Letter as postface in Libro Quinto of madrigals (1605).
© British Library UK
STUDIOSI LETTORI
Non vi marauigliate ch’io dia alle stampe questi Madrigali senza prima
rispondere all'oppositioni, che fece l’Artusi contre alcune minime par-
ticelle d’essi, perche send’io al seruigio di questa Serenissima Altezza di
Mantoa non son patrone di quell tempo che tal’hora mi bisognarebbe:
hò nondimeno scritta la riposta per far conoscer ch’io non faccio le
mie cose à caso, & tosto che sia rescritta uscirà in luce portando in fron-
te il nome di SECONDA PRATICA ouero PERFETTIONE DEL-
LA MODERNA MUSICA. delche forse alcuni s’ammeriranno non credendo che vi sia
altra pratica, che l’insegnata dal Zerlino; ma siano sicuri, che intorno alle consonanze,
& dissonanze vi è anco un altra consideratione differente dalla determinata, la qual con
quietanza della ragione, & del senso diffende il moderno comporre, & questo hò volu-
to dirui si perche questa voce SECONDA PRATICA tal’hora non fosse occupata da al-
tri, si perche anco gli ingegnosi possino tanto considerare altre seconde cose intorno
all’armonia, & credere che il moderno Compositore fabrica sopra li fondamenti della
verità. Viuete felici.
“Do not marvel that I am giving these madrigals to the press without first replying to the objections that L’Artusi has brought against some very minute details in them, for being in the service of His Most Serene Highness of Mantua, I have had not at my disposal the time that would be required.
Nevertheless, to show that I do not compose my works haphazardly, I have written a reply which will appear as soon as I have revised it, bearing the title Seconda pratica, overo Perfettione della moderna musica.
Some, not suspecting there is any practice other than that taught by Zerlino [Zarlino], will wonder at this, but let them be assured that, with regard to the consonances and dissonances, there is still another way of considering them different from the established way, which, with satisfaction to the reason and to the senses, defends the modern method of composing. I have wished to say this to you so that the expression ‘Second Practice’ may not be appropriated by anyone else and so that the ingenious may reflect meanwhile upon other secondary matters concerning harmony and believe that the modern composer builds upon the foundation of truth. Live happily.”
How to read the ‘lettera ai studiosi lettori’ and its defence?
The following comments on the letter published by Claudio Monteverdi as a postscript to his fifth book of madrigals and his brother’s defence in the clarification of that letter in 1607 should be considered in the light of the project of La Tragedia di Claudio M. There has been an interesting musicological discourse since Palisca’s comprehensive article in the Monteverdi Companion of 1968. My analysis of both the letter itself, as well as its clarification are not intended to add new insights to the highly specialised studies by the named authors. On the contrary, I have been using their work to address the necessary backgrounds for my narrative while constructing the opera and mostly for the staging of the Artusi-Monteverdi conflict.
The controversy between the views of the practitioner Monteverdi and the theorist Artusi is accentuated in its polarisation for clarity in a dramaturgical sense. But certainly, underneath this theatrical stream, the epistemological quest colours my statements and selection of material ‘à charge’ and ‘à décharge’.
The whole quarrel has a forensic flavour, and the remark by Bottrigari about Artusi behaving as a ‘public censor’ (see The Narrative, chapter X) is not just meant ironically. If we bear in mind that Monteverdi’s son Massimiliano (as a 23-year-old doctor) was later imprisoned for reading a forbidden book, we realise that the times were very different than today.
Also, Monteverdi’s experience of losing a court case in 1625 when trying to secure his inheritance of the house in Mantua of his late father-in-law recalls his association with a labyrinth. In a letter about the case, he quotes Socrates, saying the labyrinth is nothing but quarrelling. (see chapters Contexts, p.xx and The Libretto on page x )
To catch the ‘tone’ of all this quarrelling, I limited myself to sticking as much as possible to the direct sources.
What we tend to forget as readers is that the writing of both parties tacitly addresses an audience. With all its rhetoric and verbal gestures, a high level of theatrical energy is implicitly conducted to a third party that is expected to judge.
In the first analysis (analysis is used here in a literal meaning of loosen-up) A, I intend to look behind the mask of Monteverdi just by using a direct exegesis.
In part B, the dramatic line-up becomes more complex with the (erudite) brother as one of the protagonists (having the great and busy maestro behind his back), who replies his opponent in a style that matches the bluntness of the attacks.
The payoff for historians is an insight into professional musicians' way of thinking and their vision of their own significance as creators.
