Duarte Lobo Missarum

Adventures of Portuguese 'Ancient Music' in Oxford, London, and Paris: Duarte Lobo's
'Liber Missarum' and Musical Antiquarianism, 1650-1850

Author(s): Owen Rees
Source: Music & Letters, Vol. 86, No. 1 (Feb., 2005), pp. 42-73
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3526031
Accessed: 24-08-2017 16:52 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3526031?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Music & Letters
This content downloaded from 193.147.185.45 on Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:52:51 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Music & Letters, Vol. 86 No. 1, ? Oxford University Press 2005; all rights reserved
doi: 10.1093/ml/gci003, available online at www.ml.oupjournals.org
ADVENTURES OF PORTUGUESE 'ANCIENT MUSIC'

IN OXFORD, LONDON, AND PARIS: DUARTE
LOBO'S 'LIBER MISSARUM' AND MUSICAL
ANTIQUARIANISM, 1650-1850
BY OWEN REES
THE CULTIVATION OF 'ANCIENT MUSIC' was a significant element of English musical life in
the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, with considerable numbers of both pro-
fessional and amateur musicians involved in the performance of such music, and an
overlapping group active in collecting and copying it.' The earliest substantial repertory
so cultivated was vocal polyphony of the later sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, with
particular favour shown to English composers (including large quantities of the madrigal
repertory) and Italians such as Palestrina and Gesualdo. However, while many of the
Continental works accorded the greatest prominence in musical antiquarian circles
were by such famous composers as these, the music of some now obscure figures likewise
achieved high status as firmly established items within this repertory. This essay is con-
cerned with just such a case: the enthusiasm of English musical antiquarians for the music
of the Portuguese composer Duarte Lobo (c. 1565-1646). My research has revealed the
considerable and enduring popularity among such English musicians of works from
Lobo's first book of masses, published in 1621, and most spectacularly his motet Audivi
vocem de caelo from that collection. It may well be that this long history of familiarity with
Lobo's works stemmed ultimately from a copy of the Liber missarum presented to the
Bodleian Library in Oxford in 1659, the existence of which has not previously been noted
in the musicological literature. However, it is from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
that a rich seam of evidence emerges of the frequent copying and performance of this music.
This evidence turns out to be abundant: I have located a very large number of manu-
script copies and editions of Audivi vocem, together with information revealing that the
piece was regularly performed for well over a century, from at least the 1730s until the
middle of the nineteenth century. The relevant manuscript sources (and/or their copyists)
The following have provided invaluable help and advice during the preparation of this study: HarryJohnstone, Peter
WardJones, William Weber, Philip Olleson, Katharine Ellis, Michael Noone,Jonathan Wainwright, Alexandra Wilson,
Kenneth Kreitner, and Bruno Turner. I also acknowledge with gratitude the assistance of Clive Hurst of the Bodleian
Library,James Clements and Sandra Tuppen of the British Library, Tim Eggington of the Library of the Royal College
of Music, Kathy Adamson of the Library of the Royal Academy of Music, and Stella Panayotova of the Founder's
Library of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.
The following abbreviations are used:
BL British Library
CFM Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum
CUL Cambridge University Library
RAM Royal Academy of Music
RCM Royal College of Music
' See e.g. William Weber, The Rise of Musical Classics in Eighteenth-Century England: A Study in Canon, Ritual, and Ideology
(Oxford, 1992).
42
and notices of performances are in many cases associated with two of the principal societies
performing early music in eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century England-the
Academy of Ancient Music and the Madrigal Society. The results of this research
enrich our knowledge of the extensive collection of eighteenth-century sources belonging
to the Madrigal Society in particular, and the investigation has allowed the identification
of the copyists of a sizeable number of manuscripts from this and other collections,
shedding new light on the copying, editing, and performing activities of several import-
ant musical antiquarians, such as Henry Needler and John Immyns (founder of the
Madrigal Society). Many of the other well-known figures involved in collecting or per-
forming ancient music during the period owned and/or made copies of Audivi vocem,
including Richard Fitzwilliam, Philip Hayes, Edmund Warren, James Bartleman,
R. J. S. Stevens, Samuel Picart, William Knyvett, and Vincent Novello. Scrutiny of the
sources has revealed in some detail-thanks in part to the presence of dynamic and other
markings in numerous copies-how a piece of 'classical' vocal polyphony composed
c. 1600 was treated and performed by such musicians, and hence, to some extent, how
they understood music in this style. Among those who copied and collected copies of
Audivi vocem, Vincent Novello was the first to publish the piece (in 1827), and it was
thanks to Novello's edition that Lobo's music came to be edited, performed, and pub-
lished in Paris as well, during the 1840s. Nineteenth-century performances of Audivi
vocem of which we have firm evidence ranged from private musical entertainments in
the house of the organist and teacher R. J. S. Stevens, via the recreational perform-
ances at meetings of the Madrigal Society, to public concerts involving the substantial
choral forces of the Societe des concerts de musique vocale classique in Paris. The fact
that Audivi vocem was so highly prized by so many eighteenth- and nineteenth-century
musicians raises significant questions about the enduring aesthetic qualities of such a
piece, issues made more vivid here by the fact that in recent years this work has been
rediscovered (from the original source of 1621, rather than on the foundation of the
English antiquarian tradition described here), and has come once again-but
independently-to be viewed as one of the finest examples of Iberian late Renaissance
polyphony.
The discoveries outlined here originated in a study not of English musical anti-
quarianism but of Lobo's output and its sources, the starting point being the discov-
ery that the Bodleian Library possesses a copy of Lobo's Liber missarum. From this
viewpoint, quite apart from their significance within the study of English musical
culture, the findings are a striking addition to our knowledge of the reception history
of Portuguese polyphony abroad, especially given the few instances of such music's
dissemination beyond the Peninsula and the overseas possessions of Portugal and
Spain.
LOBO S LIBER MISSARUM
The composition of sacred music in Portugal enjoyed a notable flowerin

half of the seventeenth century, led by composers such as Manuel Card
Magalhaes, and Duarte Lobo, who were trained at Evora Cathedral and b
the enthusiastic patronage of D.Joao, Duke of Braganza and (from 1640
In general, however, the works of these Portuguese musicians seem no
much known elsewhere in Europe, apart from Spain and in some cases Ita
Rome).2 This was doubtless partly because most Portuguese music that
2 An exception is the manuscript Bergamo, Biblioteca Civica Angelo Mai, C.4.17, which cont
works by Cardoso.
43
was issued by the local, and internationally insignificant, press of Craesbeeck in Lisbon.3
Duarte Lobo, however, was more fortunate than his contemporaries Cardoso and
Magalhaes in this regard: the prestigious Plantin firm of Antwerp published four collections
of his works. Of these prints, the one that apparently achieved the widest circulation
was the Liber missarum of 1621.4 This beautifully executed folio volume, published by
Balthasar Moretus, begins (as was common in published collections of masses) with set-
tings of the antiphons Asperges me and Vidi aquam, after which are eight masses: four for
four voices, one each for five and six voices, and two eight-voice works, the second of
which is a Missa pro defunctis. At the end of the volume are two motets, Pater peccavi in caelum
and Audivi vocem de caelo.5
Two hundred copies of the volume were printed. Thirteen are known to survive, all but
one of them in Portugal, Spain, or Latin America.6 Of the eight Portuguese copies, two are
in the Biblioteca Nacional in Lisbon,7 three in the Biblioteca Geral of Coimbra University,8
and the others in Evora, Elvas, and Lamego. The Spanish copies are at the cathedrals of
Badajoz, C6rdoba, and Seville. We know that Toledo Cathedral once possessed the vol-
ume, thanks to inventories, of which the last dates from 1795.9 The cathedral still has man-
uscript copies of the two motets that end the print.'? Further, we can presume that the 1621
volume reached Granada Cathedral and/or the Capilla Real attached to that cathedral: a
Capilla Real source of 1785 contains the Missa DicebatJfesus, as well as the Asperges me and
3 This printing house was founded by Peeter van Craesbeeck, who had been an apprentice and then a compositor at
the Plantin press, and who moved to Portugal in the last decade of the 16th c. In 1620 he was named royal printer.
4 RISM L 2951. On this print, including the extensive surviving correspondence between the publisher and Lobo,
see Armindo Borges, Duarte Lobo (156?-1646): Studien zum Leben und Schaffen des portugiesischen Komponisten (Kolner Beitrage
zur Musikforschung, 132; Regensburg, 1986), 128-51, andJean Auguste Stellfeld, Bibliographie des iditions musicales plan-
tiniennes (Memoires de la Classe des beaux-arts, 5/3; Brussels, 1949), 151-6 and (for the correspondence) 182-9.
5 These motets are clearly linked, in a manner that has apparently not been previously remarked: their opening
motifs-indeed, the entire opening sections-are almost identical. Lobo may have wished the second motet, with its
promise of salvation for those who 'die in the Lord', to be understood as a response to the penitential text of the first,
which incorporates the opening words of Psalm 50, 'Miserere mei, Deus', as an ostinato in the cantus secundus. The
soggetto here is taken from Josquin's famous setting of that psalm and uses the same pitch classes (E-F-E) as Josquin's
opening soggetto statement. The motets form a textually appropriate addition to the Missa pro defunctis that precedes them.
6 The previously published lists of the surviving copies are substantially incomplete: for example, Albert Luper,
'Portuguese Polyphony in the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries', Journal of the American Musicological Society, 3
(1950), 93-112 at 107 n. 65, lists six; Borges, Duarte Lobo, 151, also gives six, overlapping only in part with Luper's list;
RISM A/i/5 (1975), p. 344, gives only four.
7 One (shelf mark CIC 3) apparently belonged to DomJoao Manuel, Bishop of Viseu and Coimbra, Archbishop of
Lisbon in 1632-3, and briefly Viceroy of Portugal in 1633. In 1900 it was in the possession ofD. Duarte de Noronha (see
Ernesto Vieira, Diccionario Biographico de Misicos Portuguezes (Lisbon, 1900), ii. 41), and belonged to his heirs in 1923 (see
Luis de Freitas Branco, Elementos de Sciencias Musicais (Lisbon, 1923), ii. 54); by 1937 it had passed into the hands of Dr Ivo
Cruz (see Maria Antonieta de Lima Cruz, Duarte Lobo, 1540-1563 (Os grandes mfsicos, 12; Lisbon, 1937), 19). The
other copy in the Biblioteca Nacional (shelf mark BN 1 CN), which may have belonged to the Augustinian monastery of
Sao Vicente de Fora in Lisbon, contains manuscript additions on the originally blank openings between the printed
pieces: four Alleluia settings (one is attributed elsewhere to Antonio de Oliveira, and all four may be by him), a Vidi aquam,
and an Asperges me.
8 One originally belonged to the Monastery of Santa Cruz in Coimbra, and another may be from Coimbra Cathedral,
which certainly possessed a copy that the composer himself sent in 1623. This was presumably the copy that appears in
an inventory of the cathedral's music books dating from 1635: see ManuelJoaquim, 'Os Livros do Coro da Se de Coimbra,
em 1635', Arquivo de Bibliografia Portuguesa, 2 (Coimbra, 1956), 316-63 at 327 and 340-1.Joaquim states that the third
copy now in the Biblioteca Geral was from the chapel of Coimbra University (ibid. 341).
9 Private communication from Michael Noone, 17 Aug. 2002.
'0 The motets are in the composite manuscript Toledo, Biblioteca Capitular de la Catedral Metropolitana, MS B. 23,
following a copy of Vivanco's published motets (Salamanca, 1610). I am grateful to Michael Noone for this information.
There is an erroneous reference to another copy of Paterpeccavi in MS B. 24, fos. 241'-244', in Francois Reynaut, La Polyphonie
toledane et son milieu des premiers temoinages aux environs de 1600 (Documents, etudes et r6pertoires; Paris, 1966), 315. This
error apparently arose from a slip in Robert Stevenson's 'The Toledo Manuscript Polyphonic Choirbooks and Some
Other Lost or Little Known Flemish Sources', Fontes artis musicae, 20 (1973), 99, where he lists the copy of Audivi vocem in MS
B. 23 and then the copy of Paterpeccavi, giving the correct folio numbers (in MS B. 23) for the latter but numbering the
source as 24 rather than 23.
44
uidi aquam settings from the print,"1 and a manuscript copied at the cathedral as late as 1820
has these same three works and the Missa Sancta Maria.'2 At least one copy of Lobo's Liber
missarum reached the New World, and belongs to Mexico City Cathedral.'3 Lobo's music
from the 1621 print seems thus to have enjoyed-in Granada and very possibly in other
Iberian institutions-considerable repertorial longevity: extensive repairs to the 1785 copy
in Granada's Capilla Real suggest that the Missa Dicebat esus, at least, was much performed
there even in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,'4 and the cathedral archive has
transcriptions of the Asperges me (transposed down a fourth) and Vidi aquam in the hand of
Rafael Salguero Rodriguez (1875-1925), who was maestro de capilla of the cathedral in the
early twentieth century.'5 Such a situation involving the recopying and performing of early
vocal polyphony was common in Spanish, Portuguese, and New World cathedrals.
The history of the thirteenth copy of the Liber missarum, the one crucial for the present
study, is very different from those of the other twelve. Purchased by a London book-
dealer (perhaps with an eye to the volume's impressive appearance as much as its con-
tents), and very possibly never used for performance, it has been in an academic library
since the 1650s. This copy-Oxford, Bodleian Library, Mason EE. 87-has hitherto
gone unremarked in the literature on Lobo and on Portuguese music of the period.'6 As
one would expect given its history, it is beautifully preserved, retaining the title page and
all the prefatory material that are missing from many of the other copies. An inscription
on the title page identifies its original owner-the London bookseller George Thomason
and specifies the date (July 1659) at which he presented it to the Bodleian. Thomason,
who died in 1666, is best known for his remarkable collection of printed material from the
period of the Civil War and Commonwealth, now in the British Library (the 'Thomason
Tracts'). He and his associate Robert Martin were involved in the importing of printed
music books from the Continent."7 The importation of a folio choirbook seems, however,
to have been most unusual. Thomason may have acquired the volume at the Frankfurt
" This manuscript is assigned the number 8 in the Capilla Real archive, but is no. 2 of the 'libros de facistol' listed in
Jose L6pez-Calo, Catdlogo del archivo de misica de la Capilla Real de Granada (Granada, 1993), i. 38. The Asperges me and Vidi
aquam are unattributed in the source, and their authorship has not previously been noted.
12 This book is no. 5 of the 'cantorales de polifonia' listed in Jos6 L6pez-Calo, Catdlogo del archivo de muisica de la Catedral de
Granada (La muisica en las catedrales andaluzas, ser. 1: Catalogos; Granada, 1991), i. 18-21. The Missa DicebatJesus is attributed
to 'Eduardo Lobo' in this source, but the other three works are without attribution. That the Vidi aquam setting and the Missa
Sancta Maria here are by Lobo has apparently not been recognized hitherto. While the 1621 volume does not appear in the
inventories of Capilla Real music books reproduced by L6pez-Calo (there is a gap in such inventories between 1629 and 1745),
an inventory of the cathedral's music books of 1667 includes a 'libro de misas de Eduardo Lobo, el de Lisboa' (as well as a 'libro
de magnificas de Lobo, el de Lisboa'). Although one cannot be sure whether this print was that of 1621 or that of 1639 (Lobo's
second book of masses), the former seems likely given the existence of the manuscript copies noted above. For this inventory, see
Jose L6pez-Calo, La musica en la Catedral de Granada en el siglo XVI (Granada, 1963), i. 131. This 'libro de misas' may well have
been the book sent to the cathedral in 1623 by 'el Maestro de Capilla de Portugal', as noted in the Actas Capitulares (vol. xi,
fo. 320) for 10 Nov. of that year; if so, we are certainly dealing with the 1621 volume rather than that of 1639. The Actas Capitu-
lares for 9 Dec. 1605 (vol. ix, fo. 393) record receipt from Lobo of a book of polyphony that was surely the Magnificat settings
published that year, included (asjust noted) in the inventory of 1667. For these entries in the Actas Capitulares, see Pilar Ramos
L6pez, La miiuica en la Catedral de Granada en laprimera mitad del siglo XVII: Diego de Pontac (Granada, 1994), i. 179-80.
13 In 1966 this copy was in the Viceregal Museum at Teoptzotlan, outside Mexico City, as reported by Robert Stevenson
in Renaissance and Baroque Musical Sources in the Americas (Washington, DC, 1970), 136, where he notes that it was then cata-
logued as I.M.A.R-34 P. Cat #256. The same archive also held the cathedral's copy of Plantin's 1605 edition of Lobo's
Magnificat settings (ibid. 135-6).
'1 Parts of the copy of the mass deteriorated to the extent that they were replaced, and one of these repairs had itself to
be replaced. The reading of the Asperges me in this manuscript includes numerous alterations of the 1621 print, including
modernization of the final cadence.
15 See L6pez-Calo, Catdlogo del archivo de mzisica de la Catedral de Granada, i. 57.
16 I first became aware of the Bodleian copy of the Liber missarum thanks to a pencil annotation in the copy of RISM A/i/5
in the Music Room of the Bodleian Library, which adds 'GB Ob' to the list of libraries containing the volume. There is
also a card for this copy in the Music Room's card catalogue.
17 See Jonathan P. Wainwright, Musical Patronage in Seventeenth-Century England: Christopher, First Baron Hatton (1605-
1670) (Aldershot, 1997), 28-30.
45
book fairs if not directly from Antwerp: he made several visits to Frankfurt before
1640,18 and we know from the archives of the Offcina Plantiniana that four copies were sent
to Frankfurt in the year of publication.'9 The considerable significance of the Bodleian
copy lies in the fact that-while singers may never have used it-it formed the exemplar
for some of the later English manuscript copies of Lobo's music. Indeed, it is possible
that this book was the progenitor of the whole history of the copying and performance
of Lobo's music in England up to the mid-nineteenth century.
COPYISTS USING THE THOMASON VOLUME
No evidence has yet emerged concerning consultation of th

