1 E. H. Fellowes, William Byrd (1936; 2d ed., London, 1948), p. 240—the standard biography.

2 London, 1958; see also his chapter ‘English Polyphony (c. 1470-1540)’ in the New Oxford History of Music, vol. m (London,1960), pp. 303-348.1 am indebted not only to these fundamental studies by Dr. Harrison, but also to discussions and communications with him, and to an unpublished essay that he was good enough to show me: his chapter on English church music c. 1540-1640 for the forthcoming vol. iv of the New Oxford History. Much important new material on the Elizabethan motet is contained in D. Stevens, Tudor Church Music (London, 1961).

3 E. E. Lowinsky, ‘Music in the Culture of the Renaissance', Journal of the History of Ideas XV (1954), 523. This question has been illuminated, very recently, by J. A. Mattfeld, ‘Some Relationships between Texts and Cantus Firmi in the Liturgical Motets of Josquin des Pres', Journal of the American Muskohgkal Society XIV (1961), 159-183. Pointing to liturgical sources for an impressive number of Josquin's motets, Mrs. Mattfeld also clarifies Josquin's originality with nonliturgical pieces. His twenty-two psalm-motets, in particular, reveal striking parallels with the repertory of English psalms, treated below, and seem to be similarly problematic in liturgical rôle.

Mrs. Mattfeld also draws attention to a sensational piece of evidence showing that: motet texts could convey personal views ranging to heresy or treason. A contemporary cleric, cited by Coussemaker, reports that the composer Laurent de Voz (born c. 1533) was actually hanged for composing a large motet with a text made up of a suggestive choice of psalm verses (p. 165, note 41).

4 On this MS. and the next two, see Harrison, Music in Medieval Britain, passim.

5 The Diary of Henry Machyn, ed. by J. G. Nichols (London, 1848, Camden Society XLII), p. 147.

6 J. Noble, ‘Le Répertoire instrumental anglais: 1550-1585’, La Musique instrumentale de la Renaissance, ed. J. Jacquot (Paris, 1955), p. 91.

7 All biographical information on the following pages is derived from Grove's Dictionary, Pulver's Biographical Dictionary of Old English Music (London, 1927), Fellowes’ William Byrd, and Harrison, op. cit., ‘Register and Index of Musicians'.

8 Harrison is the first scholar to emphasize its importance, in the forthcoming New Oxford History of Music, vol. IV.

9 A check list of English psalm settings is provided at the end of this article. The Vulgate numbering of the psalms is used throughout this article.

10 Music of Scotland 1500-1700, ed. K. Elliott (London, 1957, Musica Britannica xv), p. 205.

11 ‘the King and Queen kneelinge awhile before the aulter’: A Chronicle of England during the Reign of the Tudors by Charles Wriothesley, ed. W. D. Hamilton (London, 1877, Camden Society, ser. n, no. 20), n, 121. Cf. especially a variant rubric to the marriage service recorded by Legg: ‘Post hec ducantur in ecclesiam et prosternant se in medio ecclesie Sacerdote dicente hunc psalmum. Beati omnes … Gloria patri. Sicut erat.’ (The Sarum Missal, ed. J. W. Legg, Oxford, 1916, p. 414). However, instead of the doxology, Shepherd adds a da capo of the first verse. Harrison (Music in Medieval Britain, p. 345) observes that this plan corresponds to that of an antiphon with psalm ipsutn. Such a situation occurs at Wednesday vespers, but this seems too innocuous an occasion to give rise to a psalm setting in extenso.

12 The MSS. are indicated by the check list, p. 306.

13 Exaudiat te, Domine non est exaltatum, Domine quis habitabit n, and all the sections of Psalm 118—Portio mea, Manus tuae, Justus es Domine, and Appropinquet deprecatio. Most of White's vocal music is printed in Tudor Church Music (Oxford, 1923-1929), vol. v.

14 The term was still being used, to mean simply ‘a pair of voices of equal range, and therefore written in the same clef; see Harrison, op. cit., pp. 154-155.

