Another Look at Absalon

Author(s): Honey Meconi

Source: Tijdschrift van de Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis ,
1998, Deel 48, No. 1 (1998), pp. 3-29
Published by: Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis (KVNM)

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/939154

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/939154?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
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Tijdschrift van de
Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Honey Meconi

ANOTHER LOOK AT ABSALON

Despite four articles in less than a decade, more remains to be said abou
of the famous motet attributed to Josquin des Prez, Absalon, fili mi, mo
response to the latest discussion, published in this journal by Nig
summarize briefly, both Jaap van Benthem and Joshua Rifkin hav
argued against the attribution to Josquin and for a reattribution to
Davison, who has done considerable work on the motets of La Rue, i
for various reasons. His counter-arguments at first appear convincing,
reveals numerous problems in his supporting evidence, to be discussed
ing the question of authorship also focuses attention on the manuscrip
Absalon's original version and leads to a revision of the proposed dates for
collection.

SOURCES

The work is ascribed to Josquin in three places, all late, posthum

Germany. These date from 1540, 1558, and 1559, with the latter tw
from the earlier, Kriesstein's Selectissimae necnonfamiliarissimae cantion
is anonymous in its earliest source,3 which predates these attributed a
erably. This earliest source is the motet collection London Royal 8 G. v
compiled by the scriptorium associated with the Habsburg-Burgundia
main venue of employment. Davison accepts the dating of the collect
Herbert Kellman (1513-1525; probably 1516-1522), but the possible l
rather broader than Kellman proposes while the probable limits are com
from those he suggests.
The manuscript was given to Henry VIII and Katherine ofAragon. T
of 1513-1525 are described by Kellman as 'the former marking the
between the two houses [Habsburg-Burgundy and England], whic
engagement of Charles (then thirteen) to [Henry's sister] Mary T
witnessing the beginning of a long and serious rupture between
proposes a contraction of these outside dates, in part because one of t
collection, Adiutorium nostrum in nomine Domini, written for Anne ofB
XII of France, was altered for Henry and Katherine and that 'it is u
motet]...would have been transformed.. .before their [i.e. Anne's an
(in 1514 and 1515 respectively). Kellman then lists several possible time
of the volume, the last being Charles's visit to England in 1522.
Given that France and Habsburg-Burgundy hardly maintained consi
relations, there is no reason to assume a reluctance on the part of the lat
as they saw fit; in other words, Adiutorium nostrum's textual changes co

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 the French rulers' deaths. In addition, England's close relations with the Habsburg-
Burgundian court long predated 1513. Although Royal 8 G. vii presumably postdates
the actual wedding of Henry and Katherine on 11 June 1509,7 it could theoretically
have been a present from the court to honor that event, especially given that Charles had
been married by proxy to Mary Tudor, Henry VIII's sister, just half a year before.8
On the terminus ante quem we should note that as late as April 1525 Henry sent a ring
to Charles on behalf of Henry's daughter Mary, at that time Charles's fiancee, which
Charles graciously accepted and promised to wear. Thus, the widest possible dates for
the compilation of Royal 8 G. vii would be from June 1509 (Henry and Katherine's
wedding) to before May 1525, when Charles V rejected his sworn betrothal to Henry's
daughter Mary, thus severely damaging relations between the two courts. But the
inclusion of O sancta Maria virgo virginum in the manuscript suggests a considerably
shorter period of time. This motet is a prayer to the Virgin for protection and blessing of
Charles 'in his danger'; Kellman suggests that it would not have been composed until
the young ruler reached his majority in 1515. If this were so, English concern for
Charles would thus manifest itselfmost strongly between 1521 and 1525, when Henry's
daughter Mary was his fianc&e. However, by that time it was becoming increasingly
clear that Katherine of Aragon was not going to bear any more children. By 1521 her
most recent pregnancy - and as it turned out, her last - had taken place three years
previously, in 1518. At almost thirty-six years old she was middle-aged by contempo-
rary standards, with a series of unsuccessful pregnancies behind her. One questions the
suitability of sending motets on the subject of childbirth to a couple who by now
seemed destined for failure in their attempt to produce the desired heir.
In addition, Charles was in considerably more danger as a fatherless minor than as a
crowned head ofstate; the recent histories ofEngland and France were ample testimony
to the dangers threatening an underage ruler. O sancta Maria virgo virginum is much more
likely to date from before 1515 than after. The motet would then be of greatest interest
to the English during the time that Charles was affianced to Henry VIII's sister Mary.
This earlier engagement was broken in 1514 so that Mary could wed the recently
widowed Louis XII. Hence, the period betweenJune 1509 and March 15149 becomes
the most promising time for the London manuscript's creation. As we will see later, it is
possible to narrow these time limits still further.
This is therefore the only source for Absalon fromJosquin's or La Rue's lifetimes, and
it predates the ascribed sources considerably. It comes from the court where La Rue
worked, not far fromJosquin's place ofresidence. It has both temporal and geographical
precedence over the other collections. All the works lack ascription in the collection,
and the court transmitted both La Rue's and Josquin's works without attribution on
occasion. Examination of the sources shows that works byJosquin appear anonymously
twenty-five times in court manuscripts while works by La Rue appear without
attribution forty-seven times in these same sources.'" The point here is not that London
Royal 8 G. vii is an impossible place to find aJosquin motet (clearly it isn't) but rather
that it is potentially an excellent place to find a La Rue motet.