between its arrival in the Bodleian in 1659 and its use by eighteen
and copyists. We do not know, for example, whether the Portug
Queen's (i.e. Catherine of Braganza's) chapel became aware of t
eminent countryman's music nearby in the Bodleian when the ro
Oxford in 1665, just six years after the Lobo print reached the libr
Lobo's works survives in Henry Aldrich's famous collection of ea
Church. However, we can identify two eighteenth-century music
consulted and copied from the Bodleian volume, one of whom was
Oxford, the other in London: William Walond senior (1719-68
(?1685-1760).
Walond was deputy to the organist of New College and Christ C
a composer. He acted as copyist for both of these colleges and the Oxfo
and indeed 'appears to have been the principal professional copyis
century Oxford'.21 He created two surviving manuscript scores o
Liber missarum, now MS 343 and MS 942 in the library of the Roy
These copies are shown in Table 1, which lists all the manuscript
this study.23 It is possible that MS 942 originally included all or a
18 See F.J. Levy, 'How Information Spread among the Gentry, 1550-1640',Joumal ofBritish
'9 The relevant entry in the Journal for 1621 is reproduced in Stellfeld, Bibliographie, 155
149. On Christopher Plantin's dealings with London booksellers in the later 16th c. see Coli
tin's Trade-Connexions with England and Scotland', The Library, 5th ser., 14 (1959), 2
appears in a Plantin catalogue as late as 1652: see Stellfeld, Bibliographie, 156, and Borges, Du
20 See Peter Leech, 'Musicians in the Catholic Chapel of Catherine of Braganza, 1662-92', Ea
at 577. We lack evidence of what Portuguese repertory was in the possession of, and perform
21 Peter Ward Jones and Donald Burrows, 'An Inventory of Mid-Eighteenth-Centur
Research Chronicle of the Royal Musical Association, 35 (2002), 61-139 at 63.
22 I am most grateful to Peter Ward Jones for identifying the hand of MS 942, and thu
Walond as the copyist of MS 343 as well.
23 There are three previously published lists of some of these English manuscript sou
Branco, Elementos de Sciencias Musicais, ii. 54; Diccionario de la Mutsica Labor, ed. Joaquin Pena a
1954), ii. 1426; and Borges, Duarte Lobo, 151. The list in the Diccionario de la Misica Labor in
Asperges me and the eight-voice Missa pro defunctis in the British Library (besides those in Add
(the list includes no manuscript numbers, making it difficult to check), there exist or exist
ware. Other writers besides those just mentioned have referred to British Museum Add. 50
of the contents of Lobo's Liber missarum. With regard to the manuscript dissemination ofAu
Ribeiro noted in 1960 that this piece 'sich groBer Beliebtheit erfreut zu haben scheint und h
viii, col. 1074. The full extent of the surviving copies of Lobo's music in UK archives, w
reveals, is somewhat masked in the modem literature and bibliographical sources because o
composer's name and hence his identity. The 1621 print employs the Latin form 'Lupus', ap
the genitive 'Lupi'. Many of the 18th-c. English sources to which I shall refer consequently
large proportion of modem writers and compilers of catalogues dealing with some of these
as either 'Lupi' or 'Lopez': this latter 'version' of the name, given as an alternative inJohan
calisches Lexicon, oder Musicalische Bibliothec (Leipzig, 1732), is used (in place of 'Lobo', 'Lup
Hughes-Hughes, Catalogue ofManuscript Music in the British Museum (London, 1906), i. There is
additional confusion with other composers in the 'wolf pack', such asJohannes Lupi.
46
TABLE 1. Manuscript copies of worksfrom Duarte Lobo's Liber missarum (1621) in English libraries
Library and call number Date Copyist/owner(s)
RCM 343 c. 1745 Copyist: William Walond

RCM 942 c. 1745 Copyist: William Walond
RCM 941 by 1760 (death of Needler)Copyist: Henry Needler and others. Owned
by Sacred Harmonic Society from 1843
BL Add. 5036 by 1760 Copyist: Henry Needler
BL Add. 5046 by 1760 Copyist: Henry Needler
RAM 63 by 1789 (death of Barrow) Copyist: Thomas Barrow. Owned by Philip
Hayes, then R.J. S. Stevens from 1799
RCM1195 by 1764 (death of Immyns) Copyist: John Immyns. Later owned
by Sacred Harmonic Society
BL Madrigal Society
by 1764 Copyist: John Immyns. Owned by
F.86 Madrigal Society
BL Madrigal Society by 1764 Copyist: John Immyns. Owned by

