritur iustus had an important plače in Gallus’ repertoire. 17 The text, sometimes a little modified, was set to mušic by various composers, for example Marc Antonio Ingegneri, Ludovico Via- dana, Orlando di Lasso, Tomas Luis de Victoria, Carlo Gesualdo da Venosa. The compositions are different, but have certain features in common, such as the tendency towards a homophonic structure, the emphasis on sonority and chords, the major role of harmony and the minor role of melodics. Structurally they are essentially the same and have the same refrain. In- gegneri’s Ecce (1588) is similar at the beginning to Gallus’ (1587). In the opening bars both melodies are alike and the chords are the same. At its beginning Gallus’ motet sounds in the špirit of the new concepts of com¬ position; its harmony is close to the rules of functional harmony — it is effective, although in places somewhat stiff. Ingegneri’s Ecce sounds gentler because it is chromatic in places and tends towards the minor mode. But the two motets differ in expression; although they were com- posed almost at the same time, it seems that neither of the two composers was consciously influenced by the other. The similarity between the two compositions should probably be ascribed to the fact that Gallus and Inge¬ gneri were contemporaries, both stylistically guided by the Venetian School, and following the same examples. Their respective composition techniques resemble each other in the use of chords and melodic arrange- ments. It would be impossible to speak about dependency or imitation either on the part of Gallus or Ingegneri, ali the more so, because we do not know exactly when the two pieces were composed; ali we know are the publication dates. 17 Cf. Sivec, J., ‘Ecce, quomodo moritur justus’ von J. Gallus in einigen seiner Zeitgenossen, JG & HT, 1985, pp. 84—102; ib., ‘Ecce, quomodo moritur justus J. Gal¬ lusa, M. A. Ingegnerija in O. di Lassa, MZ/MA/, vol. VII, 1971, pp. 8—19; ib., ‘Ecce, quomodo moritur justus’ J. Gallusa in nekaterih njegovih sodobnikov, MZ/MA/, vol. XXI, 1985, pp. 33—50. 68 The Creative Process Viadana composed in the vocal tradition of the sixteenth century. The structure of his Ecce is homophonic and similar to those by Gallus and Ingegneri, but its artistic value is less. Lasso’s Ecce. composed between 1580 and 1585, is different. The stress is on the melodic lines of individual voices. The composition is therefore a rounded polyphonic whole. It is impressive because of its differentiated rhythm and chromatic harmony, which adds to its expressiveness. De Victoria composed his Ecce around 1585, when his work was published. He employed imitation and therefore established the linear principle. His Ecce is composed in Roman style, which did not allow strong contrasts. Chords are more expressive only in the passage “et erit in pace”. Gesualdo’s Ecce was written much later; it was published in 1611, when the musical situation had changed. This composition of Gesualdo’s does not belong to classical vocal polyphony, but to mannerism, which gained ground in the period between the Renaissance and Baroque. Gesualdo composed in this špirit, and his Ecce is very con- trastive, chromatic and harmonically rich. The composer felt free to use certain techniques which were against the rules, for example, unusual melodic intervals, harmonic discords, chromatically progressing chords and modulations. He actually used what other composers had started using before him. But Gesualdo wanted to give his work an individual character. He moved away from modality and avoided functional harmony. His com¬ position was by no means simple, but enriched with affects and dramatic tension, which is especially evident in the first part of his Ecce. It is notable for its distinct harmony and the dissonant suspended seventh between the alto and bassus, which although resolved, functions as a passing note. The composition is also interesting because of its differing, very effective chord structure. Among the features of Gesualdo’s composition we should also mention his use of the diminished sixth chord, its unexpected resolution, and the diminished fourth. Different composers therefore arranged Ecce in different ways; from the artistic point of view, their compositions reflected their own Creative power, and Gallus and Gesualdo were beyond doubt the ones who achieved the highest artistic level. Gallus’ Ecce again shows the features which are present throughout his work. Along with those mentioned before, he used a number of other techniques to express his artistic views, and widen the horizons of his composition. He applied them, for example, in the inner relations between the voices, the chord : melody relations and chord structure. He used augmented seconds and fourths, and diminished fifths •—• not only in me- lodies, but also in harmonies. Gallus, however, was not the only one using them, the same traits feature in the works of many other sixteenth century composers, often in different combinations, although with the same effect. Gallus quite frequently used parallel thirds and sometimes even parallel sixth chords and discords which were the result of chromatic alterations 69 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hšndl of a certain note in the tenor of the following chord. Augmented and di- minished triads and their inversions can also be seen in his composition, although the latter are relatively rare. Gallus sometimes employed chords built of three thirds, seventh chords and their inversions. Examples can be found in his madrigals and motets, in which there also occur alternating toneš, passing notes and suspension which results in dissonance. In principle this was not allowed, even modernly oriented Zarlino objected to suspen- sions in strict counterpoint, because they caused dissonance; only passing dissonant notes were tolerated, occurring on the weak beat at the second. A dissonant note could appear on the strong beat only if it was syncopated, i. e. the stress was placed on the weak instead of on the strong beat. For syncopated dissonance Zarlino used the expression suspensio — suspen¬ sion, which did not belong to the current chord and was a second higher or lower than the fundamental note of the chord. Although the rules li- mited the use of suspension, Gallus was fond of it, and it can frequently be found in his compositions. Diminished and augmented intervals used in chords and the resulting dissonance were related to the problem of chromaticism, which was already in use in Gallus’ time and enabled the enrichment of dynamics. Chroma¬ ticism is present in Gallus’ compositions, its elements being especially discernible in his motet Mirabile mysterium (Op. mus., I, 54); W. Boet- ticher stated that the piece showed certain similarities with Lasso’s com¬ position, 18 which Gallus was beyond doubt familiar with. Experts have evaluated this composition differently. Theodor Kroyer, for example, con- sidered its chromatic effects rigid and pointless, which supports the thesis that the composer was not well versed in the subtlety of the composition technique. Gallus’ opus, however, denies this belief. Some other theore- ticians discerned positive features and beauty in the above-mentioned composition, although it is unusual. Emil Bezecny favourably assessed the unusual transitions of tonality, with which the composer wanted to set the text to mušic as adequately as possible, and make it a whole with his artistic touch. He claimed that the surprisingly daring harmonies were not the result of Gesualdo da Venosa’s influence, as some other Gallus scholars had stated. He substantiated his claim with the fact that the first edition of Gesualdo’s harmonically unusual madrigals was published in 1594, and Gallus’ Opus musicum (Vol. I) as early as 1586. Gallus therefore could not have been familiar with Gesualdo’s technique when he composed his Mi¬ rabile mysterium. Similary debatable is the claim that the structure of Mirabile mysterium was influenced by de Rore’s ode Calami sonum, which is believed to reverberate in Lasso’s motet Alma nemes. Gallus probably knew Lasso’s work, which, however, does not mean that he took it as an exarnple. But it is nevertheless possible that it was the other way round 18 CF. Boetticher, W., ‘Štilistische Beobachtungen in textgleichen Komposi- tionen von Jacobus Gallus und O. di Lasso‘, J. G. & H. T., 1985, pp. 82—83. 70 The Creative Process — that de Rore somewhat imitated Gallus’ composition, which shows traces of Lasso’s technique. It seems that de Rore wanted to establish his own way in composition, encouraged by Vicentino. He also used chromaticism, which facilitated modulations. Chromaticism had the same function in Gallus’ above-men- tioned motet; it was especially effective in commixtionem, where the author unexpectedly modulated from B to B fiat major. Mirabile mysterium is a unique composition in Gallus’ opus; he never used the same or similar techniques before or after. Did he, by employing this technique, try to prove that he was versed in it? Was he tempted by other examples, close to his concepts of expressiveness? These questions cannot be answered, not even hypothetically, but it seems that we ought to evaluate the above-mentioned motet also with regard to its enharmonics, which were not a new feature. About 1520 Giovanni Spataro (Spadarius) started re-introducing enharmonics into mušic. They gained ground later on, especially in the mid sixteenth century, when Nicolo Vicentino tried to revive the elements and the špirit of ancient Greek mušic, and conse- quently bring chromatics and enharmonics into use again. He explained his views and intentions in his work Uantica mušica ridotta alla moderna prattica, published in 1555. He used the ancient Greek system as the basis for his work in order to realize eight chromatic modes. His enharmonics divided a whole tone into five parts, which were smaller than šemi- and quarter-tone intervals. Vicentino’s theory was approved of by some composers and rejected by others. Despite the differing reactions, Vicentino notably encouraged composition in which chromatics had a predominant role. His influence accelerated the search for new ways of expression which diverged from diatonics. The debatable problems of composition became even more pres- sing. Opinions on artistic creation started changing and became more ra- dical. Production and reproduction of mušic were affected, and there emerged a need for new or improved instruments which suited the new practice. The sources show that Francisco Salinas saw a harpsichord with an enharmonic keyboard and corresponding tuning in 1537 in Italy. Domenico de Pesaro made the so-called gravicembalo in 1548. The octave had 19 keys and toneš. This invention was, of course, influenced by Zarlino. The tendency towards enharmonically built instruments continued in the seven- teenth century; at the beginning of the century a certain Fabio Colonna constructed a pentacontacordon. In 1606 Vitus de Trausuntinis built a cla- vemusicum omnium, modulis diatonicis, cromaticis et enharmonicis, which had 31 keys within the range of the octave. The painter Domenichino had a čembalo enarmonico at the turn of the century. Ercole Bottrigari re- corded similar cembalos in Florence, and Michael Praetorius in Prague. Praetorius saw one at the composer Carl Luython’s. His clavycimbel (clavi- 71 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hšndl čembalo) was said to have been made 30 years before in Vienna. There was a semi-tone between E and F, and the four octaves comprised 77 keys (Syntagma musicum II, cap. XI, 63, 64). Athanasius Kircher mentioned that he had seen an enharmonic čembalo at Galeazzo Sabatini’s ( Musurgia universalis, 1665, lib. VII, cap. 7). Newly built instruments were therefore in demand and were very varied. The numerous attempts to make new instruments probably influ- enced the development of vocal mušic, not only because of chromatics, but also because of enharmonics and their use. This is more or less just a hypo- thesis, but concerning the instruments we can say with assurance that they were intended for introducing the theory of enharmonics into practice. Very few songs demonstrate the realization of enharmonics in vocal mušic, although the structure of certain compositions shows some enharmonic elements. Various composers have been mentioned in connection with en¬ harmonics and chromatics, especially de Rore, Marenzio and Gesualdo da Venosa, who was even more in favour of chromatics than Marenzio. Ali of them were familiar with enharmonic practice. Even Heinrich Schiitz did not avoid it in his motets (Cantiones sacrae, 1625). Hugo Leichtentritt pointed out the simultaneous use of the tone B fiat in the soprano and B in the bassus; he believed that was not a printing error but the composer’s intentional combination. Domenico Mazzochi employed similar procedures in his musical works, for example, in Planctus matris Eyriali (1638), in which he marked a certain part as “diatonico-chromatico-enarmonico”. The voice functioning as instrumental accompaniment was to sing enharmoni- cally, and the accompanying voice strictly as written (“cantatur, ut scri- bitur, rigorose”); in some places he wrote “enarmonicum” above the voice and placed a special sign in front of the note. It seems that the signs indicating the change of pitch were used very inconsistently in Gallus’ time. Consequently, problems arose regarding their interpretation. The question is whether the sign was a printing error or had a different meaning. It is stili impossible to give a satisfactory expla- nation, and the problem was definitely not an isolated one in the sixteenth century. It seems that enharmonics were used in instrumental as well as in vocal mušic. When discussing the intervals, the theoretician Coclicus stated that some people maintained that the number of intervals was large, but he himself quoted only seven of them (Compendivm Mysices, M.D.LII, chapter De Intervallis). In his own practice Coclicus deliberately reduced the number of intervals. However, his link with tradition remained strong, and he had a high opinion of composers like Boetius, Ockeghem, Obrecht, Tinctoris, Dufay, Isaac, Willaert, Clemens non Papa, Desprez and many others, who were renowned for their theoretical and practical approaches. Coclicus obviously felt he belonged to this famous group. From what he wrote about intervals it can be assumed that the number of intervals really 72 The Creative Process was large in his time. This leads to the conclusion that chromatics and probably also enharmonics were already in use around 1552, when he pu- blished his Compendivm. Much later (1619) Michael Praetorius said that it was not necessary to use the sign indicating the raising of a note in places where a semi-tone was obligatory. He believed that the sign was required only in minor thirds and sixths in order for them to become major. This allows the hypothesis that an interval a little higher or lower than a semi-tone was in use in the early seventeenth century. Praetorius also stated ( Syntagma, III, chapter VIII, 33) that the rule governing the difference between chromatic and diatonic semitones, which necessarily raised the following note, could not always have been taken into consi- deration in concertos with many parts and in choral works. We can therefore assume that the current musical practice also fa- voured other than šemi- and whole-tone relationships, and that such signs were used which normally indicated chromatic changes. We can only guess what were the consequences of this approach. The signs were probably the same as those occasionally used by Mazzochi. Ali the above-mentioned also raises the question of interval relation¬ ships, given that signs did not indicate chromatic changes or did not have any additional meanings within the described use. Leichtentritt was of the opinion that there were some parts in Schiitz’s compositions which could only be evaluated in terms of enharmonics. He expressed the hope that centuries later the enharmonic endeavours of brilliant composers like Marenzio, Gesuafdo da Venosa and Monteverdi, which a lot of people con- sidered pointless, would be properly understood. The question remains whether he was right or wrong. As early as in the s.ixteenth and seven¬ teenth centuries various theoreticians who discussed composition appro- ached these concepts, but in general either rejected them or avoided a straightforward judgement. Later divisions into parts and transcriptions into modern musical notation did not take the above-mentioned signs into consideration. The debatable signs indicating changes of pitch caused con- siderable confusion, and there is no evidence for successful Solutions. In order to preserve the characteristics of the original, the same signs were placed either before or above the affected note, sometimes with the remark that they were the composer’s personal feature, which some of the perfor- mers ignored and which were against the current rules and general practice. Problems concerning certain signs indicating interval changes beyond semi-tones are very complex. It is impossible to reconstruct reliably the musical performance of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries in ali its aspects, since the available sources are not very instructive, but they nevertheless allow the hypothesis that there were — at least at times — different intonations and interpretations of vocal as well as instrumental compositions. To substantiate this thesis let us quote Mazzochi, who could 73 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl not have demanded enharmonic performance from singers had it not existed or been possible. This also raises the question of intonation and vocal performance beyond the possibilities offered by chromatic and diato- nic scales. It is not known whether the current practice followed Vicen- tino’s ideas and whether it was consonant with enharmonically built in- struments. Despite the limited information and uncertainties we can, how- ever, venture to suggest that there existed other than diatonic and chro¬ matic techniques, which required adequate intonation, and which affected the performance and interpretation of musical pieces composed in that way. In the works composed during that time by, for example, Hassler, Gesualdo da Venosa, Schiitz and Marenzio, there are some questionable signs indicating a change of pitch; they also occur in Gallus’ compositions as discords, as in his madrigal O q uam dura premit miseros conditio vitae ( Harm. mor., 39), portraying the hard life of the poor. A characteristic of this piece is a crochet in the tenor (bar 29). If it occurred on B fiat it would result in an augmented fourth, i. e. the tritone, with the alto (B fiat — E); if it occurred on B, it would result in a discord with the B fiat which immediately followed in the bassus. Both discordance and the tritone were against the rules, but it should be mentioned that discords enabled an un- usual transition of tonality and effective chordal sonority. There are many similar cases in Gallus’ works, for example in the motet Planxit David rex Absalon natum suum (Op. mus., III, 29, pars II). Another interval in Gallus’ compositions contains the debatable signs indicating a change of pitch, namely the minor third in minor triads; he used it, for instance, in the motet Quoties diem illum considero (Op. mus., I, 196). The same signs connected with the same problems also occur in Gallus’ masses, as in missa super Elisabeth Zachariae. Chromatic semitonal raising would result in discord, and consequently in a change of tonality. Similarly questionable is the interpretation of the above-mentioned signs in individual compositions in the Harmoniae morales and Moralia collec- tions. A good example is bar 14 in the madrigal Cede repugnanti (Mor., 4). In the original, a sign indicating raising is placed in front of the note B fiat in the tenor, and it does not seem that it stands for a naturah Soon after that, B fiat occurs in the cantus and bassus without a sharp, which, of course, results in discord. That would not be the čase if the sharp in front of the B fiat in the tenor was omitted. We can presume that the sign did not indicate the chromatic raising of the note. The sharp in the tenor is therefore questionable and causes a discord in relation with the cantus; its omission would prevent the occurrence of discord. The signs indicating alterations, interpreted as chromatic raising of the note, would result in many debatable features — diminished and aug¬ mented intervals and chords, tritones, discords and tonal changes, ali of which disagreed with the current rules. It should, however, be taken into consideration that the rules in Gallus’ time were becoming more and more 74 The Creative Process flexible. Radical changes were stili not generally accepted, but various exceptions were allowed. Strict composition was in principle stili employed, and it was to a limited extent also observed in homophony. Proof for this is musical pieces by those composers who started accepting the new ten- dencies and approved of them, such as Gesualdo da Venosa, de Rore and Marenzio. Their works allow the supposition that the signs indicating the changes of notes had different meanings. The current practice probably varied. Gallus presumably understood a semi-tone in the sense of a chro- matic raising when he changed the tonality, but if that was not his inten- tion, then the meaning of the sign was probably different. However, straightforward generalizations are impossible. Gallus’ composition de- monstrates that chromatic raising could also be justified in places where it caused an unusual sound, for example in the motet Planxit David (Op. mus., III, 29). This was probably not always the čase, it is possible that Gallus wanted to realize musical relations which were beyond the semi- tone. We cannot know what these relations really were and what concepts Gallus wanted to carry out; ali the above-mentioned suppositions are there- fore more hypotheses, and the debatable question remains without an answer. It seems that it would be impossible to reconstruct Gallus’ concepts in such a way as to illustrate his views on the realization of his works. Given ali that we know, it would probably be wrong to preserve ali the signs indicating note alterations. It would be similarly wrong to treat ali of them according to the same criterion, which may have existed, but nevertheless allowed exceptions. In trying to understand them, we should consider a composer’s personal characteristics, current aesthetic views, which differed despite the tendency towards uniformity, rules governing exceptions, if they existed, and many other factors which influenced the work of composers, including Gallus. The debatable signs in Gallus’ pieces have incited various speculations and judgements. Some experts have regarded them as unusual chromatics, ascribing them to the composer’s personal preference, and leaving their interpretation to the performers. Paul Pisk, for example, was of the opi- nion that Gallus’ chromatics often caused discord, and that Gallus used them intentionally to emphasize certain musical or textual features, or both. This hypothesis is substantiated by the fact that discords occur quite frequently in Gallus’ composition. Some other musicologists have interpret- ed debatable places in his works, including the use of parallel fourths and fifths, as awkward attempts; they believed that Gallus in the begin- ning had not yet mastered the composition technique, but gradually im- proved it, which is evident from the third volume of the Opus musicum collection, where the above-mentioned structures are practically non- existent. Kroyer stressed that Venetian composers and those with similar concepts, especially Germans, showed an excellent awareness of tonality, although they used chromatics. Gallus is supposed to be an exception. 75 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl According to Kroyer, his chromatic effects are in most places pointless, awkward and unpleasant, especially in large choral works, where they sound forced and should be considered as chromatic experiments. Kroyer reproached Gallus for lacking a sense of what to permit himself and what not, contrary to composers like Gumpelzhaimer, Hassler, Aichinger and various others. We cannot agree with his references to the third volume of the Opus musicum collection, j ust as we cannot agree with his evalua- tion of Gallus’ composition technique. It is certain that his technique was becoming more and more refined, but this refinement was not necessarily manifested as late as in the third volume of motets, since the time during which Gallus composed cannot be precisely specified, nor is it known how he arranged his compositions in his publications. It is therefore impossible to trače the development of Gallus’ composition technique. It must have perfected gradually, which is true of any artist. There is no proof that his maturing is reflected linearly in the successive volumes of his works. It is safer to evaluate his artistic growth by analyzing the gradual progress of his creativity. However, such judgements are not indisputable or defini- tive, because it would be impossible to compare motets, madrigals and masses on the same level, be it in terms of technique or artistic expression. In addition to those mentioned before, Gallus used numerous other artistic devices, which were more or less closely connected with the text in order to restate and emphasize its meaning. They include figures 19 which had been in use already in the sixteenth century. Joachim Bur- meister divided them into harmonic and melodic figures (1608); the former were applied in polyphonic composition. One of the harmonic figures, for example, was fuga realis, which occurred in certain passages of motets, especially in places where voices entered in imitation. Gallus used it a number of times, as with the words “vivet in aeternum” (Op. mus., III, 17) and “praecedet vos in Galileam” (Op. mus., II, 38). He also employed hy- pollage, probably influenced by Lasso. This figure was also noematical, since it caused an affect, and was therefore especially effective in excla- mations and prayers. Gallus used it in Ecce, guomodo moritur iustus, and in some other works. More frequent were analepsis and auxesis, for example in Ave Maria (Op. mus., IV. 83). Burmeister illustrated them with examples from Gallus’ motets (Op. mus., III, 28); the latter was relatively more frequent. Johannes Magirus named it fuga and also used Gallus’ compositions as examples. Within harmonic figures Burmeister also men¬ tioned syncope — a dissonant figure, used for artistically rounded conclu- sions. Syncope together with the figure called pleonasmus was used in combination with the figure called symblema; an example is Gallus’ motet O vos omnes (Op. mus., II, 4). 19 Cf. Busch, J., ‘The motets of Jacobus Gallus and the doctrine of musical fi¬ gures in the first half of the 17th century’, MZ/MAl, vol. V, 1969, pp. 40—53. 76 The Creative Process Gallus often used syncope and also melisma, which were relatively moderate but very rich. We could quote a number of examples; it was especially appropriate with words expressing various feelings, such as Alleluia, iocondare, gaudere, laudare, gloria, canere, psallere, tuba, etc. Melisma depicted images in the context of the text, and also expressed affects. They portrayed various other things, like movement (volare, cur- rere, fluere), water (aqua, lac), living (vita, vivere), tears, mass movement and many other things connected with motion. Other composers of the time, including Lasso and Willaert, used similar expressive means. A. Kircher defined the intentional and directed melodics as anabasis (ascending line) and katabasis (descending line) as late as 1650, but they had already been in use in the sixteenth century; Gallus realized them in his mušic. Two more figures were employed in order to exceed the vocal range, namely hyperbola and hypobola; Burmeister found examples in Lasso’s works, but the two figures were also present in Gallus’ composi- tions, in which we can also discern the figure called circulation, which in practice meant circular melodic progress. Other features in Gallus’ pieces were also the ascending minor thirds and minor sixths. Both served to cause affects, and could also be interpreted as the figure called pathopoeia. Burmeister also classified the general rest as a figure; it occasionally occurred in Gallus’ mušic. Sometimes he also used the figure called apo- cope. It suggested a kind of declamation, when a composition ended with- out the extension of note values, which was usually the čase. An example is Gallus’ piece Op. mus., I, 24. The means Gallus used in his composition are therefore very nu- merous, and they illustrate his broad technical knowledge and at the same time his Creative ingenuity and outstanding power. Rhythm was also very important in his work, and it was, like ali the other elements of composition, closely connected with the text. To define the meter Gallus used a reduced number of signs, governing the relations between note values. He only exceptionally applied them in a larger num¬ ber and then in a complex manner, which was probably due to the fact that he was not an adherent of the Dutch school of composition, where these signs were of considerable importance, but started fading into the background towards the end of the sixteenth century. An example of more profuse use of the above-mentioned signs is Gallus’ motet Subsan- natores subsannabit Deus (Op. mus., 2, 70, pars II, V). It seems that he wanted to prove he was well versed in that technique as well and at the same time to stress the pointlessness of such an application, demonstrating that a simple way of indicating was much more practical. The quoted motet is considered to be one of the most complex of Gallus’ works. M. Praetorius drew attention to it and expressed criticism of such an approach (Syntagma musicum, III, 51). 