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Davison says 'it may be as well to remind the reader that the only name known to be
associated with Absalom in any 16th-century source is that ofJosquin'," but his faith in
uncontested attributions is unfortunately not supported by the evidence. There are
many works with attributions only to Josquin that are not accepted by scholars,
including Missa Materpatris,12 Levavi oculos,13 Celi enarrant,14 and much of the dubious list
in the New Grove article on Josquin.15 This is true for other composers of this time as
well. Chansons attributed only to La Rue that are clearly not his include Dicte moy
bergere, En l'amour d'une dame, Il fault morir, Leal schray tante, and the two-voice Le
renvoye.16 Busnois's is the only name associated with the most famous Italian work of the
fifteenth century, Fortuna desperata, but we are far from certain that the work is his.17 We
could compile similar lists for almost every composer of this period; there are numerous
works that are inauthentic despite unique attributions.
No surviving source attributes Absalon to La Rue, but it is worth remembering how
fragile our basis for attribution of most earlier Renaissance works is. Many, perhaps
most, of our fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century identifications hang by a thread: a
sole attributed source or perhaps even a single copy altogether. Contemporary in-
ventories of manuscript and book collections are filled with descriptions of sources that
are now lost; the survival rate of attributed music cannot be very high. To put some of
this into perspective, if the chansonnier FlorenceC 2439 had been lost we would never
know that Autant en emporte le vent, A vous non autre, De l'oeil de lafille du roy, II viendra le
jour desire, Pour ce queje suis, Pourquoy tant, and Tous nobles cueurs were by La Rue, for that
is the only source where they are attributed to him.18 That La Rue wrote II est bien
heureux is known only by a statement by Pietro Aaron (it is anonymous in its only
source)19 and there are almost two dozen secular works that modern scholars suspect are
his as well but that are similarly anonymous.20 If the superius partbook VaticanP 1982
hadn't survived, the only attribution we would have for La Rue's clearly authentic Cent
mille regretz would be for Josquin - exactly the situation we find ourselves in with
Absalon.21 It is precisely the source situation that initially makes one suspect that Absalon
is La Rue's: a work transmitted anonymously in a manuscript compiled by a scriptorium
that frequently sent out La Rue's works without his name, measured against a late,
German attribution from a region noted for slapping Josquin's name on pieces having
nothing to do with him. In other words, far from being significant as 'the only
attribution we have', the Josquin ascription is worth little or nothing, an evaluation
evidently shared by the first editors of the Josquin collected works, who left the piece
out of the original publication and relented only in the supplement.22
Clearly, placing trust in an attribution simply because it is 'the only one we have' is
dangerous business when dealing with music of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.
When we have a source with a clear temporal and geographical connection to the
composer concerned, we virtually must accept the ascriptions as genuine, and revise or
restructure our assessment ofa composer's style accordingly.23 Conversely, compositions
in sources lacking firm connections to the targeted composer require the closest
scrutiny to see if they match what we know ofsomeone's style. It is our responsibility as

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
scholars to question these attributions as a matter of course (which is not the same as
automatically rejecting them). Davison misses the point here; we wouldn't turn to style
considerations at all if the source spoke for itself. If we possessed correspondence by
Kriesstein saying 'I have recently purchased Josquin's Nachlafl from Conde and plan to
issue the works seriatim', we would be considerably more comfortable with this
attribution - or rather, we would need to revise our idea ofJosquin's style to take Absalon
into account.