A.6-11 Madrigal Society
BL Madrigal Society by 1764 Copyist: John Immyns. Later owned
A.52-6 byJohn Newman, and by Madrigal Society
BL Madrigal Society 18th century Owned by Madrigal Society
A.28-39
BL Madrigal Society by 1794 (date of Warren's Copyist: Edmund Warren. Owned by
A.40-46 death) Madrigal Society
CFM MU.MS.41 by 1760 Title page and table of contents copied by
Henry Needler. Owned by Academy of
Ancient Music, then Richard, Viscount
Fitzwilliam
CFM MU.MS.164.C Copyist: ?James Butler. Owned by Ri
Viscount Fitzwilliam
RCM 1074 by 1794 Owned by Edmund Warren, thenJam
Bartleman, then Sacred Harmonic S
BL Add. 31409 by 1794 Copyist: Edmund Warren. Later
owned byJames Bartleman
BL Madrigal SocietyJ.83
Copy of this piece Owned by Madrigal Society
1798 or later
BL Madrigal Society C.7
1799 or later (watermark) Copyist: RevdJohn Parker. Later own
William Knyvett, then Vincent Nov
BL Madrigal SocietyJ19th century Owned by Madrigal Society
(unnumbered)
BL Add. 31818 Audivi copy 1799 or later Copyist: R.J. S. Stevens
(watermark 1798)
0 BL Add. 65486 Audivi copy 1805 or later Owned by Samuel Picart, then Vincen
(watermark)
BL Mus. 295 1825 (date of preface) Copyist: Vincent Novello
of the contents of the 1621 volume, since what survives is a fragment (just one gathering)
with the first two works in the print (Asperges me and Vidi aquam) and part of the third (the
Missa de beata Virgine), cut off in the Credo clearly not because copying ceased but owing
to the loss of subsequent gatherings. MS 343 is likewise a single remaining gathering
from a larger manuscript, in different format, and in all likelihood originally included a
complete copy of the Missa Elisabeth Zachariae, of which only the Kyrie, the Gloria, and
the opening of the Credo remain. Numerous features of these copies, together with the
absence of significant variants with the printed edition, demonstrate that Walond was
working directly from the print, and therefore surely (given that he was in Oxford) from
the copy in the Bodleian.24 Since it is possible to date changes in Walond's music script,
such as the forms of G- and C-clefs and C mensuration signature, we can assign both of
these manuscripts to c. 1745.25
The other identifiable copyist who definitely made use of the Bodleian copy of Lobo's
print, and through whom this music may first have reached musical circles in London,
was Henry Needler. A civil servant by profession, Needler, asJohn Hawkins informs us,
was 'one of that association which gave rise to the establishment of the Academy of
Ancient Music, and being a zealous friend to the institution, attended constantly on the
nights of performance, and played the principal violin part. The toils of business he alle-
viated by the study of music; and in his leisure hours employed himself in putting into
score the works of the most celebrated Italian masters, with a view to improve himself,
and enrich the stores of the Academy.'26 His enthusiasm for 'ancient music' is manifest
in the numerous volumes of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century works in his hand now
in the British Library. Two of these, and a further source in the library of the Royal
College of Music (eight partbooks, MS 941) copied by Needler and three others, present
music from Lobo's Liber missarum.27 British Library Add. MS 5046 is a fair (indeed,
beautifully executed) copy in score format of the entire contents of the Liber missarum,
including all the prefatory material, such as the dedication, while Add. MS 5036-likewise
in score-is an anthology of items from various Oxford sources that has three works
from the Lobo print: Vidi aquam and the two motets, Audivi vocem de caelo and Paterpeccavi.
The partbooks RCM MS 941 contain the two eight-voice Masses (Missa pro defunctis and
Missa Cantate Domino) and the Asperges me.
Most fortunately for our purposes, Needler provided a table at the opening of MS
5036 where he records from which Oxford library he had collected each work. The only
24 That the print was Walond's exemplar is suggested, for example, by his reproduction of the titles of pieces and attri-
butions at the top of pages in the print, by his very faithful retention of syllable placement even in cases where this is illogical
or wrong in the edition, and by his indication of the presence of almost all the ligatures in the print by means of phrase
markings in his manuscripts. His underlay shows that he was copying from the print and not, for example, from Henry
Needler's score copy of the contents of the print, BL Add. 5046, described below. On the other hand, he was liberal in
introducing sharps at cadences in the Asperges me, the Vidi aquam, and the Gloria of the Missa Elisabeth Zachariae. The man-
uscripts give the appearance of rather hurried copying, and were probably not used directly for performance, as sug-
gested, for example, by the omission of text from the bassus at one point in the Missa de beata Virgine and an error in the
bassus of the Missa Elisabeth Zachariae.
25 These changes, and the dates at which they occurred, are described by WardJones and Burrows, 'An Inventory',
63. My dating of c. 1745 for MS 343 and MS 942 is based on this account, and specifically on the following three charac-
teristics of Walond's script in the manuscript concerned: the C-clefin MS 343 and MS 942 matches that in Illus. 17 (p. 121)
of Ward Jones and Burrows's article, which is from Bodleian Library, MS Mus. d. 161, of c. 1748; the G-clef in both
RCM manuscripts still has a descender reaching well below the bottom of the clef, which disappears in Walond's later
hand; and the C mensuration signature is not the (later) elaborate form shown in Illus. 19 (p. 123) but the 'plain C
form... encountered in the period up to c. 1746' (p. 63).
26 Hawkins, A General History of the Science and Practice of Music (London, 17 76), v. 126.
27 The identification of Needler's hand in this manuscript is presented here for the first time. The manuscript was
acquired by the library of the Sacred Harmonic Society in 1843, appearing in the library catalogue included as an
appendix to the Eleventh Annual Report of the Sacred Harmonic Society (London, 1844), 67.
49
pieces in the manuscript that he obtained from the Bodleian are the three works by Lobo.
We can thus be confident that the copies in Add. 5036 were made from the Bodleian's
exemplar of the 1621 print, or perhaps from a preliminary copy that Needler wrote out
in Oxford.28 That the partbook copies in RCM MS 941 were likewise made from the
print is vividly suggested by Needler's and the other copyists' odd decision to reproduce
even the custodes from the ends of staves in the print, even though these usually do not
fall at the ends of staves in MS 941 and hence serve no purpose whatever there. One
presumes that these copyists were again using the Bodleian copy, given that Needler
was among them.29
One might initially presume that Needler's complete copy-Add. 5046-of the Liber
missarum, including all the prefatory material, was likewise made from the Oxford exemplar.
However, a number of the pieces in Add. 5046 appear with readings indicating that
they are stemmatically at some remove from the print itself. There are, to be sure, links
with the copies in Add. 5036. For example, the same error (or, less likely, deliberate
alteration) is made at the ending of the altus secundus in both copies of Audivi vocem.
Also, in Pater peccavi a number of accidentals (not present in the print) that Needler
added in pencil to the Add. 5036 copy are more 'formally' incorporated, in red ink, into
the Add. 5046 copy, and where Add. 5046 departs from the print's underlay in this
piece these changes are marked in pencil in Add. 5036. However, one cannot presume
that such markings in Add. 5036 indicate that these annotated copies then acted as the
exemplars for the copies in Add. 5046.30 Indeed, that there once existed further copies
by Needler and/or others of at least several works in Add. 5046 is indicated in part by
the absence there of errors occurring in the print (that is to say, the errors were never
made in Add. 5046, rather than being noticed and corrected after initial copying).31
Similarly, the resolution of the canons in the last Agnus Dei of the Missa de beata virgine
and the Missa Valde honorandus est must have been worked out before Needler made the
Add. 5046 copies,32 and the same probably applies to the numerous adjustments to the
print's underlay, which rarely reveal signs of slips or second thoughts.
The transmission of Lobo's works in multiple copies of which only a portion survives
is further indicated by comparing the readings of various works in Add. 5046 with those
in two other manuscripts written by different copyists:John Immyns's copy of the opening
of the Missa pro defunctis in Royal College of Music MS 1195,33 and MS 63 in the Royal
28 According to the table at the opening of Add. 5036, Needler copied Victoria's motet Ascendens Christus from Christ
Church library, and thus doubtless from the copy of the composer's 1585 Motectafestorum totius anni (RISM V 1433) that is still
there. This copy was taken from the library of the Bishop of Faro in the sack of the city by the English (under the Earl of
Essex) in 1596. Perhaps thanks to Needler's copy, Ascendens Christus entered the repertory of the Academy of Ancient Music.
29 Despite the use of partbook format, these copies of the Missa pro defunctis and Missa Cantate Domino were certainly not
employed in performance, as several significant uncorrected errors demonstrate. It is, however, possible that singers used
the copy of Asperges me: there are no errors here, and numerous accidentals have been added in pencil.
30 Further, in Audivi vocem, where there are no pencil markings in Add. 5036, the underlay of the opening words
diverges from the print's in Add. 5046 but not in Add. 5036; likewise, of the two copies of Vidi aquam that in Add. 5036 is
more consistently in accord with the print in terms of underlay.
31 Needler's copies do not, however, correct every source error. Indeed, he did not emend all those that he noticed: in one
such case he omitted an offending note rather than altering its pitch. Conversely, he changed one passage (clearly deliberately)
where there was no apparent need to have done so. In addition, Needler (or the copyist of his exemplar, if someone else) made
a number of errors of transcription, including the interpretation of rhythms in one 'Hosanna' in tempus imperfectum, prolatio mawr.
32 Lobo's canonic instructions in the Missa de beata virgine are flawed: there is no musically adequate solution that follows these
instructions strictly, and the resolutio causes parallel unisons between the two cantus parts. In Add. 5046 Lobo's cantus primus
part is altered to remove these unisons, and the resolutio has been tinkered with quite ingeniously so as to produce a solution that
works in all but one bar. Needler (or the copyist of his source) likewise clearly spent some time considering the best resolutio of the
canon in the Missa Valde honorandus est, to which two possible rhythmic solutions are written out in Add. 5046.
33 That Immyns was the copyist of MS 1195 is noted in a (later) inscription at the beginning of the manuscript, and by
William Barclay Squire in the Preface (dated 1926) to his typescript catalogue of the music manuscripts in the Royal College
of Music.
50
Academy of Music, copied by Thomas Barrow, chief copyist of the Chapel Royal from 1746
until his death in 1789.34 MS 63 is dedicated entirely to items from the Liber missarum,
containing the two eight-voice Masses, the Asperges me, and the two motets. Needler's
Add. 5046 and these two sources are all closely related in stemmatic terms, sharing various
significant conjunctive readings. For example, Barrow originally reproduced at one
point an error found in Immyns's reading, and at another an error found in Needler's;
further, in several places Add. 5046 and MS 63 have identical underlay that departs
from that in the print. However, it is clear that none of the three manuscripts acted as
exemplar for either of the others, and therefore that other copies belonging to the same
basic branch of the stemma must once have existed. In its reading of the start of the
Missa pro defunctis Immyns's manuscript is stemmatically somewhat nearer the print than
are Needler's copy in Add. 5046 and Barrow's in MS 63, suggesting once more the
stemmatic separation between Needler's copy and the Liber missarum that he had originally
consulted in Oxford. I believe that we are thus given a glimpse of the interactions of a
London-based group of musicians involved in copying and performing Lobo's works,
with access to each other's copies, in the middle decades of the eighteenth century.35
The identical addition of accidentals to Audivi vocem in Immyns's Madrigal Society A.6-1 1
(see below), Needler's Add. 5036 and 5046, and Barrow's MS 63 points in the same
direction.36 The two principal loci for such cultivation of Lobo's music in London from
the 1730s onwards were the Academy of Ancient Music (with which both Needler and
Immyns were involved) and the Madrigal Society founded by Immyns. Another manu-
script copy of Audivi vocem, to be discussed next, provides just one of the many pieces of
evidence of this work's inclusion in the Academy's repertory, and further indications of
Needler's involvement.
LOBO S WORKS AND THE ACADEMY OF ANCIENT MUSIC
The Academy of Ancient Music, founded originally as the Academy

1726, flourished until the 1790s. It may be that Needler was responsi
Lobo's works from the Liber missarum into the Academy's performi
tainly, he copied the title page and table of contents of a manuscrip
vocem that belonged to the library of the Academy. This manu
Fitzwilliam Museum, MU.MS. 41 (see Table 1)-is a book of motet
score, including works by Palestrina, Marenzio, and Victoria. A not
gives its provenance and the year (1768) in which it was acquired by
Fitzwilliam. This book is of particular significance also in that it w
34 I have identified Barrow's hand here through comparison with his copy of Tallis's Lam
34726. MS 63 shows that Barrow was not familiar with the Mass or Requiem Mass texts an
revealed by mistakes such as 'iteram venturus est'. The manuscript subsequently belonged to P
Professor of Music at Oxford (but active also in London). Both he and his father William, who
position, were noted musical antiquarians. On William and Philip as collectors, see Simon Heighe
William and Philip Hayes (Outstanding Dissertations in Music from British Universities; New
18-19 and 46. Philip extended his father's collection of early music, and the sale catalogue of th
was acquired at that sale by R.J. S. Stevens, as noted below.
35 There is a striking correspondence also between MS 63 and the partbooks RCM MS 94
others) in the choice and ordering of repertory, MS 63 beginning with the three items found
36 However, Immyns did not obtain Audivi vocem from Needler's Add. 5036 or Add. 5046, sin
made an error (or alteration) at the end of the altus secundus, whereas Immyns's copies correspond
here (a reading that he would have been unlikely to have guessed if consulting Needler's versi
eight-voice masses in MS 63 include many more accidentals (besides those in the print) tha
Barrow takes further (so as to be more consistent) the alterations to the print's underlay at th
found in Add. 5046. This piece is here also transposed one tone lower than in the print (where
presumably with the needs of performance in mind. Barrow used two styles of sharp, in many
in the print from those that have been added, a practice akin to Needler's employment of two c
51
Novello as a source for his published anthology The Fitzwilliam Music (1825-7), thanks to
which Lobo's motet Audivi vocem was first to reach print (and hence, one presumes, a
wider audience), as discussed below. Fitzwilliam also owned a copy of Lobo's Paterpeccavi,
in what is now MU.MS. 164.C in the Fitzwilliam Museum.37
Audivi vocem and Paterpeccavi were among the works from Lobo's 1621 print that fea-
tured in the programmes for the Academy of Ancient Music's 'Publick nights' on
Thursdays (when each member could bring two guests) between the 1730s and the
1770s:38
Date Piece
Thursday, 31 Janu
Thursday, 24 April 1746 Kyrie (4v.)
Thursday, 29 March 1750 Paterpeccavi
Thursday, 16 April 1772 Audivi vocem
Thursday, 23 April 1772 Audivi vocem
Thursday, 25 March 1773 Audivi vocem
It is likely that there were more performances of Lobo's music than those listed here,
given the tendency towards repetition in the Academy's programmes and the fact that
surviving programmes have been located for only some of the Academy's meetings.
Besides these programmes, among the works listed in The Words of such Pieces As are most
usually performed by the Academy of Ancient Music, first published in 1761, are four items by
Lobo: Asperges me (presumably the setting from the 1621 volume), the two motets Pater
peccavi and Audivi vocem, and a 'Kyrie'.39 To put this in context: if one ranks composers
according to the number of their pieces included in this word-book, Lobo is in ninth
place out of twenty-four named composers. As one might expect, Handel is the best rep-
resented, followed closely by Palestrina, and these two far outstrip the rest. The others
standing above Lobo are Purcell, Lassus, Victoria, Byrd, and Marenzio, together with
Johann Christoph Pepusch (1667-1752), who was a founder-member of-and central
figure in-the Academy. Lobo's representation in the Academy's word-book can thus
be seen as remarkably strong, given his obscurity.40
It was through Pepusch that Lobo's music also received a somewhat more public airing
than at the Academy's Thursday meetings. The occasion concerned-which pre-dates
the earliest reference we have to a performance of Lobo by the Academy and indeed is
the earliest reference so far located to the singing of Lobo's music in England-was a
benefit concert for Pepusch held at Stationers' Hall (near Ludgate) on 31 March 1732.
The advertisements for this event in the Daily Post of 29, 30, and 31 March describe it as
'A Concert consisting of several full Pieces of Vocal and Instrumental Musick, composed
37 Here, as in RAM MS 63 (which one suspects was the exemplar for this copy), Paterpeccavi is transposed one tone
lower. The piece is unattributed, and its identity has not previously been noted. The copyist may have beenJames Butler,
Organist of St Margaret's Westminster, given the resemblances with the script in the Fitzwilliam Museum manuscript
MU.MS. 66h, which he copied.
38 I acknowledge once again the help of HarryJohnstone and William Weber in supplying me with much of the relevant
information, and the former for the loan of microfilms of programmes. DrJohnstone suggests that the first of the two
meetings, a week apart, on 16 and 23 Apr. 1772, may well have been a 'private' one at which Audivi vocem was rehearsed,
and the meeting of 23 Apr. a 'Publick night'.
39 It is not specified from which mass this Kyrie was taken; it may well have been the four-voice one listed at the begin-
ning of the 'Part the second' in the programme for 24 Apr. 1746, and entitled 'Motetforfour Voices'. See Motets, madrigals,
and other pieces; perfonned by the Academy of Ancient Music, on Thursday, April 24, 1746 (London, 1746), 3, reproduced in Eight-
eenth Century Collections Online (http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet).
40 Those below Lobo in this ranking include Morley, Gibbons, and Tallis.
52
by Antient and Modem Authors, Edvardo Lupi [i.e. Duarte Lobo], Paulo Petti, William
Byrd, Collonna, Stephani, Corelli, Purcell, and Dr. Pepusch'.41 Although we do not
know which piece(s) by Lobo was/were included, those copied by Henry Needler and
John Immyns are the most likely candidates, given not least both men's association with
Pepusch.
MEMBERS OF THE MADRIGAL SOCIETY: COPIES AND PERFORMANCES
Lobo's works from the 1621 print, and in particular Audivi vocem,
even more firmly established (although, it seems, from a later date
the Madrigal Society. Founded byJohn Immyns in 1741, the Societ
form sacred and secular works of, in the main, the sixteenth and e
turies. Details of some of the Madrigal Society's performances of A
obtained from the minute book covering the weekly meetings fr
which lists those attending and the pieces chosen.42 It emerges that Au
in the Society's repertory from 1760 onwards,43 being performed
during the decade that followed (see Table 2). Indeed, in the au
1769 it was included in six out of seven consecutive meetings. Amo
have become well acquainted with Audivi vocem at these meetings
who attended five of the six relevant evenings in 1760, both of tho
1764, and five of the six in 1765. Edmund Warren (see below), who
TABLE 2. Madrigal Society meetings with Lobo's Audivi vocem listed on programm
Year Dates Number of meetings*
1760 20.8?, 27.8?, 17.9, 24.9, 12.11, 19.11 6?