77 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl From the thirteenth to the sixteenth century composition was directed by mensural mušic, which, depending on the time, also governed the values of notes. The duration of notes was fixed, strong and weak beats had not yet been defined — notes were either long or short. The meter, which could change, was one of the tools of mensural rhythm, and was also in- fluenced by the structure of the composition and the text. When new compositional concepts gained ground, the role of rhythm started changing. It became more and more important, because it meant an essential step forward: now it was the composer who contrived the inner texture of a composition, and no longer the time. This was also true of Gallus, whose works were mainly written in mensural notation, which showed the re- lative values of notes and rests, but not the speed. In Gallus’ time the old practice started fading, and the only thing the composer retained of it was the liga ture; an instance is Gallus’ motet Aspiciens a longe: ecce video Dei potentiam venientem (Op. mus., I, 1), which seems to have been composed in the early period of his career when he was stili strongly influenced by tradition. Gallus used imperfect (mensura imperjecta) and perfect (mensura per- fecta) time; the former was duple and the latter triple. If occurring at the beginning, the time was almost always duple and occasionally triple (for example in the madrigal Gaudia principium, Mor., 6). Triple time was re- quired by the accentuation of the Latin text; la ter it became duple, again because of the accentuation, and stayed duple to the end of the compo¬ sition. Duple time predominates in Gallus’ works. Triple time was an exception, it can be found, for example, in Op. mus. I, 44, 51, 59 and else- where. Imitation was rare in these motets, and short melisma occurred only in places. Gallus was very cautious in his use of meter; whether the time was duple or triple depended on the accentuation of the text, the mušic and the composition technique. Examples illustrating such practice are the ma- drigals Musiča Musarum germana (Mor., 29) and Musiča noster amor (Mor., 28). Gallus obviously wanted to establish a balance between the textual and musical accent. This, of course, was not always possible, every now and then the musical structure required a digression from this principle, as in the madrigal Qui capit uxorem (Mor., 22), the structure of which led to a divergence between the accent of words and mušic. The structure was the decisive factor in his choice of meter, which he sometimes interpreted in his own way. In homophonic compositions or their homophonic parts Gallus in most cases used triple, and polyphonic, duple time. This was general practice, many composers — for instance, R. Giovanelli ■— were doing the same. Triple time was especially typical of madrigals, at least it predominated, although homophony and polyphony very often merged in these musical pieces. Gallus’ works are a good 78 The Creative Process example. The combination of the above-mentioned methods was to a large extent conditioned by the text, which sometimes dictated the use of both in one and the same composition. There are plentiful examples proving this, among them Gallus’ humorous madrigal Quam Gallina cum parit ovum, glocinnat ante ( Harm. mor., 7). In the madrigal Heroes, pugnate viri fortissimi, ad arma accelerate (Harm. mor., 12), calling brave men to arms, the time is triple only for a short while, and then becomes duple. The meter was therefore varied, and generally depended on the text. These alternations, following the meaning of the words, can also be traced in motets; an example is Ecce, guomodo moritur iustus. Gallus had a refined gift for rhythm and ali its niceties. His rhythm was characterized by different note values, syncopation and hemiola. The latter emerged when duple time changed into triple and vice versa, and was more frequent in madrigals than in motets. The rhythm in Gallus’ works was very often complex, for instance accompanying the words “fal- litur ex facili, qui caret arte doli”, which say that it is easy to cheat people not versed in cheating, where the incipits of parts are very refined and rhythmically quite complicated (Harm. mor., 35). The madrigal Plus lauda- tori quam tu tihi credere noli (Mor., 47), rich in melisma, advises people not to believe a praiser rather than themselves, and gives the impression of being rhythmically somewhat confused. However, this is a misconcep- tion, its rhythmical structure is flawless and rounded. The incipits of parts are logical, well weighed and differentiated in order to achieve rhythmical contrasts and expressive tension. Rhythmically very complex is also the madrigal Doctus ait se scire nihil, se plurima narrat scire sed indoctus (Harm. mor., 37), depicting a learned man’s modesty and the imaginary erudition of a man who knows nothing. Voices enter at different places, which results in a rhythmical tension, intensified by harmonic and contra- puntal unity. The composition is very impressive, and from the point of view of technique and interpretation is ranked among Gallus’ most difficult secular compositions, undoubtedly because of its differentiated elements. Similar rhythmical particularities, or rather complexities, cannot be found to such a large extent in any other of Gallus’ compositions, neither in motets nor in masses; the closest to the above-mentioned madrigal is the piece Si vox est, canta, si mollia bracchia, salta (Harm. mor, 22), which summons the voice to sing and legs to dance. The meter and the text alter- nate. Hemiola also occurs in it in various ways, as well as many other features which Gallus very rarely used elsewhere. It would be difficult to explain what exactly dictated such a structure; the composer probably wanted to demonstrate that he was familiar with these technically rather exceptional procedures, and that he was able to employ them in his mušic. Another characteristic of this composition is the fact that the melody matches the mood: it rises and falls in seconds, and is often remarkably differentiated. In addition to the above-mentioned features it should be 79 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus H&n-dl stressed that the entire arrangement has a distinct dance character, which was relatively frequent among sixteenth century composers. Together with melodic and chord structure, and harmony close to ho- mophony, rhythm was not only an integral, but also an emphasized ele¬ ment in Gallus’ composition. The composer showed great talent for it and assigned it an important function. This was probably because he agreed with the new understanding of the concept of sound, which was close to his heart, being in accordance with his own Creative ideas, as for example the enrichment of musical expression to which rhythm could add con- siderably. Rhythm and meter presented a problem in transcriptions, especially in the use of bar lines, which had been treated in different ways in men- sural mušic. Some theoreticians left the solution of the problem to the performers, that is to an interpretation depending on individual judge- ments. Others were of the opinion that bar lines gave compositions a better graphical clarity, and consequently favoured their use. Similarly debatable was the use of the so-called mensural line, which was not a part of the staves; it appeared between them, and was either sequential or inter- rupted. It did not interfere with the movement of voices, but actually allowed their independence. However, its use could not have been pre- scribed or generalized, and was also not considered an exception; its use was limited to those kinds of composition where it was needed. The theo- retician H. Besseler was of the opinion that bar lines were suitable for frottolas and chansons, while mensural lines were more appropriate in ma- drigals. This explanation is also not satisfactory, because not ali chansons were the same, and bar lines were not always appropriate. A good example is the composition Par le regard de vos beaux yeux, composed by G. Dufay, whose melodic arrangements of early chansons were different. Superius — the upper voice — moved beyond the possible bar lines, and the same was true of the lower voices in the second part of this composition. Other mu¬ sical forms than the chanson faced the same problem. Something similar happened when the frottola led to the fashioning of the madrigal. It took over the vocal style of the motet, and together with it ali the inconsisten- cies of the rules that were in force for the text, mušic and rhythm of the vocals. The use of the bar line and mensural line was therefore problematic. The decisive factor as to when and where something was to be introduced was the structure and type of a composition, and, of course, interpre¬ tation and transcription, in which the mensural line was generally avoided. The bar line was not yet in use in Gallus’ time. The relationship between words and mušic had not yet been explicitly defined. A freer rhythm could have been in disagreement with what was dictated by the bar line, which not only indicated the metrical division, but could also give the impression that the melody was conditioned by the chord structure, 80 The Creative Process and therefore opposed to strong and weak beats. The structure of Gallus’ compositions shows a characteristic form in accordance with the composer’s concepts; the text was especially important. If the text was relatively short, words and phrases were often repeated; repetitions were much less frequent in longer texts. Many works illustrate this, for example the motet Vae nobis, quia peccavimus (Op. mus., II, 16) and the madrigal Cum mo- ritur dives. Their form was dictated by various factors, which proves that it was not merely form for form’s sake. The same is true of ali the other elements Gallus used in his composition; their final aim was to achieve the desired faithful expression. His mušic was to mirror himself, his feel- ings, ideas and the time in which he lived and worked. Gallus’ life was very exciting from the musical point of view, full of unexpected movements wavering between the old and the new concepts, which started being introduced long before the Renaissance. The belief that the words should be assigned a more important role had been growing since the fourteenth century. Composers were becoming more and more aware of it, and more and more frequently considered the problem. Gra- dually it became clear that the words could introduce new elements into mušic and add to its expressiveness to a much larger extent than was customary in the current practice. This tendency became evident during the development of the motet, and even more when the madrigal emerged, emphasizing declamation and rhythm. When these new ideas gained ground, Coclicus launched a new term, mušica reservata, which could be interpreted in many ways, but it basically meant a selected kind of mušic. The term designated the kind of art which considered the characteristics and importance of the text. Co¬ clicus believed that “real mušic” started with Desprez, and ali that existed before was arithmetic. To Vicentino the term stood for chromatics and enharmonics, as contrasted to diatonics, by which he primarily meant the changes resulting from chromatics and their influence upon the empha- sized role of the text. The spiritual atmosphere of the sixteenth century also changed the function of the Creative individual, and accordingly also the interpretation of texts. Musič was adjusted, and to some extent even subordinated to the text which the composer was supposed to restate as effectively and as sincerely as possible. However, this process was relatively slow and gra- dual. It led to a new perception of artistic creation. Vicentino considered it buona maniera di comporre — a good way of composing, which was at the same time in accordance with imitazione della natura di parole, i. e. imitation of the nature of the individual word, its message and expres- siveness. How should these belief s be understood? By ali means in different ways, since not ali composers agreed upon their interpretation; some of them considered them to be a kind of naturalism, others again described 6 lacobus Hšndl 81 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hšndl them as mannerism and artism. The problem, however, was very simple: the main point was imitation; mušic was to depict its object j ust as it was in nature. An artist was therefore supposed to get close to nature, even more than that, he was to feel it as a part of his inner self. Actual reali- zations of these beliefs were different, depending on composers’ personal interpretations of certain textual facts. In some cases composers intensified the above-mentioned ideas; they brought their works so close to nature that they were identified with it. If that was the čase, a listener could experience reality, although objectively speaking it was just an illusion due to the perfect harmony between mušic and the object of artistic creation. The above-mentioned ideas emerged as a result of the revival of clas- sical ideals; however, this revival was only formal, a spiritual resurrection of these ideals was not possible, because the social atmosphere of the six- teenth century was completely different from that of the classical period. The sixteenth century required and created different artists who in many cases had a decisive influence upon the entire cultural milieu. The principle imitazione della natura did not apply only to expres- siveness; other factors that needed to be taken into consideration were the structure of a piece, word accentualization and ali the other elements of composition. The principle stimulated the search for a new composition technique, new expressive means and artism, which had not yet been fully established at the time. An important role was given to expressiveness, but concrete examples were stili to come. Artists needed time to release their individual spiritual power, but once started, the process was intense. Some composers stili had rather strong links with tradition, which was to some extent an obstacle, but they gradually freed themselves and strove for the toneš to express what they saw or experienced when reading the text. Imitazione della natura was reflected in mušic in a different way than in the plastic arts. This is understandable since mušic was at the time closely connected with speech. Composers used various means to depict the words in mušic as sincerely as possible: diatonics, chromatics, move- ment and incipits of parts, melisma, homophony, polyphony, contrasts, fi- gures and many others. Toneš they used to express joy and sorrow, crying and laughter, ali that was characteristic of the world around them, ali they saw and heard. Even some earlier composers had the same tendencies, for example, Jannequin, Striggio, Caimo, Fabrianese, Biffi. With later com¬ posers imitation of nature became a more and more common feature; the entire sixteenth century, especially its second half, abounded in examples illustrating this. However, this practice was by no means homogeneous, mušic depended on composers’ individual concepts and Creative power. Some of them showed a preference for artistic elements, others emphasized 82 The Creative Process sonority and expressiveness, which was the central musical problem of the sixteenth century. Gallus introduced such depicting — E. Škulj used the expression •painting” (cf. Word painting in the first volume of Jacobus Gallus’ Opus musicum, in: Jacobus Gallus and His Time, 1985) — into his masses, but to a smaller extent than in his other musical forms. The compositions in the collection of masses that show this technique are especially Gloria, Čredo and in places Sanctus; it is absent from Agnus. Creating pictures with toneš was present in masses in places where it was dictated by eharacteristic motives in the text. The composer allowed himself wide note spans so that the depiction might be felt the more. The word “de- scendit” was characterized by lowering in seconds, and “descendit de coelis” by downward jumps, while the word “ascendit” was illustrated by ascending movement. The word “amen” was richly coloured. Tone painting was much more frequent in motets, because they allowed more scope for it. Gallus used it whenever he wanted to empha- size words or parts of the text, for example in the motet Hic est vere martgr (Op. mus., IV, 86), in which the voices rise along with the text about a martyr. Further instances can be found in many other composi¬ tions of the same type; sometimes he also used melisma and sequences which were just as colourful (cf. the motets Ecce conscipies, Op. mus., I, 24; Surrexit Dominus de Sepulchro, Op. mus., II, 51; Ego flos campi, Op. mus., IV, 60; Ascendit Deus in iubilatione, Op. mus., II, 48). Madrigals provided even more possibilities for tone painting, because words allowed wider spans of meaning which virtually dictated the use of the technique. Gallus had various means at his disposal, like space (high, low), coloratura with passages, alternative duple or triple time, large and small note values, ascending and descending seconds, etc. Whatever he used, it served a particular purpose, namely the expression of the inherent meaning of individual parts of the text. Progressions in seconds were felt necessary where the text demanded rapid successions of toneš, which were relatively frequent; many texts dictated them, including those about an archpoet producing verses for a thousand poets ( Archipoeta facit versus pro mille poetis, Harm. mor., 36) or on the theme of what is permitted is not held dear ( Quod licet, ingratum est, Harm. mor., 20), and many others. The technique was very varied, and despite occasional complexity per¬ mitted a clear rhythmical structure. Many madrigals were imitative; how- ever, this imitation was not strict, but free, according to the text and the composer’s ideas. The subject matter that Renaissance composers had at their disposal was very varied. Fighting was a very appropriate theme for tone painting; Gallus favoured it, and he effectively set a combat with the enemy to mušic (Harm. mor., 12). The words of this madrigal summoned brave men to swiftly take up weapons and drive the enemy across the border. Let the 6* 83 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus H&ndl cannons boom and drums rattle, the enemy has arrived. Let the men assault him, strike him with spear and sword, thrust him down to the ground. In great numbers even the timid can be winners. When the enemy is beaten they will have glory, spoils of war, good reputation, triumph. In this composition (Heroes, pugnate, viri fortissimi, ad arma accelerate) the voices are freely arranged. The melody is incitant, the rhythm uncompli- cated, and the composition technique distinct and simple despite a few complications. Some instruments are introduced along with the voices in crder to increase the tension -—■ one can discern the rattling of spears and swords. The toneš are persuasive, note values are in harmony with the different moods, and they change according to the meaning of the text. The entire arrangement of the piece meets the characteristics of the text, and polyphony and homophony are combined according to its structure. The composition ends in audible victory. In the concluding chord, from which the fifth is absent, the basic tone (C) is restated in the bassus, tenor and cantus, while the third (E) resounds in the alto. Gallus used sharply formulated rhythms in some other works of his; they are reminiscent of the sound of drums. Good examples are the ma- drigals Musiča noster amor (Mor., 28) and Musiča Musarum germana (Mor., 29). The latter has impressive melisma occurring in counter-progressions. The animal world was sometimes present in Gallus’ mušic (cf. D. Po¬ korn, ‘Animal pictures in Gallus’ Moralia’, Jacobus Gallus and His Time, 1985). Many other Renaissance composers imitated animal sounds in their works, for example, Clement Jannequin, Nicolas Gombert and Antonio Scandello. Gallus used this kind of tone painting primarily in madrigals and very rarely in motets. Very vivid are his musical pictures of the poor rabbit fleeing before the hounds, the crowing of a rooster, the clucking of hens, the song of a nightingale and cuckoo, the croaking of frogs, the gab- bling of geese and many other such details. In the composition imitating the croaking of frogs (Linquo coax raniš, ero ero corvis, vanaque vanis, Harm. mor., 46), chromatics are relatively rare; the mood of the piece is similar to that of other musical works connected with aural depiction of animal properties — it is vivid and original. It seems that the composer wanted to realize dar e spirito vivo alle parole in these works; the saying was very popular in his time, and favoured by many other composers. The interest in these effects with noticeable onomatopoeic elements was similar to the later programme mušic. It led Gallus to mannerism; de¬ spite the artistic inspiration this kind of composition was sincere, but in its structure in places rather simple. The author was not concerned only with the effect, but also with expressiveness conditioned by the deep inner urge. Many examples prove this, the choral piece Perjer et obdura, dolor hic tibi proderit olim (Harm. mor., 23), emphasizing the importance of endurance and perseverance, since suffering might eventually be for one’s good. In this madrigal the theme in the bassus is bitter and shows that the composer 84 The Creative Process did not only want to illustrate, but also emphatically express the meaning contained in the text. This proves that Gallus was broad-minded and did not limit his artistic style merely to technical or expressive aspects, but successfully united both, though not always to the same extent. However, he could not accept absolute consistency without exceptions, which is evident from some of his compositions, especially those in which he did not consider the text, word accentuation, nor the harmony between word and mušic, but subordinated the text to the musical arrangement. In the madrigal Qui capit uxorem (Mor., 22) the musical and textual accent dis- agree in some places and agree in others. This disagreement caused a su- spension which the composer obviously wanted to realize; the discrepancy of accents was probably conditioned by the mušic, not because of the rules of Latin meter, but because of the text which demanded a different accen¬ tuation. However, Gallus in general tried to balance the text and the mušic in his composition. The meaning of the text was especially important, and various musical works of his bear witness to this. One such example is the madrigal Ergo mihi uxorem gualem ducam? anne puellam (Harm. mor., 8). The words raise the question of what kind of woman would be suitable as a wife and suggest various possibilities and doubts. The composition is alternately polyphonic and homophonic in order to match the differing nuances of the meaning in the text. Note values change accordingly, and duple and triple meter also alternate. Very characteristic are also the changes of tonality and effective melisma; the composition therefore sounds very tense. It is clear from Gallus’ opus that he was perfectly familiar with the rule that mušic was to convey the living špirit. This did not apply only to madrigals, but also to motets, which were to a large extent influenced by certain features of madrigals and tendencies towards homophonic com¬ position. However, it should be stressed that madrigals were not only homophonic, but also polyphonic. Madrigals and motets had much in common, even in technique, which is understandable, since both musical forms were handled by the same composer, who was not able, and probably did not want to alternate the technique, although in places he had to adjust it because of the differing texts; however, even the texts were partly si- milar from the point of view of moral norms. In the Renaissance, mušic did not only want to incite pleasant experiences in people, but was sup- posed to reflect the human inner life, analyze it and try to show what it was, or was supposed to be like. It seems that this recognition influenced the distinction between old and new mušic, between the past and the present, tradition and ever more obvious progress. Zarlino considered Dufay and his contemporaries “vecchi”, and Willaert and his circle “mo¬ derni”; they paid special attention to expressiveness. Views were changing, and consequently demanded new ways of expression. Polyphonic arrange- 85 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus H&ndl ments gradually gave plače to homophonic; composers who longed for their works to be as effective and attractive as possible were tempted by the brightness and colours of the sound; harmony was increasingly empha- sized. According to Vicentino the entire structure of a composition was supposed to restate, excite and finally realize human feelings, and com¬ posers were to consider ali this and incorporate it into their mušic. How- ever, their artistic achievements depended on their creativity. The tasks forth by the new times were therefore many; they were complex from the point of view of quality and quantity, technique and expressiveness. Strict composition was declining, old rules gave plače to new, which were much looser, freed from many procedures which had> enchained the composers. The late Renaissance, taking over the elements of monody, heralded a new era, the characteristics of which left a slight trače also in Gallus’ composition. 86 GALLUS’ OPUS Gallus started composing when he became familiar with composition technique. In the beginning he was a singer, but gradually became versed in playing various instruments, especially the organ. He also worked as a kapellmeister; his main interest, however, was in secular choirs, and most of his reproductive work was of that nature. He must have felt that composition was his vocation and so it became his primary aim. There existed good reasons for it; Gallus must have been aware of his great talent which virtually forced him to realize his ideas in mušic. The beginning of the career was tentative, Gallus needed time for the preparation of works that were stili to come. It seems that he was fairly young when he started composing in the 1570’s. He probably started with masses and soon after with the early motets. Gallus himself left records about this; in the introduction to his third and fourth volume of masses he wrote that it was not only in Wroclaw that he composed his masses, but also in Melk and Zabrdovice. It is not known when exactly he stayed at those places, but it was definitely before 1580. Some of his motets date from the same time; he used some of the themes from the motets in his masses as well. Again the composer himself confirmed this; in the intro¬ duction to his first volume of motets he mentioned that they brought some- thing whi,ch had matured slowly, “pure wine which has been pressed for more than nine years.” The thought was taken from Horace, who in his Letter on Poetry advised a poet to let his poem mature for nine years be¬ fore he published it (“nonumque prematur in anum”). The thought became proverbial, and Gallus also borrowed it. He wanted to say that he had started composing his motets many years before. Taking into consideration the fact that the first volume of the Opus musicum collection, which in- cluded a part of his motets, was published in 1586, we can plače the begin- nings of this type of Gallus’ composition at least in 1577 or some time earlier, since the author himself speaks about “more” than nine years. This seems the more likely, because the above-mentioned introduction was probably written some time before the volume was published, possibly before 1586. Gallus presented the initial results of his artistic creation relatively early, at first in manuscript, and then in individual publications. He was in a hurry, perhaps because he felt that his span of life would be short, 87 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus H&ndl or perhaps because he wanted to make himself valued as a composer as soon as possible. There may have been other reasons, his needs or encour- agement from other people. Gallus published his masses first. This type of composition was highly valued in the sixteenth century and many composers dedicated themselves to it; a large number of masses date from that period, of which Palestrina, for example, composed more than a hundred. Gallus published only sixteen masses, although he must have written more. He was cautious, selecting only the masses he considered the best. He entitled the collection Selecti- ores quaedam missae, pro ecclesia dei non inutiles, nune primarn in lucern datae ac correcate ab Authore Jacobo Hdndl, which proves that it included a selection of masses suitable for the Church. The collection was published in 1580 and it was the work of the Prague printer G. Nigrin; Gallus’ brother most probably worked in his workshop. The introductory page of the collection is followed by the parts for discantus, altus, tenor, bassus, quinta, sexta, septima and octava vox, accompanied by Bishop Pawlowsky’s coat-of-arms and some lines dedicated to him. For Gallus Pawlowsky was not only an interesting man, but also a useful one, and not only for Gallus, but for a larger circle, since the lead- ing man of Moravian Catholicism was much admired and honoured. Many portraits of Pawlowsky, the Bishop of Olomouc, have been preserved; he was depieted on the medallion from 1585, in Agenda Olomucensis (1586), on seals and probably in Zrcadlo slavneho markabstvi moravskeho (1593). The above-mentioned collection of masses comprises four volumes. Gallus dedicated the first to his superior Pawlowsky, and entitled it Mis- sarurn VII & VIII v. liber I. It opens with an introduction, dated from Prague, September, 1580 (Dat. Pragae Calend: Septemb. Anno 1580). As in ali the following volumes, Gallus signed it Iacobus Handl / Gallus vo- catus / Carniolanus. The introduction was followed by lines produced by Wolfgang Pyrringer, entitled Musiča loquitur. The poem ponders over the use and purpose of mušic and in connection with publishing the masses also talks about the special bond Gallus felt with this kind of art. Pyrringer also says that mušic has many worshippers, since every country cherishes its characteristic melodies. However, many people abuse mušic. They praise base love and bring sinful words into mušic. Musič is therefore forced to serve Bacchus, which is a disgrace to this learned art. God did not send mušic into the world so that it would, like a dirty maid, encourage the evil of profligacy. Its duty is to sing eternal praise to God and extol the glory of virtue to the skies. This was the message of the Old Testament prophet of Jesse’s family, and many great artists followed him and glorified mušic with their piety. At the end of his poem Pyrringer stressed that despite everything that was wrong, there stili existed people who adorned altars and delighted the holy choir with their pure hymns. Among them was Jacob — he meant Gallus, 88 Gallus’ Opus of course — who published his sweetly sounding masses, and eternal love links them with these. In Gallus he saw an admirer of his, he loved and praised him. These lines were followed by the Ad authorem poem written by Ioannes Ierger. Among other things the author wondered vvhether Gallus surpassed the Hyperborean swan. Hyperboreans were a mythological people living in the far north. They were worshippers of Apollo and che- rished mušic and singing. Their swans were excellent songsters, and were reputed to provide a real treat for the ears. Their singing sounded like a violin, only a little higher. Some writers compared it to the sound of trumpets or beliš in a minor key; the svvans’ gentle melancholy voice rever- berated like a trombone echoing in the distance. Ierger thought highly of Gallus and admired him for singing the melodies dear to devoted priests rather than praising the shameful armies of the Paphian goddess from Cyprus. These poems were followed by a seven-part and three eight-part masses (Vndique flammatis, Pater noster, Elisabeth impletum est tempus, Casta novenarum / aula iacet subacta sororum). Gallus also dedicated the second volume of this collection to Paw- lowsky (Missarum VI liber I). It was dated from Prague, 29th. September, 1580 (Pragae ipso die sancti Michaelis Archangeli). The first and the second volume were published more or less at the same time. The intro- duction was follovved by six six-part masses (Libri secundi: V—VIII Missa 6 vocum Super: Dorium, Elisabeth Zachariae, Locutus est Dominus, Sanda Maria). Missarum V. vocum liber I., the third volume, was dated from Prague, lst. November, 1580 Pragae die omnibus Sandis sacro, Anno 1580), and its author dedicated it to the abbot Schonauer. After the introduction writ- ten by Gallus himself, there followed four five-part masses (Libri tertii: IX—XII Missa 5 vocum Super: Adesto dolori meo, Transeunte Domino, Im mayen, Ich stand an einem morgen). Gallus dedicated the fourth and last volume, Missarum IIII. vocum