A)
Analysis of the Lettera from Libro Quinto 1605
“Do not marvel that I am giving these madrigals to the press without first replying to the objections that L’Artusi has brought
Though the previous madrigal book (Libro Quarto, 1603) included one madrigal that Artusi attacked ('Anima mia, perdona'), the publication of Libro Quinto can be seen as a statement in itself by opening with 'Cruda Amarilli'. From this madrigal, Artusi took five examples to demonstrate what he considered violations against the rules of counterpoint and good taste as determined by Gioseffo Zarlino and, after him, generally accepted.
Monteverdi plunges into the subject without introduction, as if all his “studious readers” would know about L’Artusi, Artusi’s condemnations in his publications of 1600 and later in 1603.
...against some very minute details (minime particelle) in them,...
By reducing Artusi’s objections to ‘alcune minime particelle” (a few tiny details), Monteverdi confronts him with the view of a mature practitioner. The comments by Artusi are, so to speak, automatically categorized as those from a theorist who is not entirely in touch with the musical practice and missing the point of their meaning within the whole. Giving the madrigals without changes in the manuscript to the press stands here for making them public in a superior, confident way. Confidence may have been gained by the success of the fourth book, which after two years was already being reprinted, also in 1605.
for being in the service of His Most Serene Highness of Mantua, I have had not at my disposal the time that would be required.
Actually, not having time to respond because of his obligations to one of the greatest patrons in the arts of his time shows Monteverdi as someone who has more important things to do than quarrelling about minor details. By adding this perspective of priorities, Artusi's arguments seem even more futile; while feigning polite willingness to have otherwise answered, Monteverdi preserves his own noble standard.
Nevertheless, to show that I do not compose my works haphazardly ('a caso'),
From this response, we can see that Monteverdi had not only read the allegations in the Ragionamento Secondo that directly concerned his work. In the first part of L'Artusi, the author ridicules the practitioners by suggesting they would ignore the rules of previous theorists and put their intervals randomly in their compositions, because, for them, it is enough if they make a noise according to their liking.
I have written a reply which will appear as soon as I have revised it, bearing on the title page:
Seconda pratica, overo Perfettione della moderna musica.
However, to demonstrate that the "minor details" are part of a greater concept that defines his style and no weak spots in the composition, Monteverdi boasts that he already has written something that, as a theoretical work, could compete with Artusi’s. This phrase is added to dress up his profile as an intellectual and knowledgeable composer and even a spokesman for the generation of composers writing in the new style. At the same time, he positions himself by this announcement with remarkable historical awareness as an essential representative of that new style.
But if anything at all, that theoretical work was certainly not nearly finished as he suggested because even thirty years later, it would not appear as a publication, despite his repeated promise.
Some, not suspecting there is any practice other than that taught by Zerlino [Zarlino], will wonder at this…
Monteverdi challenges Artusi’s positioning of the authority of Gioseffo Zarlino (misspelling his name was probably not intentional, this was common), whose Istitutioni Harmoniche dominated half a century of music theory and practice. He categorizes Artusi indirectly among a minority (alcuni = some) that cannot believe another practice is possible than the perfection achieved by Zarlino. The Monteverdi-Artusi controversy thus became much more polarised than the arguments of both parties would justify.
but let them be assured that, with regard to the consonances and dissonances, there is still another way of considering them, different from the established way,
Even though Monteverdi was arbitrarily attacked for incidentally deviating from the rules by his treatment of dissonances, in his defence, he overlooked or ignored detailed nuances that Artusi had published six years earlier about the importance and various functions of dissonances. It is clear that the theorist and the practitioner are here losing contact with each other's view and end up in miscommunication.
which, with satisfaction to the reason and to the senses, defends the modern method of composing.
Here Monteverdi gives no explanation, not even a hint about the specific nature of that defence, though reason and senses are covered by it. Artusi’s attack often included the accusation that the modern way of composing was causing confusion and offended the intellect (ragione) and/or the ear (il senso). The fact that the role of the words (oratione) was decisive for the composers of the seconda prattica is not even mentioned in the letter, though this would have been the most appropriate place to bring it to the surface.