15 See the check list, p. 306.

16 Op. cit., p. 345.

17 Liturgical Services in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, ed. W. K. Clay (Cambridge, 1847, Parker Society), pp. xxi-xxxiii; F. Procter, A New History of the Book of Common Prayer (1855; rev. ed. by W. H. Frere, London, 1901), pp. 118-125. How far Haddon's liturgy was used is hard to tell. Strype records strenuous objections to it at the universities in 1568-1569. On the other hand, by 1615 an abbreviated version of this book (not of the 1571 book) was published for the use of Christ Church, Oxford.

18 Injunctions Given by the Queen's Majesty (London, 1559), no. 49.

19 A. Hughes-Hughes, Catalogue of Manuscript Music in the British Museum (London, 1906-1909), II, 263. Elliott, editing the composition for Musica Britannica xv (London, 1957). cites a similar but less explicit inscription in another of the part-books.

20 Hughes-Hughes, op. cit., p. 265.

21 Harrison, op. cit., pp. 194, 344; Elliott, op. cit., p. xvi.

22 D. Stevens, Processional Psalms in Faburden’, Musica Disciplina IX (1955), 107; Harrison, op. cit., p. 356.

23 Christ Church MSS. 979-983, no. 53. This text—note the symmetrical layout— recalls the Flores Psalmorum of the Henrician and Elizabethan primers, but was not taken directly from them; cf. Private Prayers during the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, ed. W. K. Clay (Cambridge, 1851, Parker Society), pp. 311-317.

24 These pieces are published in The Collected Works of William Byrd, ed. E. H. Fellowes (London, 1937-1950), vol. XVII, pp. 58-61 and vol. xx, pp. 150-152, and in Four In Nomines, ed. H. T. David (New York, 1942).

25 On the importance of the respond-motet, see Strunk, Oliver, ‘Some Motet-Types of the 16th Century’, Papers Read at the International Congress of Musicology, New York, 1939 (New York, 1944), pp. 155–160 Google Scholar.

26 The technique may be observed in the second half of Libera me ﹛Dies ilia), which found its way into Tudor Church Music ix, 303-304, under Byrd's name. The first part and Peccantem me are unprinted. Both works appear in Christ Church 979-983; Peccantem me also in St. Michael's College, Tenbury, MS. 389; Libera me also in Baldwin's collection (King's Music Library, RM. 24. d. 20) and in B.M. Add. 32377, f. 66^v, anonymously.

27 His most widely circulated piece; I know often MS. sources.

28 J. Kerman, ‘Master Alfonso and the English Madrigal', Musical Quarterly XXXVIII (1952), 222-244.

29 For bibliographical information on these motets, see the references given in note 67 below.

30 J. Kerman, ‘Byrd's Motets: Chronology and Canon'’, Journal of the American Musicological Society XIV (1961), 360-361.

31 Fellowes, William Byrd, ch. 3, ‘Byrd's Association with the Catholics’.

32 The Pian service books of 1568-1570 should have superseded Sarum use, but the matter is far from clear. Among the few liturgical items listed by A. F. Allison and D. M. Rogers in their Catalogue of Catholic Books in English Printed Abroad or Secretly in England 1558-1640 (Bognor Regis, 1956), the Rituals of 1604 and 1610 are still ‘iuxta usum insignis ecclesiae Sarisburiensis'; only after 1623 is Roman use prescribed. In any case Byrd published compositions on Sarum texts and Sarum chants after 1570 (see the next note), and must surely have written them after that time.

33 With Sarum plainsong, which differs from the Roman version then current: Libera me Domine de morte (published in 1575), Aspice Domine de sede (1589), Afflicti pro peccatis nostris and Descendit de coelis (1591), Ne perdas, Omni tempore. Without plainsong, but with a text found only in Sarum books, not in Roman: Recordare Domine Quiescat Domine (1591; a cut text). Without plainsong, with texts occurring in both Sarum and Roman books: Aspice Domine quia facta, Domine secundum actum meum, and Peccantem me (all 1575), Laetentur coeli (1589), Peccavi super numerum (a cut text). For the Roman rite: Emendemus in melius Adiuva nos (1575), O magnum mysterium (1607). Tribulationes civitatum (1589) is a pastiche of several responds, one of which is exclusively Roman— see note 48 below. Reges Tharsis and Decantabatpopulus I consider spurious; see Kerman, op. tit., pp. 365-366, 377-379. All Byrd's motets are printed in the Collected Works, vols. i-rx, and in the following discussion no attempt will be made to give individual references.

