Exploring the Renaissance 2004

«Palestrina’s Nativitas tua Dei Genitrix Virgo. New perspectives

about the compositional process in the Renaissance»

by Daniele V. Filippi (Università degli Studi di Pavia - Cremona, Italy)

abstract
Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina published his first motets book, Motecta
festorum totius anni… quaternis vocibus, in 1563: in the following decades, this
collection enjoyed a wide success (13 editions in forty years) and became a
model of excellence in motet composition, as testified by instances of imitatio
by Marenzio, Victoria and G.F. Anerio, among others.
In the Marian section of the book, the motet Nativitas tua Dei Genitrix Virgo
(In Nativitate Beatae Mariae) stands out for its elegant construction and intense
expressiveness. The presence of an alternative authorial version of this
interesting motet in the anthology Liber primus musarum issued by Antonio
Barrè in the same year, gives us the opportunity to reconsider some aspects of
Palestrina’s ‘idea of motet’ and, on a broader level, of his creative process.
This paper will try to put a basis for a new understanding of writing and re-
writing in the field of Renaissance motet, showing in particular the close
attention Palestrina paid to such problems as text expression and the relation
between musical form and rhetorical strategies. The exposition will include
analytical details – useful to specialists in Renaissance musicology –, as well as
more general arguments open to interdisciplinary discussion.
 1. Introduction
Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina published the Motecta festorum totius anni in
1563 during his service at the Roman church of S. Maria Maggiore. He was
almost forty years old and had already worked for some of the most important
musical institutions in Rome (the Cappella Giulia and Sistina, the church of S.
Giovanni in Laterano); nevertheless, he was still in the early period of his career.
As a matter of fact, this was only his third publication and obviously the first in
the field of motet.
The book consists of 36 motets for four voices, which form a well-
balanced liturgical cycle. If we turn to the reception of this work, we find a
remarkable amount of evidence testifying a wide appreciation: thirteen editions
in a span of sixty years, a significant number of parody-masses by Palestrina
himself and composers of the subsequent generation based upon motets from
this book, ornamented versions, manuscript copies in score-format and so on.
As I finally found out in the course of my research, Luca Marenzio, Tomás Luis
de Victoria and Giovanni Francesco Anerio, among others, composed imitatio-
motets directly related to the Motecta festorum.1
It will perhaps be useful to remind that the first motet in the collection is
the well-known Dies sanctificatus, so often quoted by modern counterpoint
handbooks as a specimen of Palestrina’s style and as a model for motet
composition tout court.

2. Motecta Festorum Totius Anni; Nativitas tua

An analytical overview of the collection reveals a rather homogeneous
stylistic character. Actually, we can distinguish between on one side, a
homogeneous corpus, including 2/3 of the motets, and, on the other side, a
group that bears distinctive, somehow exceptional features.
Most of the motets, however, present the following traits: as to the formal
design, they have only a single pars, whose average length is of 85-90 breves;
they consist of 6-7 segments in conformity with the structure of the text; the

1 Cfr. DANIELE V. FILIPPI, Palestrina, Victoria, Marenzio. Di alcuni mottetti e del loro orizzonte intertestuale,
in: Miscellanea Marenzio, ed. Antonio Delfino, Edizioni ETS, Pisa (forthcoming) and IDEM, Selva armonica.
Giovanni Francesco Anerio e la musica spirituale a Roma nel primo Seicento, PhD diss., Università degli Studi di Pavia,
2004.

2
first segment, or in rhetoric terms the exordium, is imitative; the internal ones –
even though mostly concluding with a cadence – overlap and clear-cut
interruptions in the polyphonic continuum are more often than not avoided; the
final segment is characterized by a typical recurrent form of coda.
As one may expect, these motets are not particularly problematic from a
modal point of view (ranges, melodic contours, cadences and so on are rather
‘regular’, according to the eight-mode system). At the same time, Palestrina
achieves a careful and perspicuous tonal organization. Imitative counterpoint
prevails, but homorhythmic passages are not uncommon, and not uncommon
too is the employment of particular devices for the sake of text expression.
Besides, one of the most important features of these compositions is their ever-
changing vocal orchestration.
The motet Nativitas tua, whose text is taken from the Antiphon to the
Magnificat at second Vespers for the liturgical feast of the Nativity of the
Blessed Virgin, stands out as one of the masterpieces in the collection.