I have wished to say this to you so that the expression ‘Second Practice’ may not be appropriated (confiscated) by anyone else,
The reason for Monteverdi to claim this expression as his own and call his studious readers directly as witnesses, is one of the most strategic moves of the whole letter with consequences for his long-lasting reputation. The historical awareness is illustrated in the dedication of that same edition to his patron, Vincenzo Gonzaga. By the protection of the ‘Prencipe’, so it says, the madrigals “would live eternal life, to the shame of those tongues that had been seeking to cause death to the works of others.” In this way, the madrigals of the fifth book can flourish in the embrace of the protection of one of the major patrons of the arts at the front and the announcement of the institutionalization (through a treatise) of the modern style at the back.
and further, that the ingenious may reflect meanwhile upon (= consider) other secondary matters concerning harmony…
Monteverdi addresses intelligent and skilful colleagues with this remark and invites them to scrutinize harmonic issues in that vein after having reserved the term seconda prattica for himself. ‘Meanwhile’ (fra tanto) suggests that until he publishes his treatise, they can work on this second practice and, as the end of the letter confirms, eventually enrich the musical world. The characterization ‘ingeniosi’ might have been chosen to underline the contrast with theorists like Artusi, who obviously don’t see the new possibilities.
and believe that the modern composer builds upon the foundation of truth.
This last phrase of the letter is a rhetorical gesture directly aiming to confront Artusi with his own taunting words. The studious reader is asked to have confidence and believe there will be proof of the truthfulness of modern music. Pointing at the foundation of that music is a reaction to the allegation in one of Artusi’s conclusions that “all that was put together with haste and without fundament.”
The last words refer directly to Artusi’s claim of rules based on the truth (regole, che siano fondate sopra il vero)
By concluding this message to the readers (including the opponent) with the word verità (truth), Monteverdi seems to have calculated its subliminal effect and let its echo resonate with the happy life he wishes all readers.
B)
Analysis of the postface by Giulio Cesare Monteverdi in Scherzi musicali 1607
Dichiaratione della lettera
Truth was, as he says, the main reason for Monteverdi’s brother Giulio Cesare to clear him from the ongoing defamation, for instance by someone with the fake name Antonio Braccini (sic,) da Todi, if not the priest himself, clearly from the Artusi camp. Braccini (little arms) might be an intentional pun. Misspelling of names in this controversy is often something ambiguous, as we can learn from Claudio’s letters.
Out of brotherly love, he figures as an interpreter of the very dense text of the 1605 letter in order to reinforce Claudio’s defence. Two years after the publication of the letter and after the very successful performances of Monteverdi’s Orfeo, it was apparently time for a next move in the strategy of giving Claudio’s reputation a boost. And so, the Scherzi musicali, published in July 1607 by Giulio Cesare, are accompanied by a ‘clarification of the letter.” (Dichiaratione della lettera, stampata nel Quinto libro de’ suoi Madregali)
It is not known how much of this explanation is directly coming from Claudio himself.
“Do not marvel that I am giving these madrigals to the press without first replying to the objections that L’Artusi has brought against some very minute details in them,
Giulio Cesare starts by indicating that with L’Artusi not the person but the treatise is meant. An attack on the person would be below the dignity of the Monteverdi brothers, in contrast to their opponent with his treatise. Therefore, he allows himself a bit of public shaming by quoting Horace to ‘not praise your own work, nor blame that of others.’
That the blaming by Artusi was about futile notes that in the concept of modern composing concerned only details of harmonic shaping or colouring of melody, and while the opponent upgraded them to passages (passaggi), it revealed, according to the dichiaratione the ignorance in Artusi’s deprecation of the madrigal at stake, Cruda Amarilli.
for being in the service of His Most Serene Highness of Mantua, I have had not at my disposal the time that would be required.
The profile of Claudio is further sketched by his brother to illustrate his status as a court composer and the importance of his role. Having to curate music for both the church and the chamber as a regular occupation, there are, on top of that, extra services such as tournaments, ballets, comedies and concerts. As last speciality the playing of the two violas bastarda is listed (concertar le due Viole bastarde), which was a workload and required study that probably was underestimated by the adversary.
Then Giulio Cesare put forth an important reason for the late response of his brother that goes beyond his many occupations. Claudio takes his time for everything because he is convinced that quality depends on it. A Latin saying is presented here to pay back Artusi’s frequent showing off with his own wisecracks: prosperantes omnia perverse agunt (the hasty do all things badly). Even more important is his next remark that “true virtue requires the whole man” (la verità della virtù vol tutto l’homo). To me, this has to be understood in a holistic way (the whole human being). Even more needed, as the argument continues, when treating things that are barely touched by the intelligent theorists on harmony instead of Artusi’s stuff that is ‘known to every blear-eyed or barber.’