liber L, to the abbot Rueff. He dated it 22nd. November, 1580 in Prague (Datum Pragae ipso nostrae sandissime patrone D. Ceciliae die. Anno 1580). The texts in this volume were especially characteristic. The inte- resting introduction was followed by four masses (Libri quarti: XIII —XV Missa 4 vocum Super: Ob ich schon arm vnd elend bin, Myxolydium, Vn gay bergir; Libri quarti: XVI: Missa 4 vocum omissis paussis: seruatis paussis ado voc.). The latter mass was thus four-part without rests, while the eight-part mass did have rests (Missa canonica). The themes and arran- gements of voices were therefore very varied in this volume, which de- monstrates that the composer was becoming more and more resourceful. The compositions were followed by lines produced by Valentin Kamp (Pa- raclesis ad musices amatorum), and those obviously written by Gallus him- 89 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl self, either alone or with the help of a poet who advised him on what to say and how. Gallus dedicated the collection of masses to his own work (Author operi). In his lines he asks his artistic creation why it is afraid of the day. He teliš it that it was born under a lucky star and that it is free to go wher- ever God sends it. A famous father conceived it, and there is no need for it to remain hidden, since it contains nothing but praise to God. It will have the protector it wants — God whom it hymns. He will give it eternal life. However, should this not be its fate, let it live its years devotedly, because what is important is the quality of life, not its length. This inte- resting text reads: “Are you afraid of the day, you who were born under a lucky star? / Go where your lot is čast, where God commands you to go! / Let whatever knows not its father remain veiled in darkness, / whatever does not sound pleasant to the eternal Muses. / You, my work, are the child of a famous father, / you sing glory to God, praise His word. / Do you think that you need a protector? Oh, know that you are mistaken! / He whom you glorify in song is your faithful defender. / He will not let a father weep over the grave of his child, / He will give you a name and grant you eternal life. / Fate, cruel to great things, may deny you the years of Nestor, / but you — live devotedly your time! / The number of years is not important, / only that no sin should desecrate your earthly pathway.” These thoughts expressing Gallus’ devotion to his art and the Church were the leading motive in his future works as well; they more or less accompanied him throughout his Creative life. Not ali the models Gallus used in his masses can be identified; in addi- tion to the themes from some of his motets and a madrigal, the models were taken from the compositions of various Flemish, French and German composers: Cristian Hollander, Philipp Verdelot, Clemens non Papa, Jac- ques de Wert, Orlando di Lasso, Jobst Brandt (Brand, Brant), Thomas Crec- quillon and Domenico Phinot. Vaet is also sometimes mentioned, but mi- stakenly. Ali these composers lived and worked in the sixteenth century and were mostly Gallus’ contemporaries; their stylistic orientation was be- tween the Netherlands school and the late Renaissance. Gallus must have been familiar with them already at the beginning of his career. The themes he took over from them can be traced in his masses Casta novenarum (Hol¬ lander), Sanda Maria (Verdelot), Adesto dolori meo (Clemens non Papa), Transeunte Domino (Wert) and Ob ich schon arm vnd elend bin (Brandt). The themes from German folk songs and the French chansons had been used by Lasso and Crecquillon, and later Gallus included them in his masses In mayen and Vn gay bergir. Gallus also adapted a German folk theme in his mass Ich stand an einem morgen; the folk song was published by H. Ott in 121 newe Lieder (1534). Missa super Elisabeth Zachariae was in a manuscript dated from around 1600, which was owned by prince-bishop Tomaž Hren. The copy 90 Gallus’ Opus Tenor.' ht S tm QuatuotVoc. Adarcjualcs. LVIII. Veri conci- to Regi pfai- lite pia vocc di- circ, ij "S - avoccdicitc, Apparuir, ij Apparuirqučgcnuit Mari- a,: Sut implera qux pri" * S dixit Ca¬ fe bri¬ ti, Eya, Eya, ij ij Virrro Dcum 1= genuir, quod diuina voluit elementu. quod diuina voluit elementu. Fragment oj Opus Musicum I is identical with Gallus’ original published in 1580 in the collection of masses, and was most probably made in Ljubljana Cathedral. The copyist used the original edition, which is evident from the fact that even the mistakes in the original were included in the copy. In comparison with the original, the copy made in Ljubljana contains some insignificant changes entered by the copyist. Certain parts of the text which are written out in the original, are marked in the copy with “idem” and vice versa. Not ali the masses Gallus composed were included in Selectiores quae- dam missae; some of them remained in manuseript, among them Missa super Apri la finestra, with an Italian theme of unknown origin, Missa super Jam non dicam vos servos, composed on the theme taken from a motet from the second volume of Opus musicum, Missa super Maria Mag¬ dalena, also composed on Gallus’ own theme (Op. mus., II, 31), and Missa super Levavi oculos meos. These conclusions are definitely not final; fu- ture research might reveal more of Gallus’ unpublished manuseripts. The above-mentioned models for the masses prove that Gallus also started composing madrigals and not only motets even before 1580. The span of his creativity was therefore very varied as early as the seventies, although his main interest was probably the mass — the form which appears to have first inspired his Creative power. 91 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus H&ndl The form of composition Gallus was especially interested in was the motet; Gallus, Palestrina, Lasso and numerous other composers caused this form to flourish in the Renaissance, both from the technical and artistic points of view. Motets were musical depictions of liturgical and biblical texts. Gallus published his in numerous volumes. The total number of his motets is 374, or even 445, if we consider that some of them consist of more than one part, each being an independent and rounded whole. The first volume was published under the title of Tomvs primus mvsici operiš harmoniarvm qvatvor, qvinqve, sex, octo et plvrivm vocvm, qvae ex sancto catholicae ecclesiae vsv ita svnt dispositiae, vt omni tem- pore inseruire queant. Ad Dei Opt :Maxilaudem & Ecclesiae sanctae decus. Incipit pars Hiemalis. Avthore Jacobo Handl. Pragae, typis Georgii Nigrini. Anno M.D.LXXXVI. It therefore included four-, five-, six-, eight-part and polyphonic compositions, which were arranged, according to the practice of the Catholic Church, so as to be appropriate at ali times, and they ali sang praise to God and the Church. Gallus’ introduction to the collection was dated from Prague, lst. No¬ vember, 1588 (Pragae, ipso die omnibus Sanctis sacro). The volume was dedicated to the archbishop of Prague and the bishops of Olomouc and Wroclaw. In the introduction Gallus highlighted the merits these celebrities had for establishing the faith, and their devotion to mušic. At the same time he enumerated the reasons that led him to publish the volume. He recommended his work to the hierarchs; he stressed that he fervently wished to dedicate it to Christ and his bride, but wanted to do it through them, since their hands were anointed in holy oil and beneficent. He asked them not to reject him by any means and refuse him their esteem, and to realize that his work was a devoted deed. There was nothing profane in it, nothing foreign and nothing incongruous. He assured them that he had followed the Church and never strayed from its order and custom. He added that he had chosen the bishops to whom he dedicated the edition because they promised him not only a favour but also protection, being the army of the Almighty. It was to them he first and most wanted to sing, to them, whose lives were a sweet, harmonious song, whose virtues did not caress the ears but knocked on souls, to them, who were entrusted with God’s house and its embellishment, the house in which he, Gallus, had lived almost his entire life. He went on to say that he placed the first-fruits of his špirit into their hands, humbly asking for approval, since he had put everything into them, his artistic power, his money and his musical efforts. At the end he hoped they would patiently listen to the singing of their Gallus. The introduction was followed by lines addressed to the Church (Ad ecclesiam), the reader (Ad lectorem), the musician (Ad musicum) and the author (Ad authorem). Their author was not mentioned. The reader was told that with the volume of motets he was placed before a work with 92 Gallus’ Opus Quatuor Vocum. ft;sv444=® Ccc quomodo moritur iu XIII. Tenor. iilSUi ftus, & nemo percipitcordc, viti iufti tolluntur. & nemo confiderat, a facic iniquitatis II. Fars. fublatus eft iuftus, & crit inpacc memori-a eius, &eritinpaccmcmoria cius. 3gj§T;gg,g - |M! figg r ~ " ~ w .. . N paccfačtuscftlocuseius, & inSvonhabitarioeuis, ocin on habitatiocius, & crit in pacc memoria cius, & crit inpace me moiia cius. Dd iij Fragment of Opus Musicum II a different arrangement of voices, a work no composer had ever achieved before. The mušic of many other composers may well have excelled in sonority and suitability for various occasions, but his, Gallus’ mušic, was by far the best. It was suitable for particular days and months, unlike any other. What most composers arranged for the same voices and choruses was here arranged for different voices and choruses. Other composers mixed sacred songs with secular, but this volume presented only sacred themes. Furthermore the poet asked the reader whether he liked books put to- gether by various authors, and explained that this volume of motets was the only source singing praise to its sole author. It was a work dedicated to Christ’s bride alone. After the introduction and the lines there followed the index of ali the compositions (lndex harmoniarum). Tomvs primus of the collection contains motets for ali the feasts in the church year, divided into three sections. The first (I—XXVI) is related to Advent, the second (XXVII—LXIV) comprises motets sung for Christ- mas, the circumcision of the infant Christ and the presentation in the Temple, and the third (LXV—CIII) covers the period from the First Sunday before Lent to the end of Lent. These motets range from four- to sixteen- part compositions. 93 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl Secvndvs tomvs was also published in Prague (1587). Gallus dedicated it to abbots and some other religious personalities, his protectors, who de- served ali his esteem. The date in the volume is lOth. March (Pragae ipsa Dominica Passionis. Anno M.D.LXXXVII). The composer signed it Iacobus Handl; in the introduction he says that he published the collection upon the invitation and encouragement of his patrons. He included sad and merry melodies, following each other as the seasons of the year do. He published the collection because he was advised to, forgetting his own interests, but his friends had liked the first volume very much, and they were so impatient to see the second that they allowed neither the composer nor the printer any rest. Furthermore the author speaks about the troubles he had with printing and ali the concern his protectors showed for his art and especially for himself. That is why, he says, he wanted to sing to them, not to repay the many the debt he owed them, but to reveal ali that he treasured in his heart. If he knew with assurance that his protectors liked his mušic, he would sing even more sweetly and even more often. The introduction was again followed by the poem of an unsigned poet, addressed to the Church (Ecclesiae) and the author (Authori), and the index. The lines addressed to the Church speak about the most important events of the church year. The lines for the author express the thought that everywhere the crowd stood spellbound when Titan’s bird raised his voice again and asked the audience whether they liked his singing, saying he would then sing a different song, which would make Peter cry. This passage is probably an allusion to Matthew 26: 34. The second volume comprised 70 motets, divided into four sections (I—LXX). The first depicts the suffering of Christ, the second the Lamen- tations of Jeremiah, the third the resurrection of Christ, and in the fourth the mušic and text meditate on the Holy Špirit. The arrangement of voices is similar to that in the first volume, ranging from four- to sixteen-part compositions. The technique in ali those that were more than four-part is cori spezzati. Tertivs tomvs was published in the same year as the second (1587), which is evident from its title page and introduction dated from Prague, 29th. September (Pragae, D. Michaeli summo Ecclesiae tutori sacro die. Anno M.D.LXXXVII). In the introduction Gallus writes that he thought of consuls, patricians, citizens, serious and prudent men, when he wondered to whom to dedicate this volume of his compositions that were produced very slowly and with great effort. Then he teliš how he devoted himself to mušic, and how he trusts the above-mentioned estates that they re- member whom he chose as a protector of his previous volumes of the col¬ lection of motets entitled Opus musicum. Gallus writes that he wants their approval for the third volume, since they demanded some of his works before. As far as he knows, he says, they liked the pieces they had been able to hear so far. He compliments them on governing the towns and the 94 Gallus’ Opus State in a way which includes mušic as a counterweight to civil struggle and trouble. He illustrates this with the conclusion that ali the towns in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia he has visited were devoted to mušic. Gallus summons the men to welcome him merrily. He hopes they will savour the fruits of his sleepless nights, which in his soul have been dedicated to them for a long time. At the end he asks them to continue to favour him as they have done so far and be a help in everything. This help, however, did not apply only to encouragement, but also to financial means, which his protectors had obviously never sufficiently provided for, since he had always had to add his own savings in order to be able to publish his com- positions. In the introduction the composer signed his name as Handl; the in- structions for musicians followed (Instructio ad Musicos), in which Gallus explained the contents of the third vol ume. He says that he followed the same principle as before and never strayed from the Church calendar, which he had considered and stili considers the best. He selected what he thought most appropriate for religious feasts. From the Bible and the Pro- phets he took only what was most appropriate for singing. He mentions that on the First Sunday before Lent Media vita in morte sumus was sung without the Alleluia, and that he kept the same pattern. He included the motets Domine quando veneris, Scio quod redemptor, Patres qui dormitis, Audi tellus and others. To portray penitence he added pieces that were sung in autumn, as for example Tribulationes ciuitatum audiuimus, Nos ali- um Deum nescimus praeter Dominum and others from the Book of Judith. He used nothing from the Book of Wisdom outside Advent. He used the Psalms in the way customary at ali the feasts; if appropriate, he presented them at ali seasons. After the instructions for musicians came lines addressed to the Church (Ecclesiae). Their author is unknown, but it could have been Gallus himself. They mention the principles that guided the author when arrang- ing the third volume of the Opus musicum collection, and also contain a message to the Church about its vigilant Gallus, keeping guard and singing night and day. Even when cruel winter came to earth he stili com- posed, and now, when the sun is high and the mild breezes of spring blow, he is contributing his joyful works praising the Holy Trinity. The poem then enumerates other religious feasts, ali through the year until they come full-circle. Finally it is said that the composer will continue com- posing apostolic hymns, if his works are accepted with such fervour as that with which he dedicated his endeavours to the Church. He will dedicate his noble labour to the Virgin Mother. Volume III of the Opus musicum collection comprises 57 motets, the themes of which cover the period from the Third Sunday after Pentecost to the Saturday before the First Sunday of Advent. The volume was pub- lished Cvm Gratia et Privilegio Sac. Caes. Maiest: which granted it certain 95 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hšncll privileges of circulation and reprinting; the previous two volumes ob- viously did not have this privilege. The first section of the volume included motets dedicated to the Holy Trinity and the Eucharist. They were written for four to eight voices. The second section referred to the consecration of the temple and the period from the Third Sunday after Pentecost to Advent. The compositions were arranged for six to 1 twelve voices. The last volume, Qvartvs tomvs, consisted of 144 motets, and this, too, was published in Prague. The introduction addressed to the abbot Ambrosius was dated lst. January, 1591, although the date on the title page is 1590. With the date printed in the introduction Gallus wanted to say that exactly two years earlier “his Casparus fell asleep in the Lord”, namely Schonauer, the predecessor of Teleczenus. Gallus wanted his me- mory to live forever because he deeply appreciated him (Prag :Cal:Ianuarijs quo die ante bienurn Casparvs ille meus obdormivit in Christo, cuius me- moriam aeternam esse percupio. Anno M.D.XCI). The two dates are dif- ferent, but there is no doubt that the fourth volume of motets was published towards the end of 1590. Proof for this is the fact that the composer sent copies of it to some of his sponsors and patrons, including Pawlowsky, before the end of 1590. Gallus decided on the date on the title page to honour the memory of the late abbot on the anniversary of his death. The last volume differs from the previous three. On the title page it says that the author is Handl, and in the introduction Gallus used the name of Iacobus Handl / Gallus dictus [vocatus] C. The “C” was an abbreviation for Carniolus [Carniolanus]. The name was written out in the caption accompanying Gallus’ portrait in the fourth volume of Opus musicum (“Ia- cobus Handl. Gallvs dictus Carniolvs”). At the side of the portrait there is also a text ending with the words: “I will sing to the Lord ali my life, I will sing to my God as long as I live.” The date of the portrait is unknown, but it must have been made during Gallus’ lifetime. It is also not known who the artist was. The last volume, like the third, had a note on the title page about “the favour and special privilege of his Holy Imperial Majesty” (Cvm Gra- tia & Priuilegio Sac:Caes:Mai:) which prevented any other publisher from issuing the work. The privilege shows that Gallus had certain connections with the Court; he was probably introduced by the Jesuit Hurtad Perez. The privilege is explained in the text Summa privilegii caesarei, which was between the title page and the introduction. It said that Rudolf II, the Roman Emperor, granted Jacobus Gallus a privilege with which the fruits of his hard work, published under the title of Opus musicum for the needs of the Church, and some other sacred songs published so far, could not in any way may be imitated, reprinted or be printed in any other country and then imported, sold or circulated in any form. The period specified in the privilege was ten years, and it applied to ali the kingdoms 96 Gallus’ Opus 0VATVOR VOCVM LIBER t HARMONIARVM MORALIVM QVIBVS HEROICA, FACETIAE, NATVRAHA, QVOTLIBETIC A, TVM FACTA FICTAQVE POETICA,&c. A D M I X T A SVNT: Nune primum in lucern editus. AVTHORE Iacobo Handl. PRAGAE, TYPIS NIGRINIANIS. Anno: M. D. Lxxxxx. Title page of Harmoniarum Moralium, vol. 1 and provinces of the entire Roman Empire. Ali violators were to be fined and the books confiscated. The privilege was signed “at the Court of Prague this day 19th. March in the year of our Lord 1588. Rudolf m.p.” Jakob Curtius from Senfftenau and L. Haberstock signed their names underneath. The privilege therefore applied to the editions before 1588, the first three volumes of motets, or rather, the entire Opus musieum and Selec- tiores quaedam missae. At the same time it proves that by at least 1588 Gallus was a renowned composer, whose farne had reached the Emperor himself. Gallus must have been aware of his reputation, and he wanted to be the sole publisher and owner of his compositions, but probably it was not only his ambition that forced him to obtain this right, but also financial necessity. He had very limited resources and he had to spend most of his money on his publications. The introduction, in which Gallus explained the concept of the vo- lume, was followed by the contents and finally by the motets, which were written for four to twelve voices and were intended for various religious occasions. They praised Mary, the apostles, evangelists, martyrs, witnesses, virgins and holy women. At the end the composer added four triumphal psalms in honour of ali the saints (Psalmi omnibus Sanctis triumphales), 7 Iacobus Handl 97 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hšndl two of which were eight-part, and the other two twenty-four-part; the latter two sounded very impressive (Cantate Domino canticum novum, Lau- date Dominum in sanctis eius). With a few exceptions the texts were bi- blical and liturgical, even in the concluding section. In some places the composer used texts of a similar nature taken from other sources. The motet Nune rogemus (Op. mus., I, 61) was composed on a German hymn, and in the motet Dum vagus huc illus (Op. mus., IV, 21) Gallus used a text from the late sixteenth century; its date can be deduced from its contents (While I wander through these green lands). The melodies in Gallus’ motets were of various origins. The composer generally used the cantus firmus, which was either a melodic form of the chorale or of the secular song, or else a new version of it. It could also be in the basic or in the middle voice. Gallus either used the entire cantus firmus or he modified it, but in such a way that its origin remained clear. Gallus very often adapted various old, popular, tunes (for example in Op. mus., I, 30, 44, 66; II, 39, 61; III, 21, 34), but some themes he composed himself. He was therefore broad-minded in this respect, and did not set himself any strict limits. Even in motets he allowed himself a great amount of freedom, and often strayed from the current practice. In his last collection Gallus published madrigals which were very varied in their nature, in some cases being close to the sacred madrigal and the motet. In the sixteenth century the madrigal was widespread; many western and central European composers produced them. Because of its secular nature the madrigal was a very popular musical form in the Re- naissance. The first volume of Gallus’ madrigals was called Qvatvor vocum Liber I. Harmoniarvm, moralivm qvibvs Heroica, Facetiae, Natvralia, Qvotlibe- tica, tvm faeta fictaqve poetica & c. admixta svnt: Nune primum in lucern editus. As the title says, the composer included four-part moral harmonies with heroic themes, witticisms, subjects from natural history and other fields, true and imaginary tales taken from poetry, and so on. The author stressed that this kind of his mušic was being published for the first time. The first volume was published by Nigrin in Prague in 1589 (Anno M.D.LXXXIX). The author signed it Jacobo Handl. It was again granted the Emperor’s privilege (Cvm Gratia et Privilegio). Gallus dedicated it to “his friends and the friends of mušic” (Iacobus Gallus svis mvsicaeqve amicis), and sent them his regards (S.P.D. — Salutem plurimam dicit). It is interesting that he used both his surnames: Handl — Gallus, sometimes both together (Iacobus Handl / Gallus dictus C), and sometimes separately; sometimes, however, he used only Handl. The Emperor’s privilege thus applied to Gallus’ madrigals as well. This again shows that the composer was a very important person in his time. He earned his farne with his art and also with the appreciation of his patrons and admirers. 98 Gallus’ Opus I ACO BVS HANDL SVIS MVSICAEQVE AMICIS S. P. D. ON SINGVL! 1AM A ME SINGVLA SED AB VNO OMNES penč ornim cxigunr Liberilii Malici nulli vnqui ncciiut facile operam fuamlibe- rali. Krpo omnibus omniaficri & hoc,qiiantuliimcimq ; illiideti,quodhoncftifsimarii Anilini Arttfc.t mihi crcdidir, talemo, nulli noneratificari difeupio. Ecclefiz choruf tret me iameomincnterannosoccup.it: dedi nonnulla-, quxcantamur&audiuntur propiquotidic: adderem plura, ni viribuseflenr hoc temporc impatia mcis Ars In¬ tegra elt, led nermn ptzli & typograplncuni roln.e Iriflum. lntcrim fucclamant amieuh, Imerponctuisinterdum pandu cur is & maguisvocibiu čChoro ad forum, afaeris St ferijs, •d iocum, focum, cznulafčgludolq, me fuos inuiunt. Pugnem aduerfus iftos? Bencuolcntiftimi funt, qui non tam amium fuarum i11cubrasqiixrere,quam prauioris Mulicf aliqua intetmiffione mihi quo4t confulcte vcbcvidentur. Dcmusaliquidftiidio3niniocj ; Amicorum Ludunt mMadrigalibuMrahun- turNeapolitanis, pafeuntur & pene natant m Vilanellit Itali. Quz idiomatis fui funt hxc captant crcpanuiinonratei, inliistriumphat, his fe fapinatexpletqi cumGcrmano Gallus Sunrq; hx inprimi* SUtronesqux Muficam 6c alunt& eolmit,in quibiu illa pracipue viget viretq ; . Hic omne numerorum penus & Vcifuum,maioreiMufica:opcs,ditiuspenunufquam comemini <>iio aut frueremuromnef Difi Linguatumpcteptinarumprohilieretipnoratio, autplurcs. LatinaniLinguarum Reginam in hoc penere pene deferrarh video. Huic rpiturvcluri notiliimz, latifsimz dcvbiq-.domcflicz,quxcunq;C2 moribus dctiuarc, qu» cx artibuvei natura ipf.i haurirc, titm ex di&is.fi&is,faclis varič perm iris quicquid poenceconflare poITtim. nune connttcic incipio.Jr Madrigalium loco (ubftitutuni lartiorcm hunecamum.M»m ■ *, inlčribo.licq; v' deiiicepsiocertiiropto-,quodpotil'itra pars morum fit mi* nuni lafčinorum. Udqaiobfoemtatisrriam vmhr.v .11 refornndent Vobisautcni caimijs atq;alšidui» aniicu mcitid delimo.trthabeatis qnod vosoblctlci, e;’»qui me defendant. Namqui interdum Gallo e antanti raitci*v«xibus inimumiutent non dcliint- Sed, omniavincit amor Muficz ženeš ccdaaaus anuKL rragr, ipla Do minica Scptuapelimz, Anno Salom: M. D. LXXXLX. Iacobus Gallus’ dedication to the friends oj his mušic in Harmoniae Morales Madrigals were also called “secular choral pieces”. H. W. Lanzke de- signated them as such, probably because in their nature they differed from the classical type of madrigal. In technique, however, they were not much different from motets and sacred madrigals. 20 In the introduction Gallus explained why he had decided on composing this kind of mušic. There were 14 four-part choral pieces in the first vo- lume of Harmoniae morales. The first was called Dii tibi si quo pios re- spectat numina. This composition was beyond doubt dedicated to Abbot Schonauer, which is indirectly confirmed in the text; it says that the gods should give him (namely, the late abbot whom Gallus had admired) a worthy compensation, if deities have any consideration for the devoted. The second volume (Qvatvor vocvm Liber II) was also published in Prague, in 1590 (Anno M.D.XC.). The title page was the same as in the first volume, and it was also granted the Emperor’s privilege. It comprised 19 four-part choral works. 20 Cf. Lanzke, H. W., Die weltlichen Chorgesdnge (»Moralia«) von Jacobus Gal¬ lus, Mainz, 1964. 7 * 99 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hšndl In the same year the third volume of Gallus’ madrigals was published in Prague (Qvatvor vocvm Liber III), presenting 20 compositions. They were ali arranged for four voices and likewise had the Emperor’s privilege. The entire Harmoniae morale s collection therefore comprises 53 four- part compositions. Gallus probably decided on four-part arrangement be- cause he was well versed in this technique and because he wanted to make his mušic as accessible to the performers and the audience as possible, an aim he definitely achieved. Some of Gallus’ madrigals were published posthumously by his brother Georgius Handelius Carniolus; it seems that this was the same Georgius who had been in Vienna with his father in 1574. The trip was to enable him to learn some professional skills, and if our hypothesis is correct, he trained as a printer. His brother Jacobus certainly helped him to get a job with Nigrin, for he had known the Prague printer since his stay in Olomouc. Ali Gallus’ musical collections except the posthumous Moralia were printed by Nigrin: Selectiores quaedam missae, Opus musicum and Harmoniae morales. The madrigals Gallus did not live to publish were united in the collection entitled Moralia Iacobi Handl Carnioli, mvsici praestantissimi, qvinqve, sex et octo vocibvs concinnata, atqve tam seriis qvam jestivis cantibus voluptati humanae accommodate, & nune primum in lucern edita. His brother therefore honoured Gallus by calling him a bril- liant musician, and deseribing his compositions as moral, while both texts and mušic, with their variety of serious and mischievous melodies, would be enjoyed by ali. The arrangement of voices in these pieces was different from that in Harmoniae morales; Moralia included five-, six- and eight- part compositions. When composing them, Gallus probably intended them for techni,cally well versed singers. Again the collection was granted the Emperor’s privilege (Cvm gratia & Privilegio ad annos decem). It was printed in Niimberg (In Officina Typographica Alexandri Theodorici MDXCVI). Georgius Handelius dated his introduction in Prague (Dabantur e Praga veteri 20. Martii. Anni salutis humanae supra Millesium DXCVI), although it was not printed by Nigrin. There could be various reasons for that. Perhaps Nigrin’s printing-press was too busy, or the costs were smaller in Ntirnberg, or Georg Handelius had left Prague and found work in Niirnberg. At the beginning of Moralia there is a poem addressed to the singers by Georgius Carolides, and the Index moralium is added. In the introduction Gallus’ brother Georg explained why he decided to publish the compositions. He said that after Opus musicum with its odes celebrating God had been printed, the composer was constantly encouraged to add some secular pieces (morales) to his sacred ones and bring joy into people’s hearts. The composer listened to these wishes, because he felt in- debted to various people for ali the good deeds they had done for him. He 100 Gallus’ Opus fc y^ u> \j \£7 ut _-^iLvb'_ ' ’-S > « 9C>J"<4> VJ '\r:,j - M O R A L I A v_ KJ) — GOBI H AN DLf <&£ C AR N I O L I, M V S I C I P R R S T A N- 'jf TISUMJ, QJ-INQ_VE, SEX ET OCTO VOCIBVsJ J C3NCINNATA, AT Q_V E TAM SEK1IS Q_V A M FIS Tl- »is cancibus volupcati humani accommodata, Sc nune priraura in lucern edica. *■> o * o •8ŠB5 t e j^o MSf'1 v ‘X' ^ Cm grada & Privilegio Imperiali 3 ad annos decemj NORIBERGf, In fficina Tjpograpbica oAlexandri Tbcodoricš. ~M d x c v i. r> Title page of Gallus’ collection Moralia, 1591 wanted to please them and started composing the mušic they had asked for. As soon as he published some of his moralia (he himself chose this name for them), his acquaintances and learned people from various countries showered him with witty sayings, serious and humorous texts with re- quests that they be set to mušic, similarly as he had done before. Gallus wanted to please them ali, so he immediately started working, and soon sent many new compositions to the printer. He did not live to see this last edition; his brother Georgius Handelius published Moralia in 1596. He also had to find patrons who were to defend it from slanderers. Georgius said that he had done what the composer would have done himself, and that he, as the heir, felt obliged to do it. With this in mind he addressed the senate of old Prague to fulfil his wishes. He believed that the senators would make the publishing of these last madrigals possible, since they had often appreciated Gallus’ earlier works. Georgius asked the senators to warmly receive this “child born after the composer’s death” with the same kind- ness they had shown before, when listening to Gallus and his Muses. 