34 Harrison, op. tit., pp. 369-370.

35 Omni tempore: first note of the verse, A instead of G. Libera me: on the word ‘movent?, F-G-A-Bb-G instead of E-G-A-BV-G, and on the word ‘terra', E-F-D-C instead oiE-F-E-D. Christus resurgens: on the second ‘vivif, C-D-E-C-E instead of C-DE- D-F. Cf. Byrd Collected Works vin, 139, 1, 278-279, v, 68 with Antiphonale Sarisburiense, ed. W. H. Frere (London, 1901-1925, Plainsong and Medieval Society), pp. ll7 583, 241. Was Byrd relying on his or some one else's memory? A Sarum antiphonal was a bulky book to have around a house liable to search.

36 Kerman, op. tit., p. 371.

37 Tallis's motets are printed in Tudor Church Music, vol. VI.

38 The introit Mihi autem is tabulated as an antiphon.

39 On Precamur sancte Domine and Noctis recolitur, see Kerman, op. cit., pp. 377-379; with Petrus beatus, Byrd goes against liturgical custom by setting all three stanzas and amen, rather than alternating polyphony with plainsong.

40 A similar Elizabethan ‘emulation’ seems to be preserved at the beginning of Baldwin's collection: a pair of Misereres based on scale ideas, by William Daman and Ferrabosco.

41 For bibliographical information on these motets, and on Domine non secundum peccata, mentioned below, see the references given in note 67 below. The similarity between the hymns of Byrd and Ferrabosco has also been observed by Harrison, whose account of Elizabethan church music in the forthcoming New Oxford History of Music, vol. iv, is the first to pay any attention to Ferrabosco's motets.

42 Kerman, op. at., p. 361.

43 The text of Wood's Exsurge Domine is still present in the Elizabethan Latin primer; see Clay, op. cit., pp. 184-185.

44 Pointed out by Lewis Lockwood, ‘A Continental Mass and Motet in a Tudor Manuscript’, Music & Letters XLII (1961), 336-347.

45 Noble, op. cit., p. 103.

46 It is worth noting, in reference to the point made in notes 32 and 33, that now there is another text that occurs only in the Roman rite, not in Sarum: Domine salva nos (1591), the Magnificat antiphon on the fourth Sunday after Epiphany.

47 In the following, texts are given with such liturgical or Biblical sources as I have been able to trace, the source reference preceding the text section involved. The section belongs with its reference up to the point where a new reference appears, or up to the point where a new indented line begins. Variants (beyond the very slightest) and additions to the source are given in italics; three dots indicate a word or passage in the source omitted by the composer. The placement of responds often differs between Roman and Sarum use; my references are to Roman use, except in one case. The sign | marks the end of a formal section in the musical setting, when this is in several sections.

48 In Roman use, this verse occurs within a reading for the fifth Sunday in October, on which day the following respond Aperi is sung. Neither seems to figure in Sarum use.

49 This text and the next recall certain chants for Advent ﹛Sarum Breviary clxx, lxxxix, ci), but Byrd was evidently working directly from the Bible.

50 F. Howes, William Byrd (London, 1928), p. 66.

51 His William Byrd, p. 67.

52 T. Dart, ‘Morley and the Catholics: Some Further Speculations’, Monthly Musical Record LXXIX (1959), 53-61.

53 A. Jessop, One Generation of a Norfolk House (1878; 2d ed., London, 1879), pp. IOI, 105-110, and especially Ruth Hughey, The Arundel Harington Manuscript of Tudor Poetry (Columbus, Ohio,1960), II, 57-66. Jessop discovered that as late as 1594 it was held as damaging evidence to have copied and read (!) this very poem.

54 I suppose in 1606, when King James raised the monument in Henry vn's Chapel to Elizabeth, but none to Mary—whose tomb Elizabeth shared. See the Byrd Collected Works, xv, 147-155.

55 P. Brett and T. Dart, ‘Songs by William Byrd in Manuscripts at Harvard’, Harvard Library Bulletin XIV (1960), 343-365.