3. The two versions

During my research about the Motecta festorum I perused Lincoln’s
indexes to printed collections of motets and noticed the presence of Nativitas
tua in the Liber primus musarum edited by Anton Barrè and published by
Rampazzetto in Venice 1563. At first, paradoxically, I started working on the
facsimile of this book without paying attention to this particular motet. I took its
presence in the collection only as a marker indicating the opportunity of a
stylistic comparison between Palestrina’s works and other motets by more or
less famous contemporary composers (works by Lasso, Cipriano de Rore, Lupi,
Annibale Zoilo and others figure in Barrè’s anthology). Only later I realized that
“that Nativitas” was not exactly “my Nativitas”: although the beginning was the
same, no change occurred in the text and the dimensions were coincident, on
closer observation this was no doubt an alternative version of the motet.
As I will show in detail, in spite of the unquestionable status of – as said –
versions (two different versions of the same piece), the changes are more
pervàsive than in most of the cases discussed in such a seminal book on

3
Renaissance sketches, drafts and fair copies as Composers at work by Jessie
Ann Owens (1997).2
Just a few words about the editor of the Liber primus musarum: the
French printer and composer Anton/Antonio Barrè had been a singer in the
Cappella Giulia directed by Palestrina in the 1550s.3 Barrè began printing in
1555 with his own type; he then went on acting as editor and publishing in
association with other printers such as Rampazzetto in Venice and Valerio
Dorico in Rome. The high standard of his publications, his direct acquaintance
with Palestrina as well as with the most important musicians of the Roman
milieu, and the fact that he had been among the first to publish works by
Palestrina,4 leads us to consider his anthology a reliable source. In other words
we can reasonably assume that this newly discovered alternative version of
Nativitas tua comes directly from Palestrina’s hands: it can be regarded as an
authorial version.5
Although the anthology and the monographic collection saw the light in
the same year (1563), historical verisimilitude and the results of an analytical
comparison indicate that Barrè’s version is chronologically the first. A possible
reconstruction: Palestrina gave to Anton Barrè the first Nativitas, then, some
time later, at the moment of its inclusion in his first personal motet publication,
he revised it substantially.
Let us examine some of the most interesting differences between the two
versions.
A first example regards the opening segment or, in rhetorical terms, the
exordium of the motet. If the exordial imitation remains basically unchanged,
we may notice some slight modifications for instance in the cantus soggetto,
aimed at thematic unity and modal clarity (see cantus, m. 5 and tenor, m. 8).
The entrance of the bass is delayed in Motecta festorum (m. 10) so that its
intrinsic cadential potentiality – dissimulated in the Barrè version – can

2 JESSIE ANN OWENS, Composers at Work. The Craft of Musical Composition 1450-1600, Oxford
University Press, New York – Oxford 1997.
3 Cfr. THOMAS W. BRIDGES – MAUREEN BUJA, Barrè, Anton, in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and
Musicians, ed. by Stanley Sadie, 2nd revised ed., Macmillan, London – New York 2001.
4 Madrigali ariosi de div. eccell. autori con doe Canzoni di Gianetto, Rome 1558.
5 I must admit, however, that I have not checked yet Barrè’s reliability as for other authors.

4
manifest itself, in a convincing resynchronization of the counterpoint (cadence
on the open triad of G0, m. 12: it is the first important cadence in the motet).
The junction between the first segment and the second one deserves
attention: Palestrina in Motecta festorum stresses the importance of the
concluding cadence on G more drastically, particularly by means of the
rhythmical expansion of m. 19. The authorial intention is clearly directed toward
a sharper distinction between the two segments. This is strongly confirmed by
the adoption of a contrasting vocal orchestration for the beginning of segment 2:
instead of the couple bassus + altus, soon joined by the other voices, we have a
more clear-cut duet for bassus and tenor. It is noteworthy, that other junctions
between succeeding segments have been significantly revised by Palestrina in
the new version.
A third example: a remarkable change occurs in segment 4, on the words
«Christus Deus noster», that is to say on a very exposed nomen sacrum, a
crucial focus in the structure of the text falling roughly in the middle of the
motet. Here the modifications introduced by Palestrina regard both the melodic
contour of the cantus voice (dominating this basically homorhythmic passage)
and the harmonic design. In the Barrè version we see a motivic anticipation of
the following phrase (the insistence on the semitonal movement a-b-a) and a
sober harmonic conduct: this results in a fundamental unity and continuity
between this segment and the next one.
On the contrary, with a masterly touch in the cantus line and a
substantial rewriting of the harmony, Palestrina achieves in the second version
a better syntactic relation between two sharp-profiled segments: the nomen
sacrum is now full of harmonic tension, the reach of the note ‘b’ is delayed, thus
lending a strong expressive power to the word «maledictionem».
One last example from segment 7. In Barrè’s version the words «et
confundens mortem» are set as a 4-breves unit. This is then repeated,
unchanged except for a kind of Stimmtausch between altus and tenor, perhaps
intended as an additional madrigalism for ‘confusion’. The main characteristic
of this unit is the syncopation in the cantus line representing the
aforementioned concept of ‘confusion’ / ‘beguilement’. In the Motecta festorum
revised version, the first entrance of the partially syncopated motive is left to the
tenor, while the cantus enters later, thus acquiring prominence; but Palestrina
now differentiates most of all the two subsegments. At first, the phrase is

5
compressed and simplified, while the second time it is expanded and “more
syncopated” and culminates in a dramatic melodic apex on d, on the word
«mortem». Text expression is richer, the imitative structure is developed in a
more coherent way (see especially the tenor), and the caesura with the
following segment is better defined. Once more, the interventions point towards
a keener sense of expression and formal tension.
To sum up:
- we are in front of two versions of the same composition;
- we can reasonably be sure that both versions are authorial;
- I’ve tried to show that Barrè’s version represents an earlier step of
Palestrina’s work on this composition, while the version in Motecta
festorum is more advanced and – si licet – more definitive.