101 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl But this “child” was not born after the composer’s death, of course; Gallus produced the madrigals collected in Moralia towards the end of his life. Many senators, respected citizens of old Prague, were Gallus’ fervent admirers and friends. Among them was Jan Sequenides Černovicky. He played an important role in the senate and he helped with the publication of Moralia. Having patrons also meant good prospects for financial help; the senate provided the necessary money and Moralia was printed. It was probably the late composer’s brother who benefited from it, but this is not important now; what is important is the fact that Georgius accomplished Gallus’ aim, and that 47 pieces entitled Moralia found a plače among his other musical collections and enriched his opus. For his mušic Gallus used texts by various authors: the classics, me- dieval and Renaissance poets, as for example Virgil, Ovid, Catullus, Ho¬ race, Vitalis, Asmenius, Guilelmus, Lilius, Maximian and Martial, 21 and probably even Czech humanists from the Prague circle. Without mention- ing the authors he set to mušic some of the texts from Carmina prover- bialia (15 76). 22 Many authors remain unknown; in the introduction to Mo¬ ralia there is a passage saying that numerous literati from various countries sent their works to Gallus, but he could not use ali of them. The texts treated different topics; some of them moralized and hence the titles of both collections (Harmoniae morales, Moralia), but this mo- ralizing was not always explicit. Gallus did not limit himself to strictly didactic or moral themes. However, he was always guided by the ethical aspect of the texts, which ali revealed certain truths regardless of whether the topič was religious or moral. These truths set to mušic are eternal; the composer appropriated them, they became part of his inner spiritual world and through that of the artistic concept which he disclosed in his mušic. The texts Gallus put to a melody were in Latin, because he considered this language to be the queen of ali languages. During his lifetime national languages were acquiring ever greater importance; in the Renaissance they were in use in secular singing. It seems that Gallus did not approve of that. He preferred Latin and when non-Latin languages found their way into mušic, he saw it sink into the background. He said that for him Latin was the language he trusted, because it was stili the most widespread and fa- miliar to everybody. He believed that Latin was able to express ali that inspired him in art and nature; he was also motivated by different combi- nations of words, witticisms and tales, in short — everything he could include in his artistic creation. Although he lived in Bohemia and Moravia, he was a foreigner there and that is also how he felt despite his bonds with these two countries. However, this is merely a hypothesis supported by his choice of texts; he did not use Czech texts nor German, although he spent 21 Lanzke, H. W., ib., pp. 12—19. 22 Lanzke, H. W., ib. 102 Gallus’ Opus a fair part of his life in Austrian provinces. Nor did he use Slovene texts, which raises the question of how far he was actually aware of his Slovene origins. The name Carniolus has some significance, but it does not reveal ali we would like to know; does it imply that Gallus consciously regarded himself as a Slovene? It seems that he did not want to clearly declare his nationality, he solely emphasized the land he was from, which sufficed in those times of national awakening. Since Latin was stili the universal lan- guage in the sixteenth century, he decided to use it. One of the reasons was probably also the fact that most poets produced their lines in Latin. It is therefore no surprise that Gallus sang an ode to the Latin language in his composition Linguarum non est praestantior ulla latina ( Harm. mor., 49). The words of this piece say that Latin is the noblest language of ali. Be one Italian, Gallic, German or Polish, he who does not know it remains a barbarian. He v/ho cannot speak Latin knows nothing, has learnt nothing, and should not pride himself on his knowledge. This preference that Gallus had for Latin was beyond doubt the result of his life and work in mona- steries and churches. However, we may assume that he was also fluent in at least Czech and German, because he needed them for everyday commu- nication. Apart from the above-mentioned collections (Selectiores guaedam mis- sae, Moralia), some of Gallus’ other compositions were published too. Even before the collection of masses his ceremonial composition Undigue jlam- matis Olomucum sedibus ar sit was printed; the composer dedicated it to Bishop Pawlowsky. Around 1587 he produced the funeral composition O miserum, based on the text by Frencelius, and the four-part O Herre Gott in meiner Noth ruff ich zu dir, based on the text by N. Selnecker, which had three parts. Each part was addressed to one of the persons of the Holy Trinity, and was composed for different voices. The composition was published in Selnecker’s hymnbook Christliche Psalmen, Lieder vnd Kirchengesenge; In welchen die Christliche Lehre zusamgejasset vnd er- kleret wird. Trevoen Predigern in Stedten vnd Dorffern, Auch allen From- men Christen zu diesen letzten vnd schvoeren Zeiten, niitz vnd trostlich. Durch D. Nicolaum Selneccerum, &c. Gedruckt zu Leipzig durch Johan: Beyer. Im Jahr M.D.LXXXVI. Cum Priuilegio. The hymnbook would therefore have had essentially the same purpose as Gallus: to oppose the Reformation and help the Counter-Reformation, had it not been published by the Protestant theologian Selnecker (Selneccer), who wanted to achieve exactly the opposite. It is very significant that Gallus’ O Herre Gott was included in it; the subject matter of this composition was suitable also for the Reformation. Selnecker deeply appreciated the composition and ascribed an important artistic value to it. He probably knew Gallus personally, and Gallus gave his consent for the piece to be published in the hymnbook. If the latter is true, Gallus and Selnecker were then in contact, and Gallus was not exclusively a Catholic, but broad-minded even in his religious be- 103 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl liefs despite his devotion to the Catholic Church. The composition O Herre Gott was published much later (1631) in the hymnbook Gross Catholisch Gesangbuch by David Gregor Corner; its superscription stated that the composition was “des beriihmten Musiči Jacobi Galli, sonst Handl genannt, vorbereitung zum sterben, an die Heilig Dreyfaltigkeit”. It was therefore acceptable for Catholics and Protestants. Soon after that, around 1588, Gallus composed the six-part compo¬ sition Chimarrhaee tibi io in honour of his patron and probably friend Jacob Chimarrhaeus. The following year he composed Epicedion harmo- nicum, preceded by a foreword, on the occasion of Schonauer’s death and the ordination of the new abbot in Zabrdowice, Ambrosius Teleczenus. Gallus managed to publish numerous works during his life. His opus was very extensive, although he did not live long. This must have de- manded much will-power, sacrifice and hard work. He was probably guided by his overwhelming ambition as well. However, he did not publish ali of his work. There could be various reasons for this; he probably did not consider ali his compositions good enough to be published. Furthermore, there is a question whether he had accurate supervision over his works. It should also be considered that he copied certain pieces himself, and sent them to people who he believed would like them and see to their realization. Among his unpublished works, including tablatures, which were copied by various people and the composer himself, there were madrigals, motets, masses and German songs in the form of four-part compositions (Die Pauren von St. Polten, Gott voollt ir tun verleihen, Schons lib, was hab ich dir getan, Aber mein Schatz); it is also possible that they were published, but the editions have not yet been found. Flotzinger mentions two compositions in manuscript, dedicated to Mary. 23 W. Braun speaks about a manuscript which is in Naumburg, 24 and which, judging by the style, was probably written by Gallus. Gallus’ name is mentioned twice in Naumburg, both times in the town accounts books; the first record is from 1588 (“4 Rhein. Goldgulden Jacoben Gallen vor ezliche in roth Leder mit einem guldnen Adler eingebundene Partes, so er den Rath durch den Schosser zu Eckartsberga anhero geschickt”). It seems that the record con- cemed a copy of one of Gallus’ compositions, but it did not specify which. The second record is from 1596, 25 when his collection Moralia was o-btained in Naumburg; Gallus’ brother received 6 Rhinish gold florins for it (“Ja¬ cobi Handeln, sonst Gallus genannt, vor die anher geschickten Partes”). The payment was dated 7th. March, 1596. Gallus’ publications could be found even outside Bohemia. Records show that the composer was very generous and also commercially success- 23 Flotzinger, R., ib. 24 Braun, W., ‘An unknown autograph of Gallus?’, MZ/MAl, ib. 25 Braun, W., ib. 104 Gallus’ Opus ful; in most cases he received awards and money for his editions. It is not known who exactly he sent his mušic to, but it can be assumed that it was mostly to his patrons and friends, among them the abbot in Kremsmunster, Johann Špindler. Gallus had many personal contacts with people in Central Germany; especially important were his contacts with kantoreis in Saxony, where he was appreciated and his composition highly valued. Ali this can be deduced from numerous sources; it is also a fact that virtually ali the musical inventories from the late sixteenth and the early seventeenth centuries mention his compositions, which were obviously an integral part of the Central German repertoire and were often performed. The eight- part choral piece Laus et perennis gloria, and Ecce, quomodo moritur iustus, for example, were very popular. From the available sources it can- not be inferred whether the composer sent his works to musicians or not. If he did, it was probably only to a few, since they ali had more or less limited financial resources. The collections he sent to them were to express his appreciation and his desire that they learned of his work and evaluated it artistically. Gallus’ compositions were also known in Poland. Until now, very little has been known about his life there, but there are numerous records about his works. 26 They were either his autographs or copies of collections pub- lished before. Examples of Gallus’ work in Poland are the tablature from Torun, from the collection of Joannes Fischer Morungensis, and the tablature from Pelplin; both are in manuscript. The Torun tablature is included in the collection comprising about 150 sacred and secular works; these are arranged for four to eight voices, and were written by various Catholic and Protestant composers. There are five of Gallus’ compositions in the Torun tablature (Laudate Dominum in sanctis eius, with an inscription Laudate forniuvre /?/ dum Jacobus Gallus A 4; Laus et perennis gloria Deo Patri; Missa super Eli- sabeth Zachariae: Kyrie and Et in terra, with the superscription Missa super Elisabeth Zachariae; Elisabeth Zachariae, with a superscription say- ing Elisabeth Zachariae Jacob Handl A 6; Angeli letante, with the inscrip¬ tion Handl Jacobus a 7 vocum Angeli demirando opera tanto quod extirit nostra Principium salutor). Some of them were copied from Opus musi- cum; Fischer probably used the first prints. The motet Angeli letante is most probably identical with the motet Angeli laetantur de morando opere. The Pelplin tablature was put together in the Cistercian Abbey in Pelplin. It contains more than a hundred compositions by various authors, among them ten by Gallus (De Innocentibus Jacobi Handelii aequalibus Dicunt infantes; In communi Sanctorum Jacobi Handellii a 5 Exultate Deo: Psalmus Davidicus St Jacobi Handelii Prima par s a 6 Quid gloriaris, 28 Zwolinska, E., ‘Einige Bemerkungen zur Verbreitung der Werke des Jacobus Gallus in Polen’, JG & HT, 1985, pp. 142—148. 105 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl Secunda pars Eiusdem a 6 Videbunt iusti; Psalmi 83 Pars prima Jacobi Handelii a 8 Quam dilecta tabernacula tua, Secunda pars Eiusdem a 8 Do¬ mino Deus virtutum; In Nativitate domini a 8 Quid admiramini; Tempore Adventus Domini Jacobi Handelii a 8 Laetamini cum Jerusalem; De SS. Trinitate Jacobi Galli a 8 Laus et perennis gloria; Jacobi Handelii a 8 Expecta Dominum; In adventu Domini Handelii a 8 Venite ascendamus ad montem Domini; In Adventu Domini Handelii a 8 Veni Domine). Not many of Gallus’ compositions were included, but it is interesting that they were in the repertoire of centres which were quite a long way from where he lived and worked. Some copies of Gallus’ later compositions were also found in Krakow, for example, Ecce, quomodo moritur iustus and Sepulto Domino. Copies, made either by Gallus himself or possibly by various other copyists, may exist in other places as well, but they have not been recorded so far. Missa super Levavi oculos meos was mentioned in Prague, 27 and Dies est laeti- tiae Joann Croce d 8 sine partitura ubi etiam est Quid admiramini Jacobi Galli d 8 sine part in Ljubljana. 28 It is not known when exactly the Capital of the Duchy of Carniola learned of Gallus; probably in the late sixteenth or the early seventeenth century. Did Hren know that the composer called Carniolus came from the Slovene territory? No records give any evidence of this. The question therefore remains open. Many of Gallus’ collections were reprinted in Poland, for example, Epicedion harmonicum, Harmoniae morales and the motets, some of them copied from the original publications. The motets Ecce and Sepulto Do¬ mino appeared in Agenda Powodsky (1591), which was connected with the liturgy such as was imposed by the Council of Trent. It did not contain any works by Palestrina for instance, but it did include Gallus’ mušic. It was probably Powodsky who dictated the choice; he was an exemplary priest, a fervent supporter of the Jesuits, a great persecutor of heretics and there¬ fore also of the Reformation. It seems that he, and with him a great part of the Polish clergy, entertained good relations with the Olomouc diocese. Proof for this is the fact that in 1586 Bishop Pawlowsky’s Agenda caere- monialia secundum ritum Olomucenis was published in Krakow; Gallus was at that time employed by Pawlowsky. It is therefore possible that Po- wodsky decided to include in his Agenda those compositions which had previously been published in Pawlowsky’s Agenda. In 1631 Agenda Po- wodsky was replaced by Rituale Sacramentorum ac aliarum Ecclesiae Cae- remoniarum, published in Krakow, which was better known as Ritual from Piotrkow. It was used by the Polish Church until the nineteenth century. It should be mentioned that in this respect the Polish Church acted inde- 27 Snlžkova, J., ib., pp. 134—137. 28 Inventarium librorum Musicalium ecclesiae cathedralis labacensis (1620). It was made at the request of the prince-bishop T. Hren. The compositions in it were probably intended for singing in the Cathedral or, if they were of a secular nature, in the prince-bishop’s palače. 106 Gallus’ Opus pendently and did not consider the changes defined by the First Vatican Council. Two of Gallus’ motets were included in the Ritual, one for Good Friday and Reccesit pastor noster. From the available records it can be concluded that Gallus’ motets were part of the Polish liturgical tradition, and were an obligatory element of the ritual. However, it is unusual that his motets were published in Powodsky’s Agenda, which observed the Tridentine decrees, since Polish publications of this kind generally did not contain polyphonic composi- tions. Gallus’ numerous compositions, either printed or in manuscript, were known to musical circles ali over Europe. Where his publications were not readily available, his mušic was copied despite the Emperor’s privilege. However, the quality of these copies was not very good, and they were not always accurate, so they might differ from the original, though not, in fact, from the essence of the mušic. Thus Gallus left a rich opus, which was a valuable contribution to the musical art of the Renaissance and the stylistic period which followed it. 107 ' REPR0DUCT10N In the Renaissance, the relationship between the composer and the audience was changing, or rather, had already changed. The relation poeta mušico — listener became identical with the relation speaker — listener. This concept had already been accepted by Zarlino, who gave it a new di- mension. The relationship was a very important one, since it was directly related to the question of reproduction, interpretation and presentation of a certain composition, that is, with its actual realization. It is not clear how Gallus understood and carried out these concepts, ali we can do is propose hypotheses. He addressed his compositions to the listeners — the motets and the masses to the worshippers in church, and madrigals to the people. Gallus was broad-minded, which is evident from the titles of his works, revealing the main purpose of his secular works (Harmoniae morales, Moralia). Some of Gallus’ messages to the audience are contained in his introductions to his collections published between 1580 and 1590. The composer expressed what he thought of mušic and what meanings he ascribed to it. However, nothing was said about his attitude towards the listener, there are only a few implications. It is also not known what his views were on the manner of performing his mušic. His compositions did not contain any dynamic or agogic indications, which were, although rarely, already in use in his time. From ali this it can be concluded that his compositions were sung in the customary fashion, or as the singers thought best. Hermann Finck, for example, wrote that falsetto singing was very popular and that singers often used ornamentation. 29 The same practice was mentioned by Lodovico Zacconi, 30 who stressed that singers had to sing the notes which the composer was obliged to write according to the rules. Furthermore there was a warning that the composer was not responsible for the freedom the performers allowed themselves. Diminution as well as improvisation when a new voice entered were also used in polyphony. 31 The above-mentioned practice was highly thought of in Roman mu- sical reproduction, too. 29 Finck, H., Gesangschule, 1556. 30 Zacconi, L., Prattica di mušica, 1592. 31 Skei, A. B., ‘A problem of triple meter in the mušic of Jacobus Gallus’, JG&HT, 1985, pp. 50—58; Bujič, B., ‘»Peccantem me quotidie« — Gallus’ homage to Josquin?’, JG & HT, pp. 70—81. 109 Dragotin Cvetko — Iaeobus Hšndl The use of diminution is evident from the individual voices in Palestri- na’s madrigals and motets. Diminution and contrapunto alla mente played an important role in the changes that musical style underwent. Ali this was closely connected with the newly introduced concepts. When mušica reservata appeared, the theoreticians drew a distinction between cantus simplex and cantus ornatus (elegans). This practice, which was sometimes abused, did not mean taking over the stock formulae and ornamentation models, although that was the čase at times. The main purpose of the practice was to achieve greater sonority. There existed numerous styles of interpretation. Vicentino recorded that there were just as many dif- ferent ways of singing as there were of composing (“usare diversi modi di cantare, come sono diverse maniere delle composizioni”). Renaissance composition technique was thus very varied in every re- spect, but the main purpose of mušic was always the same: to produce an effect on the listener. Both homophonic and polyphonic composition was affected by the practice described; it gradually became more and more refined, especially in monody, where it was best expressed in solo singing. Ali that has been said above was in principle also true of Gallus’ com- positions, which were quite demanding. The composer must have been aware of this. He realized that the performers would find his mušic dif— ficult, not only from the technical, but also from the interpretational point of view. In his poem Paraclesis ad musices amatorem, following the intro- duction to the fourth volume of masses, Valentin Kamp discussed this problem on his own and Gallus’ behalf. He advised mušic lovers to have patience with the compositions, since they were not easy to sing; they should sing them often, and overcome what was dif ficult with their song, thus making simple what in the beginning seemed difficult. It probably was not just technical problems that he had in mind, but also the refine- ment of the performance. Gallus was of a similar opinion. Of his motets he said that he had composed some of them for more experienced singers, who were, or were supposed to be, well versed in the technique and subtle- ties of the performance. He wanted them to justly evaluate his composi¬ tions, and to sing them when they had reached a higher level of expertise and artistic expression. It is evident that he had interpretation as well as technique in mind. He probably also considered the diminution practice, contrapunto alla mente and other styles singers frequently used. Gallus’ compositions were complex from yet another aspect: they were arranged for four to twenty-four voices, and therefore required an adequate number of singers. This, however, was not unusual, choirs could be assembled of different sizes. The papal choir, for example, consisted of 24—26 singers, and the Emperor’s court choir when in Prague of even more at times, according to the records from Gallus’ years there. Even more 110 Reproduction enterprising was the Court choir in Munich; with Lasso as the kapell- meister it numbered around 60 singers. The number of singers therefore differed from one choir to another, and it mainly depended on the financial means the ecclesiastical or secular choirs had at their disposal. Chronicles show there was virtually no town in Bohemia or Moravia where Catholics and Protestants did not have their own choir. In Prague there was a choir in every church. Even polyphonic compositions were performed, which allows the hypothes.is that there were enough singers. However, certain choirs were smaller and with them the cori spezzati style was not possible. Where there were not enough singers, the problem was solved by introducing instruments, including the organ. Such co-operation enabled the performance of polyphonic pieces. The practice soon gained ground and became more and more frequent. How- ever, it did not lessen the importance of the singers. Vocalists retained the predominant role; strict a capella style was stili regarded as the best and the purest. At the beginning, the presence of instruments in churches was an exception, but it gradually became more widespread. Lasso’s motets were performed by vocalists and instrumentalists. The ratio of vo¬ calists to instrumentalists gradually decreased to such an extent that the compositions were sung by a few singers accompanied by instruments. The organ gained importance and was techni,cally improved in order to meet the new needs. It helped to further the art of improvisation, and conse- quently organists had to be well versed in transposition, since organs and other instruments had different tuning. If necessary, organists played the parts of ali the voices except the Cantus firmus, which was sung raono- phonically by the singers. Gallus must have taken the current practice into consideration. There were not always enough singers for the satisfactory reproduction of his compositions. The composer himself advised the musicians what to do in such cases with special instructions (Instructio ad musicos) published in the third volume of Opus musicum. He wrote: “Allow me, diligent musi¬ cians, to say a few words about the conception of my work and briefly answer a complaint. Some people have complained that with the multi- plication of voices in my compositions I mock the small number of singers in most churches, and that they cannot sing them. It is not so! Since there are few towns without string players, and few churches without an orga¬ nist, there are not so many parts in my works that they could not be per¬ formed with their help. If ali work together and take čare of their choirs, their mušic will be similar to that of the Levites, who, according to King Solomon, performed harmonious mušic with their voices, cymbals, harps and diverse stringed instruments.” Gallus therefore suggested a co-opera- tion of vocalists and instrumentalists for particular compositions. He even indicated the instruments that he found desirable. However, Gallus was probably not the first person to have thought of this solution. It must often 111 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hšndl have been necessary to include instruments, and Gallus just modified this postulation without altering it in any essential way. According to the composer, this practice applied to his sacred mušic — his masses and especially his motets, that is the works which were performed in church. The same was probably also true of his madrigals if they were arranged for more than four voices. Secular mušic was culti- vated in special societies which existed in Bohemia in Gallus’ time. Also important were the so-called literary brotherhoods, which encouraged mušic, its production and reproduction. Their repertoires were rich, in- cluding the works of native composers like J. Trojan Turnovsky and J. Rychnovsky, and foreign composers like Desprez, de Monte, Lasso, Isaac, Gallus and others. These brotherhoods above ali favoured secular mušic, and to a smaller extent sacred, according to G. Reese, 32 A. B. Skei 33 and records about the brotherhoods. Gallus therefore suggested instruments for playing his mušic. Is it possible that he himself was an instrumentalist? How should we under- stand his use of the title “musician”? Did it combine both meanings — vocalist and instrumentalist? In connection with this let us mention that dance compositions of Italian and French origin were very popular in sixteenth century Bohemia, and they, of course, were not vocal. They were played by town musicians. Emperor Rudolf had a group of such musicians at his Prague court; their repertoire certainly included instrumental dance mušic. Most of these mu¬ sicians were foreigners, among them were Christoph Demantius and Va- lerius Otto, for instance. There are no records showing whether there were any Bohemians among them, but probably there were. The same is true of composers, who were both foreigners and Bohemians. The sources covering the second half of the sixteenth century are not very instructive; despite ali we know about Gallus, the question whether he composed instrumental mušic as well or simply favoured the use of instruments in addition to voices remains open. Only his vocal mušic is preserved: an exception could be tablatures, but not enough research has been done into them. However, although his main interest was vocal mušic, he never denied the importance of instruments, regardless of whether he himself used them or not. That is how his twelve-part motet Laus et pe- rennis gloria should probably be understood. The Wroclaw copy was made at a later period, and Gallus original was probably different. Four different copies of his motet exist; in one of them we find the remark “12.voc.3. chorus in organo”, which means that the composition was arranged for 12 voices, and the third chorus for the organ. In another copy it is said that the choirs should be alternated with the organ (“Das Erste Chor zue- schlagen”, “Dz mittlere Chor auf der Orgel zueschlagen”). It is not known 32 Cf. Reese, G., Musič in the Renaissance, 1954. 33 Cf. Skei, A. B., ‘Jacob Handl’s »Moralia«’, MQ, vol. Lil, 1966. 112 Reproduction who suggested this rendering, but it probably was not a Bohemian, be- cause he would have written the remark in Czech, and also not a Pole, who would similarly have formulated the note in Polish. The remark is in Ger¬ man, and could thus be ascribed to a German musician, nor would this be in any way unusual, considering the intermingling of nationalities at that time. It is also possible that the above-mentioned copies were made some- where in Germany and were later brought to Wroclaw. This assumption is logical, since musical manuscripts were often moved from plače to plače at that time and even considerably later. The adaptation described earlier was in accordance with the current practice and is therefore haraly sur- prising. At that time, compositions were being adapted for different reasons. If Gallus’ a capella style works were not effective for the lack of singers, they were adapted for instruments, and the composer wrote the instruc- tions for their realization in Latin. We may dare to assume that he approved of those adaptations, although only the motet Laus et perennis gloria illu- strates it. This assumption can be substantiated with the lines engraved on the 1593 woodcut portraying Gallus. Written by Henricus Goetting, 31 they read in the original as follows: “Iacobus Handl ein Musicus / Sonst Gallus genandt / D er hat in wenig Jahren viel / Zum singen und zum Sey- tenspiel; / Gar niitzlich Ding verrichtet baldt, / Dann gleich wie in eim griinen waldt, / Die Voglein vntereinander singen, / Das eim das Hertz in Laib mocht springen. Fiir grosser Frewd vnd Liebligkeit, / So hat er viel Motetn bereit, / Wem solt nu seine Musič gut, / Erweichen nicht beid Herzt vnd Muth, / Er miisst fiirwar gantz steinern sein, / Das sie nicht liess be- wegen fein. / Drumb dancken wir vnd loben Gott, / Der vns erfrewt in manchen not. / Mit solcher schonen Harmoney, / Zu singen, spielen man- cherley.” Goetting mentioned string instruments, but he did not specify whether Gallus was also an instrumentalist apart from being a vocalist, or whether he also composed vocal-instrumental, or even purely instrumental mušic. No matter how Goetting’s lines are interpreted, one thing is certain: Gallus at least allowed the use of instruments in the realization of his compositions. This is evident from his words in Instructio ad musicos and from his address to the musician (Ad musicum). In the latter he said that voices should be divided into choruses, and were that not possible because of the small number of singers, the trumpet, horn, flute or organ should take over, if they were available. In this way hymns of praise to Christ could resound in any holy edifice. Gallus and Goetting mention different instruments; what instruments did Goetting have in mind when he spoke of “string instruments”, which 31 Cf. Dlabacz, G. J., Allgemeines historisches Kiinstler-Lexikon fiir Bohmen und zum Theil auch fiir Mahren und Schlesie, Prague, 1815; Gerber, E. L., Neues histo- risch-biographisches Lexikon, Leipzig, E—J, pp. 468—469. 