1761 25.11,2.12 2
1764 11.4, 18.4, 12.9, 19.9 4
1765 13.3, 20.3, 14.8, 21.8,6.11, 13.11 6
1766 2.7,9.7 2
1767 6.5, 13.5, 15.7, 22.7 4
1768 24.8,31.8 2
1769 28.6,5.7, 18.10, 25.10, 1.11,8.11,2911,16.12 8
1770 24.1, 31.1
1798 20.11
1802 19.1, 20.1
1818 14.1 (Anniversary Dinner)
1820 12.1 (Anniversary Dinner)
1827 17.5 1
1828 17.1
*This is indicated here only where a complete (or near compl
41 The reference to this concert in The London Stage, 1660

202, gives the venue as Hickford's Rooms, but it seems that
include one on the very day of the concert, and the ven
addition, the information in The London Stage was in any case
42 BL, Madrigal Society F.2. There is no specific reference
ing period, from 1744 to 1757.
43 The entry for the meetings of 20 and 27 Aug. 1760 inclu
Mr H. Saxby. It is unclear, however, whether the piece was p
44 He joined the Society in Nov. 1748.
53
copies of the piece, was elected a member of the Society in December 1762, and
attended most of the meetings during which Audivi vocem was performed from 1764 until
early 1770, when this minute book ends. After a gap in the records, there exist more
sporadic lists of pieces performed at meetings of the Society between 1802 and
1828.45 As Table 2 shows, Audivi vocem remained in the Society's repertory right up
to this last date, being performed for example at some of the annual Anniversary
Dinners.
It is therefore unsurprising that, as can be seen in Table 1, no fewer than seven sur-
viving Madrigal Society manuscripts-five sets of partbooks and two scores-contain a
copy of Audivi vocem. Two of these copies (in the partbooks A.6-11 and A.52-6) are in
the hand of John Immyns himself, and Immyns also copied two three-voice sections
from Lobo's masses into a Madrigal Society score book, F.86, transposing them down-
wards by an octave to allow performance by men's voices.46 The identification of
Immyns as the copyist of these three manuscripts is made here for the first time.
Hawkins comments that
the taste of Immyns was altogether for old music, which he had been taught to adm
by Dr. Pepusch; and this he indulged to such a degree, that he looked upon Mr. Handel and
Bononcini as the great corrupters of the science. With these prejudices, it is no wonder that
entertained a relish for madrigals and music of the driest style: Vincentio Ruffo, Orlando de Lass
Luca Marenzio, Horatio Vecchi, and, above all, the prince of Venosa, were his great favourites.4
Hawkins also notes Immyns's membership of the Academy of Ancient Music, and tha
he occasionally worked as copyist for that society and amanuensis to Pepusch.48
Given the existence of the copies of Audivi vocem in Immyns's hand, it is somewhat puz
zling to find no reference to the piece in the Madrigal Society's minute books befo
1760. (Immyns died in 1764.) However, other Madrigal Society manuscripts reflect th
popularity of the motet in the succeeding period, including during a gap (1770-1802)
the minute-book records of performances. A note in MSJ.83 informs us that Audivi vocem
was presented at the meeting of 20 November 1798,49 while another copy must date from
1799 or later,50 and the 'J' set of partbooks (it has no specific numeration) containin
Audivi vocem clearly dates from the nineteenth century.51 Further, an index to the conten
of the Madrigal Society's books,52 originally compiled by Orlando Crease in 181
reveals that at that date at least two of the partbook copies of Audivi vocem were still con
sidered 'current', namely Immyns's copy in A.6-11 (known as 'Set B') and that in A.28-
('Set H'). Similarly, of the score copies mentioned above the one in J.83 was listed i
Crease's original index. Subsequent additions to this index refer to the copies of Audi
vocem in theJ set ofpartbooks and the score book C.7, as well as to the Society's copy
volume 5 (1827) of Vincent Novello's The Fitzwilliam Music, containing Lobo's motet.
45 The entries from this third minute book are reproduced in a typescript list by James Craufurd, 'Madrigals pe
formed by the Madrigal Society 10 December 1744 to 20 March 1828 extracted from the minute books of the Societ
BL, Madrigal Society 64.
46 F.86, like Immyns's other score book mentioned above (RCM MS 1195), is very small, giving the impression tha
both were personal notebooks. In F.86 he listed (by indicating the first bass note of each piece) the contents of vari
other collections, among them 'My little A. booke' and 'My Collection of duets beginning non secundum'.
47 A General History, v. 350-1. Immyns's manuscript copies of early music are mostly in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambrid
48 Ibid. 349. On the overlap of repertory between the Academy of Ancient Music and the Madrigal Society, see Regin
Nettel, 'The Oldest Surviving English Musical Club: Some Historical Notes on the Madrigal Society of London', Musica
Quarterly, 34 (1948), 97-108 at 105.
49 The inscription reads 'Presented by Mr Creswell Novr 20t 1798'.
50 In MS C.7, of which the paper bears a watermark with this date.
51 The set includes more than forty partbooks, copied by a number of different people.
52 Madrigal Society MS F.21 in the British Library.
54
As for the copyists of the Madrigal Society manuscripts of Audivi vocem, it has been
possible-in addition to the Immyns identifications noted above-to identify the hand in
A.40-6 as that of Edmund Thomas Warren (c. 1730-94), and C.7 was already known to
be in the hand of the RevdJohn Parker.53 Warren, who late in life changed his name to
Warren-Horne, was an avid collector and editor of Renaissance music.54 Another copy of
Audivi vocem survives in his hand, in British Library Add. MS 31409, and it is through
comparison with this manuscript that one can identify him as the copyist of Lobo's motet
in A.40-6.55 Warren owned a third copy ofAudivi vocem, in a smaller manuscript anthol-
ogy of scores copied by several scribes, to which he added a list of contents. This manu-
script (now RCM MS 1074) subsequently belonged to the bass singerJames Bartleman
(1769-1821, a leading performer in the Concert of Antient Music and one of the conduc-
tors of the Vocal Concerts), who also acquired Warren's manuscript Add. 31409.56 It may
have been Bartleman who added the figuring, dynamic markings, and tempo marking to
the copy ofAudivi vocem in MS 1074, or perhaps a subsequent user of the book, which was
in the library of the Sacred Harmonic Society (as were several other copies of Lobo's
music) until passing to the Royal College of Music in 1883.57
Among the lovers of 'ancient music' and members of the Madrigal Society who collected,
copied, and performed Lobo's works, the activities in this regard of R. J. S. Stevens
(1757-1837) are particularly well documented, partly through surviving music manu-
scripts, and partly through the extensive and detailed diaries and journals that he kept.58
He acquired and made copies of Audivi vocem and other works from the 1621 print, and
oversaw performances of these pieces at private gatherings and perhaps in public. It
seems quite likely that Stevens had performed Lobo's Audivi vocem at the meetings of the
Madrigal Society in which he participated as a boy treble from St Paul's Cathedral in
the early 1770s.59 Whether or not it was this that provoked his interest in the composer,60
he bought what is now Royal Academy of Music MS 63-dedicated, as noted above,
53 Parker, Rector of St George's, Botolph Lane, was a member of the Society, and was paid for copying music for the
Society between 1802 and 1805. His own extensive collection of madrigals, motets, etc., was sold in 1813, after his death.
SeeJames Craufurd, 'The Madrigal Society', Proceedings of the Royal MusicalAssociation, 82 (1955-6), 33-46 at 40 and 44.
54 He edited A Collection of Vocal Harmony (London, c. 1775) and (probably) the six-volume Apollonian Harmony (London,
c. 1790). Both collections include several madrigals, motets, and anthems among the predominant catches, canons, glees,
and rounds. His projected six-volume collection of Renaissance vocal music never reached print, although proofs of the
first volume survive in the British Library, with the shelf mark K. 7.i. 12.
55 Warren described Add. 31409 as 'A Collection of Sixty three Madrigals & Motetts for 5.6 & 8 Voices Compos'd by Forty
four Eminent Masters most of them publish'd in single parts, from which these scores were made, in 16' & 17' Centuries'.
56 Bartleman's ownership of Add. 31409 was already recognized. His ownership of RCM MS 1074 is indicated by the
presence of his initials on the first page, next to Warren's signature.
57 These were, besides MS 1074, the partbooks copied by Henry Needler and others (RCM MS 941) and one ofJohn
Immyns's manuscripts (RCM MS 1195). See Catalogue of the Library of The Sacred Harmonic Society, rev. edn. (London, 1872).
MS 1733 in that catalogue is now RCM MS 941, MS 1740 is RCM MS 1074, and MS 1937 is RCM MS 1195. Accord-
ing to the typescript catalogue of RCM manuscripts prepared by William Barclay Squire, MS 942 (one of William
Walond's copies of Lobo) was also part of the Sacred Harmonic Society MS 1733, and it bears that shelf mark in pencil;
however, the description of MS 1733 in the Sacred Harmonic Society Catalogue suggests that this is an error, and it is
worth noting that a similar error was apparently made with regard to RCM MS 343 (Walond's other Lobo manuscript),
which likewise bears the pencil annotation '1733', but in this case crossed out.
58 Now in Cambridge University Library. Add. MS 9109 is the 'Recollections of the life of RichardJohn Samuel Stevens
both professional and domestic' in two volumes (covering his life up to 1827), while the five volumes of diaries (from 1802
until the year of Stevens's death) have the call number Add. MS 9110. A selection of this material has been edited by
Mark Argent in Recollections of R. . S. Stevens: An Organist in Georgian London (London, 1992). Stevens was Organist of St
Michael's Cornhill and of the Inner Temple until 1810, Organist of the Charterhouse from 1796, and Professor of Music
at Gresham College from 1801, in which last capacity he delivered public lectures on music, including 'ancient music'.
59 Stevens's attendance apparently began in 1771: see 'Recollections', i. 29. With regard to the boy choristers' partici-
pation at these meetings, he notes the importance of 'hearing some of the first Vocal Harmony extant, in forming our
taste for composition'; CUL Add. MS 9109, i. 28, and Argent, Recollections, 10.
60 Stevens might also have got to know Lobo's music, for example, through his friend James Bartleman, who-as
already noted-acquired two of Warren's manuscripts containing Audivi vocem.
55
entirely to Lobo's music-at the sale of the music books of William and Philip Hayes,
following the latter's death in 1797.61 Stevens then made use of this manuscript when
creating a set of performing copies of Audivi vocem, now British Library Add. 31818, con-
sisting of separate vocal parts and two scores.62 He first added dynamics and figurings to
the copy of Audivi in MS 63, and subsequently reproduced these, with a few additional
figurings, in his new scores and parts.
We do not know whether Stevens originally prepared these performing materials
for one of the private musical evenings which he frequently held with friends, or for
the Madrigal Society (of which he was a member until 1814).63 Stevens lists the
pieces performed at only some of his evenings of domestic musical entertainment.
Certainly, however, Audivi vocem was sung on Friday, 5 April 1816 and Friday, 22
March 1822.64 In addition, the other motet from Lobo's 1621 publication, Paterpec-
cavi, was included in the programme on Thursday, 1 May and Friday, 9 May 1823.65
Although in this case we lack a set of performing parts in Stevens's hand, he owned a
copy of the piece in MS 63. One should note that Lobo's motets stand out in the rep-
ertory of these musical evenings, in that most of the music performed was of later
date and/or English.
APPROACHES TO EDITING AND PERFORMING AUDIVI VOCEM
The manuscript copies of Lobo's music described above indicate the