4. Relevant parameters. Idea of motet

We may now try to answer the question: «why did Palestrina realize a
new version of Nativitas tua?». The question seems intriguing, particularly
because of the short span of time that separates the two versions (although we
don’t know much about the exact chronology of his compositional work on these
motets, the interval between first and second version could hardly be longer
than a few years, perhaps months or even less).
First of all, it is important to underline that Palestrina’s changes – as far
as I can see – are by no means due to external, ‘situational’ factors: they have
nothing to do, for instance, with the addition of a new voice, the limitation or
extension of the range to match the possibility of a particular singer or
ensemble, the substantial modification of the dimensions for the sake of liturgy
or ceremony, or the adoption of peculiar stylistic features fashionable in a
certain musical circle or epoch… (I could mention, e.g., the case of Giovanni
Francesco Anerio: when he republished his Motecta of 1609 eleven years later,
he reworked the solo motets extensively, adapting their vocal and instrumental
lines to a more updated style6).
The revisions we have seen in Nativitas are internal to a system of
stylistic options. That’s why I think we can infer the rèlevance of some stylistic

6 See GRAHAM P. DIXON, Progressive Tendencies in the Roman Motet During the Early Seventeenth Century,
«Acta Musicologica», LIII 1981, pp. 105-119: 115.

6
paràmeters judging from the revisions: if Palestrina takes the trouble to rewrite
a passage altering a parameter, both the passage and the parameter must be of
critical importance to him. Once more, this reminds us the deep artistic
consciousness inherent to the creative process of the Renaissance composer:
while perhaps the chimerical conception of a “mechanical way of composing” in
the counterpoint-Ancien régime still thrives among our contemporaries.
We may group Palestrina’s interventions – intertwined as they are –
under the following labels:
 melodic structures, text underlay and text distribution
 contrapuntal structures (particularly in the construction of cadences)
 tonal design (as we have seen in segment 4)
 vocal orchestration (for instance in segments 2 and 7)
 formal structures (if not on a broad level, given the dimensional
coherence, certainly in the syntax of segments and in the definition of
clearer local contrasts).
The interaction among these elements is – more often than not –
evidently aimed towards expression, or what Palestrina himself called «il bello
artifitio lontano dal commune [in Lockwood’s translation: the beautiful
workmanship, far removed from the common run], et il dare spirito vivo alle
parole secondo il significato [the vital impulse given to the words, according to
their meaning]».7
It is not possible to expound here in detail the results of a broader
analysis of the whole collection I conducted prior to investigating this peculiar
case. However, in the light of that study, I can affirm that the most remarkable
interventions touch precisely the focal points of Palestrina’s stylistic research as
testified in his Motecta festorum: the development of a new “idea of motet”
characterized, amongst other things, by a sober but effective text expression, an
emerging harmonic eloquence, a lively definition of the small- and large-scale
musical form according to the guidelines of rhetoric.

7 Letter from Palestrina to the duke of Mantua, 3 March 1570, published in OWENS, Composers at
Work, pp. 292 (reporting the English translation by Lewis Lockwood) and 311.

7
 5. Writing & rewriting in the field of Renaissance motet
I would like to conclude with three final observations on the theme
“writing & rewriting”.
1) The case of Nativitas seems to be an important confirmation or even
an extension of Jessie Ann Owens’ assertion: Palestrina «continued to revise
and polish his music both while he prepared fair copies and afterward». Indeed,
he continued afterward, as we have seen. I wonder how many other instances
may come out on closer analysis of Palestrina’s music.
2) Such a case is very thought provoking, for instance about a certain
simplistic way of considering the compositional profile of a motet just like a
kind of “semi-automatic application of a determined stylistic grammar” to a
given text. We are more often than not tempted to say: «this is Nativitas tua “à
la Palestrina”, – or in other words – he couldn’t help composing it that way».
These emerging examples of reworking, of writing and rewriting challenge our
usual underestimation of the so called labor limae in the compositional process
of Renaissance musicians. The critical and aesthetical implications of this new
(or, if you prefer, renewed) awareness are, as evident, far reaching.
3) A last consideration: what hides in 16th- and 17th-Century
anthologies? How many authorial reworkings have been hastily mistaken for
secondary documents in the tradition of a known piece and thus relegated at the
bottom of our textual notes?