*Mary E. Frandsen (frandsen.3@nd.edu) is Associate Professor of Music at the University of Notre Dame. Her research interests concern sacred music in Lutheran use during the seventeenth century, as well as music and Lutheran devotion and music in the liturgy.
[1] While Wollny dedicates Chapter 5 (“Appropriations: Parody, Imitation, and Emulation”) to discussions of this topic, he also presents examples in Chapters 3 and 4; in this review, all of the examples of modeling are discussed together in section 6.
[2] In this chapter, Wollny also includes a brief discussion of German music published between ca. 1600 and 1670 (which is listed in an appendix) but does not explain why the printed repertory beyond that of Schütz is excluded from his study. This stands as a curious omission, given that the music of such composers as Capricornus, Weiland, Pfleger, Schmetzer, and Kress would seem to be quite relevant to the overall topic of style change.
[3] Wollny discusses all of the major Lutheran collections save that assembled by Georg Österreich and Heinrich Bokemeyer (now in D-B).
[4] Most of the works of Peranda in the Grimma collection were copied by Jacobi and his students after 1680.
[5] Wollny also discusses examples of parody and imitation in Rosenmüller’s output; these are discussed in my section 6 below.
[6] Here Wollny also discusses parody and imitation in works of Albrici and Peranda; see section 6 below.
[7] Wollny dates the epigram to October 7, 1661, but this is actually the date of the congratulatory poem contributed by Schütz; Albrici’s epigram, which appears just below that of Schütz, is undated. As archival evidence from Dresden puts Albrici in Leipzig with the Saxon elector in October 1661, however, it stands to reason that he contributed his epigram at that same time. See Sächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv (D-Dla), Loc. 12026, fols. 105r–107v, and Mary E. Frandsen, “Musikpflege in Sachsen nach Heinrich Schütz,” Schütz-Jahrbuch 29 (2007): 34.
[8] Here Knüpfer set German texts by David Heidenreich.
[9] Curiously, however, he dates the adoption of the new genre to the end of the Thirty Years War, and sees Lutheran music of the first half of the seventeenth century as “tradition-bound if not conservative” (p. 313) and dominated by works in the style of the motets of the Bodenschatz collections (1618, 1621). Both prints of sacred concertos and inventories of extant and lost collections, however, would suggest that the new genre exerted a strong presence in the Lutheran repertory from the 1620s on.
[10] In addition to the works of Bernhard in the stile antico mentioned by Wollny, one should probably include his series of Introit motets (all lost), many of which are described as “a cappella,” and which were performed in Dresden court liturgies beginning in 1662. See Mary E. Frandsen, comp., Worship Culture in a Seventeenth-Century Lutheran Court Chapel: Sacred Music, Chorales, and Liturgical Practices at the Dresden Court, ca. 1650–1680, JSCM Instrumenta 5, https://sscm-scm.org/instrumenta/instrumenta-volumes/instrumenta-volume-5/ (forthcoming).
[11] Rosenmüller’s arrangement is found in the Grimma collection in D-Dl, Mus. 2011-E-500. Wollny also notes that in this case, the title includes the names of both the composer and the arranger: “Euge serve bone et fid. à Joanne Piscator à 4. 2. Tenor Alto Basso con 2 Viol. J. Ros. con continuo.”
[12] Two other pieces (not discussed by Wollny) that reflect such arranging are found in D-B and S-Uu; the Bokemeyer collection includes a setting of Salve mi Jesu, adoro te for soprano, bass, two violins, violone, and continuo that is attributed to Rosenmüller (D-B Mus. ms. 18882/10), while the same work appears in the Düben collection (S-Uu VMHS 86:59) in a scoring for solo soprano and continuo attributed to Christoph Bernhard. In this case, however, it is impossible to determine which work served as the model; either Rosenmüller (presuming the attribution is correct) added obbligato string parts, a bowed continuo part, and a vocal bass part drawn largely from the continuo part, or Bernhard pared down Rosenmüller’s setting to create the solo concerto. An edition of the Bernhard setting appears in Christoph Bernhard, Geistliche Konzerte und andere Werke, ed. Otto Drechsler and Lajos Rovatkay, Das Erbe deutscher Musik 90 (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1982), 161–4.