that English musical antiquarians had in particular pieces, not only t
bers of surviving copies of each work, but from the choice of items t
accidentals and other performance markings not in the 1621 print. I
that just four of the items in Henry Needler's complete copy of the Libe
5046) bear additional accidentals (distinguished by the use of red ink
the Asperges me, and some movements of the Missa pro defunctis.66 It is s
that these are also the pieces best represented overall in the English
of Lobo. Likewise, we have seen that the Asperges and the two mot
established within the repertory of the Academy of Ancient Music.
this point that the judgement of these eighteenth-century musician
striking degree with the reception of Lobo's works in modern tim
recent revival of interest in, and performance of, the composer's m
61 Stevens wrote his name and the date 1799 on the cover of the manuscript, together with
Hayes's Sale'. The manuscript presumably belonged to Lot 205 at that sale, described in th
[i.e. Latin Motetts], Carifabri, 1675, MS. and Masses and Motetts, Lupi, MS.', and priced at 10
catalogue of the very curious and valuable musical libray of antient and modem compositions, by the most eminen
century to the present time (London), 14.
62 Since the paper bears the watermark date 1798, Stevens probably made the copy soon
manuscript. One of Stevens's two scores was presumably for the keyboard player and the oth
performances of such music were certainly often directed from the keyboard, there are references
to the practice of beating time with a parchment roll for performances at meetings of the Ma
Recollections, 11.
63 He was President of the Society's meeting on, for example, 26 Mar. 1811. Stevens frequen
lectures that he delivered as Gresham Professor of Music with performances of 'ancient musi
lecture titles or descriptions given in his diaries and 'Recollections' indicate performance of Lob
64 For both of these occasions, see the relevant diary entries in CUL Add. MS 9110, ii and ii
'Recollections', ii. 304. In the diary entry for 22 Mar. 1822 Stevens notes that Audivi vocem was
65 For both of these occasions, see the relevant diary entries in CUL Add. MS 9110, iii, and
and 338; the first of these entries in 'Recollections' is reproduced in Argent, Recollections, 246. In t
notes that Paterpeccavi was sung three times on 1 May and twice on 9 May.
66 Needler's careful distinction of types of accidental by colour breaks down just twice: once
editorial sharp is in black ink, and once in Paterpeccavi, where he originally made the same mi
overwrote the sharp in red ink. At least one of his added accidentals-a B6 in the Sanctus of the
clashes directly with a B4 in another part-surely cannot have been tested in performance.
56
defunctis and the two motets-particularly Audivi vocem-have attracted much the most
attention and been the most frequently recorded.67
Of course, it is Audivi vocem that predominates in terms of numbers of early manu-
script copies and performances, and it is also the only work by Lobo to carry dynamic
and other interpretative markings in these sources. Many of the sixteen manuscript copies
of the motet provide insights into the ways in which it was regarded by such music-lovers
as Immyns, Needler, and Stevens, and the ways in which it was performed in the contexts
described above. I shall deal with these issues in the following order: mode/key, added
accidentals and treatment of source accidentals, rhythmic adjustments (in particular
changes to the ending of the piece), dynamics, and performing pitch and tempo.
Two annotations in the Madrigal Society manuscripts are relevant to the question of
how such a piece of late sixteenth- or early seventeenth-century polyphony was
regarded in terms of mode/'key' by English musicians of the mid to late eighteenth cen-
tury. Did they fit such a work into the system of two modes (major and minor), or take
account, when dealing with a piece of this type, of the older and more extended system
of modes? Without entering too far into the complex territory of how the piece might
have been regarded modally in 1621, one can note its clearly deuterus (modes 3 and 4)
orientation (see Ex. 1): the outlining of the modal octave of mode 3 (E-E) in the cantus
and tenor parts and that of mode 4 (A-A) in the altus and bassus parts at the opening of
the piece could scarcely be more obvious; further, the piece ends on E, and its other
most important cadence-leading into the dramatic solo at 'beati mortui', bars 22-3-
is likewise on E. However, anyone considering the piece in terms of the two-mode
system would of course regard it as being unequivocally in A minor.68 The sources sug-
gest that John Immyns viewed Audivi vocem in traditional modal terms: at the start of
each voice in his partbooks A.52-6 he added the annotation 'Key E', and the index at
the beginning of this partbook likewise gives the key as 'e'. However, three other members
of the Madrigal Society (Edmund Warren, and the others an unidentified tenor and
bass) disagreed: the bass crossed out in pencil Immyns's 'E' annotation in A.56, and
wrote 'A' instead, and the tenor added in pencil at the beginning of Immyns's other
copy of the piece (in A.8) the marking 'Key A' (as well as an instruction not to transpose
the work: see below). Likewise, Edmund Warren wrote 'A' at the beginning of each part
in A.40-6. To some extent we may here be witnessing a chronological shift in approach:
although Immyns and Warren were of about the same age, Immyns died in 1764 and
Warren thirty years later.
In terms of adding accidentals to Lobo's motet the English sources are extremely con-
sistent, and rather liberal: eight of the nine such additions to the piece (given above the
relevant notes in Ex. 1) are already present in what are probably the earliest surviving
copies (Immyns's A.6-11, Needler's Add. 5036 and 5046, and Barrow's MS 63). Of
these nine, six seem at first glance routine in this modal/tonal context, namely sharps to
Gs that progress to As. The 1621 print, to be sure, already indicated several such G#s,
but in three of the six instances where it did not include a G# added by the English cop-
yists there was a good melodic or harmonic reason for Lobo's/Moretus's decision. The
67 Nine CD recordings of Lobo's music are listed in Jilia-Miguel R. Bernardes, Uma Discografia de CDs da Composicao
Musical em Portugal do Seculo XIII aos Nossos Dias (Lisbon, 2003), of which no fewer than five include the eight-voice Missa
pro defunctis, while three include Audivi vocem, and two Paterpeccavi. Among modern writers on Lobo, Mario de Sampayo
Ribeiro lavished particular praise on Audivi vocem, selecting it and the Introit and Kyrie of the six-voice Missa pro defunctis
(published in his 1639 book of masses) as among the most beautiful works of Portuguese 17th-c. music: 'geh6ren... zu
dem Schonsten, was an polyphoner Musik in 17.Jh. in Portugal geschaffen wurde', MGG, viii (1960), col. 1074. In this
case (as noted above) the author was also aware of its earlier popularity, although he does not specify period(s) or locations
for that popularity.
68 Hawkins debates the merits of the two approaches, and advocates the two-mode view, in A General History, i. 63-5.
57
Ex. 1. Duarte Lobo, Audivi vocem de caelo
Cantus 1
-4o dJ l" rr- r ft '?
Au - di - vi vo - cem de ce - lo,
Cantus 2
I' I I- - ' I' J Au -
Altus 1
-<' I' I?
Altus 2
id I_
Au - di- vi vo - cem de cae - lo, de ca -
J ..
Tenor 4* N I I' io Ji i" fr
Au - di - vi vo - cem de
Bassus
Au - di - vi
C1
-r J J J o .. I - r ....
de ca - lo, de ce - lo,
C2
J J I f 1" - C IP. tri r ar r
-di-vi vo -cem de ca - lo, de ca -
A
4 1- -~ ~ J^ J .J X J L
de c - lo, au - di - vi vo -cem de ca -
A2
4-? - I* - - r-J_ 1- Jr J
-lo, de ca - lo, au - di - vi
T
f " r J lo I 1- , - d ca - lo, de
B
v : rfIr Cr f r l .. 1 I.
vo - cem de ca lo,
melodic reason (in two cases) is that the relevant voice sings A-G-A-F, so that if the G
is sharpened an almost direct augmented second results: see the bassus in bars 7 and
13-14 of Ex. 1. As for the English copyists' sharpening of the G in the cantus primus in
bar 6, this produces a diminished fourth with the cantus secundus (and, in a triadic view
of harmony, an augmented triad). It is interesting to juxtapose the English editors'
acceptance of this harmonic effect with the rejection by some of them of another one,
involving a G# present in the 1621 print just a few bars later: this is in the altus primus at
bar 10, and creates a 'double leading note' effect with the C# in the cantus secundus.
The copyist of Madrigal Society A.30 replaced this sharp with a natural sign, while the
sharp was crossed out in pencil in Warren's Add. 31409 and in J.83, and omitted in
58
Ex. 1 (cont.)
cil[ i- j J -J 1- " r r
audi - vi vo - cem de cae - lo, di -
C I2D'J''-
0 D-0~- I-" -J I r - J F
lo, au - di - vi vo - cem de cae-lo, di -
Al .. 1~, IJJ J
A1' alo , lo, audi -vi vo - cem de ca - - - lo,
'u I J
A2 ] .. J , J J - I J- -
vo - cem de cae - lo, di -
T " I r i' I' i- - J

cae - lo, di -
#0
B I ff I ? i- ? I o I" ..
au - di - vi vo - cem de ca - lo,
16
Cl-o r J J_ r _ r
-cen-tem mi - hi, di - cen - tem mi - hi, di - cen-tem mi
C2 r r o" r lo IF F f I f f
-cen-tem mi - hi, di- cen-tem mihi, di - cen-tem mi -
Al - J J J I ,Jo I
di - cen-tem mi - hi,
A2j 4 J -J o 1U JJ JJ X J
-cen-tem mi - hi, di-cen-tem- mi
T r J as I ? o - r r I
-cen-tem mi - - - hi, di - cen-tem mi
B r * r, r f J L L I
di - cen-tem mi - hi,
Add. 65486 (copied from Add. 31409), C.7, and Nove

is a fair copy containing the entire repertory of The Fi
sharps added by English editors, the tenor's F# in bar 3
just discussed. Admittedly it once again serves t
cadence onto G), showing these musicians' desire fo
is once again a price to pay: the false relation with t
cedes this tenor note.70
69 All three 19th-c. editions of the piece (by Novello, Ney, and Rimbau
70 The English editors give the bassus an F# in bar 34 to match the t
Turner (London, 1978) does not sharpen the tenor and bassus at these p
59
Ex. 1 (cont.)
ci i| I * I - Hw
f 1- r If " o
-hi:
yo 0 1
Be - a - ti mor - tu i,
C2- :J r' rro - I II- -r

- hi, di - cen-tem mi - hi: Be -
Al -- J J |J.JDo j I - - I
di - cen-tem mi - hi: Be -
A2 J J J I I
-hi, di- cen-tem mi - hi:
T - ' i' I - rI
- hi: Be -
B P r r I - - - r
di- cen-tem mi - hi: Be -
26
C1
c J-i 1-* I * - f rf | ? |- o J I
mor - tu - i, qui in
C2-2 IF' rr r r' rF r r J j II J r r

-a - ti mor - tu-i, mor - tu - i, qui in Do - mi-no, qui in Do-
Al ? ri J.. J J J I
-a - ti mor - tu-i, mor - tu - i, qui in Do - mi-no mo-ri - un
A2 . o I. J J l Jo J I . . IJ . J J I
Be - a - ti mor - tu - i, qui in Do - mi-no mo-ri-
T Fr f"-I r r' JJo - J

-a- ti mor - tu- i, mor - tu- i, qui in Do - mi-no
B^ ? o f) ILJ J J r r r r o
-a - ti mor - tu-i, qui in Do - mi-no mo - ri
The English copyists, performers, and editors

underlay and (concomitantly in most cases) to
them attempted changes to the end of the pi
problematic. The final cadence is indeed some
occurs on the weaker of the two semibreve 'be
ier) the other five voices; in addition, the cant
by an atypical degree, producing a strange stra
71 In my experience of performing Audivi vocem, this cadence

through the piece.
60
Ex. 1 (cont.)
31
_ A I
C1q CJJ.1j j1rTr

-
o
I-
JiLJ
' '
J "I - 'fIr-T"
1 I I
r1r I
P I
Do - mi-no mo - ri - un - tur, qui in Do - mi-no mo-ri -
C
21-Tr Ir'[ [o [ r , 1U r0 J r,J
- mi-no mo - ri - un - tur, qui in Do - mi-no mo - ri - un -
A
i . -I J IjJ I o I- o JIJ J. J i
-tur, mo - ri - un - tur, qui in Do - mi-no mo -
A
2 i2_'.
0 oI I I-
' I-o0 J JIj J_ I
~ lJ.
-un - tur, qui in Do - mi-no
T r r | I .. I- - r , J r r
I
mo - ri - un - tur, qui in Do - mi-
I
B ?I I I70
f r rr- If
If rr r
'~"Jt' I
-un - tur, qui in Do - mi-no mo - ri-un
36
C 1- "" o I - I" 1 I rL "

-un - tur, mo - ri - un
C
2.. I- - Io JK . l U J
-tur, qui in Do - mi-no mo - ri - un
A
1i J ciJ J J J J J. J o J o o I
-ri - un - tur, qui in Do - mi-no mo - ri- un - tur,
A
2- , J J
J2I J+
J ~J
,J I?
I. , I[
mo - ri - un - tur, qui inDo-mi - no
-no mo r J i un - tu mo J ri- Lu
r
-no mo ri - r-un - tur, mo - ri - un
I
B, .. -- rr f r ri"
-tur, qui in Do - mi-no
tions to this passage found in English manuscript sources is that mad

in Add. 31818: he suppressed the penultimate note of the cantus pr
problems just noted except for the fact that the lower voices reach t
way through a bar.72 In Madrigal Society A.28-39 the alteration was
Ex. 2, where the source text is not shown) so as partially to remov
problem also: the cantus primus part has again lost its penultimate
the other voices (cantus secundus, altus primus, and tenor) have been alte
72 This alteration is certainly Stevens's (although he was presumably familiar with the alte
Society sources and performances), since his exemplar-RAM MS 63-leaves the ending as in
61
Ex. 1 (cont.)
41
nA
C1
JL a IJ a s 1- ..1 I1.II I I I, II
V I I II I -- I ,i - IRI ' 11
) I
tur, mo - ri - un tur.
A
C2
_L -- I - r I r I P , - r 1- , I11
. v- V - I I I I I I - II
f)
-tur, mo - ri - un tur.
A
to o o11
mo - rn - un - tur.
A2 "mo
2 I
-
Jun
-
o -1- o
-
l o 1s 11
tur.
mo - ri - un - - - tur.
T
- ' r J IJ. .. . J o ri 11
-tur, mo - ri - un - - - tur.
B - r " 1 .. , I.. " 1' 1'l 11

mo - ri - un tur.
Ex. 2. Duarte Lobo, Audivi vocem, altered ending in Mad. Soc. MSS A.28, 29, 30, 34, and 36
Cantus 1 -' r" ' r 1i l( "1 11
Cantus 2
$_a - -- " 0"'. 11
Altus 1
il o 1 w 1 - --1 I I
Altus 2
- . " I, J 0o 0 o_ o 1
Tenor -rr f ..
_~2 J IJ" J .o r 11
"dTi I
Bassus
p:- ? r Ir , ? , I. , ' ^ n 11
so that they reach their last notes on the bar-line.73 The same soluti
Madrigal Society C.7, but this time consistently so that all the parts arr
notes together. Yet another (but once again inconsistent) set of alterat
73 However, the alteration was not made consistently: the altus secundus and bassus still caden
Lobo's original, and indeed one of the two partbook copies (A.35) of the altus primus has been left
original; moreover, even where the rhythm was altered, the final syllable 'tur' was left under th
alteration to the ending in MSJ.83 is likewise inconsistent: the cantus secundus part is left as in the p
est voices are made to reach their last note on the bar-line. The cantus primus here was originally
penultimate note was subsequently crossed out in pencil.
62
cadence is found in MSS A.40-6, copied by Edmund Warren. (The cantus primus part
is missing from this set.) In the cantus secundus Warren divided the final note of Lobo's
original into a semibreve and a breve, as in A.28 described above, so that its final note
coincides with the penultimate note in Lobo's cantus primus, but the lower four voices
have been changed so that their final notes sound where the last note of the cantus
primus falls in Lobo's original (and still, therefore, halfway through a bar). Warren
devised a more consistent and satisfactory solution in his copy in British Library Add.
31409: here the penultimate note of Lobo's cantus primus is retained but altered to a
breve, so that the final syllable arrives on the bar-line, and the lower voices are all
extended so that they sing this final syllable simultaneously with the cantus primus.
Warren's alterations here allow us to identify yet another British Library copy of this
motet, in Add. 65486, as having been made from Warren's Add. 31409. This later
copy, originally owned by Samuel Picart (1774/5-1835),74 passed into the hands of
Vincent Novello (once again a member of the Madrigal Society, from 1830), and was
one of at least three copies of the piece to which Novello had access.75
We turn now to issues of expressive interpretation. Most of the markings in the
copies of Audivi vocem are pencil additions to Madrigal Society manuscripts; presuma-
bly in many cases they were added by the singers in rehearsal at meetings. However,
one ofJohn Immyns's copies for the Society (A.52-6) bears inked dynamics, and (as
noted above) R. J. S. Stevens added numerous dynamics in ink to the copy in Royal
Academy of Music MS 63, and then reproduced these, again in ink, when making his
own set of scores and parts, Add. 31818. Stevens's provision of dynamics goes further
than that in any set of Madrigal Society manuscripts except the latest, the J set of
partbooks.
In order to consider critically the choices of dynamics found in these copies, one
needs an overview of the structure of the piece. Lobo's text is a versicle and response
used during the Office of the Dead:
Versicle: Audivi vocem de caelo, dicentem mihi:

Response: Beati mortui qui in Domino moriuntur.
I heard a voice from heaven, saying unto me:
Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord.
The composer divided both versicle and response into two units: 'Audivi vocem de
caelo / dicentem mihi: Beati mortui / qui in Domino moriuntur'. However, the most
important point of articulation-in terms of the versicle/response structure, and also
because of the introduction of direct speech-is at 'beati mortui'. Lobo emphasizes
this by means of a most unusual device in sacred music of the period (see Ex. 1): the
words are introduced as a solo statement by the cantus primus (bb. 23-5), answered
by the lower five voices. Lobo then repeats the last phrase of his text, 'qui in Domino
moriuntur', so as to produce a clear tripartite structure in this final section of the
motet, ABA', where A=bars 284-33, B=bars 33-7, and A'=bars 374-45. A and A'
are linked through their settings of'moriuntur' with a cantus part beginning on e" and
74 Prebendary of Hereford Cathedral and Rector of Hartlebury in Worcestershire, and a notable collector of music.
75 The others were Madrigal Society C.7 and CFM MU.MS. 41 (originally from the library of the Academy of
Ancient Music), the latter of which Novello used for his edition in The Fitzwilliam Music of 1827. It seems not unlikely,
given Novello's acquisition of two manuscript copies ofAudivi vocem and his decision to include it in The Fitzwilliam Music,
that the piece featured in the monthly meetings of Novello's Classical Harmonists Society: in an inscription in Madrigal
Society MS C.7 Novello notes that he purchased it in 1825 'at Mr. Wm Knyvetts' Sale, for the Society of Classical
Harmonists'.
63
the two cantus parts forming suspensions as they descend. In phrase A' this is followed
by an extended final repetition of 'moriuntur' to conclude the piece.
The markings of Immyns, Stevens, and others reveal their desire that the dramatic
qualities of the text and of Lobo's setting be emphasized in performance. There is con-
siderable agreement among the various manuscripts carrying dynamics regarding
where such markings are needed, but at two such points one finds disagreement
between sources about how an important articulation in the piece should be high-
lighted, with both piano and forte being employed for this purpose. At these crucial
points, however, Immyns and Stevens are in accord. Perhaps Stevens's ideas were
formed by his participation in Madrigal Society performances using this Immyns copy
(Immyns was dead before Stevens first sang with the Society), or perhaps the two men
reached the same view independently.
The first such case is the appearance of the second phrase of text, 'dicentem mihi',
at bar 15. Immyns and Stevens thought that this should be piano, and this dynamic
was also added in pencil in MS C.7, and by the various copyists of the nineteenth-
century J set of partbooks. However, another Madrigal Society member added 'f in
pencil at this point in the score manuscript J. 83. Turning now to Lobo's dramatic
treatment of 'beati mortui' as cantus primus solo and homorhythmic response, one
again finds a variety of treatment. Immyns and Stevens mark the solo to be sung
forte,76 and there is other evidence for this tradition in the nineteenth century within
the Society, since the marking occurs in theJ set of partbooks and in pencil in MS C.7.
(It contrasts with the typical treatment of this phrase as quiet in modern recordings.) It
was clearly also traditional in the Society's performances to have just one singer per-
form this phrase. It is so marked in the earliest of Immyns's copies, in MS A.6, with
'tutti' for the next cantus primus entry, and MS A.28 carries equivalent markings in
pencil, while Stevens provided the 'solo' marking on the cantus primus part of his Add.
31818.77 The choral response from bar 25 was again forte according to Immyns and
Stevens (and the same is found in the J set of partbooks), but singers using Immyns's
bassus partbooks A.9 and A.10 marked this entry 'pia' in pencil, and another bass
added the same marking to Immyns's partbook A.55, even though the cantus secun-
dus part has Immyns's inked 'f here. This passage (the cantus primus solo and choral
response) also attracted one of only two examples of marked gradations of dynamic in
the manuscript sources of the piece, added in pencil in the score manuscriptsJ.83 and
RCM MS 1074. The markings in the former are crescendo signs over the second note
of the solo (the semibreve e"), and again through the choral statement of 'beati mor-
tui', thus emphasizing the following climactic 'mortui' sung by all six voices.78 In MS
1074 this latter crescendo is specified by the marking 'pia e cres', with 'for' over the
six-voice repetition of'mortui'.
Many English editors and performers were again in agreement that the last, tripartite,
section of the motet-setting 'qui in Domino moriuntur' likewise required dynamic
contrasts. With one exception they marked the B section of the ABA' structure as a
piano echo, and the opening of A' as forte, after which the piece was to end quietly: one
part of the J set even marks it down to 'ppia', and 'pp' was added in pencil to MS C.7
76 Stevens gave this marking in MS 63 but not in Add. 31818.

77 In MS A.52 Immyns marked the solo phrase 'Lead'.
78 The second of these crescendos was, independently, added by the first English group to perform the piece in mod-
em times, the William Byrd Choir under Gavin Turner (recorded as Masterpieces of Portuguese Polyphony (London, 1986)),
and the first by Ars Nova, directed by Bo Holten (Portuguese Polyphony, Munich, 1992). Both crescendos are employed by
The Sixteen, directed by Harry Christophers (Manuel Cardoso, Duarte Lobo, London, 1994).
64
for these closing bars. (Joseph Ney's edition-see below-has the same marking.) The
exception to the above dynamic shaping of the final tripartite segment of the motet is
found in Warren's manuscript Royal College of Music MS 1074. Here the settings of
'moriuntur' that conclude sections A and B are marked with a diminuendo, and the
beginnings of B and A' are both forte, although the final 'moriuntur' section is marked
piano.
We can glean information also about the pitch at which the Madrigal Society sang
Audivi vocem, and to some extent about tempo. It is clear that transposition was common-
place in the Society's performances. For example, Stevens, recalling his attendance at
meetings as a boy chorister, notes that 'we were obliged to transpose many of the Mad-
rigals'.79 Where pieces were sung by only the adult members of the Society, transposi-
tion would likewise often have been required. For example (as noted), Immyns
transposed two three-part sections from Lobo's masses downwards by an octave in MS
F.86. Audivi vocem, however, was apparently left untransposed (and hence sung with
boys-from St Paul's, for example-on the top two parts), as indicated by the pencil
annotations 'Key A. Sing in its proper pitch' in MS A.8 and 'sing in a' in MS A.9 (anno-
tations that themselves again indicate that transposition was frequent). As for tempo,
there are just three relevant annotations in the manuscripts. A pencil stroke through the
C time signature in MS A.8 indicates alla breve performance of the piece. However, the
tempo is marked in pencil as 'Grave' in MS C.7 and as 'Slow' in Warren's RCM MS
1074.
NINETEENTH-CENTURY EDITIONS AND CHORAL SOCIETIES IN ENGLAND AND FRANCE
The continuing status of Audivi vocem-as an admired example o

style-in the nineteenth century is manifest not only in the manusc
described above but also by its appearance in no fewer than thr
(one of which went through a second edition), two of them Eng
Table 3).80 The earliest of these, in the fifth and final volume
Fitzwilliam Music, has already been mentioned.81 Novello prov
niment (whereas Stevens had simply figured his score copies), i
of the lowest part at the lower octave, but there are no dynami
markings. The edition is rather poor in several respects, such
tenor's syncopated (and suspended) semibreve in bars 10-11 (se
ims, with the first syllable of'caelo' placed under the second.82
given the ubiquity of this syncopated semibreve figure for 'd
section of the piece.
79 Argent, Recollections, 10.

80 One other Portuguese composer of Lobo's period attracted the attention of the edi
vocal polyphony, to my knowledge: Carl Proske included two motets by Manuel Cardoso
of his Musica divina (Regensburg, 1853-86). See Leeman Perkins, 'Published Editions and
tury: Music of the Renaissance or Renaissance Music?', in Philippe Vendrix (ed.), La Renai
(Paris, 2000), 95-132 at 121-2. In addition, the spurious Cruxfidelis attributed to KingJ
more than one anthology, and is mentioned further below.
81 The first volume appeared in Dec. 1825 or early in 1826; the fifth volume was rea
the collection and its genesis by Philip Olleson and Fiona Palmer is forthcoming inJournal o
'Publishing Music from the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: The Work of Vincent Nov
1820s'. One of two copies of this original edition of The Fitzwilliam Music in the British
Society. There also survives, as noted above, a manuscript copy ofAudivi vocem in Novel
the contents of this publication, BL MS Mus. 295.
82 This alteration to Lobo's original is certainly Novello's, being absent from his
Novello's odd underlay in the cantus secundus part at bar 9, where he introduces a rep
present in the 1621 source, reflects the fact that his exemplar was left without text at this
65
TABLE 3. Nineteenth-centugy editions ofAudivi vocem
Editor Title Publication Date Location of