8 Iacobus Handl 113 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl Gallus did not specify? It seems that we should trust Gallus’ own instruc- tions, but Goetting’s suggestions also cannot be entirely neglected. The scanty detail in the sources does not therefore allow us to be predse about sixteenth century interpretation practice. Organs and other instruments were also not always tuned in the same way, which could cause problems for the singers. Tritones, discords and accidences occurred; similarly debatable was the enharmonic practice, established by certain composers, which required great expertise from the performers. Techni- cally complex compositions were difficult to perform, because meter, dynamics and many other factors had to be taken into consideration. New musical concepts which gained ground in the late sixteenth century intro- duced many new elements, which presented problems in interpretation as well as in composition. Certain rules existed, but they were not consistently applied, therefore the general impression is that interpretation depended on the kapellmeister’s and also singers’ preferences; especially the singers often changed certain elements to match their feelings and ideas. Gallus must have been aware of ali this. His views on the reproduction of his works were not always in accordance with those of his contempo- raries — composers, kapellmeisters and performers. The main reason for this was his strong individuality, and also the fact that he created in a period when tradition met with new ideas, which were constantly spread- ing. Musiča reservata flourished and the structure of composition was given a new dimension. Ali these changes in form had an influence on the interpretation of Gallus’ mušic, which the performers had to take into consideration. 114 GALLUS’ PERSONALITY Every person has different genetic dispositions, defining the limits of their abilities, and the actual development of these abilities depends on their working and living environment. It is especially interesting to observe this progress in an artist. In any period contemporaries necessarily differ in their emotional and intellectual intensivity; they ali ha ve their own “ego”, that is, individual personal and artistic characteristics. Both kinds need to be taken into consideration in order to thoroughly under- stand an artist. Gallus as a person remains more or less unknown. There are so few records about his life that it cannot really be traced with any assurance. The few facts allow a variety of hypotheses, but no firm conclusions can be drawn from them. It is even more difficult to approach Gallus’ character, no matter how valuable this knowledge would be. If we could unveil his personal world, we would understand the mušic and the texts he wrote much better. We would get an insight into his thoughts and feelings, and could evaluate his expression, the characteristics of his work, his composition technique and form, and his own experience of his art. Another interesting question is whether an artist lives a double life, whether his personality is split into his inner and outer, i. e. public self. Was this the čase with Gallus? This question cannot really be answered, because it cannot be substantiated with any convincing proofs. But it seems that Gallus’ artistic expression was dictated by his inner self, that he did not try to disguise what he felt within. If this supposition is correct, we can regard him as a rounded personality, and not make a distinction between his personal and artistic features. It may be difficult to reconstruct Gallus as a person, but it is not entirely impossible, since there do exist some indirect and in some cases direct sources. In understanding an artist, understanding his character is the most important and also the most difficult. Gallus lived so long ago that this task is even more complex. The character is that factor which most di- rectly affects people’s creativity and the results of their work. As we said before, the sources are not very illuminating, but there exist various poems about Gallus, which were written either during his 8 * 115 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl life or later. In addition to that, there are little pieces of information, which can add to the picture. Gallus himself left records about his attitude to- wards life and his art in the introductions to his musical collections. He judged his works with a certain distance and modesty, leaving them to reveal their value themselves. In his introduction to the second volume of his masses Gallus said to Pawlowsky that he had probably published this fruit of his work too early, without having waited for an assessment of how his first book had been received. He said that he had his own opinion about the first volume; he believed that its value was nil (“quod nullum est”). But this was not important, it was only the bishop’s appreciation that mattered. About the second volume of masses he said that it did not contain material befitting Pawlowsky. He admitted that he had been presumptuous or careless or thoughtless in publishing it. But, he said, he had been forced to oblige because of his friends’ constant requests, some of which he had earlier ignored or rejected. Gallus was therefore reserved in that phase of his development; he did not consider his art to be perfect. He knew he was a beginner, and that the composition technique stili concealed many mysteries. He was also aware of the fact that he had not been as direct and independent in his expression as he could have been, and that the Creative power he felt in himself was yet to emerge fully in his compositions. This seems to be the only feasible explanation of his self-criticism and the harsh judgements he rendered on his works. But despite this rather severe attitude he had towards himself, he knew how to defend his works against the criticism of his adversaries that he considered unjust. From Gallus’ own writings we leam that around 1580 and later he neither over- nor underestimated himself. However, he seems to have been aware of his capacities, and was objective enough in their evaluation. A good testimony to his characteri- stics is seen, for example, in Pawlowsky’s letter of discharge which he wrote in 1585 for his kapellmeister. It declares that Gallus was faithful, diligent and honourable in his work, and that his behaviour was such as behoved an honest Catholic. Pawlowsky had a chance to perceive Gallus’ personal and artistic traits during the years he spent at his court. Much can be deduced about Gallus as a man and as an artist from his works. A good example is the texts he used for his mušic. His choice of texts was not accidental but depended on the feelings they incited in him. He was guided by his intuition and his views; either consciously or subconsciously his sincere beliefs and ideas also influenced the choice. He had a thoroughly premeditated concept, which he gradually perfected. His progress was therefore planned; he proceeded towards the goal he had set himself, that is, towards individual Creative expression. These chosen texts reflected Gallus’ soul, this being especially true of his masses and motets, which are a perfect illustration of the composer’s 116 Gallus’ Personality inner harmony. Gallus was religious, devoted to Catholicism, and that is why he dedicated the greater part of his opus to the Church. Indeed both mušic and texts reveal how intimate his link with the Church was. But nevertheless he remained broad-minded in many respects, despite the fact that he spent most of his time in the company of more or less important clergy, who must have had an influence upon his views, and that he mostly lived in monasteries and churches. His horizons were much wider than one would expect, judging by the environments where he lived. Proof for this is his work, which in many ways went far beyond the limits of strict religious dogmas. In addition to sacred mušic he also composed madrigals, a secular musical form, which was favoured by almost ali sixteenth century composers. However, he arranged his madrigals in his own way; often they conveyed a moral. In this respect Gallus digressed from the charac- teristics of the madrigal as a pure form, but in no way did he turn aside from religion, whieh is present in those madrigals which are distinctly morally oriented. Gallus himself explained why he decided on composing madrigals. In the introduction to the first volume of his collection Harmoniae morales he said that he used the name moralia instead of madrigalia for the songs. He wanted them to be called that, because they introduced nothing that was profligate, and they feared the very shadow of obscenity. This is true of ali the compositions in this collection, even of two pieces (6 and 8) which have lively but by no means lascivious texts. The composer never used texts that included even the slightest implications of the sensual. Gallus therefore considered the title well before naming his collection. The title was to suggest the character of the texts set to mušic; even the musical arrangements were not much different from the composition technique he used in his motets. Nevertheless, some pieces were cheerful, regarding their words and mušic, which brought them closer to the madrigal than the works with a more pronounced ethical tone. Almost ali the texts Gallus used as the basis for his secular mušic are rather reserved, but nevertheless they offered the composer more oppor- tunities for expressing himself than the motets. Earlier he had avoided them, creating a certain distance between himself and everything that seemed to him too lively and carefree. He believed that secular texts would desecrate his mušic. Gallus remained faithful to his early beliefs until he moved to Prague where, under the influence of the Prague humanists and his own understanding, he relaxed his strict attitude towards the secular. He remained a devoted believer, but his religion became less austere than it had been when he composed exclusively sacred mušic. The texts of Gallus’ madrigals are very varied in their topics. He often decided on texts which treated truth, justice, and questions connected with them. It seems that he especially favoured these themes, as he also employ- 117 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl ed texts that only indirectly discussed them. One of the reasons for such a choice may have been his personal experience. There was, for example, a choral piece debating the fact that truth was never safe, and the treachery was present everywhere: in laughter, in lies, in affirmation and negation, in praise and condemnation, in giving and taking; one should be very careful before trusting anybody ( Harm. mor., 11). Gallus was also very attracted by texts which treated fortune, mis- fortune, prosperity and poverty (Harm. mor., 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 13, 14). These were probably the problems he constantly faced in his life. Among them was a text saying that a man on whom fortune smiled had many friends, but when fortune faded, the friends disappeared as well; while the skies were blue, friends were there, but when dark clouds appeared, he would be alone (Mor., 2). This fact was one in the long chain of those which constantly directed the course of his life. For instance, he also treated the realization that when a rich man died, crowds of citizens gathered, and when a poor man departed, there was hardly anyone to see him to his grave (Mor., 44). Gallus probably had his own end in mind when he de- cided to set this text to mušic. The span of Gallus’ reflections was very wide, including questions of gratitude, self-restraint, guilt, suffering, friendship, the worth of a human being, the transience of life and this world (e. g. in Harm. mor., 24, 37, 48, 51, 52, and in Mor., 47). The composer also sang about modera- tion which is better than excess, because people trample on what is in- significant, while the mountains fall down (Harm. mor., 48). Gallus wanted to please good people, and be hated by bad ones, since only a bad person could be liked by them (Harm. mor., 52). Another text he set to mušic warned people against trusting a flatterer rather than themselves; no person should bestow praise without good reason, cunningly or with bad intentions (Mor., 47). Such is the variety of Gallus’ texts — now humorous, then again bitter, discussing outwardly different things which are in their essence closely related. However, it should be admitted that they ali convey rela¬ tiven timeless truths. Why? We dare to suggest that this was no coincidence. The composer’s choice definitely had a background. It is not preposterous to assume that it was his character and his experience of life that guided him in his se- lection. Some texts treated envy, which was obviously not an alien feeling for him. He must at times have felt very envious. He also experienced mistrust despite the fact that he had an abundance of friends and patrons. Nor was he spared poverty; he experienced the reality of privation. His earnings were meagre, he hardly managed to make his living and have his works printed. He depended on his sponsors. His musical expression was to some extent related to his religious devotion, which probably was 118 Gallus’ Personality not the decisive factor, since he had grown up a Catholic since his earliest years. His religion had an influence upon his view of life and his compo- sition but probably he did not feel deprived or in any way limited in this respect. Deep in himself he felt that his mušic and texts were independent in their expression, which, objectively speaking, was not true. Ali dogma- tism is one-sided, and so was his, but he obviously was not aware of this. He was of the opinion that he had taken the only right path, and this assumption is substantiated with his texts and mušic, in which he sang that freedom was the nourishment of the špirit and the only real joy. He who is free cannot be richer. Gallus clearly believed that he had this freedom, or at least this is what we can deduce from one of his chosen texts. This declared that freedom had in itself ali the other good qualities. Had this not been the čase, ali spiritual nourishment would be meaning- less. For Gallus, freedom was the sweetest bread. He who can belong to himself should not belong to anybody else (Harm. mor., 31). It seems that Gallus identified his experience with the message expressed in the text, seeing in it what he considered belonged to him, his character, his essential being. Some texts he used were different from the above-mentioned ones, but they nevertheless shared certain features regarding his view of life and his lifestyle. Many of them treated women and wives (e. g. in Har- moniae morales, 8, 28, 19 or in Moralia, 4, 22). Some were waggish, others sarcastic or even cynical. There was one song saying that a man gets a wife and then experiences restlessness, sorrow, life-long penitence, tears and quarrels; he who does not have a wife has none of the above. Very re- vealing was the text in which a man told his friend that his wife was always mean: if he treated her badly, she became worse, but she was worst if he treated her well; she would only be good when she died, especially if her husband survived her; it would be best if she died immediately (Harm. mor., 19). However, Gallus was not always that merciless. He also included a text which gave the following piece of advice: let a shrew be in the right, and you will win; play the role she dictates to you; reject what she rejects, praise what she praises, say what she says, laugh when she laughs, and do not forget to weep when she weeps; she will command you what face to show (Mor., 4). The texts treating the problem of wives or women in general are very instructive for understanding Gallus’ own attitude towards the opposite sex; his experience with women was ob- viously not very good. Although there are no firm proofs for such an assumption, it seems appropriate. Judging by the fact that ali Gallus’ legacy was inherited by his brother, we can presume that he was not mar- ried. Gallus did not say much about himself, but what he did say would suggest that he was very timid. He spent most of his life in monasteries and churches, but, as much as his profession allowed him, he also asso- ciated with people who did not belong to the clergy, mostly with people 119 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl from humanist circles. Yet his contacts with these people v/ere probably only occasional. It seems that he was not particularly sociable, but led a rather retired life. Despite his seclusion from society he probably wished he could be- come part of it. From the texts for his mušic we learn that Gallus cherished life and in a way savoured it. However, his understanding and experience of love remains a mystery, since there are no sources giving any evidence about this question. But he must have recognized the importance of love, because “love conquers ali, and we ali submit ourselves to it”. Gallus knew love, be it love for religion, a woman or human beings in the widest sense of the word. However, his first priority was work, his principle was “work, and you will be safe” (Mor., 8). He composed, was in charge of his mušic chapel, and seems to have somewhat pushed aside what was highly valued in his time — beauty, attractiveness and success. Gallus used the above-mentioned texts as the starting point for his secular choral works. They treated the topics that obviously troubled his individual world and had a strong influence upon his inner self. If this supposition is correct, then Gallus’ emotional and intellectual potential was stili greater than generally assumed. From this point of view his indivi- duality, character and work are seen in a new light. If compared, his madrigals and motets have essentially much in com- mon with his masses. The ethical value of the madrigals, though diverse, is close to the religious message of his motets and masses. The introduc- tions he wrote for his collections should also be mentioned here, and the poems addressed to him by various authors. This unifying moral tenor of his work marks the composer out in every respect. Despite the brevity of Gallus’ life, it was full of experiences, interest- ing, pleasant, stressful and calming events. He also experienced lack of confidence in himself, disappointments, suffering, deprivation and self- denial. It seems that he accepted ali that life brought, although we tend to believe that he was a pessimist rather than an optimist. There must have been many things troubling him, but nothing took away his will to work or his desire to free himself from the fetters limiting his aspira- tions. Not those bonds he had with his superiors, sponsors and friends; although he depended on them, he probably did not consider his obliga- tions binding in a negative sense. Just the opposite, he entertained these relations, because he needed them, regardless of whether these people be- longed to the ecclesiastical hierarchy or not. By fetters we mean those obligations which he judged hindered his creativity. He needed to feel free, and this was probably one of the reasons which hastened his depar- ture from Olomouc. We may assume that Prague provided greater freedom for him, although the post in St, John’s Church was not nearly as important as those in Olomouc Cathedral and at the Court of Bishop Pawlowsky. 120 Gallus’ Personality Gallus complained about his new j ob, but nevertheless it left him enough time to achieve his main goals — composing and publishing his works. The composer’s opus, his introductions and the records about his life (though scarce) prove that Gallus was a broad-minded, enterprising and conceptually rounded personality. He cannot be reproached for intolerance, not even from the religious point of view, which is evident from his con- tacts with people who had different religious beliefs. His tolerance was probably encouraged by his desire to make himself known as a composer to the widest possible audience, even outside the boundaries of Catholicism. Even if this were so, this was not the only reason why he searched for communication with people outside Catholic circles. It is known that he had contacts with the Utraquist Jan Trojan Turnovsky, the Protestant theo- logian and poet Nicolaus Selnecker, people in Naumburg (whether through correspondence or personal meeting), and many other adversaries of Catho¬ licism. Unfortunately many details about these relations are unknown, but the mere fact of such contacts proves Gallus’ open-mindedness, which had its origins in his artistic orientation and the resulting consequences. Gallus also had contacts in countries outside the then Austrian Empire, either personal or through letters. There are records proving this, but again many details are unknown and will presumably remain so. The avail- able sources show that he had links with J. Špindler from Kremsmiinster, with various people in Naumburg and in Oschatz in Saxony, where he was invited in 1588 by their kantorei. On this occasion he became acquainted with the cultural situation in that country centrally involved in the Refor- mation movement; 35 this again is a proof of his tolerance towards non- Catholic religious beliefs, which, however, did not alter his own convic- tions. There are also some records about his links with the town of Gorlitz, where he sent some of his compositions, which were deeply appreciated by a certain Martin Maister. He was a teacher at the Gorlitz Grammar School from 1569 to 1594, and until 1608 its rector. He wrote that Gallus was the “finest and most famous” musician of the sixteenth century, and that his memory in this town should live forever. In his Annales Goerlicenses he mentioned Gallus in connection with a “renowned” musical society (con- vivium musicum), which apparently did not sing any other songs but his. Gallus was considered to be a fine artist by many other chroniclers, for example, by Enoch Widman, who in his Hofer Chronik said that Gallus had sent his works to the town of Hof. But very little, or almost nothing is known about whether Gallus had any direct contacts with contemporary composers. He ostensibly enter- tained relations with the artists whose works were found in his estate; among them was Lechner, who is known to have had links with Catholic musicians although he was a Protestant. Gallus must also have had contacts 35 Cf. Braun, W., ib., p. 51. 121 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl with composers he met or worked with in various monasteries, episcopal mušic chapels, at the Emperor’s Court and in the Prague literary brother- hood. No study of mušic in the Renaissance can ignore Gallus’ extensive opus, which is a testimonial in itself; any such study must compare him to other composers of his time, discuss his models and throw as much light as possible on the dimensions of his originality. The decisive factor in Gallus’ interest in and need for musical expres- sion was beyond doubt his talent, which soon attracted attention. It was apparently Abbot Neff who first noticed Gallus’ musical gift. It is not known exactly when and where Gallus started his career; the slight detail available comes from Gallus’ own words about it. He must have started as a boy singer in some church or monastery choir, but we do not know in which one. The first records are from the Melk and Zwettl monasteries, and the one from Vienna dates from some time before 1574. At that time his voice had long since broken, and he joined adult singers in the chapel. In records from 1575 he is mentioned as a capelnsingerkhnabe, which he certainly no longer was. Before he entered the Vienna chapel, he probably learned how to play the organ and possibly other instruments, and also became acquainted with basic composition technique. The Court chapel provided Gallus with enough opportunities for the reproduction of mušic, but not for production, at least not directly, because many established composers had already worked there. It seems that it was his desire to learn as much as possible about composition that made him leave the Vienna chapel on 9th. June, 1575; in the relevant document we read the follov/ing explanation of his departure: “mutiert vnd Ihrer Majestat & c. Capeln nit mer tauglich”. 36 It is not known who initiated Gallus into composition technique, nor who first noticed his talent for composition. It could have been Lambertus de Sayve, who was a musician in the Melk monastery from 1569 to 1577, i. e. during the same period as Gallus. However, this hypothesis may be wrong, because it is possible that by 1569 Gallus had already become so well versed in composition technique that de Sayve could not teach him what he needed for his Creative development, and what he expected to learn from him. It is interesting that Gallus never mentioned de Sayve in his writings, which he certainly would have done had he played an im- portant role as his mentor. It seems that Melk did not meet Gallus’ requirements regarding his studies of composition, so he left it. 37 There exist some similarities between him and de Sayve in this respect, but there are also important differences; for instance, if Gallus’ Ave Maria in the Graz manuscript and a later de Sayve composition (1612) with the same title are compared, we notice 36 Cf. Flotzinger, R., JG & HT, 1985, p. 65. 37 Ib., p. 66. 122 Gallus’ Personality that de Sayve’s Ave Maria is linear and close to the Flemish technique, while Gallus’ composition is clearly influenced by the Venetian school. 38 Gallus’ technique proves that the composer was broadly familiar with the current practice and the innovations which were gradually being introduced. As far as we can judge, he knew more or less ali the predominant trends in sixteenth century composition, of the Roman, Flemish and Venetian stylistic orientation. Gallus was also acquainted with the works of Palestrina, although they did not serve him as a model despite the opinions held by various writers who considered Gallus the leading follower of Palestrina in the German and Austrian countries. However, not ali writers shared this opinion; Kroyer and Karl Neff, for example, did not think of Gallus as a “German Palestrina” but pointed out the soft tone, impressive sonority and the popular colouring of his melodics. Regardless of who helped Gallus acquire his extensive knowledge about composition — we assume he had many teachers — he probably learned much by studying the musical works of his numerous contempo- raries. They had different stylistic and technical orientations, and adhered to different schools of composition. Gallus had their printed works, copies of them, and perhaps even original manuscripts at his disposal. In studying them, he probably also imitated elements that conformed to his views. He was definitely influenced by those pieces, yet they represented stimulation rather than models for imitation. In the sixteenth century there stili existed some universal rules, and an artist could not be completely independent; the relation between the universal and the individual was not much dif¬ ferent from what it had been in earlier periods and also in those which immed.iately followed. Nevertheless, Gallus visibly progressed from the objective sphere, conditioned by universal rules, to the subjective, which was a challenge for many other composers of his time. Gallus gradually grew familiar with a great number of compositions, though his contacts with their authors must often have been only indirect. He evidently considered the works of the Venetian composition circle most important, although he had probably never been to Venice, nor had he ever met Willaert and Andrea Gabrieli. Among Venetian compositions, Gabrieli’s were recitative, declamatory and rich in tone painting. Gallus’ compositions show the same characteristics; they can be found in works by many other sixteenth century composers as well. It seems that Gallus was especially interested in the composers whose works were found among his papers after his death. These included some compositions by Friedrich Lindner (Lindtner, Lintner, Tilianus), who was active in the 1580’s, composing many sacred works and madrigals. He was mentioned by J. G. Walther in his Musikalisches Lexikon oder musikalische Bibliothek, 1732. He is also recorded in the latest lexicon (MGG, vol. 8, 1960, pp. 894—897). Gallus’ library contained Lindner’s collections Gemma 38 Ib., p. 67. 