Motets by Thomas Crecquillon

Abstract

As part of the famous controversy between Monteverdi and the theorist Artusi, Monteverdi's brother published in 1607 a lengthy amplification of Monteverdi's position; there he gave substance to the terms prima prattica and seconda prattica and listed a number of prima prattica composers: Ockeghem, Josquin, La Rue, Mouton, Crecquillon, Clemens, Gombert and Willaert. Those names, as a list of major composers of polyphony, would hardly be a surprise today except perhaps for the prominent inclusion of Crecquillon, who has received far less attention from scholars and performers than has any other of the composers in that parade of the great. We know little of Crecquillon's life, which may help account for his comparative neglect as a composer. As he is such an unfamiliar figure, it is perhaps worth putting him into some sort of context. He was probably a contemporary of Clemens, and was associated with the chapel of the Emperor Charles V for a period of some ten or more years from 1540, for some of the time as chapelmaster. His music, secular and sacred, was printed in large quantities from 1543 onwards; and nearly 20 years after his presumed death in 1557 a major retrospective of his motets was published. The esteem in which he was held is evident from rather more than just the citing of his name in the Monteverdi-Artusi controversy; for instance, motets by Crecquillon were used as models for Masses by Rogier, de la HMle and Guerrero. The quality of some of Crecquillon's music is such that today his eight-voice motet Andreas Christi famulus has been-through a double attribution-happily accepted and printed as the work of Morales. He has greater claim, too, to the beautiful eight-voice motet Paterpeccavi, attributed in some sources to Clemens (and recorded under Clemens's name by the Tallis Scholars). Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae (CMM) has already completed the publication of Crecquillon's Masses and his motets for eight, six and three voices. These new volumes cover 30 of his five-voice motets and 14 of his four-voice motets. The four-voice motets have been available for many years in an edition by H. L. Marshall, but greater source information and fresh material nevertheless make a new edition welcome. The position in relation to the fivevoice motets, which form the largest part of Crecquillon's motet output, has been rather more deficient, with very few pieces being available. Although the five-voice motets include many fine works the lack of readily available and reliable editions has hindered any but the specialist from becoming familiar with them, so these volumes are doubly welcome in starting to fill that gap. In volumes 6 and 11 the editors discuss briefly the problem of motets with ascriptions to more than one composer (no fewer than 16 five-voice and 18 four-voice motets), and attempt a reliable attribution. Only in three cases are they unable to decide. Despite the bulk of source material that the editors have amassed, there are a further seven possible cross-attributions that they have not noted. Of these, three are probably material: Da pacem, Domine is also ascribed to Clemens (printed in CMM iv/3), Nos autem gloriari to Lupi (in CMM lxxxiv/2) and Os loquentium again to Clemens (in CMM iv/20). The second and third are more likely to be by Lupi and Crecquillon respectively, while the first adds to the difficulty of distinguishing between Crecquillon and Clemens already evident elsewhere. Of the many cross-attributions identified by the editors, the conclusions on probable authorship seem generally sound. I have some reservations, nevertheless. The editors prefer Manchicourt as the composer of Super montem excelsum. The conclusion is correct, I am sure, but the evidence of the dedication of the print in which it first appears and which makes clear Manchicourt's personal involvement in the publication is not mentioned, and thus the case for Manchicourt may seem weaker than it actually is. Another instance is the exclusion of Quis dabit mihi pennas, which does not seem justified on the evidence presented. A third reservation concerns one of the three motets whose authorship remains problematical, Quam