Audivi voc
Vincent Novello The Fitzwilliam Music, being a London: 1827 (vol. v) v. 34-6
collection of sacred pieces, selected Vincent
from manuscripts of Italian Novello
composers in the Fitzwilliam
Museum
Joseph Napoleon Recueil des morceaux de Paris: Chez 1843?-1845? vi. 233-9
Ney, Prince de musique ancienne executMs aux Pacini
la Moskowa concerts de la Societe de musique
religieuse vocale et classique
Edward Collection of ancient Church London: 1847 6-9
F. Rimbault Music Printed by the Motett Motett
Society: First Division. Anthems Society
for Festivals
Vincent Novello The Fitzwilliam Music ... New London: 1854? 291-3
and Cheap Edition Alfred
Novello
Two reviews of the concluding volume or volumes of Novello's collection, both written in
the same year (1827) in which volume 5 was published, provide us with the earliest critical
comments on Audivi vocem of which I am aware. While both appeared without author's
name, that in the Qarterly Musical Magazine and Review is by William Horsley (1774-1858),83 a
composer, organist, and writer with antiquarian interests. In 1824 Horsley had composed his
own canonic setting of Audivi vocem de caelo, and was perhaps inspired by the example of
Lobo's motet in his choice of text.84 The other review of The Fitzwilliam Music, in The Harmon-
icon, may be by William Ayrton, editor of that journal,85 and describes Lobo's piece as follows:
The motet Audivi vocem de cwlo, by Edwardus Lupi, as Mr. Novello names him, is a fugue of two
subjects, scientific and sombre. There are some forbidding harmonies in this, which, however,
belong more to the age in which they were written than to their author. In the sixth bar of page
36, the second e, a minim, is, we presume, an erratum; it should be a c.86
83 See Olleson and Palmer, 'Publishing Music from the Fitzwilliam Museum', n. 55.
84 However, Horsley set a longer text than Lobo's, including the phrase 'ut requiescant a laboribus suis' at the end. If
Horsley knew Lobo's piece before writing his own, there is no obvious musical influence. Horsley's motet was composed
in 1824 and published in 1825, in which year he presented a copy to the Madrigal Society. It was favourably reviewed in
the Quarterly Musical Magazine and Review, 7, no. 26 (1825), 224. Samuel Sebastian Wesley provided his father Samuel with
examples of wayward technique in the piece, mentioned by Samuel in a letter of 1825 to Vincent Novello; see Philip
Olleson, The Letters of Samuel Wesley: Professional and Social Correspondence, 1797-1837 (Oxford, 2001), 388. While we do not
know which passages were criticized, it is certainly true that the motet is crude at several points. An English version,
I heard a voice, was sung at the commemoration service for Sir Thomas Gresham at St Helen's Bishopsgate, on 12 July
1832. This performance is noted in the diary of R.J. S. Stevens, CUL Add. MS 9110, v. Horsley was one of the thre
judges of the Gresham Prize Medal for sacred music, together with Crotch (Heather Professor at Oxford) and Stevens.
85 See Olleson and Palmer, 'Publishing Music from the Fitzwilliam Museum'.
86 The Harmonicon: A Journal ofMusic, 5 (June 1827), 112-13 at 112. This review is concerned only with the final volume
ofNovello's collection. I am grateful to Philip Oleson not only for pointing out the existence of both reviews, but for th
information about their authors. The reference to an error is more than a little pedantic. The note concerned is in the
organ part, at the second minim beat of bar 36 (see Ex. 1). Novello has here (and on the first beat of the bar) simply
added the fifth missing from the harmony at this point, just as, for example, he provided full harmony in bars 2-3 of the
organ part, where only two voices have entered.
66
Besides his characterization of the work as 'sombre' (and thereby as conforming to a
proper style for sacred music),87 the reviewer's principal focus is on technique: to sum-
marize the piece as 'a fugue of two subjects' (which are, presumably, the motifs for
'Audivi vocem de caelo' and (the final section of the piece) 'qui in Domino moriuntur')
is to ignore its most striking passage, the setting of 'beati mortui' at the centre of the
motet. As for the reference to 'forbidding harmonies', it seems likely that the reviewer
was struck by the features mentioned specifically by Horsley in the Quarterly Musical
Magazine and Review, who writes thus concerning Audivi vocem:
The motetto at p. 34, by Lupo, is solemn, but it occasionally exhibits the harsh combination
of the major third and minor sixth, which to our ears is exceedingly disagreeable. At the
bottom of p. 35 there is also a false relation, which is uncommon among the pure Italian
writers.88
The combination of the major third and minor sixth mentioned here occurs twice, in
the opening section of the motet at bars 6 and 9 (see Ex. 1). Horsley's criticism here is a
little hypocritical, since he had used precisely this combination at one point in his own
Audivi vocem. The false relation that he mentions is that (noted above) between the bassus
FI at the end of bar 29 and the tenor F# at the beginning of bar 30, a sharp-it will be
remembered-that is not in Lobo's original, but which is found in all but one of the
English copies and editions of the piece.
Novello apparently thought that Lobo was Italian, since he states that 'the selec-
tions [in The Fitzwilliam Music] are altogether from the music of the Italian School'.89
This misapprehension may well have been shared by other English musicians who
performed Lobo's music, and it perhaps stemmed from the fact that, as already
remarked, English copyists usually gave the name as 'Lupi'. While this is of course
simply the genitive of'Lupus', as presented on the title page of the 1621 print, only
those such as Needler who saw the print itself would necessarily have been aware of
this. Novello's apparent ignorance of Lobo's origins is indeed ironic, since he was
the organist of the Portuguese Embassy church in London from 1797 or 1798 until
1824 (and declares this on the title page of The Fitzwilliam Music), and published
music from its repertory.90 Unfortunately, no music-book inventories from the
church survive, but there are indications that the repertory that Novello-and his
assistant at the church, Samuel Wesley-encountered and used there was mainly of
much more recent vintage than the works of Lobo, despite the interest of both men
in sacred polyphony of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and in fostering the
use of chant in the liturgy.91 For example, on 23 December 1806 R. J. S. Stevens
attended the embassy chapel to hear a mass by 'Portogallo'-that is, Marcos Portugal
(1762-1830). He commented in his Recollections, 'I was not much gratified by the
87 For example, in the review of Horsley's Audivi vocem mentioned above the piece is praised for 'the sombre and eccle-
siastical style that pervades the whole'.
88 Quarterly Musical Magazine and Review, 11, no. 34 (1827), 230-38 at 235. In the review as a whole, concerned with
vols. 3, 4, and 5 of The Fitzwilliam Music, Horsley likewise focuses much of his attention on perceived technical flaws, such
as forbidden parallel progressions.
89 7he Fitzwilliam Music, i, Preface, p. vi. One should perhaps, however, mention the remote possibility that Novello
had not yet planned the inclusion of Audivi vocem in the final volume when the title page was designed and the Preface to
the whole collection written.
90 e.g. A Collection of Sacred Music as Performed at the Royal Portuguese Chapel in London, 2 vols. (London, 1811).
91 Wesley, for example, produced a considerable quantity of Latin sacred music, much of which reveals the influence
of Renaissance polyphony. See Philip Olleson, Samuel Wesley: The Man and his Music (Woodbridge, 2003), ch. 19.
67
Music. I thought it too light and frivolous. Mr. Novello was at the Organ. An admi-
rable performer.'92
If Novello presumed Lobo to have been Italian, at least one of the reviewers of his
edition knew better. The author of the Harmonicon review, noting rather ruefully that
Novello had been 'very sparing' in his provision of biographical information, rectifies
this in Lobo's case with the following note: 'Edwardus Lupus, or Lopez, was Maestro di
Capella at the Cathedral of Lisbon in 1600, for which church he wrote a great deal of
music, a list whereof is given by Machado, Bibl. Lus. Vol. I. P. 733. See Gerber's Lexi-
con.' It may be that William Horsley, author of the review in the Quarterly Musical Maga-
zine and Review, was likewise aware that Lobo was not Italian, since his final comment
about Audivi vocem (see above) distinguishes Lobo's technique from the normal practice
of'the pure Italian writers'.
It was apparently thanks to its appearance in Novello's The Fitzwilliam Music that
Lobo's Audivi vocem found a place also in the Parisian revival of interest in-and per-
formance of-early music, and specifically in the repertory of the Societe des concerts
de musique vocale classique, founded in 1843 by Joseph Napoleon Ney, Prince de la
Moskowa (1803-57).93 Ney included the motet in the monumental published series pre-
senting the Society's repertory, the Recueil des morceaux de musique ancienne executes aux con-
certs de la Sociite de musique religieuse vocale et classique.94 Audivi vocem was performed in at least
two of the Society's concerts: the seventh, in April 1844, and the sixteenth (for which
the choir numbered some 150), on 5 March 1846.95 In an account of the first of these
concerts in La France musicale, Adolphe Adam expresses admiration for Lobo's piece, but
reveals ignorance concerning the composer: 'We do not know in what epoch Lupus
lived, to whom the programme attributed a very fine work for six voices: the name of
this composer is totally unknown to me, and musical biographies cite only a writer of
this name who did not compose music.'96
92 Argent, Recollections, 150. Marcos Portugal was mestre de capela of the Portuguese royal chapel. It seems very likely that
the piece that Stevens heard was the Missa Grande, of which no fewer than sixty-four copies are known to survive. Numer-
ous versions of the piece exist, among them several-including much the best represented in the sources-that use basso
continuo rather than orchestral accompaniment. It was probably-given Stevens's comment about Novello-such a ver-
sion that was performed in London. The sources, versions, and dissemination of the piece were the subject of Ant6nio
Jorge Marques's paper 'A Missa Grande de Marcos Portugal-disseminacao e transformacoes atrav6s dos secs. XVIII e
XIX', delivered at the 12? Encontro de Musicologia: Nacionalismo e Internacionalismo na Mfsica, Universidade Nova
de Lisbon, 30 May 2003.
93 See R6my Campos, La Renaissance introuvable? Entre curiosite et militantisme: La Societe des concerts de musique vocale religieuse et
classique du prince de la Moskowa (1843-1846) (Paris, 2000), and Donna Marie Di Grazia, 'Concert Societies in Paris and
their Choral Repertoires c. 1828-1880' (Ph.D. diss., University of Washington, 1993), 184-201. Lobo's representation in
the Society's edition and concerts is not immediately apparent from Campos's study, since-in another example of the
problem of nomenclature mentioned earlier-Campos (following Ney's practice) refers to Lobo as 'Lupus', and appar-
ently did not discover the composer's identity.
94 11 vols. (Paris, [1843?-45?]). Audivi vocem is in vol. 6, at pp. 233-9. The collection contains another-spurious,
although now very famous-Portuguese piece: the Cruxfidelis commonly (as in this collection) attributed to KingJoao IV
of Portugal. This is the earliest known source of the piece, pre-dating by more than two decades the edition in Georges
Schmitt's Anthologie universelle de musique sacree (Paris, 1869), vii, which some modern writers have given as the earliest
source. See e.g. Rui Vieira Nery, 'The Music Manuscripts in the Library of King D.Joao IV of Portugal (1604-1656):
A Study of Iberian Music Repertoire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries' (Ph.D. diss., University of Texas at
Austin, 1990), 125. This piece was also performed by the concert society of Louis Niedermeyer's Ecole de musique clas-
sique et religieuse in 1876 (private communication from Katharine Ellis, 3 Mar. 2004).
95 For the first of these we have no surviving programme, but there is a review by Adolphe Adam in La France musicale
of 21 Apr. See Campos, La Renaissance, 235. Lobo's motet (attributed again to 'Lupus') is here simply described as a
'Choeur a six voix', but we can be confident that this was Audivi vocem. The printed programme for the sixteenth concert
is transcribed by Campos in La Renaissance, 242.
96 'Nous ne savons a quelle 6poque vivait Lupus, auquel le programme attribuait un fort beau chaeur a six voix: le nom
de ce compositeur m'est tout-fait inconnu, et les biographies musicales ne citent de ce nom qu'un ecrivain qui n'a pas
compose de musique.' Quoted by Campos, La Renaissance, 185.
68
That Ney obtained Audivi vocem from Novello's anthology is indicated by a number of
significant conjunctive readings, such as the division of the tenor's semibreve in bars
10-11 mentioned above, the peculiar decision to repeat 'audivi vocem de caelo' in the
cantus secundus part from the last beat of bar 9, and the underlay of the altus secundus
part in bars 4-5 (the last of which Novello had taken from his manuscript source in the
Fitzwilliam Museum). However, in other respects Ney's edition is startlingly different
from Novello's, and reflects the connections of the Recueil to the performances of his
Society, in that Ney adds abundant accents and some dynamic markings. The former
are placed on most of the syncopated semibreves in the piece (i.e. those beginning on
the second or fourth beat of the bar), irrespective of texting and textual accent.97 One
presumes that he was thus steering singers away from a performance style that treated
the rhythmic structure of individual vocal lines as defined by the regular metre and bar-
lines.98 Ney's markings imply instead a shift to triple metre (with metrical groups lasting
for three minims) at the beginning of these syncopated semibreves, so that for example
in the opening cantus primus phrase (see Ex. 1) there is such a triple-metre grouping
from the last note of bar 2 to the d" in bar 3. His editorial and interpretative approach
to such cross-rhythms is thus akin to, for example, that set out some seventy years later
by Edmund Fellowes as editor of The English Madrigal School.99 It may also be that some
of the earlier English copyists and performers of Audivi vocem had perceived the same tri-
ple-metre effects involving the 'de cae-' figure in the opening section, since several of
them-including Immyns in A.6-11 and Warren in Add. 31409-moved the syllable
'cae-' one note later at some appearances of this figure (such as the cantus primus in
bars 9-10), so that it falls on the first beat of the next metrical unit rather than within
the triple-metre unit just described. As for Ney's dynamic markings, the most striking is
his indication of a diminuendo during both the second note of the cantus primus solo on
'beati mortui' and the second note of the choral response; this represents the opposite
approach to that found in Madrigal Society MS J.83, as noted above, and in most
modern performances.
97 Ney mentions this accenting of syncopated notes in the Preface to the Recueil des morceaux de musique ancienne: 'Lorsque
les parties alternent, se succedent, et cela a lieu dans la plupart des morceaux, qui sont g6enralement fugues, il faudra
faire sentir la premiere note des attaques ou des reprises, mais cependant sans trop forcer; il en est de meme pour les
notes syncopes.' Quoted in Katharine Ellis, 'Palestrina et la musique dite "palestrinienne" en France au XIX' siecle:
Questions d'execution et de r6ception', in Vendrix (ed.), La Renaissance, 155-190 at 189. One of Ney's collaborators in
the Societe, Louis Niedermeyer, gave similar instructions in his 'Notes sur les maitres anciens et sur l'execution de leur
musique: I. Musique alla Palestrina', La Maitrise, 1/1 (15 Apr. 1857), cols. 13-14: 'Les notes syncopees seront... un peu
accentuees.' Quoted in Ellis, 'Palestrina', 164, where she notes that Neidermeyer's editions for La Maitrise mark accents
on syncopated semibreves, as does Ney in Audivi vocem.
98 Compare Charles Bordes's declaration in 1895 that 'la musique palestrinienne... est une musique purement ryth-
mique et non metrique': 'De l'emploi de la musique figuree et sp6cialement de la musique paletrinienne dans les offices
liturgiques', Congres diocesain de musique religieuse et deplain-chant tenu a Rodez les 22, 23 et 24juillet 1895. Compte rendu (Rodez,
1895), 146-53 at 151, quoted in Ellis, 'Palestrina', 190. Carl Proske, in the preface to the first volume of his Musica divina
(1853), is more specific with regard to the freedom of classic vocal polyphony from the constraints of the bar-line, and
mentions syncopated notes in this regard: 'Dadurch wurde nicht allein das grammatikalische Verstandniss sonder die
Ausfuhrung selbst erleichtert, indem die Aufmerksamkeit des Sangers auf den Zusammenhang gerichtet blieb, sich uber
den Mechanismus des Taktpendels zum freieren Rhythmus erhob, die unzerstiickten Noten fester auspragte, die Synco-
pen deutlicher markirte, und die ausgedehnteren Tonfiguren in ihrem Auf- und Abschwunge lebhafter betonte.' Quoted
in Annie Coeurdevey, 'Edition et interpretation: Les choix scientifiques et esthetiques du chanoine Proske', in Vendrix
(ed.), La Renaissance, 133-54 at 145.
99 In the Preface to vol. 1 (London, 1913), p. iv, Fellowes explains that he uses irregular barring where the rhythmic
pattern changes in all voices simultaneously, but that, 'as it has not been found practicable to employ irregular barring to
the extent of indicating such cross-rhythms as would involve putting bars at places not co-incident in all the parts, a sys-
tem of accents has been employed for such cases. It must be clearly stated that generally speaking these accents imply
nothing in the nature of sforzando, and must be taken only to indicate the beginning of a rhythmic unit, just as a bar-line
does; for they may sometimes occur... even on a weak syllable.' Novello goes on to explain, however, that he has also
used accent markings to indicate textual emphasis.
69
The editor of the second nineteenth-century English edition of Lobo's Audivi vocem was
Edward Rimbault (1816-76). Rimbault founded The Motett Society in 1841, with the aim
of publishing 'ancient' church music in English-texted versions. His edition of Audivi vocem
appeared in 1847 in the Collection of ancient Church Music Printed by the Motett Society: First Divisin.
Anthemsfor Festivals. The text begins 'Now it is high time to awake out of sleep', and is desig-
nated 'for Advent'. Fitting this text to the music required many rhythmic alterations to the
original, but the manner in which Rimbault undertook this, and his underlay in general,
produced what would surely have been regarded as a travesty by anyone familiar with
Lobo's piece. Indeed, besides the treatment of text, Rimbault's edition shows-as does
Novello's-a markedly less sensitive approach to the work than those revealed in the preced-
ing hundred years by members of the Academy of Ancient Music and the Madrigal Society.
What was Rimbault's source? In the Preface he remarks: 'The following Collection of
Anthems, Services, and Motetts, by the most eminent Composers both Foreign and
English, has been carefully selected from original printed Partbooks and authentic MS.
Scores, for the use of the Members of the Motett Society.' It is clear, however, from the
readings that in the case of Audivi vocem he did not use the 1621 print.100 Rather, the
'authentic MS. Score' may here have been the Madrigal Society manuscript C.7, which
belonged to Novello from 1825.101 On the other hand, Rimbault, unlike (apparently)
Novello, did discover something of the composer's origins. In his 'Biographical Notices
of the Composers' he states that 'Edwardi Lupi or Lopez, according to Walther, was a
Portuguese by birth, and chapel-master at Lisbon, towards the close of the sixteenth
century5.12
Through the editions of Vincent and Alfred Novello (who issued a 'New and cheap
edition' of The Fitzwilliam Music, probably in 1854)103 and Rimbault, Audivi vocem may
very well have reached a significantly wider audience than it had in the preceding
'00 Although we know that he worked on sources of early music in the Music School at Oxford, and compiled a cata-
logue of these sources, in addition to which he purloined items from the library of Christ Church. See Alec Hyatt King,
Catalogue of the Music Library of Edward Francis Rimbault, sold at London 31 Juy-7 August 1877: With the Library of Dr. Rainbeau
(Auction Catalogues of Music, 6; Buren, 1975). Further on Rimbault, his sometimes unscrupulous acquisition of music,
and his failure to acknowledge his sources in his writings, see Percy M. Young, 'The Notorious Dr Rimbault (1816-
1876)', Journal of the British Institute of Organ Studies, 22 (1998), 126-38.
101 Only MS C.7 and Rimbault's edition-out of all the copies of Audivi vocem considered here-agree precisely in
terms of their treatment of accidentals, and Rimbault's version of the ending of the piece is closer to that in MS C.7 than
to any of the other altered versions in the surviving manuscripts. While MS C.7 does not alter the altus secundus rhythm
in bars 4-5 (combining the semibreve and minim a' into a single note) as do Rimbault and some other manuscripts,
Parker (the copyist of C.7) did write the syllable 'lo' under the first of these two notes, implying their combination.
102 The entry in Walther's Musicalisches Lexicon, 370, to which Rimbault here refers, reads as follows: 'Lopez oder Lobo
(Eduardus) ein Portugiese, Beneficiarius, und Capellmeister an der Dom-Kirche zu Lissabon, hat folgende Sachen her-
ausgegeben, als: Natalitioe noctis Responsoria, von 4 und 8 Stimmen. Missam ejusdem noctis, von 8 Stimmen. B. Mariae
Virginis Antiphonas, von 8 Stimmen. B. Marie Virginis Salve, auf drei Chore mit XI. Stimmen, und B. Maria Canti-
cum: Magnificat, von 4 Stimmen, an. 1605 zu Antwerpen in groB folio gedruckt.' Walther's acknowledged source for
both this entry and his only other entry on a Portuguese composer-that for Manuel Cardoso-was Nicolas Antonio,
Biblioteca hispana, sive, Hispanorum scriptorum qui ab anno MD ad MDCLXXXIVfloruere notitia (Rome, 1672), i. 260. Indeed,
Walther's entry for Lobo is essentially a translation of Antonio's. It is apparent from this entry that Antonio, and hence
Walther, were aware of just two of the four Plantin prints of Lobo's music: the Opuscula of 1602 (a set of partbooks, con-
taining all but the last item on Walther's list) and the Magnificat settings of 1605.
Rimbault reproduced in his Biographical Notices (and at the head of the piece) the erroneous name 'Lupi' even
though Walther gave the name as 'Lopez oder Lobo' and provided a cross-reference to this entry under 'Lupus (Edwardus)'.
It seems that Rimbault had allowed the 'wolf pack' to confuse him: he gives the date 1550 at the top of his edition,
suggesting that he had consulted the entry for 'Lupi (Lupus)' (that is,Johannes Lupi), rather than that for 'Lopez or Lobo
Lupus (Edvardus)', in A Dictionary of Musicians (London, 1824), or that he had made equivalent (confused) use of Ernst
Ludwig Gerber's Neues historisch-biographisches Lexikon der Tonkunstler, iii (Leipzig, 1812-14), on which A Dictionary of Musi-
cians is based in these instances: in both of these dictionaries the 'Lupi' entry, referring toJohannes Lupi, states that he
flourished about the year 1550, the date given by Rimbault.
103 This new edition is in a single volume. Audivi vocem is at pp. 291-3, with no changes to Vincent Novello's reading of
1827.
70
century.104 After these editions the reception-history trail for Lobo's music in England
runs cold,'05 although, in addition to the dissemination of printed copies, the members
of at least two amateur performing societies (of contrasting kinds) in England certainly
still had access to this music in manuscript form: the Madrigal Society and the Sacred
Harmonic Society, a large amateur chorus founded in 1832 for the weekly performance
of sacred repertory. From 1843 onwards the library of the Sacred Harmonic Society
acquired, as already mentioned, at least three manuscripts containing works by Lobo,
and it also had a copy of The Fitzwilliam Music from 1838.106 The (numerous) members of
the Society were entitled to consult items in the library, and to borrow them with the
librarian's permission, and indeed the Annual Report for 1840 notes that 'the Commit-
tee are happy in observing that the frequent use which has been made of this Library,
shews that their own views of its being an important and valuable acquisition to the
Society, are fully coincided in by the other Members'.107 While the Society did not at first
perform vocal polyphony of this period (its repertory being dominated by oratorios, prin-
cipally those of Handel), in 1840 it included 'various Anthems and Motetts' in its rehears-
als, and in that year instituted the tradition of holding an 'anthem performance'.'08
CONCLUSION
As we have seen, the popularity-at least in certain musical