Nevertheless, to show that I do not compose my works haphazardly,
In this part of the dichiaratione, an essential argument is introduced, namely the dominating role of the text. Claudio, in his letter, refrained from even mentioning text (oratione, see above), and so Giulio Cesare is introducing a lot of arguments, including the famous phrase that was actually never written down by Claudio himself but by posterity always attributed to him: “che l’oratione sia padrona del armonia e non serva;” (“that oration will be the mistress and not the slave of harmony (=music)”
Giulio Cesare then quotes Marsilio Ficino’s translation of Plato’s Republic to provide his defence with substantial intellectual authority. By extracting some lines, he argues that the order Plato gives is significant and determinative for the setting of music (melodia); “Melodia consists of three elements, text (oration), harmony and rhythm.” Oratione is to be understood as the shaping of words with their meaning and expressive diction. He found some more lines where Plato stresses that speech itself follows the passions of the soul and that all the rest follows the text.
All this being said the impudence of Artusi to present Claudio’s madrigals as examples without adding their text and then criticize them, is demonstrating blatant stupidity. To make his point even more clear to the reader, another generally respected authority is called in. What would happen if the madrigals of Cipriano de Rore would be measured textless along the lines of the prima prattica? The music would appear as ‘bodies without a soul.’
Giulio Cesare continues by referring to the facts and proofs that Claudio delivered, and contrast these with the bare words of his opponent. Here follows the comparison with a sick person who would have to hear the doctor orate about Hippocrates and Galen instead of obtaining his health by the practitioner's diagnosis.
The world judges the intelligence of a musician not by the twisting of his tongue on theoretical affairs but by his practice. Therefore, Claudio invites his opponent (apparently by direct communication because this is not in the letter) to such a practical act. He is interested in the singing and not in writings, with the single exception of the promise he made. Here follows a listing of the composers of what he calls the Eroica scola (heroic school)The divine Cipriano de Rore, il Signor Prencipe de Venosa (Gesualdo), Emiglio del Cavaliere, il Conte Alfonso Fontanella, il Conte di Camerata, il cavalier Turchi, il Pecci.
I have written a reply which will appear, as soon as I have revised it, bearing on the title page: ” Seconda pratica,
Indeed, Claudio announces to explain the difference between the old style and the modern music in the way consonances and dissonances function. And because this was unknown to the opponent, the truth of this matter should be made clear to everybody. Both practices are honoured, venerated and praised by Claudio.
In the first, therefore called prima prattica, harmony rules over the text. It was founded by the first composers who wrote ‘songs in our notation’ for more than one voice.’ Giulio Cesare names the following composers (his spellings): “Occeghem, Josquin de pres, Pietro della Rue, Iouan Mouton, Crequillon, Clemens non papa, Gombert & others.” Master Adriano (Willaert) perfected this style in a practical way (con l’atto prattico) and Zerlino (sic) with the most judicious rules.
The divine Cipriano de Rore was the first to renew in their notation the so-called second practice, followed not only by the composers mentioned above but also Ingegneri, Marenzo (sic), Luzzascho, Giaches Wert and likewise by Giacoppo (sic) Peri, Giulio Caccini and finally by loftier spirits with a better understanding of true art.
Claudio Monteverdi interprets this true art as the perfection of the ‘melodia’ by making the words in command of the harmony. He, therefore, calls this ‘second’ and not new and ‘practice’ and not ‘theory’ because of his practical approach in the way he uses consonances and dissonances. And he does not call his treatise Insitutioni Melodiche because he acknowledges that this topic is not such a big enterprise. He leaves the publication of such noble writings to “Cavaglier Ercole Bottrigari” and “Reverende Zerlino.” The latter used the term Harmonic Institutions because he wished to teach the laws and rules of harmony. Claudio calls it Second Practice because he wants to make use of melodic considerations and their explanations only as far is needed to defend himself against the opponent.
overo Perfettione della moderna musica”
Giulio Cesare points at perfections after the authority of Plato, who wrote: “Does not music have the perfection of melody as a final goal?” Plato here again is used for an ‘intellectual’ justification. However, there is not much argumentation in this quote from Plato’s Gorgias, being Socrates’ question of one line only, in a large discourse about something much broader.
Some, not suspecting there is any practice other than that taught by Zerlino [Zarlino], will wonder at this, but let them be assured that,
Giulio Cesare explicitly indicates that by “some”, Artusi and his followers are intended.