56 Christ Church 979-983, no. 167. With the exception of the words De lamentatione Ieremiae prophetae. Daleth and Lamed, this text corresponds with that of an anonymous motet at the head of a printed Flemish anthology, Susato's Liber quartus sacrarum cantionum, 1547. This identification is due to the sharp eye of Professor Edward Lowinsky, who has read this essay with great care and perspicacity. I am most grateful to him also for placing at my disposal his thematic index, his extensive collection of microfilms, and other materials relating to the Netherlandish repertory; these were invaluable for the next section of this essay.

57 H. C. Collins, ‘Latin Church Music by Early Composers’, Proceedings of the Royal Musical Asso. XXXIX (1913), 63.

58 R. Simpson, Edmund Campion, a Biography (1866; new ed., London, 1896). Simpson lists accounts of the martyrdom published in French, Latin, and ItaHan in 1582, which were serious enough to call forth English answers. He cites a writer in the same year: ‘The most unjust verdict that ever I think was given was given up in this land; whereat already not only England but all the Christian world doth wonder.’ Campion's speech on the scaffold, incidentally, which was brutally interrupted, began with St. Paul's words from 1 Cor. iv. 9, ‘Spectaculum facti sumus Deo, angelis, et hominibus.’ The first words could be sung conveniently to Byrd's Facti sumus opprobrium.

59 Absent from the Petre MS. (Essex County Record Office D/DP.Z.6/1); separated in Tenbury 389 and Dow's collection (Christ Church 948-988); present without the first three sections in Tenbury 369-373. Parts 3 and 4 are both missing from Bodleian Mus. Sch. E423.

60 Fellowes, William Byrd, p. 106. Monte's music is printed in Philippi De Monte collectio decern mottetorum 5, 6, 7, et 8 vocutn, ed. G. van Doorslaer (Brussels, 1930), no. 9. It is Baldwin who styles Monte ‘th'emperors man', in the same MS. that preserves the motet (William Byrd, p. 238).

61 I have treated this general problem in The Elizabethan Madrigal: a Comparative Study (New York, 1962, Publications of the American Musicological Society IV).

62 E. E. Lowinsky, Secret Chromatic Art in the Netherlands Motet, tr. C. Buchman (Columbia University Studies in Musicology VI, 1946), particularly ch. 8, ‘Religious Background of the Secret Chromatic Art'.

63 63 P. 21.

64 Lowinsky, ‘A Newly Discovered Sixteenth-Century Motet Manuscript at the Biblioteca Vallicelliana in Rome’, Journal of the American Musicologkal Societym (1950), 180-182.

65 But one of the unica in the Vallicelliana MS. turns up in a Scottish source! See Harrison, op. cit., p. 194.

66 The sigla for the anthologies are those newly assigned by the International Inventory of Musical Sources: Recueils imprimés, XVI^e-XVII^e siecles, ed. F. Lesure, vol. 1 (Munich,1960). Some of the texts are printed in Secret Chromatic Art, pp. 116, 118.

67 G. E. P. Arkwright's list in Musical Antiquary III (1911-1912), 226-227, c a n be augmented, notably by a series of five-part motets that came to light with the discovery of Tregian's Anthology, B. M. Egerton MS. 3665; see B. Schofield and T. Dart, “Tregian's Anthology’, Musk & Letters XXXII (1951), 211-212.

68 The following Ferrabosco compositions appear to derive material from works by- Lasso with similar titles: Las voulez uous qu'une personne, Le rossignol, Susanne un jour, parts of the sestina Standomi un giorno, Decantabat populus, Ierusakm plantabis vineam, In monte Oliveti, Laboravi in gemitu, Mirabile mysterium, Nuntium vobis, and Surge propera. Like Lasso, Ferrabosco composed several extended psalms. See the check list.

69 The Lumley Library, ed. S.Jayne and F. R.Johnson (London, 1956), 284-286, where Susato's Liber primus ecclesiasticamm cantionum, Antwerp, 1553 (B.M. K. 3. D. 9), is erroneously assigned to the Venetian printer Antico.

70 J. Kerman, ‘An Elizabethan Edition of Lassm’, Acta Muskologica XXVII (1955), 71-76.

71 The extent and elegance of Byrd's liturgical organization is the subject of a forthcoming study by James M. Jackman.

72 Byrd, Collected Works, vol. IV, facsimile of the prefatory material.

73 Fellowes, William Byrd, p. 43.

74 Op. cit., p. 238.