STYLE

Low Clefs and Range

Davison suggests that 'One reason why Josquin did not often write for low v
well have been that choirs in Italy, where he spent so much of his working lif
cultivate basses capable of singing B,-flat and C'.24 Three problems beset this s
First, many Italian choirs - certainly all the best ones - imported singers from th
and presumably those who could sing low notes north of the Alps retain
capability in more southerly regions. Second, scholars are questioning the a
Josquin's working life actually spent in Italy with increasing frequency. Davi
recently summarized the problems with accepting the Josquin of Milan as Jo
Prez, and Adalbert Roth even more recently presented archival evidence t
appears to argue against the presence of the composerJosquin in Milan.25 Pam
demonstrated beyond doubt that records documenting Josquin's earlier ten
Papal Chapel refer instead to another composer.26 Josquin's career in Italy
been a decidedly short one. But even were he there extensively from 1459 on
point arises. We are dealing with whatJosquin did, not what he might have d
he did not do was cultivate low ranges with any frequency - indeed, such w
quite rare in his output - and what he never did was go below D below the sta
the gamma clef, as La Rue does. Further, though Davison notes twoJosquin w
clefs 'not far removed from those of Absalom',27 in neither case does Josquin's
tion go as low as Absalon in its choice of clefs. When we are talking about clef
difference between one clef and another is that of a third, a not insignificant in
a singer's voice, especially if we are talking about extremes.
Davison attempts to minimize the significance ofLa Rue's exploration oflow
and he also attempts to minimize the significance of the low B,-flat in Ab
correctly points out that the lowest note in a work sometimes occurs only as
pitch, and that for especially low sonorities, this bottom pitch was paired at t
one an octave higher. Davison then cites four non-Habsburg-Burgundian court
of La Rue's Requiem (WolfenbiittelA A, MunichBS C, MunichBS 47 and M
65) as evidence that scribes occasionally exchanged a final bassus note for one
lower. This evidence is far from secure, however. MunichBS 47 and Munich
derived from WolfenbiittelA A and hence cannot be said to represent ind
readings; clearly they got their low final from WolfenbiittelA A.28 The Wolf

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
manuscript was also apparently copied by the same scribe as MunichBS 65,29 SO we are
now speaking of one scribe rather than four who possibly changed this final. But
evaluation of the various readings tells us that both WolfenbiittelA A and MunichBS 65
are derived from an exemplar (Beta) that is no longer extant - a source whose reading
might already have given the lower octave. In other words, since we have no way of
knowing what the original reading was in Exemplar Beta, we cannot prove the scribe
then 'changed' it to read an octave lower. I must also take issue with Davison's statement
that even if the original final of Absalon were an octave higher than what is preserved,
'many a scribe might have changed it to B, anyhow, to make what they would have seen
as an "improvement" '.30 Dropping final pitches an octave is not quite as common as
Davison might like, and we know of no instance where a scribe has done so for a work
ending on B-flat.
The implication here is that the appearance of these dramatically low notes is
somehow casual or quasi-accidental in nature. If this is so, why is it that these low
pitches occur far more frequently in the music of La Rue than in the music of any of his
contemporaries?31 Why does his use of such cavernous ranges vastly exceed that of any
of his predecessors or followers?32 Why do they occur in works for which no obvious
textual impetus is apparent such as his Missa Assumpta est Maria, which employs
consistently low ranges in all voices and repeated use of C below the staff? The subject
matter of that mass clearly doesn't suggest such treatment. Davison says that the B,-flat
below the staff is found in 'only' two compositions of La Rue's.33 Given the extreme
rarity of this note in music of this period - only one other composition uses this pitch -
it is astonishing rather that La Rue uses it at all, much less more than once.34 Further, this
note is a full major third below the lowest sonority to appear inJosquin's music. When
we are at the extremities ofrange, every increment of difference is noteworthy - ask any
singer. The question of degree is extremely important here. Yet Davison appears
prepared to dismiss this astonishing note as not significantly different from those
employed by Josquin. He further seems to view what I regard as a striking trait of La
Rue and one that distinguishes him from his contemporaries - his ready willingness to
explore low ranges - as not especially important or even characteristic.
Finally, an examination of the musical line in question shows how right and
inevitable the final pitch is (see Example 1). This is no scribal alteration. The low B,-flat
functions in literal, symbolic, and musical ways to provide a perfect conclusion to the
work. The extreme low note not only matches the mood of deep mourning that
pervades the piece, it also literally matches the text as we 'descend into hell' (descendam
in infernum). Further, it represents flawless musical logic. The music leading up to this
is a repetition of the immediately preceding section. The first appearance of the line in
question, starting in the bassus at m. 60, presents a quasi-sequential falling line: first
B-flat, G, E-flat, then a note lower on A-flat, F, D-flat, then still lower on G-flat, F- but
here the line breaks off. Why? Because the composer knows he is about to repeat this
incredible passage, and to close it properly at this point would rob the true ending of its
power. Instead, the bassus drops out - the emptiness is palpable, with the lowest pitch of