This party is criticised for not even understanding the prima prattica completely because the nuances of Zarlino are not reflected in L’Artusi. Here Zarlino is quoted to prove that he did not deny other teachings in his theoretical approach but just named the practice of master Adriano Willaert as realizing the ideal. This is the reason why Claudio based his own theory on Plato and his practice on the music of the ‘divine Cipriano.’
but let them be assured that, with regard to the consonances and dissonances, there is still another way of considering them, different from the established way,
In the clarification of Claudio Monteverdi’s position concerning the treatment of consonances and dissonances, his brother sketches a black-and-white situation. By the established way he intends the rules as laid down by Zarlino in the third part of his treatise dealing with the perfection of the harmony, which are not paying attention to the text (oratione). He calls it a demonstration that harmony is the mistress and not the servant.
which, with satisfaction to the reason and to the senses, defends the modern method of composing.
The satisfying reason apparently had to be through the justification of mathematics. But then Giulio Cesare states things his brother would have said but are not found in the lettera: “and the way to apply them” (consonances and dissonances) and equally use them by command of the text, the principal master of art, leading to the perfection of melody (μελῳδίᾱ ). Like Plato confirms in the third book of the Republic. In this way the affects of the soul are moved and - as the dichiaratione continues by quoting the Latin translation of Marsilio Ficino - sola enim melodia ab omnibus quotunque distrahunt animum retrahens contrahit in se ipsum, (For melody alone draws the soul back from all that would draw it away, and draws it together into itself).
Giulio Cesare uses this passage to even include Zarlino in the Monteverdi-camp with a quote about the impossibility for harmony to produce any extrinsic effect just by itself.
(Et questo ho voluto dirui si perchè questa voce seconda prattica tall’hora non fosse occupati da altri)
I have wished to say this to you in order that the expression “Second Practice” may not be appropriated by anyone else,
Apparently, it was important to ‘claim the brand’, because Giulio Cesare underlines once more that Claudio was the first to use this term. According to this dichiaratione of the defending letter, the term seconda prattica had barely left the mouth of Claudio, when the opponent would like - while they are still in the air - to rip apart (litt. lacerare = tear apart) the writings as well as the music. This by naming the second practice the ‘dreg’ (la feccia) of the first practice.
Giulio Ceasare quotes in this passage most probably from the (lost) first pamphlet of Antonio Braccino da Todi, when he mentions the resentful remarks about Claudio’s undue concern that his expression seconda prattica would be stolen by others. Artusi pulls the sarcastic register here by saying it was not a thing that one would even want to imitate.
Hereafter, to stress his status as an innovator, a bit of biography follows about Claudio Monteverdi importing the 'canto alla francese' in Italy after returning from the baths of Spa in 1599. Giulio Cesare points to the style of the Scherzi musicali, of which the Dichiaratione was a postface or an appendix.
And according to this paragraph, there were more things that could be said to the advantage of Claudio as an innovator, but his brother keeps silent about them because they did not fit in this context. The focus is on the seconda prattica, which he says could have been called ‘prima’ when considering its origin.
and further that the ingenious may reflect (/consider) meanwhile upon other secondary matters, concerning harmony…
By the ingenious are meant, according to Giulio Cesare, those who will not keep strongly believing in the unique legitimacy of the prima prattica, in which case harmony would always be the same optimized thing, no matter the text.
By the addition of the word secondary is meant that the melodia (music) is perfected according to the seconda prattica.
So, the criticized ‘little details’ contribute not only to the perfection of the cantilena but even more to the whole composition. Here, the brother starts reasoning about the presumed confusion of Artusi about mixed modes. He even puts the words in his mouth ‘as if one hears the reasoning of a madman’ (il che è come sentire un pazzo ragionare) in relation of mixing modes. But using as a defence that one could say the same of the mass Faisant Regretz by Josquin des Prez, he goes wrong himself. Claude Palisca suggested that Giulio Cesare lacked the courage to proclaim the end of “the tyranny of the modes.” Whereas Palisca sees Galilei purposefully going towards a system of tonality in the way of the ancient Greeks, he concludes that Monteverdi was heading intuitively in the same direction by putting it into practice.
and believe that the modern composer builds upon the fundaments of truth. Live happily.
Giulio Cesare concludes by explaining that in the modern way of composing, it is impossible to obey the rules of the prima prattica (which is already embraced by the world as the usual way) just because the text commands otherwise. But even if his reasoning would not be convincing to underpin the truth of such a practice, his brother says it is the world that is deluded and, for sure, his opponent.