vocem certainly lasted for well over a century, from about 17
cannot indeed be confident that the current lack of evidence b
Thomason volume reached the Bodleian) and the 1730s, or betw
1970s, reflects actual discontinuities of this length in the perfo
tory of the composer's music in England:'09 it would not be surp
emerged to alter the current picture, given both the degree to w
has expanded during the research on this issue to date, and th
copies lie hidden through lack of attribution or the confusion
tioned earlier to which Lobo was (and is) so subject. Nevertheles
copying and performance of Audivi vocem certainly did occur be
of interest in Lobo in the 1970s.110 It is of course likely that some
104 The subscription list for the original edition of The Fitzwilliam Music extends to 192 p
ies. See Olleson and Palmer, 'Publishing Music from the Fitzwilliam Museum'.
105 For example, none of the 19th-c. editors of the Musical Times included the motet a
provided with each issue. The six-voice scoring may have been a disincentive in this cont
of Continental Latin polyphony (even if with translated texts) feature among these supp
106 This was purchased as part of the establishment of the Society's 'Library of Refer
Report of the Sacred Harmonic Society (London, 1838), 31. The catalogue of the library appen
(London, 1841) includes several volumes of motets.
107 Seventh Annual Report (London, 1840), 17.
108 The introduction of anthems and motets into the rehearsed and concert repertory,
the Eighth Annual Report, 11-12 and 15-16. The first anthem performance was on 21 F
noted in the context of this study that the repertory of the anthem performance in the fo
English church music 'from the earliest period after the Reformation down to modem times
1842), 17), and that this may have been true of these performances in general. In 18
represented are listed as Tye, Tallis, Blow, Purcell, Croft, Greene, Boyce, Lord Morningt
Report (London, 1846), 16).
'09 For a general discussion of continuities and discontinuities in the cultivation of 'an
'Continuity and Discontinuity in the Revival of Sixteenth-Century Music', in Vendrix (
10 We may locate the beginning of this revival-outside Portugal, at least-to Bruno Tu
film copy of Lobo's Liber missarum, from which he edited Audivi vocem (an edition pub
defunctis for a BBC broadcast entitled 'Iberian Requiem' (15 Mar. 1980) and a subsequen
Byrd Choir, directed by Gavin Turner. Bruno Turner's activities definitely represent a
simply choosing the music by Lobo that attracted him most, rather than reflecting the earl
correspondence, 23 Feb. 2004).
71
Vincent and Alfred Novello continued to be used well after publication, and that the
members of the Madrigal Society continued to sing the piece from theJ set of partbooks
during the later nineteenth century. However, the Society's minute book covering the
period from 1916 to 1955 reveals no performances of Audivi vocem after the first of these
dates, even though-as this book also shows-theJ partbooks were regularly employed
at meetings until 1934 (but not thereafter)."'
The present case study in the English (and French) copying and performance of
one piece of 'classic' vocal polyphony has highlighted both the-in this case unexpected-
abundance of surviving evidence in this area and the considerable remaining scope
not only for parallel studies focused upon one element of this repertory but also for
broader research within the same field, which would give us a richer understanding
of musical antiquarians' tastes, the sources they employed, the transmission of reper-
tory within such circles, and the way music in various styles was regarded (as mani-
fest, for example, in periodical reviews) and performed (in terms, for example, of
dynamics) at different periods and contexts over the course of the two centuries
considered here. For example, we clearly need a comprehensive study of the Madrigal
Society and its sources,112 including the Society's acquisition of repertory, identifica-
tion of copyists, dating of manuscript copies, tracing of anonyma, examination and
comparison of readings, and-crucially-consideration of approaches to editing and
performance. The case of Lobo, and of Audivi vocem, might usefully also be context-
ualized by scrutinizing more comprehensively and critically the make-up of the
Renaissance repertory favoured in antiquarian circles (comparing the English situa-
tion with those in other countries, and addressing issues of stability and change
within the repertory), and the relative prominence achieved by particular works and
composers from the period when, in the judgement of one of the most famous of
English musical antiquarians (Hawkins), 'music was in its greatest perfection in
Europe'. 113
ABSTRACT
Works from the Liber missarum (Antwerp, 1621) of the Portuguese

Lobo (c. 1565-1646) became established in the repertory of 'anci
vated in eighteenth-century England. In particular, the motet Audi
enjoyed considerable and long-lasting popularity, indicated by n
script copies, published editions, and records of performances. Such
Lobo's works probably stemmed from a copy of the Liber missa
the Bodleian Library in 1659, and later consulted by William W
Henry Needler. Perhaps thanks to Needler, Lobo's music entered
"l Madrigal Society MS F.22, in the British Library. Among those who might have com
through consultation of these partbooks during the early part of the 20th c. were Herbert How
ings of the Society as a visitor in 1916, 1918, and 1919), Frank Bridge (who conducted at the S
the same period), and Edmund Fellowes (who, for example, commented on the Society's ex
invited to take over as Director in 1933).
112 Building on such valuable but brief contributions as Percy Lovell, "'Ancient" Music
England', Music & Letters, 60 (1979), 401-15, and Craufurd, 'The Madrigal Society'.
113 The comment is in his edition of The Compleat Angler by Izaac Walton and Charles Cotton (Lo
quoted by Weber in The Rise of Musical Classics, 210.
72
the Academy of Ancient Music. Other manuscript copies of Lobo's works are by
John Immyns, founder of the Madrigal Society; Audivi vocem featured in the Society's
repertory well into the nineteenth century. In 1827 Vincent Novello published an
edition of Audivi vocem, and further editions appeared in Paris and England during the
1840s. Aspects of how the piece was performed can be established from manuscript
annotations.
73

Duarte Lobo Missarum

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Duarte Lobo Missarum

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Adventures of Portuguese 'Ancient Music' in Oxford, London, and Paris: Duarte Lobo's

'Liber Missarum' and Musical Antiquarianism, 1650-1850

ADVENTURES OF PORTUGUESE 'ANCIENT MUSIC'

LOBO S LIBER MISSARUM

The composition of sacred music in Portugal enjoyed a notable flowerin

COPYISTS USING THE THOMASON VOLUME

No evidence has yet emerged concerning consultation of th

Library and call number Date Copyist/owner(s)

RCM 343 c. 1745 Copyist: William Walond

BL Madrigal Society by 1764 Copyist: John Immyns. Owned by

LOBO S WORKS AND THE ACADEMY OF ANCIENT MUSIC

The Academy of Ancient Music, founded originally as the Academy

MEMBERS OF THE MADRIGAL SOCIETY: COPIES AND PERFORMANCES

Year Dates Number of meetings*

1760 20.8?, 27.8?, 17.9, 24.9, 12.11, 19.11 6?

*This is indicated here only where a complete (or near compl

41 The reference to this concert in The London Stage, 1660

APPROACHES TO EDITING AND PERFORMING AUDIVI VOCEM

The manuscript copies of Lobo's music described above indicate the

T " I r i' I' i- - J

Add. 65486 (copied from Add. 31409), C.7, and Nove

C2- :J r' rro - I II- -r

C2-2 IF' rr r r' rF r r J j II J r r

T Fr f"-I r r' JJo - J

The English copyists, performers, and editors

71 In my experience of performing Audivi vocem, this cadence

C1q CJJ.1j j1rTr

mo - ri - un - tur, qui in Do - mi-

C 1- "" o I - I" 1 I rL "

-no mo ri - r-un - tur, mo - ri - un

tions to this passage found in English manuscript sources is that mad

B - r " 1 .. , I.. " 1' 1'l 11

Cantus 1 -' r" ' r 1i l( "1 11

Versicle: Audivi vocem de caelo, dicentem mihi:

76 Stevens gave this marking in MS 63 but not in Add. 31818.

NINETEENTH-CENTURY EDITIONS AND CHORAL SOCIETIES IN ENGLAND AND FRANCE

The continuing status of Audivi vocem-as an admired example o

79 Argent, Recollections, 10.

Editor Title Publication Date Location of

As we have seen, the popularity-at least in certain musical

Works from the Liber missarum (Antwerp, 1621) of the Portuguese

S-ar putea să vă placă și