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 the new chord a fourth higher than what we have just heard - and the remaining three
voices present a haunting 'deceptive' cadence, with the clear B-flat resolution of the top
two voices undercut by the plaintive g-flat in the tenor. Then the bassus starts anew, and
this time the line goes exactly where we expect it to - plunging down to the B,-flat, the
final representation of the crushing grief felt by the bereft father. This is why the B,-flat
appears only once. The composer has reserved this extraordinary pitch for the climax of
the work. The composer is not just 'letting the Bassus fall to the low B,-flat' because
'the final chord is B-flat, and the whole mood of the motet is one of deep gloom'."35 The
B,-flat is there because it is an integral part ofthe melodic line and because the composer
understands the overwhelming effectiveness of reserving so powerful a sonority for the
end. No other ending would be as satisfactory. Bringing in the B,-flat before this would
rob it of its power; going up the octave would be laughable. Saving this infernally low
note for the final sonority and the final appearance of the text 'descend into hell
weeping' provides the perfect conclusion to this heartfelt and moving work.36

Multi-Flat Signatures
Davison correctly notes that the four signature flats in the Bassus of Absalon can be
found in neitherJosquin's nor La Rue's works and thus 'the four flats [.. .] are as atypical
for one as for the other'.37 Davison neglects to point out that no composer of this
generation uses four signature flats.38 Given that we will not find an exact match
anywhere, the issue of approximation - which composer most nearly approaches this
unique situation - becomes important. And which composer comes closer? La Rue,
who has two flats in all voices in three separate compositions,39 whereas Josquin never
does; his use of two signature flats is always confined to works with partial signatures.

C2

Davison attempts to diminish the importance of this mensuration sign in Absalon by

saying that 'northern scribes [.. .] cannot be trusted to copy mensuration signs faithfully
and consistently'.40 This is true, but it is not the whole story. Davison gives a slew of
examples of C2 and J substituted for one another, but few are germane to the
discussion. Since we are dealing with the representation of Absalon, what is significant is
the treatment of works by La Rue and Josquin in Habsburg-Burgundian court
manuscripts. Here accuracy is important. The appearance of La Rue's Tous les regretz in
BrusselsBR 228 with C2 and in BrusselsBR 11239 with ?( does not support Davison's
statement that 'scribes in the Netherlands used the two mensurations with comparative
impartiality'41 because only the former of these is a northern source; BrusselsBR 11239
was not compiled by a Netherlandish scribe.42
It is indeed correct that works by La Rue appear in court sources with I and works by
Josquin appear in the same sources with C2. But barring an exhaustive study,43 what we
seem to find is significantly greater use of C2 in court sources in works by La Rue than
in those byJosquin.44 In other words, who is likelier, in a court source, to have his music

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Example 1. Absalonfili mi, conclusion

60 = o

- tra sed de - scen - dam in in - fer

- tra sed de - scen - dam in in

sed de - scen - dam in in - fer - num

-tra sed de - scen - dam in in - fer-

65 5 9

8 num plo - rans, non

fer - num plo - rans, non vi -

plo - ans, non

1 F I I # I I
num plo - rans, non

70 , vi - vam ul - tra, non

vam ul - tra, non

I I

V I j .a.
vi vam

vi - vam u tra,

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 75 b

vi - vam ul tra sed

WII

8
vi - vam ul tra

ul tra sed de -

I I

ul tra

de
80scen dam in in fer

sed de - scen -dam in in - fer

4N I " III I i
scen - dam in in - fer - num

sed de - scen - dam in in - fer -

A 85

num plo -rans.

