Chapter 1: The Piece

This research centers on an intriguing anonymity in 16th-century sacred music: a six-part setting of the Mass ordinary preserved uniquely in manuscript E-Bbc 1967¹. The composition remains unattributed within its source, lacking both an index and any form of title or ascription. Bernadette Nelson’s seminal work² revealed that this mass is based on a renowned motet by Josquin: his five-part setting of the Marian sequence Inviolata, integra et casta es Maria. The mass composer elaborates on Josquin’s work using the parody technique, a common practice in 16th-century composition. Given this structural foundation, the piece can aptly be termed Missa super Inviolata, integra et casta es Maria, or more succinctly, Missa Inviolata.

1.1 Scoring and sections

The Missa Inviolata is scored for six voices, consistently cleffed as C1/C3/C4/C4/F3/F4, with minor exceptions. The highest voice deviates at the beginning of the Credo and the si placet section of the Et iterum, while the lowest voice has one exception at the beginning of the last Kyrie. Four voices are labeled: Supranus (C1), Tenor primus (C4), Tenor secundus (F3), and Bassus (F4). For the two unlabeled voices (C3 and C4), I propose using Altus primus and Altus secundus (or possibly Cantus and Altus).

The manuscript’s layout is unconventional, with the highest part written at the bottom of the right page, contrary to the more common placement at the top of the left page. This arrangement suggests that the scribe (or perhaps the composer) conceptualized the six-part ensemble as an extension of a four-part “core” a voci mutate. This core likely consisted of AATB, with Tenor secundus added between the tenor and bass, and Supranus above³.

The term supranus is somewhat unusual. Bernadette Nelson has traced its usage across 15th and 16th-century sources⁴. To Nelson’s findings, we can add two more sources: F-Pn NAL 1090 (a 15th-century manuscript miscellanea containing a two-part Lamentation on f. 66v), and Vicente Lusitano’s printed collection of motets Liber primus epigramatum (Rome: Dorico, 1555).

1.2 Reduced scoring

The Missa Inviolata features three sections with reduced scoring:

1. Christe: set for four voices (AATB), corresponding to the hypothetical “core” a voci mutate previously suggested.

2. Crucifixus: a four-part section designated for the four lower voices of the ensemble (ATTB).

3. Et iterum: a duo using the C3 and C4 clefs, possibly for Altus primus and Tenor primus, or both Altus parts, given that the second one is notated in C4⁵. This section includes a third part si placet for the Supranus, which may be a later addition to the original composition. This hypothesis is supported by the widespread tradition of adding parts to polyphonic pieces⁶ and the fact that the Supranus doesn't engage with the thematic material to the extent that the other two parts do⁷.

1.3 Absent sections

The last two movements of Missa Inviolata (Sanctus and Agnus Dei) omit certain sections. The Sanctus only provides music for the opening “Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus sabaoth”, but not “pleni sunt cæli et terra gloria tua”. Furthermore, there is no music for the Hosanna nor the Benedictus. Additionally, only the third Agnus Dei (the one ending with “dona nobis pacem” as opposed to “miserere nobis”) is set.

As this mass survives as a unicum, it is impossible to determine whether these omissions were intentional or if the mass was originally complete and later copied without these sections. Masses from circa 1500-1550 typically include Hosanna and Benedictus (with the second Hosanna often repeating the first) and at least two, if not three, Agnus Dei settings.

Bernadette Nelson suggests that these omissions might reflect specific liturgical practices⁸. They could represent a tendency to shorten polyphonic settings of certain ordinary parts to accommodate other extended pieces, such as motets or instrumental music for the Elevation (after the Sanctus) or the Communion (after the Agnus Dei).

1.4 Parody technique

Bernadette Nelson identified the anonymous six-part mass in E-Bbc 1967 as a parody mass based on Josquin’s five-part motet Inviolata, integra et casta es Maria⁹. This classification situates the work within the broader context of cyclic masses, which set the entire ordinary of the Mass using shared unifying principles and thematic material across movements.

The parody mass represents one of three main subgenres of cyclic masses, alongside the cantus firmus mass and the paraphrase mass. These latter two, which predate the parody technique, draw upon monophonic material: the cantus firmus mass typically sets a plainchant in long values in the tenor, while the paraphrase mass elaborates on a plainchant as its thematic basis.

In contrast, the parody technique involves reworking and elaborating on a pre-existing polyphonic model¹⁰. This distinction has an interesting implication for considerations of authorship. While the monophonic material used in cantus firmus and paraphrase masses is often anonymous, the models for parody masses are polyphonic pieces by known composers. Consequently, these composers become models for younger generations, serving as referents for emulation and recipients of homage¹¹.

The parody mass gained significant popularity among composers of the post-Josquin generation. For instance, Cristóbal de Morales’s first published collection of masses (1544) features five parody masses out of a total of eight, all based on works by Franco-Flemish composers.

The parody technique contextualizes Missa Inviolata within a broader compositional trend, while its use of a Josquin motet as its model aligns with the practice of drawing inspiration from renowned predecessors.

Notes to chapter 1

1. RISM sigla are used to refer to manuscripts throughout this paper, with full names and links to related online resources (when available) in the footnotes.

2. Nelson 2001 (pp. 235-236 and 240-246), Nelson 2002.

3. The expressions “a voce mutata”, “a voci mutate”, “a voci pari” or “paribus vocibus” were used in the 16^th century to refer to a frequently used alternative scoring. This scoring was narrower than the standardized four-part SATB tessituras, which was called “a voce piena”. For further reference, see Aaron 1516 (chapter 46), Vicentino 1555 (chapter 26), and Zarlino 1558 (chapter 65).

4. Nelson 2001 (footnote 49) and Nelson 2002.

5. The precise assignment of these parts is less critical in its original choirbook format and in relation to the standard performance practices of the time than in a modern notation transcription.

6. On this topic, see Canguilhem 2018.

7. See, in the annexed critical edition, the close imitation in the entrances of Altus primus and secundus in measures 1-2, 15-16, 19-20, 26-27, and 34-35 of Et iterum.

8. Nelson 2001 (p. 241).

9. For a detailed analysis comparing the mass to Josquin’s motet, see Nelson 2001 and Nelson 2002.

10. On the parody technique, see Lenaerts 1950, Lockwood 1966, Falck 1979 and Franke 1998.

11. The broader topics of emulation, homage, and imitation of models in Renaissance music are explored in Brown 1982 and Marisi 2021.