123 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl musicalis, Corollarium cantionum sacrarum and masses. The first (selec- tiss. varii stili cantiones / vulgo italis madrigali et napolitane dicuntur — 1588, 1589, 1590) was in its entirety, and the second was identical with the collection published in 1590 (Missae quinque). We cannot deduce why Gallus was interested in this composer, who was not among the leading ones. It is possible that he knew him personally, and that they exchanged their works. However, we have no firm proof for this hypothesis; Gallus might have got possession of Lindner’s works quite by accident, and found them interesting enough to keep. Gallus’ library also contained “opus Pamingeri”, but we do not know how large this opus really was. Leonhard Paminger composed motets in the first and in the beginning of the second half of the sixteenth century. He was exceptionally well versed in the technique of the Flemish school. Gallus certainly did not model his own compositions on Paminger’s themes, but he was probably interested in them from the technical point of view. Gallus also possessed the Psalterium Lobuasseri from 1573, which had no particular artistic value. It is possible that it found its way into Gallus’ collection because its author was Ambrosius Lobwasser, a Lutheran, an advocate of the religion Gallus did not normally approve of, although he probably had contacts with some of its followers. Gallus owned as many as three copies of Lobwasser’s psalter; it seems that he esteemed it, pos- sibly using it in his own church. It is likely that he sympathized with its author because he was a humanist like himself. However, this is only a hypothesis. More than in Paminger and Lobwasser Gallus was interested in Lech- ner and Dressler, who probably caught his attention with the stylistic orientation of their compositions. Leonhard Athesinus Lechner followed the path outlined by Lasso. Some musicologists even drew parallels be- tween him and Lasso, and considered him one of the most important German composers before Heinrich Schiitz. Gallus had two of his publi- cations in his library: Harmoniae miscellae cantionvm sacrarvm (1583) and Modulationes sacrarum quinque, which was probably identical with Mo- tectae sacrae (1575) or Sacrarum cantionum (1581), and included five-part motets. What makes Lechner’s compositions particularly interesting is the fact that the composer clearly expressed the new concepts regarding the relation between text and mušic; he emphasized the syllabic aspect and the chord structure, while polyphony noticeably faded into the background. Dressler Gallus, also a follower of Lasso’s, was stylistically related to Lechner. The mušic in his motets follows the text, and cantus jirmus is absent. Lechner was a fervent adherent of the new concepts and a great admirer of mušica reservata. He also helped to promote it with theoretical essays. He realized it in his compositions, in which homophony served for the illustration of the words. Gallus’ collection included his Opus Sacrarum Cantionum, motets arranged for four, five and more voices, first published 124 Gallus’ Personality in 1577 and reprinted in 1585. The motets were an important contribution to the new stylistic current. In the collection that Gallus left behind Lasso’s works 39 were the best represented. It seems that Lasso’s art was close to Gallus’ own concepts; they both followed the imitare le parole principle, employed parlando pas- sages, recitative and cori spezzati, which Lasso introduced gradually. Ne- vertheless, his cori spezzati had a similar structure to Gallus’. Lasso and Gallus both tended towards the “modern”, and consequently rarely used canon. Comparatively speaking, Lasso more frequently applied polyphony than Gallus. Another characteristic of the two composers is that they both considered the dominant of the dominant a very effective means of modu- lation. Gallus as well as Lasso used unusual figures. We could quote a number of examples, including Gallus’ Mirabile mysterium, which shows that the author was well acquainted with Lasso’s style. The similarity be- tween Gallus and Lasso became evident already in the parodic masses and even more clearly in the motets. They also both favoured premonodic concepts and modernly conceived declamation. Gallus stili composed in the polyphonic tradition, but introduced elements of the new chromatics. The results of this fusion were dissonant structures, which were found but rarely in Lasso’s pieces. Gallus’ melismas were expressive while Lasso’s were subdued. They were both under the influence of the Italian, and in particular of the Venetian school, which left a strong trače in their works. Despite the new elements pointing to the style of the following century they did not entirely reject the tradition which at the time gradually started to decline. Lasso and Gallus, therefore, had much in common, but they occasio- nally differed in their views on the use of certain elements and conse- quently on composition. It would also be exaggerated to claim that they had the same Creative potential. It was the difference between them that gave their creations a distinct and individual character. Their compositions also differ from the point of view of their artistic value. Although they both reached a high level, it can nevertheless be observed that Lasso’s com¬ position showed greater perfection than Gallus’. This, however, does not necessarily mean that Gallus’ Creative power was more limited than Lasso’s, or that he had less knowledge of composition; the reason for this was probably the environment in which the respective composers lived and worked. Neither Olomouc nor Prague provided the necessary condi- tions for Gallus to fully express himself. He was forced to take into account the quality and the number of performers available, and the only places where he could realize his musical efforts were the church and the Court of Bishop Pawlowsky. These restrictions affected his madrigals to 39 Cf. Boetticher, W., ‘Jacobus Gallus und Orlando di Lasso’, MZ/MA, XXII, 1986, pp. 5—14. 125 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hšndl a greater extent than his motets. The former were dedicated to the re- stricted Prague circle, from where they also became famous elsewhere, while the latter were addressed to a broad European public, finding a strong echo. Ali this meant that Lasso’s position was much stronger than Gallus’; however, Gallus won undying farne with his compositions. Around 1595 his motets even pushed Lasso’s into the background. Proofs of his repu- tation are his compositions in Selnecker’s collection from 1587 and in the Florilegium portense collection from 1603, in which the share of Gallus’ and Lasso’s pieces was 19 : 9. Gallus and Lasso probably never met. The above-mentioned similari- ties were the result of Gallus’ good knowledge of Lasso’s works. He became familiar with this mušic on his travels, and especially in Olomouc, where Lasso was also popular and not only well-known. Gallus’ obvious know- ledge of Lasso’s publications helped him broaden his own experience. De- spite the differences between them, the current European musical atmo- sphere inspired the two composers, who were closely related to the in- creasingly differentiated musical movements of the sixteenth century. An estate gives an insight into a person’s life after his or her death, but can by no means illustrate every aspect of it. The compositions by various composers that Gallus had in his library were certainly not the only works he was familiar with. During his life he became acquainted with many widely differing compositions; some of them he included in his masses at the beginning of his career, and in later periods he either accepted or rejected elements used before him by others. It would be im- possible to establish who exactly he imitated and to what extent, since he remained individualistic; he strongly modified the compositions he used as models and gave them a personal character. Although similarities can be traced between him and the other com¬ posers of his time, we cannot speak about intentional imitation. Gallus’ originality of expression is not questionable, the similarities mainly con- cern the form and the technique. Gallus used similar procedures as for example Lechner, Lasso, Hassler, Schiitz and Hieronymus Praetorius. From the point of view of composition Gallus can be compared to his younger contemporary Hans Leo Hassler, a disciple of Andrea Gabrieli. In the years from 1602 to 1605 he was an organist at the Court of Rudolf II. He was extremely well versed in technique, and started accepting the major-minor tonal system. He composed German songs under the in¬ fluence of the villanella, and his stylistic orientation was, like Gallus’, in accordance with the concepts of the Venetian school. In his choral works he alternated four-part polyphony with five-part homophony, and gave priority to sonority despite the alternating linear and vertical structure. Hassler is especially interesting as a composer of madrigals. His collections (Neue teutsche Gesang nach der Art der welschen Madrigalien und Can- 126 Gallus’ Personality zonetten, 1596; Neuien teutschen voeltlichen Madrigale und Balletten, 1619) contain compositions emanating a strong Italian influence. They are similar to Gallus’ madrigals, especially in their homophonic structure. How- ever, they also differ from Gallus’ pieces; Gallus more frequently employed chromatics than Hassler. Despite the similarities it would be impossible to claim that Hassler modelled his works on Gallus’. Hassler composed his madrigals on texts in the national, i. e. German language, while Gallus’ texts were mostly Latin. Many other German com- posers used German texts, while many Italian, English, Spanish, Bohemian and Polish madrigalists composed their mušic on texts in their national languages. Why did Gallus use Latin texts? He explained this in his introduction to the Harmoniae morales collection. He had a very high opinion of Latin and therefore excluded ali the other languages. This decision was probably based on his belief that the Latin language could best emphasize the mean- ing of the text. However, there may have existed other reasons. It is quite likely that he considered himself different from his musical contemporaries of other nationalities because of his national awareness. In any čase, he did not want to give priority to the German or the Bohemian languages, and thus express his belonging to one or the other nationality. It should also be borne in mind that in Gallus’ time Latin was the language of the liturgy and the higher social strata of European society. Besides Gallus was a humanist, and moved in circles where Latin was popular and found most appropriate for cosmopolitan communication. Many poets wrote in Latin regardless of their nationality. Gallus’ preference for Latin was there¬ fore not exceptional. In addition to Latin, German, Czech and certainly his mother tongue, it is believed that Gallus was also proficient in Italian and French; at least he had a passive knowledge of the latter two. It was probably his ambition and humanistic orientation that forced him to learn these languages, since he wanted and had to understand the texts of foreign musical works that could be useful for his own composing. However, it was Latin and just occasionally German that he actually employed in practice. Gallus must have known a large number of foreign compositions, which widened his horizons and encouraged him to join the new stylistic trends. The composers whose works were similar to his own were styli- stically varied; most of them stili composed in the Renaissance tradition, but some of them heralded new concepts. Among them were de Sayve, Vaet, H. Praetorius, Gregor Aichinger, who distinctly tended towards mo- nody, although he was stili under the influence of the Venetian school (he confirmed both in the introduction to his motets in 1590), Schiitz, who composed in the early Baroque style, Regnard and de Monte, whom Gallus met in Vienna and in Prague, and who definitely influenced his technique, Adam Gumpelzhaimer, who belonged to Hassler’s circle, and many others, 127 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hšndl for example, adherents of the Bohemian polyphony influenced by the Ve- netian school (Turnovsky). Gallus probably had no close contacts with the musicians at the Prague Court chapel, primarily because they were artisti- cally not very outstanding . 40 It seems that he also knew Polish compo- sitions, especially those by Mikolaj Zielinski and Jan Brant . 41 We may conceive Gallus to have been familiar with the work of many other composers, but there are unfortunately no records proving this. How- ever, what we know is proof enough to claim that he was interested in more or less ali the mušic composed in the sixteenth century in Europe, mostly in the Austrian, German, Bohemian, Dutch, Polish and Italian countries. Gallus knew the prevailing stylistic currents of the sixteenth century, and was also familiar with the composition techniques which were chang- ing accordingly. However, he never considered the rules a restrictive factor in his art. He was an individualist, he maintained his own concepts ac- cording to which he either accepted and employed certain elements or re- jected the others. His works bear witness to his individuality regarding style and technique, although he was not an iconoclast either, entirely ne- gating the immediate or more distant past. Nor did he overlook the present. He lived and worked at an artistic turning point, and his responses to the changes were dictated by his own creativity. He always considered the new things he learned, but in his own way. He perfected his knowledge from the past, and added what he thought was important for the future. He never tried to conceal his interests in foreign musical production. In the introduction to his collection of madrigals he said that the Italians enter- tained themselves with madrigals, enjoyed Neapolitan songs and almost swamped themselves in villanellas. He expressed his respect for their style, but at the same time commented ironically upon the frivolity of their mu¬ sical experience; however, this was not the general feature of the Italians, since serious musical art of the time found expression with important Ita¬ lian composers. These Gallus admired and set many of them as an example to follow. He had the same opinion of German and French composers; he believed that they knew how to cultivate and evaluate mušic. He observed the diversity of rhythm and verse in their mušic, a musical treasure second to none, which could have been enjoyed by everyone had they known the language. Languages for Gallus were apparently not a problem, so that he was able to savour the fruits of French and German composers, too. 40 Cf. Lindell, R., ‘Hudebnl život na dvore Rudolfa II — Musič at the Court of Rudolf II’, Hudebni veda XXVI, 1989, p. 104 (Gallus). In addition to de Monte and Regnart the members of the Prague Court chapel were Matteo Flecha, Chimarrhaeus, Camillo Zanotti, Giovanni Battista Pinelli, di Gherardi, Franz Sales, Liberali Zanchi (ib., pp. 101—104); musicians who also had contact with the chapel were Johannes Knofel, Nicolaus Zangius and Krištof of Polžice (ib., p. 104). 41 See Zwolinska, E., ib., p. 147. 128 Gallus’ Personality When Gallus studied the works of various composers, he became fa- miliar with everything that was necessary for his art: musical notation, rules governing the use of intervals, current practice regarding the incipits and progression of the parts, imitation, polyphony, elements of homopho- nic composition, the function and meaning of sonority in linear and verti- cal composition, the role of chords and chord structure, changes of tona- lity, con spezzati, echo technique, chromatics and enharmonics, rhythm, form and many other principles in the realization of mušic. His opus shows that he often decided on free interpretation, which in general did not stray far from the current rules, but nevertheless reflected the composer’s in- dividual approaches. Musič theorists and some composers in Gallus’ time and later com- mented in different ways upon his style of composition. They considered in- dividual realizations debatable, but in this context it should be mentioned that many other composers of the time employed similar techniques, for example, de Rore, Gesualdo da Venosa, Marenzio, Lasso and his followers, who were at the time regarded as conservatives. It was understandable that Gallus’ approach met with disapproval since the period was very proble- matic; on the one hand tradition was stili strong, while on the other new revolutionary ideas were gaining ground. Gallus stood between the two extremes. Although stili rooted in traditional concepts, he noticeably strove to get close to the new ones and thus achieve contemporaneity. He frequently diverged from strict composition, probably because he wanted to emphasize expressiveness in his works. That is how he was understood by some theoreticians researching into his art, and it seems that such understanding is just. Most of the discrepancies between the rules, whether strict or elastic, and Gallus’ actual mušic can be interpreted from this aspect, including the rigidity and the sometimes truly inconsi- stent signs to indicate a change of tone, for which he has been reproached. As we mentioned before, expressiveness was more important to Gallus than the unusual elements he introduced into his mušic; he also consi¬ dered the meaning of the text in its entirety or its parts and not only the form. He wanted to achieve a balance between words and mušic, with the notes he wanted to give a word the weight it had in the text, thus ex- pressing feelings and thoughts which both troubled and enriched his spi- ritual world. The result was sometimes unusual procedures in compo¬ sition. That was probably also the reason why mušica reservata found adequate expression in his mušic, revealing itself in variants, from nu- merous figures to tone painting. The range of possibilities was very wide, and Gallus made effective use of them. Let us say once again that it is impossible to reconstruct the chrono- logical sequence of Gallus’ works. He must have composed his masses be¬ fore the end of the seventies, since he published them in 1580. At the same time he was also oomposing motets, but it was in the early eighties 9 Iacobus H&ndl 129 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus H&ndl that he fully devoted himself to this musical form. His work on the motet was probably most intensive then, but he also cultivated it later, as can be inferred from the publications of the Opus musicum collection, the first volume of which was printed five years after the publication of the Se- lectiores quaedam missae collection, and the last in 1590. Masses and mo- tets were followed by madrigals, which obviously belong to the last period of his Creative life. In general we can only guess when the composer dedicated his atten- tion to individual musical forms. It seems that he was most prolific and systematic during the time he composed motets, since their number ex- ceeds that of any other form. However, this is true of the form in general, and does not apply to individual compositions. Similarly debatable is Gallus’ technical and artistic maturing. It is be- yond doubt that his progress, like any other artisfs, was gradual; the be- ginning was probably hard and tentative, but then he rose higher and higher. More extensive knowledge and the more profound expression of his emotions led to growing perfection and maturity. To support this thesis let us compare his masses, motets and secular choral works. While in the masses he stili depended on other composers’ models, he became freer, more individualistic, more technically demanding and artistically more persua- sive in the forms that followed. Proofs of this are his numerous emotion- ally rich and expressive motets (for example, Ecce quomodo moritur iustus, Planxit David, Mirabile mysterium, Cantate domino canticum novum, Lau- date Dominum in sanctis eius) and secular choral works (for example, En ego campana nunquam denuntio vana, Musiča noster amor, Diversos di- versa iuvant). Their technique was impeccable, and their expression taut, enlivening and saturated with the features of his spiritual mood. No matter how diverse and individually conditioned his technique was, it never blurred or lessened the importance of the expression which Gallus considered most important. Through his compositions he conveyed his most profound experiences to the audience, in his mušic his real “self” found its full expression, and it also substantiated the historic value of his art. Like most composers belonging to various styles and periods, Gallus never intentionally avoided the stimulation of foreign models. Traces of foreign influence can be seen in his opus, but he nevertheless remained original and independent in his expression, and to some extent also in his technique. Many compositions of his differ from the works of his con- temporaries in this respect. They are especially notable for their sound contrasting structure, authentic melodics, use of cori spezzati and rhythm, which was even more differentiated in the madrigals than in the motets, as conditioned by the text. How may we stylistically define Gallus’ mušic? If we compare him with his contemporaries, especially Lasso, we can conclude that he did not break with tradition, but nevertheless he took the 130 Gallus’ Personalitj new tendencies into account. This is especially evident from his motets, and to a lesser extent from his masses and madrigals. He tended towards mo- nody, and was in some places emotionally restrained and in others very expressive. He gradually opened up, and his art became more expressive, and his chords, melodies and rhythms tenser. Although linked with the Venetian tradition, step by step he entered this new period in the deve- lopment of mušic. It would be very difficult to plače Gallus into any of the sixteenth century composition circles. He definitely did not belong to Palestrina’s circle; A. W. Ambros categorically denied this possibility, saying that Gal¬ lus could sooner be considered a German Leone Leoni than a German Pa- lestrina. W. Apel ranked Gallus among the composers of the Prague Court chapel, but this comparison is quite debatable, because despite his links with Regnard, de Monte, Chimarrhaeus and others, Gallus did not share their expressiveness or technique. Apel had his own opinion on Gallus; he emphasized the characteristic incipits of the parts in his composition, ob- serving that they were similar to Aichinger’s, H. Praetorius’, Gesualdo’s, Marenzio’s and other sixteenth century composers’ procedures. K. Proške ranked Gallus among the most important contemporaries of Palestrina and Lasso; he considered his Opus musicum to be in terms of its contents and substance of equal value to Lasso’s Magnum Opus musicum. Opinions on the style and value of Gallus’ works have differed, and that is why a satisfactory evaluation is ali the more important and neces- sary. He introduced many novelties into his technique, and they were a significant contribution to the changes taking plače at that time. But his composition did not change essentially, because the main stress was on the expressiveness of his mušic. According to the characteristics of Gallus’ opus he could be placed in the generation of composers who were related, though not homogeneous, in terms of technique and expressiveness. The generation of composers younger than Palestrina and Lasso was stili rooted in tradition, but started intentionally accepting the new, Progressive con- cepts. The characteristics of these composers are also applicable to Gallus, although only in general, because he was quite original, trying to create his own personal style, in which he succeeded to a large extent. The technical evaluation of Gallus’ compositions is in some cases con- troversial, but not too difficult. Its most debatable aspect is its aesthetics, because there are no absolute criteria. Every aesthetic evaluation is neces- sarily relative, subjective, dependent on the time and plače where an artist lived, and also on his personality. The same is true of Gallus; the expe- rience of his mušic is different nowadays from what it was four centuries ago when it was composed. Aesthetic views were different then, evaluation demanded different criteria, of which we cannot speak with any assurance now. Our knowledge on the subject is very limited, but what we know is quite instructive. We can conclude that Gallus was encouraged and held in 9 * 131 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hžndl high esteem by his admirers, patrons and poets. However, there existed mušic lovers and composers who opposed Gallus’ work, a fact recorded in a few sources. Ioannes Ierger, for example, was among those who rebuked the opponents. In the lines printed in the first volume of Gallus’ masses he wrote that the composer was not afraid of slanderers, although it seems that Gallus’ first publication deserved the criticism, since the composer at that time stili lacked technical and expressive excellence. There is no record of how Gallus reacted to this early criticism, but it never hindered his musical ambitions. Even the contrary can be assumed, the negative comments upon his work probably additionally stimulated him to perfect his technique and expressiveness. In any čase, Gallus was, to ali appear- ances, his own critic. It seems that Gallus’ work provoked negative criticism even before his masses were printed. After 1580 the criticism became even more harsh. Many of the composer’s thoughts instruct us on this, either directly or in- directly. He knew that certain people disapproved of his compositions. In 1590 he said that he did not try to stop his Zoiluses, 42 because he noticed that their teeth had become numb, almost torpid with biting at his madri- gals. It can be noticed that most of his critics were musicians, but Gallus never mentioned their names. It seems that they were quite numerous and also quite ruthless. Gallus probably addressed some of the texts he used for his mušic to them, since their contents were appropriate for the pur- pose. The text of the choral piece Nemo placet stultis nisi cantet quod libet illis ( Harm. mor., 29) which observed that nobody was liked by the stupid, unless he sang what they liked, obviously pointed to those who disapproved of Gallus’ mušic, otherwise he would not have decided on this text. Somewhat similar was the text of the choral piece Livide, quare tibi mea disciplet uni (Harm. mor., 50) which wondered why his, i. e. Gallus’ mušic was admired by those who were well versed in art and knew more than the envious. To the latter he said that they liked stupidities and did not like the composer, but it did not matter, since he never wanted to be liked by their kind. The text went on to say that the wise wanted to be liked by good people, and that the envious should hold their tongue. Gallus stressed that he wanted to sing those songs to the Muses and not to them, and that whoever disliked them should try to sing better, or express in mušic what was within them. It seems that some texts of Gallus’ madrigals were alsc addressed to the critics. They were published in the posthumous collection (1596), and composed shortly before his death. Some passages in the second part of the choral piece Tityrus et segetes Aeneiaque arma legentur (Mor., 5) can serve as one example. The text of the choral work Quid petitur sa- 42 Zoilus was a literary critic in the 4th century B. C. In his work Homeromastyx (The scourge of Homer) he criticized Homer and other Greek poets, reproaching them for various things. Gallus identified his critics with Zoilus, because they obviously used the same means when judging his works. 132 Gallus’ Personality cris nisi tantum (Mor., 8) raises the question of what else holy poets want to achieve. The critics, that is the adversaries, troubled Gallus throughout his career. This was nothing unusual, since it has been the čase with ali artists, past and present. However, not everyone reacts to criticism in the same way. Gallus was obviously very sensitive to it. He was čast down whenever a critical remark was made upon his work. The question is why certain people did not like his mušic. There must have existed reasons for this dislike — connoisseurs and ordinary listeners were probably disturbed by certain elements of his work. One of the rea¬ sons was probably the fact that Gallus often strayed from the current prac- tice, and frequently used procedures that were against the established rules. In this respect he differed from many of his contemporaries. Another important feature was the expressiveness of his mušic. Ali this provoked criticism from those who were of different opinions, and not seldom it was ruthless. Another stumbling block was the arrangement of voices in his works. It met with disapproval by the audience more than by the cri¬ tics. In short, many people were dissatisfied with his compositions, espe- cially the musicians whom the author of the lines — probably Gallus him- self — addressed with numerous questions. He wanted to know whether the musicians were enraptured with the sweet sounding melodies, whether they liked them and whether they realized that the song sounded very artistic. He summoned them to take a good look at it, which would enable them to learn how the song would give the singers strength with its mani- fold sound. He also asked the musicians whether they liked the multitude of voices. He believed that nobody could justly reproach his work for being chaotic, since everything was well weighed in it ■— art, arrangement and sound. The author of the lines added that the composer, Gallus, intro- duced his mušic to ali the holy sanctuaries, and that consequently it could not contain anything sinful. He admitted that certain people might not like what certain musicians found desirable, but that he nevertheless of- fered his works to ali of them. The poet furthermore gave advice on how to perform the motets in the volume if there were not enough singers. Towards the end of the poem a general truth was expressed, namely that the same thing never met with everybody’s approval. The question is whether it deserved criticism if it — meaning the compositions — werc useful to many. What was it that presumably gave the motets in the first volume of Opus musicum the impression of being a “disorganized chaos”, as mentioned by the anonymous poet? It could have been the multitude of voices, their arrangement and sound, or the entire structure of individual compositions. Any explanation is purely hypothetical. Gallus’ work was treated critically even in later periods, but the criticism was positive rather than negative. 133 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl However, many people enjoyed Gallus’ mušic, composers, performers, connoisseurs and mušic lovers. In Gallus’ introductions we read that his compositions had many admirers. As soon as they were presented to the public they were praised by Pyrringer and Ierger, and they soon became widely known. This shows that performers and listeners liked them, and they were often performed, either in a capella or in vocal-instrumental ar- rangements, in the Protestant as well as Catholic countries. This is true of the madrigals as well as of the masses and motets; they were not limited by either national or religious borders. Gallus himself often spoke about his mušic. In the introductions to the first and the third volumes of the Selectiores quaedam missae we read that his mušic was the fruit of his strenuous efforts. He expressed the same thought in the preface to the composition etitled Epicedion harmonicum. There is a similar comment in Summa privilegii. In his introductions Gallus occasionally mentioned the success his compositions had and the attention they received. Gallus was obviously aware of his ability, and of the value and quality of his work. It probably was not by accident that he selected Ovid’s text ( Amores I 15, 35—38) for his choral piece Pascitur in vivis livor ( Harm. mor., 53), which claims that envy dies only when people die. After their deaths, everybody is protected by the farne they earned with their work. The lines then state that the artist, after he has been reduced to ashes by the final flame, will live because his legacy will be great. Gallus composed this piece when he was finishing the Harmoniae morales collection, that is, shortly before his death. He probably ascribed its meaning to his own opus. The opinions held of Gallus’ mušic by his admirers and adversaries probably did not change much after his death. In the introduction to the posthumous collection of his madrigals his brother wrote that the compo¬ sitions needed a protector, who would defend them against slanderers. The latter remained active even after Gallus’ death with their critical remarks upon his works. However, the farne Gallus had earned during his life did not die after his death despite his detractors. The records proving this are sparse, but quite illuminating. Gallus’ brother, for example, when commenting upon the value of his mušic, said that ali artists were in the habit of talking about the excellence and usefulness of their work if they wanted to publish it and adapt it for a wide audience. Writers want to capture the attention of readers and stimulate their appetite to read more. But he, Georgius, could not bestow praise on mušic which held its own praise — such mušic was plentiful in the Moralia collection. He wondered what mortal did not know its universal farne, and then defined this question more precisely: “Who has not yet realized what Jakob Handl, a man of blessed memory, was able to achieve in mušic, and what sweetness emanates from the works he set to mušic?” He added that the present rich volume of Moralia would 134 Gallus’ Personality be good proof of this, a work illustrating Handl’s outstanding musical talent. Georgius would have been even more convincing in his judgement if he had considered Gallus’ earlier publications. There are some other, although limited records which instruct us on how Gallus and his work was judged in earlier periods. Bohuslav Balbinus, for example, said that although Gallus was a foreigner, he spent a long time in Bohemia. He called him an excellent musician (“insignis musicae prac- ticae artifex”, Bohemia Doda, P. II, 305). Balbinus certainly had in mind Gallus’ secular choral works as well as his motets. Gallus and his artistic virtues were depicted in funeral chants and Goetting’s lines (1593). He was also praised in the text below his portrait, where it was said that “contra- factur des weitberuehmten Musiči Jacobi Galli sonst Handl genandt”. Gallus’ mušic was popular not only in Bohemia and Moravia, but was known far beyond their borders and continued to live even after the com- poser’s death. On its popularity there is assurance in magister Widman’s records. In his Hofer Chronik he wrote the beginnings of the texts of poly- phonic sacred compositions which were sung at Hof (Oberfranken). He thought that the motets of other fine and famous composers were used apart from the cantilena, especially those selected from among the best by the prolific musician Lindner in order to be used in individual seasons of the year. They were alternated with older compositions, and postponed until the following Sunday or even the following year. Old songs had a certain charm, but new ones also deserved praise. Our Saviour commanded us to bring out the old and the new from the treasures of our hearts if we wanted to be considered good fathers of the family in his kingdom. The same could be noticed in Jacob Handl’s new compositions. Apart from Gallus, Widman mentioned Hassler and some other contemporaries he considered important. His chronicle also quoted the mušic books that were used in the Hof church and school, including Gallus’ collection of motets bound in white leather (“Opus musicum Jacob Handl, in acht partes vnnd in quarto, in weis leder gantz gebunden”). Towards the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seven- teenth centuries Gallus’ compositions were quite widespread, which is proved by their reprints in individual editions or in various other collec- tions. 