[13] These include Ich danke dem Herrn (Psalmen Davids, 1619), which borrows material from Gabrieli’s Lieto godea in the doxology; Es steh Gott auf (Symphoniae sacrae 2, 1647), which is based on Monteverdi’s Armato il cor and Zefiro torna; and O Jesu süß (Symphoniae sacrae 3, 1650), which Schütz fashioned from the music of Grandi’s Lilia convallium. In each case, Schütz himself identified the model composition and its composer.
[14] Into this category also falls the parody of Peranda’s Quo tendimus, mortales by Daniel Danielis, F-Pn VM1-1175 (bis), “Motets à 1, 2, 3 et 4 voix, de différents auteurs,” fol. 89r; Danielis retained Peranda’s scoring (SSB, Bc) and text, but rewrote (and simplified) the latter’s virtuosic bass solos; in the other sections, he reworked the motivic material of Peranda’s concerto.
[15] Wollny also points out that Förster borrowed three other texts from the same anthology in which the Savioni appears: Florido de Sylvestri, comp., Has alias sacras cantiones, ab excellentissimus musices auctoribus suavissimis modulis unica voce contextas (Rome: F. Moneta, 1659). Both his Laetentur caeli (from Durante) and Quanta fecisti (from Marciani) are musically independent from the source motets; in his Stillate rores, however, which borrows part of the text of Carissimi’s Sicut stella matutina, Förster pays tribute to the Roman master with a musical reference at the opening of his own setting.
[16] Here Wollny also chronicles many other potential emulations of Graziani and others that do not survive.
[17] The anonymous Wo ist jemand, der da lebet, and Johann Christoph Bach’s Herr, wende dich.
[18] Attendite verbum Domini, Crudelis infernus, Exulta, jubila, accurre, and Quis me territat.
[19] It is not clear just what is the distinction between these and some of the other examples of this type of relationship.
[20] To these discoveries of Wollny can be added a group of eight settings of the composite text O anima mea, suspira, all of which largely follow the same sequence of meters and styles, but which are musically independent from each other. The group includes works by Johann Julius Weiland, in Deuterotokos, Hoc est sacratissimarum odarum partus (Bremen: Köhlerus, 1656); Augustin Pfleger, in Psalmi, Dialogi et Motettae (Hamburg: G. Rebenlein, 1661); Isabella Leonarda, S-Uu VMHS 28:1, D-Dl Mus. 1737-E-500 and Mus. Löb 53 (the motet does not appear in any surviving prints but may have been published in her lost op. 1, published before 1665, or her op. 2 of 1665); Girolamo Ferrari, in D-LUC 3482B, no. 37, attributed to “Pater Mondon”; Bonifazio Graziani, from op. 10, Il quarto libro de motetti a voce sola (Rome: Giacomo Fei, 1665; 3rd ed., Rome: succ. al Mascardi, 1677), manuscript copies in S-Uu VMHS 86:58, D-Dl Mus. 1504-E-502, and GB-Och Mus. 350); Georg Schmetzer, in Motettae sive cantiones sacrae (Augsburg, 1671); Daniel Speer, in Philomela angelica (Venice[?]: n.p., 1688); and Leonhard Sailer, in Cantiones sacrae (Basel: Johann Conradi à Mechel, 1696). (Sailer also includes an emulation of Albrici’s Ave Jesu Christe in his 1696 print; he set the entire text and adopted Albrici’s formal and stylistic approach throughout, but composed new music.) The existence of such a large group of similar settings of the same text may call into question Wollny’s presumption that such textual concordances “rest … almost absolutely on biographical or direct musical connections” (p. 364); in this case, the similarities may point to common understandings of the conventions associated with setting certain types of texts.