43 His compositions were also frequently copied. 44 One such copy was made for Ljubljana cathedral. 45 The cathedraTs musical archives record that they possessed Quid Admiramini Jacobi Galli a 8 sine part. This detail shows that Gallus’ motets were known and probably also performed in the composer’s homeland, very possibly even during his life. The inventory of these archives was made at the beginning of the 1620’s, but it also con- tained older works including Gallus’, if not in the original then in copies. 43 For bibliographical data and individual editions of Gallus’ works see MGG, vol. 4, 1955, pp. 1332, 1334 (A. Adrio). 44 Cf. e. g. Zwolinska, E., ib.; Snižkova, J., J., ib. 45 Inventarium librorum musicalium ecclesiae cathedralis labacensis, 1620. 135 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hšndl Gallus’ compositions, motets and secular choral works, were copied in many places, especially in the first decades after the composer’s death. Later publications are quite rare, probably due to new stylistic trends, whieh brought forth even more secular and instrumental mušic . 46 Just as Gallus considered the practice of his contemporaries without damaging his own originality, his compositions served as models to other composers of his time who here and there imitated his procedures. These probably included Trojan Turnovsky and Adam Vaclav Michna from Otra- dovice, and also Gregor Lange from Havelberg, who was a cantor in Frank- furt-am-Oder and in Wroclaw, where he might have met Gallus. He was definitely influenced by Gallus’ mušic, since his motets show a similar structure to Gallus’. The then European musical audience carefully followed Gallus’ com¬ positions. They were evaluated from the point of view of sometimes excep- tional technical Solutions and their individual expressiveness. His compo¬ sitions were taken into consideration by composers and theoreticians, although not to the same extent. He was praised by some and criticized by others, for example, Michael Praetorius, Sethus Calvisius and Charles Butler. Gallus realized his artistic views in practice. His contribution to the musical Renaissance is pointed out in various musical histories. He is con¬ sidered one of the most prominent representatives of the Venetian school in Germany (according to Adler), a composer who was closely connected with the Venetian style (according to Grout), a composer who could be ranged with composers like Obrecht, de Rore, Asola, da Vittoria and Guer- rero (according to Damerini) and Lasso (Boetticher). Dufurcq was of the opinion that Gallus’ works were a bridge between the Catholic composers and Protestant mušic. However, he was probably not the only one who had merits in this respect. Gallus was successfully involved in the sixteenth century develop- ment process. He assiduously worked on the existing and also the coming styles, and applied his knowledge in practice. In his opus he formed his own expression, and at the same time revealed the characteristics of his period and pointed out its varied stylistic features. His mušic has survived through the centuries and is topical again, which best illustrates its artistic value, the high level of the composer’s creativity and the sincerity of his expression. 46 Gallus’ Opus musicum was revived at the end of the nineteenth and in the twentieth centuries. Historically identical with the original, it was published in parts in the years between 1899 and 1919 in DlO. A revised version, adapted for contempo- rary use, but stili historically reconstructible, was published in the 1980’s in the SAZU edition. They also plan to publish Gallus’ masses, madrigals and tablatures. His madri- gals, adapted to the current style of performance, were published in 1966 and in 1968 in the SM edition. 136 SUPPLEMENT I (Selectiores quaedam missae, lib. I.) REVERENDISSIMO / IN CHRISTO PATRI AC ILLVSTRISS: / PRINCIPI DOMINO D. STANISLAO PAWLOVIO / EPISCOPO OLOMVCENSI, &c. / Domino suo Clementissimo. / S. P. MVLTA cum in humanis rebus occurrant, Illuss: Princeps, quae lau- dum ornamenta iure quodam suo efflagitent, Musicae tamen vbique gen- tium acceptae, vbique locorum vsitatae, celebrataeque maxima semper & aequissima fuit commendatio: quis miretur? Quo enim cumque oculos, aures, animum conuerteris, nihil reperies quod non artis huius gratiam ambiat, eiusque oblectamentis honestissimis non plurimum capiatur. Haec a multis diligentissime culta, in semetipsa insigniter laudata, apud omnes semper in honore fuit: haec est, quae non solum curis distractos colligit, laboribus defatigatos reficit, doloribus fractos solatur, verum etiam (si quid Poetis tribuimus) irata numina plačat & ab offensione ad solitam be- neuolentiam traducit: Hac vna praeditus Orpheus tantum gloriae conse- quutus fingitur quantum nulla aetas, nullae literae, nulla carmina cele- brare satis potuerunt. Quid Apollo, quid Amphion, quid Chrysogonus, quid Terpandrus, alijque complures, quos ob eximium artis huius decus, Dijs simillimos stultum vulgus credidit? Et vt Ethnica haec mittam fabulosaque, religiosissimi Dauidis & Salomonis sapientissimi exempla libabo: quibus exercitatio haec tantopere probata fuit & ad DEI cultum non alendum tantum & constituendum, verum etiam ornandum & amplificandum viša est idonea, viros vt deligerent magnisque impendijs educarent, qui diuinas laudes apud arcam faederis dies noctesque canerent. Nec prima nascensque illa fidelium Ecclesia hunc morem neglexit, quos posteri illorum, maiores nostri imitati rudem adhuc artem lautioribus numeris modisque concin- narunt, illustrarunt, auxerunt, propagarunt, nulla vt iam sit sacra aedes tam exilis, nullus angulus, qui Musiča carere velit; quasi nihil aeque mor- talium corda a terrestribus auocet & in coelestis melodiae meditationem impellat agatque, vt illa: Sane quid Saulem ab atroci infestatione liberarit, nouimus, quo concentu, quibus hymnis Vrbs illa coelestis, illud aeternae gloriae domicilium, vbi sempiternum Alleluya auditur, personet, sacrae literae tradiderunt. Huic ego me studio cum puer dedidissem (non questus spe vila sed cum animi mei fructu tum illius dignitate allectus) cogitaui ne 137 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus H&ndl exiguum hoc, quod labore & industria expressissem, meum esset, sed etiam alijs diuini tantum honoris causa communicaretur. Procul enim a me lasciua semper & futilia repuli, nec prophanis versibus rem prope diuinam contaminandam censui, ea duntaxat in modos cogens numerisque astringens Symphoniacis, quae & pias mentes confouere & Angelos Dei exhilarare possent, Haec mea parturijt peperitque tandem Minerua, tales etiam viros, qui in terris coelestia sectentur, pro laborum meorum Mecoenatibus se- creui. Et quis mihi quam tu (aliud dicerem ni assentatoris notam extime- scerem) occurrat propior? Cuius in Christi Ecclesiam studium emicat sin- gulare, id quod religionis auitae in Marcomannica terra te duce facta accessio, loquitur. Egregie in Guilhelmi, eiusdem loči quondam Antistitis, vestigia, pedem ponis, vt nec in Musicae cultu (quae illi domestica erat & charissima) ab hoc vinci te patiare. Quod cum ego non auditione acceperim sed oculis didicerim meis, excitus hac tua insigni in Mušicam nostram vo- luntate primum hunc faetum librumque meum, cui missas septem & octo vocum a me lucubratas, intexui, offero tibi dicoque. Alium enim cui magis obstrictus essem & istos labores sudoresque meos siue iustius siue fidentius nuncuparem, praeter te inueni neminem. Exile est hoc & tuis in me meritis maximis longe impar, at certe non indignum voluntate mea, cuius id qua- lemcumque testificationem esse volui, Diu Ecclesiae tuae viue valeque Praesul amplissime. /Dat: Pragae Calend: Septemb. Anno 1580./ Celsitudini Tuae. / addictiss: / Iacobus Handl / Gallus vocatus / Car- niolanus. II (Selectiores quaedam missae, lib. I.) MVSICA LOQVITVR Parua quidem non est cultorum turba meorum, / Cum celebret nume- ros quaelibet ora meos. / Syncero pauci sed me dignantur honore, / Et faedat laudes stulta caterua meas. / Arte mea turpes miseri modulantur amores, / Intexuntque meis verba nefanda sonis. / Dum cogor Baccho ma- didis seruire Tabernis, / Deprimitur doctae publicus artis honor. / Non me diuorum pater has demisit in oras, / Vt dirum foueam faeda ministra scelus. / Aeterni laudes nostrum est celebrare parentis, / Vi.rtutisque sacrum tol- lere in astra decus. / Hoc priscus docuit Vates Iesseia proles, / Dum cecinit sacra numina magna chely. / Hunc tandem artifices magni varijque sequuti, / Auxerunt nomen cum pietate meum. / Nec desunt hodie castis qui can- tibus aras, / Condecorent, sacrum laetificentque chorum. / His Iacobus adest dulci modulamine MISSAS / Qui dedit has, stabilis quem mihi iunxit amor: / Hunc ego cognosco cultorem, hunc diligo, laudo: / Huic tandem aethereus conferet astra DEVS. Wolfgangus Pyrringer Composuit 138 Supplement III (Selectiores quaedam missae, lib. I.) AD AVTHOREM Grata per aestiuos dum carpimus otia Soles / Membraque dulcis habet fessa labore sopor: / Galle tuos (haud ficta loquor) miratus honores, / Cin- thius ad resonum metra canebat Ebur. / Nec mirum: quis enim Phoebaeo carmine dignum / Quis vel Apollinea te neget esse chely. / Čredo equidem, tua nune aliter nec seripta loquentur / Te Aonijs puerum delituisse iugis. / Quid? vel Hyperboreum cantu non vincis olorem? / Hoc mage conue- niens sic tibi nomen erat. / Cantandi te vix melius qui nouerit artem / Soe- cula vocalem prisca tulere Linum. / Hoc tamen ad spurcos studium non vertis amores / Turpia nec Paphiae voce duella sonas; / Quae deuota pij sed ament modulamina Mystae / Te canere haec superum, cultus amorque iubent. / PRAESVLIS ergo tuos sub numine prome labores, / Quo nihil in MORAVO clarius orbe nitet. / Nec detraetorum verearis scommata, dum te / MVSICA turba ducem quem veneretur habet. Ioannes Ierger seribebat IV (Selectiores quaedam missae, lib. II.) REVERENDISSIMO / IN CHRISTO PATRI AC ILLVSTRISS: / PRINCIPI DOMINO D. STANISLAO PAWLOVIO / EPISCOPO OLOMVCENSI, &c. / Domino suo Clementissimo. / S. P. PRODIT, Illuss: Princeps, en alter foetus, ac lucern tandem ipse quo- que aspicit, non expectato nuncio quam in partem acceptus sit primus: ergo praepropere fortasse? At facile ominor, quo ille apud te fuerit loco, non rei momento (quod nullum est) nixus, sed ineredibili bonitate tua per- suasus atque modestia, qua clarissima faeta tua sic silentio tegis tectaque cupis vt te inuitissimo proferantur; aliena vero etiam leuissima, modo cum fide, cum religione, cum Ecclesiae fructu (quo omnia refers) coniuncta sint, mirifice probes ac tueare. Collaudauit aliquando Seruator noster inopis mulierculae pietatem & officium egentis complexus est, adeb vt minuta duo in gazophilacium iacta lautissimis opulentiorum doniš anteferret. Ego nuper vnum miši; quanta omnium gratia, nihil moror (tua enim mihi be- neuolentia sufficit & calculus) secundum iam mitto nummulum: bonis desi- derijs, vigilijs, explicatis mentibus & manibus Ecclesiae semper patuit officina; nihil quod honestus labor cuderit, aspernatur, non angustias aspicit cuiusquam nec copias, animum pendit, voluntates illa dinumerat atque metitur; praegnantibus haec votis magis quam aere turgescit arca. Scio equidem & sentio, haud tanti fore ista quanti deberent et C. T. deceret, at iugis amicorum & prolixa efflagitatio (quam saepe neglexi, saepe etiam repudiaui) in hanc me siue temeritatem siue imprudentiam & facilitatem 139 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl praecipitauit. Feram igitur hanc vim ab amicis, ac te obsecrabo Mušicam meam, agrestem licet, ne respuas, gaudebo vero si quid adiumenti ea diuino cultui, vel ornamenti attulerit Ecclesiae, apud quam tu grauissimo tempore fideliter & fortiter excubas & in cuius cura lubrica castissime versaris: Viue Antistes integerrime Iacobi tui memor, valeque diu incolumis Marco- mannicum lumen. / Pragae ipso die Michaelis Archangeli. 1580. / C. T. / addictissimus / Iacobus Handl, / Gallus vocatus / Carniolanus. V (Selectiores quaedam missae, lib. III.) ADMODVM REVEREN- / DO IN CHRISTO PATRI DOMINO. D. CASPA- RO, / ABBATI ZABRDOVICENSI AC SYLOENSI DIGNISSIMO, & c. Pa- trono svo plvrimvm honorando. / S. D. SINGVLARIS IN MVSICAM ANIMVS, VIR VEnerande, & summa erga me voluntas tua, non verbis (quod pene est omnium) significata, sed re ipsa (quod paucorum est) persaepe probata, nescio quam a me curam requirit, cum prouidendi vt quam gratissimus cognoscerer, tum cauendi ne vnius sordidi contemptoris aud callidi dissimulatoris improbitate violata fides languescat. Quam ego conscientiae vrgentis tacitam vocem etsi serd secutus sum, nunquam tamen abieci, imo vero alui & occultaui tantisper dum paruorum conatuum spes non fortunae calore, sed prouidentissimi DEI subsidio prouecta in aliquam tandem frugem emergeret. Huius iam partem decerptam REVERENDISS. Olomucensi nostro Antistiti obtuli, tibi alteram mitto: quae si forte (quod valde metuo) crudior uidebitur, oro ne continud respuas, sed vt tibi quidem addictissimae at nondum satis ex- coctae adolescentiae primos fructus liba; Scis enim quae gustatu peracerba sunt, nonnunquam colore & odore sensum tenere, doneč amici complexu maturata dulcescant. Magnum tibi cum hoc exercitationis genere negotium semper & honestum fuit, mirificus in Musicos sensus & inclinatio; quod ego ijs diebus quibus & tecum commoratus & a te liberaliter acceptus sum perspexi, plurimi norunt, familia loquitur, quae Musicae ignarum nescit. Hoc tuae prudentiae est, qua non tam quaeris quod aures ad horulam vane mulceat quam vnde praepotentis DEI domus niteat, cultus accrescat, maie- stas illustretur. Neque te Graecorum (puto) ardor pene superstitiosus tan- tum commouit, quibus Themistocles indoctior visus quod in epulis Lyram, scilicet, recusasset, apud quos Musiči floruerunt, disceban,tque omnes, quod qui nesciebat, excultus doctrina minus credebatur: Non (inquam) horum exemplum tanti apud te valet, vt non vehementius commoueare illa sapientis voce aduersus omnes Musicae aemulos intenta, Non impedias Mušicam. Huic tu monenti sic pares, vt quod ille irnpediri vetat, tu etiam omni cura augeas. Quare Pater & Patrone obseruandissime, accipe hanc non obligationem nouorum sed veterum tuorum in me meritorum testifi- cationem, nam ne illius in me nota militis adhaerescat, cui quod erga ho- 140 Supplement spitem ingratus fuisset, Macedo Philippus inuri has literas iussit, Ingratus hospes, tua officia non solum non negabo, sed & meminero & praedicabo semper. /Pragae die omnibus Sanctis sacro. Anno 1580 / Reueren: Tuae / obseruantiss. / Iacobus Handl, Gallus vocatus / Carniolanus. VI (Selectiores quaedam missae, lib. IV.) ADMODVM REVEREN- / DO IN CHRISTO PATRI DOMINO. D. IOHAN- NI / ABBATI MONASTERII ZWETL VIGILANTISSIMO, &c. Patrono svo plvrimvm colendo. / S. P. MEMOR ILLIVS TEMPORIS REVERENDE Pater, quo vna fuimus aliquando, & in omnem familiarissimi conuictus partem circumspectans nihil suauius reperio moribus, nihil amabilius prudentia tua, qua sic irre- titum me tenes, tui vt obliuisci nesciam. Itaque amicos enumerans & po- tiores ex his quoque secernens quibus animum beneficio multiplici deuinc- tum etiam gratum testarer, quo te (quem semper inter primos habui) loco ponam dubitabo? Nunquam. Is enim sum (si tamen me nosti) qui veras amicitias religionis, virtutis, amoris consensu magis quam officiorum vel magnitudine & fructu vel numero pendendas existimem. Dignitas quidem tua certa tum erat & peruagata, nune vero permultum aucta /& spectabilis, hanc exosculor, tibique ex animo volo; maioribus enim ornamentis tua te virtus iam pridem dotarat, quam si perseuerantiae clauo confixeris, nec liquidis honorum titulis diffluere siueris atque numeros tandem illius hoc paeto expleueris, vere tibi cum omnibus bonis congratulabor. Non tibi excidit quid ipsis illis nostrae coniunctionis diebus nune modeste insi- nuans, nune blande monens, nune amice & verecunde rogans mecum egeris; imperio enim carebat vox tua, vt arrogantia animus: lam nune (si placet) exhibeo eam lucubratiuncularum partem, quam tu cupidissime expetisti, imo pene efflagitasti; sumptibus ad rem conficiendam libera- lissime oblatiš, ego vero contra vt salebrosam & minus expeditam suppri- mere decreueram, nisi vicisset desiderium tuum quo non solum me, verum etiam Mušicam quanti faceres, ostendisti. Absit vt illam fastidias quam vel Lycurgus tulit, Socrates etiam probauit, aded vt effaetum senem ad Lyram institui non suppuderet: cui tantum detulere veteres vt Dis inuisos crederent, qui Mušicam auersarentur; In Thebas hostiliter irruens Alexan- der mota Pindari statua Cleonis Cantoris simulachro pepercit. Ateas Scy- tharum Rex quia tibicinis modulos irrisit, ideo Scytha, ideo barbarus, ideo feralis habitus est. Quanto & sapientius iudicarunt & rectius fecerunt primi Legumlatores qui animaduertentes hominum studia nec tranquilla esse posse nec diuturna rythmum symphoniacum admiseuerunt, & si quis cra- pulam ructans baccharetur aut ebrius in flagitia ebulliret, tibijs hunc atque concentu reprimebant: Neque hic Musicae vis desinit, Fabium audi; Re- 141 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hšndl migem cantus hortatur, & singulorum fatigatio quamlibet se rudi modu- latione solatur. Vide quaeso, quos terminos artis nostrae describat, quem modum statuat Fabius. Quid Pythagoras senserit an est qui ignoret? Mun- dum ipsum Musiča ratione concinnatum prodidit. Certe si qua res est quae onus alleuiat, curas minuit, dolores lenit, distractos conglutinat, inimicitias sopit, hostes expugnat, molesta omnia vel pellit vel demitigat, Musiča est. Quam illa patronam habet? D. Ceciliam virginem religione, pudicitia, mar- tyrio admirabilem. Hanc cole si me amas, imo illam quia diligis, me quoque complectere & Galli tui raucam (quam te cogente emittit) vocem tolera; Quae si vel tibi probabitur vni, nil requiram amplius. Deus te tuosque his dubijs & formidolosis temporibus diu seruet incolumem. / Datum Pragae ipso nostrae sanctissimae patronae D. Ceciliae die. Anno 1580. / Reueren: Tuae / obseruantiss: / Iacobus Handl, / Gallus vocatus / Carniolanus. VII (Selectiores quaedam missae, lib. IV.) PARACLESIS / AD MVSICES AMATOREM Si qua tibi fuerint, (veluti fortasse videntur / Vitima,) non facili SACRA canenda modo: / Ne subito absistas coepto, neu’ sperne Camoenam / Mellifluam, dulcem, per se &, Arniče, bonam. / Sed mage supremi mirare encomia Regis. / Tam variis hominem posse referre sonis / Mirare, & lau- des, Diuinae adiungito laudi / Conatus, vires, ingeniumque tuum. / Saepe cane, & quae sunt magis ardua vince canendo / Sic facile efficies quod fuit ante graue. / Imo & Nectarea tantum rapieris ab oda. / Saepius, vt nollis hac meliore frui. M. Valent: Kamp: F. VIII (Selectiores quaedam missae, lib. IV.) AVTHOR OPERI Cur horres lucern felici sydere natum? / I, quo te tua sors, & Deus ipse vocat. / Condatur tenebris quod nescit ferre parentem, / Vel certe Aonio non sonat apta choro. / Tu mea progenies noto prognata parente, / Nil, nisi verbigena quale probatur, habes. / An forte optatum genium tibi defore credis? / Falleris: est genius, quem canis, ipse tuus. / lile tibi nomen tribuet, vitamque perennem, / Haudque sinet nati funera flere patrem. / Verum esto, nolint magnis fata aspera rebus / Annos te Pylios viuere, viue pios. / Cum non sit tanti, quam multos vixeris annos, / Quam si tota expers crimine vita fuit. 142 Supplement IX (Opus musicum, tom. I.) REVERENDISSIMIS / ATQVE ILLVSTRISSIMIS PRINCIPIBVS, / D El ET APOSTOLICAE SEDIS GRATIA ANTISTITIBVS AC DOMINIS. / DOMI¬ NO MARTINO ARCHIEPISCOPO PRAGENSI: / DOMINO STANISLAO EPISCOPO OLOMVCENSI: / DOMINO ANDREAE EPISCOPO VRATI- SLAVIENSI: / PRINCIPIBVS AC DOMINIS SVIS CLEMENTISSIMIS / S. P. P. QVOD diuinus ille vir, vates Musicus, & Rex de se aliquando cantandc dicit, Domine dilexi decorem domus tuae, & locum habitationis gloriae tuae; id ego vos, Ecclesiae columnae, & Regni huius lumina, re ipsa eniti, toto corde occinere, vno velut ore loqui inaudio. Sic enim omnes, et singuli in hanc vnam rem incumbitis, ita domus Dei ornamenta omnia colligitis, & captatis vndique, vt nihil, quod huc quoquo modo pertinere arbitrarnim, a vobis negligatur, praeterea se quisque, & sua ita componit, & comparat, vt etiam ex hoc studio cumulus quidam gloriae in domum Dei redundet. Vestra quippe non voce tantum, & cura, pedo & mitra admoniti, sed etiam exemplo commonefacti, corpora, mentesque suas multi viua templa vouent, dicantque. Quo in domum, cultumque Dei animo sis, Martine, D. Viti Me- tropolitana aedes, Praga, Bohemia loquitur. Quo & candore niteas, & calore aestues, Stanislae, Olomucium, & Morauia clamitat. Tuus Andrea zelus & ardor quis sit, etiam ante hoc, quod diu exercitae, & testatissimae virtuti tuae parabatur stipendium, Silesia cuncta commeminit. Et cum diligentis- sime procuretis ea, quibus locus, domusque Dei adornari, omnis religio & sanctitas promoueri, ouium vestrarum sensus ab his caducis sursum rapi, tollique solent, tum vero Mušicam, vti ad isthaec aptissimam, quo par est loco habetis. Miši non ita pridem in Gazophylacium aera minuta duo, su- dore Mušico parta, quae alij pluris, quam ego vel sperare, vel etiam sentire poteram, fecerunt. En redeo ad templum, & ne vacuus appaream, In con- spectu Dei mei, aliquid sensim congestum, & fere plus, quam nonum in annum pressum merum afferro, quod etsi multorum assiduae flagitationes expresserunt, nullius tamen calcar acrius fuit, atque R. D. Caspari Abbatis Zabrdouicensis ac Syloensis, vobis notissimi viri, qui Gallum suum vrgere nunquam desijt, ipse Musicus, Musicaeque fautor & amator singularis. Opus diutius ne premerem, ac sepelirem suasit, persuasit, impetrauit. Id ego Christo, Christique sponsae, sed vestris (quas oleo sancto tinctas, & gra- tiosas noui) manibus offerri percupio. Res pia est, dedignari, aut gratiam patenti recusare nolite, poenitebit spero neminem. Nihil posui non sacrum, nihil miscui alienum, nihil texui discrepans, Ecclesia mater est, quam du- cem sequor; ab huius vsu, more, ordine, discedo nusquam. Vestras autem manus elegi potissimum, quibus thesauri mei primam partem crederem: quia nimirum illae non solum officium mihi, sed etiam praesidium polli- centur; illius enim magni Dei exercitum angeli vos estis. Quibus oro Gallus potius, priusque cantet, quam his, quorum vita, harmonia, & dulcis con- 143 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hšndl centus, quorum virtus non aures mulcet, sed animos quatit, quibus & do- mus Dei, & decor eius commissa sunt, intra quorum caulas aetatem pene omnem vixi. In vestros igitur sinus iacio, ac has thesauri mei primitias depono, humillime petens, gratas vt habere dignemini, quippe in quas non artis tantum, sed aeris etiam vires omnes, & quicquid hactenus mihi Mu- sicus labor peperit, effudi. Valete amplissimi, et honoratissimi, ad Eccle- siae decus, et praesidium diu superstites Patres, Patroni Maximi, Valete, & fauete, Gallumque canentem patienter audite. / Datum Pragae, ipso die omnibus Sanctis sacro. Anno 1586. / Reuerendissi: ac Illustrissi: Celsitu- dinum Vestrarum obseruantissi: / Iacobus Handl. X (Opus musicum, tom. I.) AD ECCLESIAM SIccine pestiferis, quos haeresis impia fingit, / Cantibus 6 mater ludi- ficata doles? / Non vitra dolor ille grauet, praestantius ecce / Hic opus, hoc laudes tollit in astra tuas. / Hoc te nectarea modulans dulcedine vocum, / Excutiet menti tristia probra tuae. / Hoc sacer ordo tuus multis celebrabi- tur oris: Hoc tua consueto crescet honore fides. / Hoc decus omne tuum rursus consurget in auras, / Vana sed haereseon scommata, victa cadent. / Ergo quid? hoc reliquum mater sanctissima, grato / Illud vt oblatum pe- ctore munus ames. XI (Opus musicum, tom. I.) AD LECTOREM EN tibi lector habes vario modulamine vocum, / Quale dedit nondum Musicus alter opus. / Arte, sono, (fateor) multorum Musiča praestat, / At- tamen haec multa commoditate prior. / Quos alij nullo referunt discrimine cantus, / Hos opus hoc certo mense, dieque refert. / Quae paribus plerique choris, & vocibus edunt, / Hic tibi diuersis voce, choroque sonant. / Multa (nefas) alij permiscent sacra profanis, / His selecta manent non nisi sacra libris. / Forte fugis varijs corrasa volumina veniš? / Vena hic authorem praedicat vna suum.) Et velut haec authore vno se praedicat; vni / Sic Christi sponsae consecrat illud opus. / Absit, vt illius se iactet adultera cantu: / Personat immundae Musiča nulla sui. 144 Supplement XII (Opus musicum, tom. I.) AD MVSICVM MVsice, non tali raperis dulcedine cantus? / Qui placet? eximia num sonet arte melos? / Inspice, volue, viden quantas cantoribus isthaec / Mu¬ siča multiplici voce refundat opes? / Hem, rugas in fronte moues? an copia vocum / Displicet haud templis inuenienda tuis? / Si bona sunt, ars, ordo, sonus: reprehendere nemo, / Ceu chaos immistum, iure valebit opus. / Omnibus author enim defert sua cantica templis; / Nulla subest illi criminis ergo nota. / Quae tibi forte placent, alijs minus ista placebunt; / Author at hic opera seruit vtrisque sua. / Si tuba, si cornu, si tibia, & Organa praesto, / Alterius resonent distribuenda choris. / Si minor est numerus, poterunt encomia Christi / Singula pro modulo templa sonare suo. / Omnibus ex aequo nunquam res vna probatur: / Pluribus vtilior num reprobanda venit? S. J. C. XIII (Opus musicum, tom. I.) AD AVTHOREM CVr Jacobe tibi lucern qui nunciat ales / Dat nomen? frustra suspicer esse datum? Non ita: quin potius si vera peta tur origo, / Monstrant ingenij Musiča dona tui. / Qui sic? miraris? vis te cum nomine dieti / Alitis adiunc- tum munus habere probem? / Incipiam? quid GALLVS agit? non peetora cantu / Suscitat; & lento victa sopore leuat? / Annon, dum primae rubi- cunda crepuscula lucis / Praecinit; aeternae nos meminisse iubet? / Sic tua tristitijs humanas Musiča mentes / Excutit; & superum vult meminisse melos. S. I. S. XIV (Opus musicum, tom. II.) ADMODVM REVERENDIS / AMPLISSIMISQVE COENOBIORVM ANTI- STI- / TIBVS, ABBATIBVS, PRAEPOSITIS, CAETERISQVE ECCLE- / SIASTICIS VIRIS, DOMINIS ET FAVTORIBVS / PRAECIPVE COLEN- DIS. /S. P. ADsum, Honorandi Patres, inuitatu & hortatu vestro, ac alteram The- sauri mei partem tristibus & laetis numeris verbisque (prout temporis se- ries ordoque flagitat) distinctam, promo. Suadebant multi, dissuadebat vnum. Vicere illi, & vt vincerent, mea meque ipse neglexi. Amicos habui ita prioris partis voluptate sensuque captos, & huius cupiditate incensos, vt mihi requiem, Typographo moram nullam permitterent; & nisi momento 10 lacobus Hšndl 145 Dragotin Cvetko — lacobus H&ndl excussa exhiberetur, tacitas inimicitias reformidarem. Ita feruebant illi. Res vero meae (hoc es aes) cum parata essent omnia, celeritati & cupiditati huic obstabant. In has enim angustias me prudens commisi, & Principum aulis, in quibus vixi, valedixi, nec Typographis mea magno meo compendio ambientibus cessi; nempe vt liber & solutus non vni vel homini commodem, vel parieti deseruiam, sed plurium, aut si fieri queat, etiam omnium vtili- tatibus me totum impendam. Ego si quaestum quaererem, nil ederem nisi abunde redditum: at quia vnam DEI Patris & Ecclesiae Matris meae glo- riam specto, ipsam hanc fructum meum arbitrabor. Opibus quas hoc reti congessere inflentur alij, alij honores & hac industria partas laudes iactent, mihi & Musicae peritis patronis non displicuisse, & Musicae autori DEO seruiuisse sufficit; cui cum sapiente illo & Rege supplico, Tantummodo victui meo necessaria, Domine. Vobis autem amplissimi Patres tanquam proximis post Episcopos Ecclesiae ornamentis & praesidijs, quod nune in publieum do, dico; Tantum enim plerique vestrum de me meriti sunt, quantum referre nunquam possum. Ita etiam vel omnes vel fere omnes Mušicam colitis vt Damasi, Gregorij, Ambrosij (qui eandem coluere) sanc- tissimorum Patrum legitimos filios vos esse vno hoc indicio omnibus con- firmetis; aduersus insanos petulantium quorundam & nouorum hominum sensus & voces, quas in religiosissimas familias vestras iacere, & apud rude crudumque vulgus inuidiosissime spargere solent, non satyrico sed faetido & impudenti ore exclamantes: Quae tibi summa boni est? vneta vixisse patella Semper, & assiduo curata cuticula sole: His vos coloribus boni illi, scilicet, viri tum pingebant. Qui si vos vestraque nossent, si vel semel quae saepe vidi viderent, inuiderent scio virtutibus & laudibus vestris, irasceren- tur errori suo. Eam enim apud vos disciplinae moderationis, pietatisque curam & liberalissime quam profiteor artis studium repperi, quod hoc su- spiciosissimo & omnibus Religiosorum Ordinibus inimicissimo saeculo nemo nisi oculatus testis iuranti credat. Non vnum vidi domicilium vestrum, pera- graui multa, sed praecipue Austriaca, Morauicaque triui & prope habitaui Monasteria; in his etiam non raro, vt ille Syluestrem tenui musam medita- tus auena. Vbique ineredibili & amore & liberalitate habitus. Vbique in vneos & stimulos impegi amicorum, vbique in Maecenates incidi, vbique magnos mea ne tegerem hortatores offendi. Vobis igitur talibus ac tantis fautoribus meis, admodum Venerandi Patres, modo cantare cupio, non vt quod debeo persoluam nonnullis, qui šibi me nimium obligarunt, sed vt absens vobis meam voluntatem tester, non alia spe fretus, quam quae ad reliqua quae in sinu foueo publicanda animet: Nam si hanc vestri in me propensissimi animi & inusitatae beneuolentiae recordatione excussam vo- cem vobis probari certis argumentis comperero, alaerius crebrius, suau- iusque Gallus modulabitur. / Pragae ipsa Dominica Passionis. Anno: M. D. LXXXVII. /A. R. V. D./ obseruantiss: lacobus Handl. 146 Supplement XV (Opus musicum, tom. II.) ECCLESIAE HEu, qui te Mater circumstant vndique casus? / Pro dolor, vt varijs exagitare modis? / Vix celebrata tui natalis gaudia sponsi: / Verteris ad gemitus luctificumque melos? / O tua non veniunt alio suspiria fine, / Quam natos doceas crimina flere tuos. / Quos dum conspicies lachrymarum flumine lotos, / Ac priscam scelerum deposuisse cutem: / In noua Paschali deduces tempore festa, / Et luctu posito iubila laeta feres. / Tum tua sur- genti consurget gloria CHRISTO, / Purpureoque tuum orescet honore de- cus. / Tum tua solenni gaudebunt pignora plausu, / Quae primum lachry- mis indoluere tuis. / At quicunque suos non diluit ante reatus, / Fleuerit aut sponsi tristia fata tui: / Mortuus hic superas nunquam conscendet in arces, / Semper at infernis flebit humatus aquis. / Scilicet hoc nobis posuit Deus ordine vitam, / Dentur vt exactis digna trophoea malis. / Nullus vtrim- que potest vita gaudere beata, / Voluitur alternis laetior aura rotiš. XVI (Opus musicum, tom. II.) AVTHORI SVstulit vt nuper vocem Titanius ales, / Mentibus attonitis vndique turba stetit. / Hoc vbi despiciens sublimi culmine vidit, / Siccine vos (in- quit) Musiča nostra iuuat? / Sistite, nune alia modulabor origine cantum, / Quique Petro lachrymas attulit, ales ero. / Protinus arrectas demittens vertice cristas, / Cantica de CHRISTI funere moesta refert. / Ingemit ex- templo populus, victique dolore / Permulti, tepidis imbribus ora rigant. / Rursus id vt vidit, luctum miseratus ab alto / Heus (ait) heus, gemitus po- nite, laeta canam. / Dixerat, & geminis animosior excitus alis, / Blanda resurgentis gaudia voce sonat. / Nec prius absistit, quam conscendentis in astra, / Flaminis & sacri, prosequeretur iter. / Ilicet applaudunt, procul & moerore fugato, / Omnes laetitiae signa dedere sua. XVII (Opus musicum, tom. III.) AMPLISSIMIS CONSVLI- / BVS, SENATORIBVS, PATRITIIS, CIVIBVS / MECOENATIBVS EXIMIIS / IACOBVS HANDL S. D. QVaerenti mihi cuinam tertiam hanc, propositi sensimque lucern aspi- cientis operiš, partem labore neque breui neque leui ad calcem perductam, nuneuparem; vester, Grauissimi Prudentissimique viri Ciuitatum fulera & columnae ordo occurrit. Sciunt nimirum ex vobis non pauci, cuinam me stu¬ dio ab ineunte aetate dedidi, quid haetenus & coxerim & traetarim si non 10* 147 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl omnes certe permulti nouerunt. Mušicam vnam ex omnibus artibus libe- ralibus adlegi in qua & annos collocarem ac tererem, & vires consumerem & omnes meas post Deum cogitationes conijcerem. Hanc didici, hausi & pene suxi puer, hanc colo adolescens, hanc si vita superstes fuerit ornabo senex, hanc nec viuus deseram, nec mortuus. Vitam enim illam omnibus bonis circumfluentem spero illucque adspiro vbi magnus ille & solennis DEI Chorus cum sit ecquae ibi Musiča non deest. Meministis reor, quos superiorum partium adsciuerim patronos, tertiam vestram esse cupio, qui mea aliqua iampridem expetistis, & quae fragmenta hinc inde captare scru- tari atque colligere potuistis chara vobis fuisse accepi; qui Ciuitates & Respublicas sic administratis ut Musiča tanquam laborum ciuiliumque mo- lestiarum condimento vtamini. In Bohemia, Morauia, Silesia, quascunque vidi & obiui Vrbes omnes Musicae non tantum beneuolas, sed quasi deuotas comperi, quam ipsi Senatores & C.iues cum intra parietes clam tum in domo Dei palam exercent celebrantque. Accipite ergo Viri ornatissimi, hi- lari mente quod propensissima voluntate exhibeo, Optoque vt hic vigilia- rum mearum vobis a me iamdiu animo destinatus fructus sapiat, Valete & Gallo, quod hactenus fecistis, fauere & adesse pergite. / Pragae D. Michaeli summo Ecclesiae tutori sacro die, Anno M. D. LXXXVII. XVIII (Opus musicum, tom. III.) INSTRUCTIO AD MUSICOS PAuca ad vos, musices studiosi cultores, habeo de Lucubrationis meae ratione, & de nunnullorum querela. Et querela quidem ea est, me nonnun- quam partium multitudine in plerisque templis cantorum paucitatem, quae ijs canendis numero par non sit, eludere. At vero cum vix vila sit ciutas paulo celebrior, in qua non tibicenes alantur, vix etiam vllus Chorus organo sit destitutus, si cantorum paucitati organa subueniant, & instrumenta, non video meis incantionibus tantam partium copiam, quam non illi vocum mul¬ titudine iucundissima consequantur, praesertim cum, si cantores, ac reliqui duo ordines singuli suum Chorum tuebuntur, facies quaedam videbitur Leuitarum qui, authore Salomone & tubis, & voce, & cimbalis, & citharis, & diuersi generis Musicorum concinebant. Ratio porro a me illa seruata est, vt, sicut ab Ecclesiae ordine, quem semper optimum iudicaui, nusquam re- cessi, neque in posterum recessurus sum, ita ex ipsius verbis ea delegerim, quae ad cantum & ad dies sacros accommodissima putauissem. Nam exempli causa pro ijs, quae ex Biblijs, & Prophetis toto anno proponuntur, ego quae ex omnibus selectissima quolibet die fuerunt, cantui segregaui. Praeterea cum Ecclesia Sabbatho ante Septuagesimam, omisso Alleluia, canat, Media vita in morte sumus; ego neque in isto cantico Ecclesiae vestigia reliqui, &, quod tempus ipsum postulabat, haec muteta interserui, Domine quando ve- neris: Scio quod redemptor: Patres qui dormitis: &, Audi tellus: Cum alijs 148 Supplement horum similibus. Adhaec eidem parti, siquidem de poenitentia agit, inter- posui ea, quae Ecclesia in Automno canit: vt, ex libro Iudith, Tribulationes ciuitatum audiuimus: Nos alium Deum nescimus praeter Dominum: & plura hiš non dissimilia: quae inde non difficulter peti possunt. De libro sapi- entiae nihil extra Aduentum posui; quod in Aduentu sapientiae dies festus ab Ecclesia celebretur. Quare, quae ex illis etiam alijs anni temporibus ca- nuntur, hinc accersenda sunt. De Psalmis nihil dico: nam, vt eos Ecclesia omnibus festis diebus adhibet, ita, vbi opportuni fuerunt, ab ijsdem nullo vnquam tempore abhorrui. Sed de ratione mea satis, etiam de querela. Re- stat, vt vos, qui in aedibus sacris Symphoniae praeestis, obtester, singula vt suis temporibus accommodetis, neue confusioni, quae in domo Dei occur- reret, locum vila ratione faciatis: quod illic forte videtur deesse, alibi resar- cietur. Quaedam etiam istis in libris a me sunt peritioribus scripta: ea velim a plerisque aequius iudicari, ac tum ab ijsdem cani cum fuerint ma- iorem peritiam, & in re Musiča maius artificium nacti. Atqui haec omnia ad nullam meam, sed ad vnius Dei immortalem gloriam spectent. His bene valete. XIX (Opus musicum, tom. III.) ECCLESIAE QVam tuus, 6 Mater sanctissima, peruigil extat / Gallus; & excubias nocte dieque canit? / Nuper vt incubuit saeuissima frigore terris / Bruma, memor cantus perstitit ille sui. / Vtque noui veris clementior aura refulsit, / Non minus officij munera iusta dedit. / Nune vbi sublimes sol dirigit axe quadrigas, / Ac plus purpureae tempora lucis habent: / Altius aligero sub- latus in astra volatu, / Diuinae Triados cantica laeta sonat. / Prosequitur- que dies sacros, quoad actus in orbem, / Desinat, vnde prius ceperat ire, labor. / Hune si mente pari susceptum viderit auetor, / Qua Matri studium consecrat omne suum: / Promptus Apostolicos exin modulabitur hymnos, / Virgineaeque dabit nobile Matris opus. XX (Opus musicum, tom. IV.) SVMMA PRIVILEGII CAESAREI RVDOLPHI II. Romanorum Imperatoris semper Augusti &c. diplomate cautum est Jacobo Handl, ne quis vspiam in omnibus suae Caes: Maiestatis Regnis, haereditarijs prouincijs, atque adeo vniuerso Romano Imperio de- cem annorum spatio Lucubrationes Musicas, quas idem Jacobus Handl, in Ecclesiae vsum, sub titulo operiš Musiči & nonnullarum haetenus editarum Sacrarum Cantionum, sine ipsius permissu in toto vel in parte, simili aut 11 Iacobus Hšndl 149 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl alio quopiam charactere vel forma imitari, recudere, alioue recudendos dare, vel etiam alibi recusos adducere, vendere, distrahere, praeter dieti Jacobi Handl aut haeredum ipsius consensum, quouis modo ausit. Sub paena confiscationis & amissionis omnium eiusmodi librorum, ac muleta super hac re in Priuilegio expressa. / Datum in Arce Regia Pragae die XIX. Mensis Martij, Anno Domini M. D. LXXXVIII. / Rudolphus. / Iaco¬ bus Curtius a Senfftenau / Ad mandatum, &c. / L. Haberstock. XXI (Opus musieum, tom. IV.) ADMODVM REVEREN- / DO IN CHRISTO PATRI AC DOMINO, / D. AM- BROSIO, DEI PROVIDENTIA ABBATI ZABRDOVI- / CENSI VIGILAN- TISSIMO &c. PATRONO / SVO OBSERVANDISSIMO, &c. / S. P. QVem praesens verbis aliquando tibi, eundem absens nune literis gra- tulor & virtutis gradum & honoris locum, Admodum Reuerende Pater. Neque minus ipse mihi congratulor, quod qui Musicae fons est idem mihi ac meis conatibus tam sit propitius atque beneuolus DEVS Opt: Max: Nam, quod summi beneficij loco habere me debere intelligo, CASPARO illo meo mihi erepto AMBROSIVM ille vitae autor fautorque meae substituit, fluc- tuum in quos Mus.ices amore & publici commodi me causa commisi, asylum & portum. Audi ergo consilium meum, quamuis id non omnino te fugit, conscium pene meorum omnium. Hactenus quae DEI sunt DEO dedi quan- tum dedere atque tul ere vires meae; Tribus partibus complexus quae primis illis summisque ac DEO sacris diebus palam decantari solent; jam expeti- tum diu opus de Sanctis (in quibus DEVS ipse vel honoratur vel spernitur) apporto, eodem penitus quem Ecclesia sancta sanetorum Mater seruat, ordine digestum. Nempe vt Beatiss: DEI Matrem Apostoli & Euangelistae, tum Martyres, dein Confessores, demum Virgines Viduaeque velut inuicta quadam atque terribili castrorum acie sequantur. Ac ne quis locus ulli desit Diuo quem quidem Ecclesia Columna & firmamentum veritatis, honoran- dum decreuit, quaedam in postremum locum con ječi, Diuis omnibus prop- tum atque communem. Voces autem hoc modo disposui, ut VIII. vocum pri- mo, VI. vocum secondo, V. voc: tertio, III. vocum ultimo loco occurrant. Vni- uersum Opus psalmis aliquot triumphalibus diuino cum Psalte conclusi. lam vero hoc tempore vel aptiorem consilio meo vel propiorem argumento vel chariorem mihi habeo neminem cui lucubratiunculam istam debere me putem quam R. D. T. in quam multae causae nuneupationis huius con- fluunt & pene conspirant. Tu mihi hortator fuisti laboris huius, quemad- modum qui te antecessit CASPARVS summus & certus Mecoenas meus superiorum Tomorum suasor fuit. Tu Mušicam Musicosque sic colis & foues ut tibi plane proposuisse videaris huius Artis dignitatem non modo sartam tectam verum etiam omni genere auctam tueri. AMBROSII tibi nomen 150 Supplement nescio quod mihi omen obijcit, fore ut sancti illius viri merita in Mušicam maxima, imitere. Sic ergo apud te statue AMBROSI Pater, & hoc, quan- tulumcunque est, & mea, & me ipsum tibi prorsus consecrata esse. Raucos meos Zoilos nihil moror, nam MORALIBVS meis eorum dentes iam stupere ac pene hebescere animaduerto. / Prag: Cal: Ianuarijs quo die ante bien- nium CASPARIVS ille meus obdormiuit in CHRISTO, cuius memoriam aeternam esse percupio. Anno: M. D. XCI. / A. R. T. D. / obseruantiss: / Iacobus Handl / Gallus dictus C. XXII (Epicedion harmonicvm) IN PATRONORVM NOSTRORVM FVNERE, DIGNISSIME Dn. Prae- sul, duabus de causis conuenit, vt moerorem declaremus: Et quia tangimur desiderio Patronorum, qui ex hac mortali consuetudine abducuntur, & quia mouemur omine, DEVM solere, ante publicas calamitates praeripere suos cultores, iuxta illud. Esai: 52. cap: a facie poenarum iniquitatis, sublatus est iustus; Taceo enim qui & qualis mearum Musarum Patronus: DN. CA- SPARVM SCHENAVER antecessorem tuum, cuius IVSTIS perlitare, hac mea Musa est animus, intelligo: ex vita hac mortali decesserit. Orbatus mehercule sum, non saltem solius Musarum mearum Patroni honorandis- simi praesidio: imo inter Praelatos, quotquot illi sunt, qui fauere hactenus videantur Musis meis: Columine & asylo splendidissimo. Quod tibi equidem Dn. Praesul AMBROSI, & alijs quos ille dum in viuis ageret, aequitate & beneficentia šibi deuinxerat, haud ignotum est. Citra ambitionem dictum velim, Vt Heliotropium & quidam alij flores, officio suo semper ad solem, sese obuertunt, ita is Praesul, ad Musas meas, sese conuertere, ijsque tectum sartum, praesidiumque parare solebat. Sed liceat pace tua adhuc disserendi modo, quaedam pauca de ipso commemorare. Is Brunensi Ciuitate, Caenobio tuo contigua, oriundus, quam primum: praecipue autem ex Postillis Tho- mae Baworowski :Morauam linguam addisceret, totius Conuentus legitimo consensu: imo & Sacrae Caesareae Maiestatis Maxim: II. Rom: Imp: tres Dictaturas, primo quidem Dictaturam Praepositurae Nouoreischensis, Fi- liolae Caenobij vestri, Deinde Abbatiarum duarum, Syloensis & Zabrdo- uicensis, cui tu, vt legitimus succesor praees, alternatim est assequutus. Quas quidem omnes dignitates, quanta cum laude & industria administra- bat, vos omnes qui nouistis illum, estis mihi testes. Et quum nec illic virtus illius conquiesceret, a superiorum statuum ordine in Marchionatu vestro pro Bernae Prouincialis officiali ac exactore, imo & aliquando pro intimo, in nonnullis, magis serijs, Consiliario agnoscebatur. Quis aecque Praela- torum, tam peracri acumine, id vt vno ac eodem tempore, & loquentes audire, scribentibus dictare, ipse etiam scriptitare possit, efficere potuit? Ob quod merito Pater quasi Conscriptus a reliquis Praelatis salutabatur. Quam nihil etiam laboribus domesticis pepercerit, perhibent dies ac noctes. n* 151 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl Perhibet dieta iam Praepositura Nouoreischensis, funditus ab eo fere ex- aedificata. Perhibet dictum quoque Coenobium Zabrdouicense, cui in eri- gendo & restaurando, nouus quasi Fundator LEO COMES DE KLOBAVK, & vixit & mortuus est. Id enim Coenobium ille: hic te Praesul dignissime; Conuentum tuum ac omnes Clientes, pro testimonio appello: ita a ruina extrema, plurimisque nominibus decocta e postliminio quasi ad priseum suum nitorem, reduxit. Sileo in Ecclesia pietatis, Organa & alios ornatus; extra vero, Vineta, piscinas, agros & id genus alia, pro faciliore Conuentus tui sustentatione, adinuenta, erecta & exculta. Cui autem illa omnia, cui? tibi filio suo successori exoptatissimo, Conuentui, & peculij vestri spiri- tualis, haeredibus futuris. Sed quid multis opus? vbi ante dieta cum laude perficeret, viribus tandem debilitatus Hemiplexiae telo, die eo, quo animae salutaria adhiberet remedia, est attactus: Anno enim hoc, 89. penitus iam decurrente, die Circumcisioni Redemtoris nostri dieto, praemuniuit se suamque fidem sacra synaxi, & sacrificium Missae Deo litauit, atque eodem die cis Vesperam, DN. DEO animam suam reddidit. Is quum vltimum vale huic mundo immundo (id enim a fide dignis accepi) dicere vellet, in haec verba secum mussitare videbatur. IN MANVS TVAS DOMINE IESU CHRISTE, SPIRITVM COMMENDO MEVM. Quando voles, hinc me vo- cabis, En tuus sum viuus, & sum mortuus, CHRISTE veni citius. Haec in- quam quum secum profundo peetore versaret, dormiturienti similis, placi- dissime in CHRISTO obdormiuit. Est igitur Praesul noster, ex hoc teter- rimo mortis carcere in aeternam libertatem ascitus. Hic te exoptatissime successor his verbis alloqui nune mihi videtur. Mi fili ecce quomodo te de spirituali generatione progenui, ad pietatem introduxi, instar naturalis pa- rentis praeceptores substitui & quum solidiora posceret aetas, quo sacris iniciareris vbi lieuit, emisi. Te ipsum mi AMBROSI, ingrauescentis meae aetatis baculum successionis subordinaui. Quaeso expectationem meam noli eludere. Eos etiam, quorum ego: vbi iaceres pietatis fundamenta: fautor & Mecoenas eram, amore paterno prosequere, qui & te informando, & in Choro Caenobij nostri adornando, praestantiore officij genere, nobis inse- ruierunt. Quos intelligam, tu ipse tuam mentem interroga, ac super eo diligenter attende & intende. Ea sunt, dignissime Praesul antecessoris tui verba. At iam ad mei instituti propositum redeo. Dignissime Praesul, quum meae Musae, per Mecoenatem solum pene ipsum, non saltem emer- serunt, imo & creuerunt, merito ergo iure illius IVSTIS lugubri hoc meo cantu, perlito & parento; Hune tibi nune donare & praesentare, quo imi- tandae Pietatis exemplum habeas, qui tuus in me est animus libuit. Macte! quaeso Pietate illius, & si non in solidum ac assem, vel in Dodrantem, Bes- sem aut semissem, in iam dictis virtutum speciebus, te mihi Praesulem, Patronum & Mecoenatem exhibe ac praesta. Tibi enim quoque vt legitimo successori labores meos pro Ecclesiae vsu susceptos, imo & me ipsum meaque omnia, ne dicam etiam ipsos parietes meos commendo & recom- mendo. Vale Praesul dignissime ac optatissime, tuique amantes amore pro- 152 Supplement sequere. / A. R. T. D. / obseruantiss. / Iacobus Handl / Gallus dictus C. / Eteostichon continens annum obitus, mensem & diem: / HIC SILoe Zaber- DoVICII praesVL reqVIesCIt Caspar, LVX lani: ferto trophaea Deo. XXIII (Harmoniae morales, lib. I.) IACOBVS HANDL / SVIS MVSICAEQVE AMICIS / S. P. D. NON SINGVLI IAM A ME SINGVLA SED AB VNO OMNES pene omnia exigunt. Liberalis Musiča nulli vnquam negauit facile operam suam liberali. Ergo omnibus omnia fieri & hoc, quantulumcunque illud est, quod honestissimarum Artium Artifex mihi credidit, talento, nulli non grati- ficari discupio. Ecclesiae chorus tres me iam continenter annos occupat: dedi nonnulla; quae cantantur & audiuntur p rope quotidie: adderem plura, ni viribus essent hoc tempore imparia meis. Ars Integra est, sed neruus praeli & typographicum robur fractum. Interim succlamant amiculi, Inter- pone tuis interdum gaudia curis, & magnis vocibus e Choro ad forum, a sacris & serijs, ad iocum, focum, caenulasque ludosque me suos inuitant. Pugnem aduersus istos? Beneuolentissimi sunt, qui non tam aurium sua- rum illecebras quaerere, quam grauioris Musicae aliqua intermissione mihi quoque consulere velle videntur. Demus aliquid studio animoque Amico- rum. Ludunt in Madrigalibus, trahuntur Neapolitanis, pascuntur & pene natant in Vilanellis Itali. Quae idiomatis sui sunt haec captant crepantque nostrates, in his triumphat, his se saginat expletque cum Germano Gallus. Suntque hae inprimis nationes quae Mušicam & alunt & colunt, in quibus illa praecipue viget viretque. Hic omne numerorum genus & Versuum, maiores Musicae opes, ditius penu nusquam commemini. Quo aut frueremur omnes nisi Linguarum peregrinarum prohiberet ignoratio, aut plures. La- tinam Linguarum Reginam in hoc genere pene desertam video. Huic igitur veluti notissimae, latissimae & vbique domesticae, quaecunque ex moribus deriuare, quae ex artibus, ex natura ipsa haurire, tum ex dictis, fictis, factis varie permixtis, quicquid poetice conflare possum, nune committere incipio, & Madrigalium loco substitutum laetiorem hunc cantum, MORA- LIA, inseribo, sicque vt deinceps vocentur opto; quod potissima pars mo- rum sit minime lasciuorum, sed qui obscoenitatis etiam vmbram refor- mident. Vobis autem eximijs atque assiduis amicis meis id destino, vt habeatis quod vos obleetet, ego qui me defendant. Nam qui interdum Gallo cantanti raucis vocibus immurmurent non desunt. Sed, omnia vincit amor Musicae & nos cedamus amori. / Pragae, ipsa Dominica Septuagesimae, Anno Salutis: M. D. LXXXIX. 153 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Hšndi XXIV (Moralia) AD CANTOREM MODVLORVM HANDELII Rvmor Handelivm perisse dixit / Quum putre acciperet čada ver urna: / Sed falso Handelivm perisse dixit / Rumor, funera nulla sentientem. / Quod mortale fuit satumque terra, / Mors terrae, invida, reddidit parenti. / Vivit HANDELIVS superstes astris, / Vivit HANDELIVS superstes orbi, / Illic mente pia, sed hic perenni / Laborum genio integer suorum. / Viven- tem adspice, quisquis occinendo / Vel moreš sapies honestiores, / Vel Musas facies politiores, / Vel motus animi quietiores. / Hic iunctim omnia praestat (hunc prehende / Qui Musas colis elegantiores) / Victurus genio LIBER perenni. M. Georgius Carolides a Karlsperga, civis novae Pragae XXV (Moralia) AMPLISSIMO CELEBER- / RIMOQVE VETERIS PRAGAE SENA: / TVI. VIRIS NOBILISSIMIS ET CLARISSI- / MIS, DOMINIS ET PATRONIS MEIS, HONORE / ac observantia dignissimis, S. D. OMnes, qui aliquod opus in lucern edere, usuique hominum adcommo- dare volunt, Ampliss. celeberrimeque veteris Pragae Senatus, Viri Nobi- lissimi, principio consueverunt de praestantia, antiquitate & usu operiš praefari, quo lectorem alliciant, majorique legendi desiderio accendant. Ego vero ut Musicae per se & ab artificibus satis commendatae, (cuius non minima in hoc libro comprehenditur portio) laudes, tanquam vino vendibili hederam, praefigerem, induci nulla ratione potui. Quis enim est mortalium, qui vel illius in universum praestantiam ignoret: vel speciatim, quid IACO- BVS HANDELIVS, piae memoriae, in ea potuerit, quave sint exempla ab ipso composita gratia, usu non animadverterit? Testis erit locupletissi- mus praesens liber MORALIVM, excellentis in Musiča ingenii HANDE- LIANI: Etsi autem possit vocari in dubium, an is, Autore vita functo, in publicum debeat emitti. Sed rem paucis expediam. IACOBVS HANDL, germanus meus, qui anno ab hinc quarto ex hac in beatam (ut pie creditur) vitam migravit, post editionem Harmoniarum suarum laudes divinas con- tinentium, quotidie & magno conatu ab amicis solicitabatur, ut a choro ad forum condescenderet, harmoniisque Ecclesiasticis, Morales ad oblectan- dum maerentes hominum animos, interponeret: quorum nolens repugnare voluntati, ut quibus multis beneficiis devinctus erat, manum operi adhibuit, & vix aliquot ex moralibus (quemadmodum eas ipse adpellari voluit) in lucern emisit, cum ecce ex diversis provinciis a familiaribus, viris eruditis, compluria ingeniose & facete dieta, gravesque ac jucundae sententiae transmittuntur, ut per ipsum numeris Musicis ad exemplum praemissarum 154 Supplement adplicarentur. Et illis itaque satisfacere exoptans, rem prompte adgressus, multas iam Musicis coloribus exornavit, absolvissetque omnes, nisi Mors immatura homini vitalem spiritum praecidisset. Quae quidem cum hacte- nus a nullis aut forte tantum a paucissimis visae auditaeque fuerint, ac multorum, praestantissimorum virorum judicio, editione publica adspec- tuque omnium dignae censeantur, facinus germano amore indignum putavi, si lucubrationes fratris interire, opusque a multis desideratum oblivione sempiterna aboleri paterer: atque eo ipso adductus, non ita pridem eas praelo commisi, utque quamprimum fieri possit in publicum exirent, cu- ravi: jam vero cum intelligam eas typis absolutas, nihil, quam Patronum, qui se contra detractores tueretur, exspectare, faxo quod Autor superstes optaverat & me ipsius germanum & haeredem decet. Volebat autem, vos, Viri Nobilissimi, Patronos & tutores foetus sui posthumi constitui, vobis, inquam, haec MORALIA (a quibus saepe perhumaniter exceptus, ut id, quod proposuit, manciparet effectui, commonefiebat) consecrari. Hanc ego supremam illius voluntatem exsequor, vestramque Amplitudinem sub- misse oro, uti foetum hunc IACOBI HANDELII posthumum clementer suscipere, eaque qua vivum cum suis Musis Autorem solebatis, benevo- lentia prosequi, ad meum propositum, tanquam rerum fraternarum haere- dis, aequifacere velitis. / Dabantur e Praga veteri 20. Martii, Anni salutis humanae supra Millesimum D XCVI. / Ampli: Vestrae, / addict: / Georgius Handelius, / Carniolus. 155 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Boetticher, W., Stilistische Beobachtungen an textgleichen Kompositionen von Jacobus Gallus und Orlando di Lasso (Entwurf). J. G. & H. T., Ljubljana, 1985, pp. 82—83. Boetticher, W., ‘Jacobus Gallus und Orlando di Lasso. Einige Betrachtungen zum Problem des Stilvergleiches in Motettenrepertoire 1 , MZ/MA XXII, Ljubljana, 1986, pp. 5—14. Braun, W., ‘An unknown autograph of Gallus 1 , MZ/MA IV, Ljubljana, 1968, pp. 50—56. Bujič, B., ‘»Peccantem me quotidie«: Gallus’ homage to Josquin?’, J. G. & H. T., Ljubljana, 1985, pp. 70—81. Busch, H. J., ‘The motets of Jacobus Gallus and the doctrine of musical figures in the first half of the 17th century’. MZ/MA V, Ljubljana, 1969, pp. 40—53. Cvetko, D., Jacobus Gallus Carniolus, Ljubljana, 1965, 291 pp. Cvetko, D., Jacobus Gallus — Sein Leben und Werk, Munich, 1972, 151 pp. Federhofer, H., ‘Zur Satztechnik von Jacobus Gallus’, J. G. & H. T., Ljubljana, 1985, pp. 34—49. Flotzinger, R., ‘Die Ave-Maria Kompositionen des Jacobus Gallus’, J. G & H. T., Ljubljana, 1985, pp. 59—69. Kos, K., ‘Jacobus Gallus’ Zeit (1550—1591) (Einfiihrliche Betrachtungen)’, J. G. & H. T., Ljubljana, 1985, pp. 22—25. Krones, H., Tonalitat und Modernitat bei Jacobus Gallus. MS., Vienna, 1988. Lanzke, H. W., Die iveltlichen Chorgesange (»Moralia«) von Jacobus Gallus, Mainz, 1964, 122 pp. Mantuani, J., ‘Jacob Handl’, DTO VI/1, Vienna, 1988. Naylor, E. W., ‘Jacobus Handl (Gallus) as Romanticist’, Sammelbande der In- ternationalen Musikgesellschaft XI, 1909/10. Pisk, P., ‘Das Parodieverfahren in den Messen von Jacobus Gallus’, StMw V, 1918, pp. 35—48. Pokorn, D., ‘Živalske podobe v Gallusovih moralijah (Animal pictures in Gal¬ lus’ Moralia)’, J. G. & H. T., Ljubljana, 1985, pp. 118—133. Sivec, J., ‘»Ecce quomodo moritur justus« J. Gallusa in nekaterih njegovih so¬ dobnikov (»Ecce quomodo moritur justus« by J. Gallus and by some of his contemporaries)’, MZ/MA XXI, Ljubljana, 1985, pp. 33—49, and J. G. & H. T., Ljubljana, 1985, pp. 84—104. Skei, A. B., ‘Jakob Handl’s »Moralia«’, MQ Lil, New York, 1966, pp. 431—447. Skei, A. B., ‘A problem of triple meter in the mušic of Jacobus Gallus’, J. G. & H. T., Ljubljana, 1985, pp. 50—58. Snižkova, J., ‘Prispevek o odnosu Jacobusa Handla do Prage (On Jacobus Handl’s attitude towards Prague)’, MZ/MA VI, Ljubljana, 1970, pp. 12—19. 157 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl Snižkova, J., ‘Jacobus Handl Gallus und Prag in drei Dokumenten’, J. G. & H. T., Ljubljana, 1985, pp. 134—141. Škerjanc, L. M., Kompozicijska tehnika Jakoba Petelina Gallusa (The Compo- sition Technique oj Jacobus Gallus). Ljubljana, 1963, 426 pp. Škulj, E., ‘Word painting in the first volume of Jacobus Gallus’ Opus musicum’, J. G. & H. T., Ljubljana, 1985, pp. 103—117. Zwolinska, E., ‘Einige Bemerkungen zur Verbreitung der Werke des Jacobus Gallus in Polen’, J. G. & H. T., Ljubljana, 1985, pp. 142—148. 158 ABBREVIATIONS DTO — Denkmaler der Tonkunst in Osterreich; J. G. & H. T. — Jacobus Gallus and His Time; MGG — Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart; MQ — Musical Quarterly; MZ/MA — Muzikološki zbornik / Musicological Annual; StMw — Studien zur Musikwissenschaft; SAZU — Slovenska akademija zna¬ nosti in umetnosti; S M — Slovenska matica. 159 INDEX Adler, Guido 136 Adrio, A. 138 Aichinger, Gregor 76, 127, 131 Ambros, A. W. 131 Apel, W. 131 Arcadelt, Jacob 22 Artuci, G. M. 66 Asmenius 102 Asola, G. M. 62, 136 Balbinus, Bohuslav 135 Bartholomaus, Heinrich 58 Besseler, H. 80 Bezeczny, Emil 70 Biffi, Giuseppe 82 Boetius, A. M. T. 72 Boetticher, W. 65, 70, 136 Bothrigare, Ercole 71 Brand see Brant J. Brant, Jan 128 Bujic, Bojan 109 Burmeister, Joachim 76, 77 Busch, J. 76 Butler, Charles 136 Byrd, William 7, 51, 67 Caccini, Giulio 7 Caimo, Giuseppe 82 Calvisius, Sethus 136 Campan, Jan Vodnianus 31 Campanus see Campan J. V. Carbonarius see Voglar M. Carniolanus see Gallus J. Carniolus see Gallus J. Carolides, Georgius 33, 37, 50 Chimarrhaeus, Jacobus 32, 37, 47, 128, 139 Clemens non Papa 72, 90 Coclicus, Adrian Petit 58, 72, 80 Colonna, Fabio 71 Corner, David Gregor 104 Crequillon, Thomas 90 Curtius, Jacob 97 Czernovicensis, Jan Sequenides 37, 102 Černovicky see Czernovicensis Černy, Jirik see Nigrin Damarini, Adelmo 136 Demantius, Christoph 112 Desprez, Josquin 51, 72, 80, 112 Dlabacz see Dlabač Dlabač, J. B. 36 Dobrensky, Vaclav 36 Domenico de Pesaro 71 Dressler Gallus 36 Dufay, Guillaume 72, 80 Dufurcq, Norbert 136 Fabrianese, Tiberio 82 Finck, Hermann 109 Fischer, Joannes Morungensis 105 Flecha, Matteo 128 Flotzinger, Rudolf 16, 52, 104 Frenc(z)elius, Salomon 47, 103 Freytag, Sebastian 23 Gabrieli, Andrea 51, 60, 126 Gabrieli, Giovanni 7, 51, 60 Galli (Gallus), Martin 36 Gattus, Simon 52 Gesualdo, Carlo da Venosa 7, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 129, 131 Gherardi di 128 Goetting, Henricus 113, 114, 135 Gombert, Antonio 84 Grout, Jay Donald 136 Guerrero, Francisco 136 Guilelmus 102 Gumpelzhaimer, Adam 76, 127 Haberstock, L. 98 Hahn, Georg 19 Handelius, Georg (Georgius) 34, 101 Handelius, Georgius Carniolus 19, 100, 134 Handelius, Girzik see Handl Georg 36 Handl, Georg see G. Carniolus 11 Handl see Gallus, J. Handl see Gallus, J. 161 Dragotin Cvetko — Iacobus Handl Hassler, Hans Leo 7, 51, 67, 76, 126, 127, 128 Herner, Georg 52 Hollander, Christian 90 Homer 48, 132 Horace 87, 102 Hout-Pleuroux, F. 34 Hren, Tomaž 90 Ierger, Ioannes 23, 88, 134 Ingegneri, Marc Antonio 68 Isaac, Henricus 67, 72, 112 Jannequin, element 82, 84 Jerin, Andreas 47 Jetrich from Kunavice 47 Kamp, Valentin 49, 110 Khernerus, Jan Plzenus 36 Khnes see Knez J. 15 Khness see Knez J. Khiiess see Knez J. Kircher, Athanasius 72 Knez, Jurij 15 Knofel, Johannes 128 Kral, Krištof 15 Krištof of Polžice 128 Krones, Harmut 64 Kroyer, Theodor 70, 75, 76 Lanzke, H. W. 99 Lasso, Orlando 7, 36, 51, 52, 67, 68, 69, 72, 90, 112, 124, 125, 126, 129, 130, 136 Lauban, Valetin 45 Lechner, Leonhard 86, 121, 124, 126 Leichtentritt, Hugo 72, 73 Leone, Leoni 131, 132 Lilius 102 Lindell, R. 128 Lindner, Friedrich 36, 124, 135 Lobwasser, Ambrosius 36, 124 Luython, Charles 32, 71 Maister, Martin 121 Marenzio, Luca 7, 72, 74, 129 Martial 102 Matthiolus, Jan Vodniensis 34, 36, 37 Maximian 102 Mazzochi, Domenico 72, 73 Meier, B. 65 Michna, Adam Vaclav 136 Monte, Philipp de 7, 19, 32, 51, 67, 127, 128, 131 Monteverdi, Claudio 56, 73 Morales, Cristobal de 51 Neffius, Wolfgang 16 Nigrin, Georgius 27, 88, 98, 100 Obrecht, Jacob 72, 136 Ockeghem, Johannes 72 Orologio, Alessandro 73 Ostermayer, Andreas 26 Otto, Valerius 112 Ovid 102, 134 Palestrina, Giovanni Pierluigi 51, 54, 66, 67 Paminger, Leonhard 124 Pavlovsky see Pawlowsky Š. Pawlowsky, Stanislaw 21, 25, 26, 27, 30, 40, 44, 45, 46, 88, 89, 103, 106, 116 Pernatz, I. 16 Perez, Hurtad 45 Pfolckman see Solchman Pichavy, Pavel (Pawel) 36, 38 Pihani see Pichavy Pihavy see Pichavy Pinelli, Giovanni Battista 128 Pisk, Paul 75 Pluvier, Johann 19 Pontanus, Georg Berthold a Breitenberg 45, 50 Phinot, Domenico 90 Praetorius, Hieronymus 67, 127, 131 Praetorius, Michael 51, 71, 73, 77, 126, 136 Prenner, Georg 52 Prusinowsky, Wilhelm 21 Pyrringer, Wolfgangus 49, 88, 134 Raček, Jan 37 Reese, G. 112 Regnard see Regnart Regnart, Jacob 19, 51, 127, 128, 131 Restel, Michael 26 Rore, Cyprian de 51, 60, 67, 70, 71, 72, 129, 136 Rudolf II Emperor 31, 32, 47, 96, 126, 128 Ruef, Johann 7, 17, 18, 42, 46, 89 Rueff see Ruef Ruof see Ruef Rychnovsky, Jiri 22, 112 Sebastiani, Galeazzo 22 Sales, Franz 128 Šalinas, Francisco de 66, 71 Sayve, Lambertus de 122, 127 Scandello, Antonio 84 Scholckmann see Šolchmann, T. 36 162 Index Schonauer, Caspar 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 89, 96 Schondorf, Philipp 33 Schiitz, Heinrich 74, 124, 126 Selneccer, Nicolaus 60, 102, 121 Šelnecker see Selneccer Sivec, J. 68 Skei, A. B. 64, 109, 112 Snižkova, J. 22, 135 Spadarius see Spataro Spataro, Giovanni 71 Špindler, Johann 18, 47, 121 Ssuman see Šuman 36 Strakova, Theodora 16 Striggio, Alessandro 82 Škulj, Edo 83 Solchman(n), Tomas 36 Šoleman see Solchman(n) Suman, Jan 36 Teleczenus, Ambrosius 42, 45, 46, 96 Tinctoris, Andreas 72 Tomas, Luis de Victoria 7, 68, 69 Trojan, Jan Turnovsky 121, 136 Vaet, Jacob 19, 52, 127 Verdelot, Philipp 90 Viadana, Lodovico 68, 69 Vicentius, Nicolo 67, 71, 80, 86, 110 Virgil 38, 102 Vitalis 102 Vitus de Trausuntinis 71 Voglar, Mihael 18 Wert, Jacques de 90 Widman, Enoch 121, 135 Wilhelm from Oppersdorf 47 Willaert, Adrian 60, 67, 72, 75 Winde, Paul van 19 Wulfius, Adamus 22 Zacconi, Lodovico 109 Zanchi, Liberali 128 Zangius, Nicolaus 128 Zanotti, Camillo 128 Zarlino, Gioseffo 54, 56, 58, 66, 70, 71, 85, 109 Zielinski, Mikolaj 128 Zoilus 132 Zwolinska, E. 128, 135 ISBN 86-7131-043-4 Dragotin Cvetko IACOBUS HANDL GALLUS VOCATUS CARNIOLANUS Prevedli Margaret Davis in Lili Potpara Izdala Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti Naklada 1000 izvodov Natisnila Tiskarna »Jože Moškrič« v Ljubljani 1991