,,, r I - 'num Foa...

plo - rans.
plo - rans.

S10
num plo rans.

Io

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
presented with a C2 sign, regardless of whether he wrote it that way or not? Again, La
Rue - far likelier than Josquin.

Text-Music Relationship
Davison claims the first 60 measures ofAbsalon display 'the closest relationship between
words and music in terms of musical interpretation of the text'.45 This may be so in
fifteenth-century terms, where text expression was more often a matter of catching the
mood ofa text. For the sixteenth-century, and especially in the works ofJosquin, proper
text declamation, especially in motets, was of prime importance as one of the means of
leading to a comprehension and thus expression of the text. This trait, a characteristic
feature of Josquin's music, is lacking in portions of Absalon. Absalon is indeed an
expressive motet, yet it is expressive in ways that are rather different fromJosquin's usual
methods.

Davison then compares the use ofmelisma by the two composers, noting that each at
times makes liberal use of it, especially in the shorter-texted movements of the mass.
Already, though, this raises a question, for we are dealing with a motet. Stylistic traits are
of course transferable from one genre to another, yet common wisdom links Josquin's
large motet output and smaller mass output to his desire to explore disparate texts
precisely for the compositional possibilities they offered him. In general we are less
likely to find extended melismas inJosquin's motets than in his masses. The motet is the
genre where Josquin is most noted for his attempts at proper text declamation.
To contrast how the two composers treat text/music relations, Davison compares the
superius parts of Josquin's Planxit autem David and La Rue's Considera Israel (both
settings from 2 Samuel I).46 Davison's choice for comparison between the two com-
posers is an interesting one and at first seems to be a good one: both use the same text
(hence a good 'control group') and both are laments (hence the same type of piece as
Absalon).
Davison's method of determining text-music relations suggests that La Rue uses
fewer notes per syllable than Josquin. Davison counts the pitches and observes how
many syllables there are per hundred. A different method is to see which percentage of
text is set syllabically, which neumatically, and which melismatically. By this calculation,
we find thatJosquin (in the superius of his Planxit autem David) uses syllabic text setting
79% of the time, neumatic setting 14% of the time, and melismatic setting 7%. By
contrast, La Rue's Considera Israel has the breakdown in the superius of 79% syllabic,
18% neumatic, and 3% melismatic text setting. In other words, the superius parts of
both pieces are overwhelmingly syllabic, and syllabic to precisely the same degree. To
say that Considera 'stands rather further from Absalom in this respect [use of melisma]
than does Planxit', as Davison does,47 is to put a misleading emphasis on a feature that is
supremely unimportant in both works.
As Davison is well aware, Considera Israel is one of La Rue's most syllabic works.
Further, as he notes, one of the two works being compared is clearly based on the other.
As I argue elsewhere, it is far more probably La Rue who is drawing onJosquin's work

11

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
than the other way around, and one of the points of influence is the predominantly
syllabic text setting.48 In other words, we are dealing with a work that is unusual in more
than one way for La Rue, and hence not quite as ideal for comparison as it first appears.
As anyone who has transcribed La Rue's compositions can attest, text underlay often
presents difficulties.49 Texting is far less problematic with Josquin. Though he was
capable of writing melismatically, his works (especially his motets) are noted for a
considerably crisper declamatory relationship between words and music than we find in
Absalon. One of the main points separating him from previous generations and indeed
from many of his contemporaries is his evident concern for a close text/music fit -
hence the extensive use of syllabic text setting, repeated notes, and rhythmic layout that
follows the text emphasis. Such traits are by no means unknown in La Rue, but rather
appear less frequently. Again, we are talking about a question of degree. La Rue could
write syllabically and Josquin could write melismatically, but it is almost inevitably
much easier to underlay Josquin's text. To return to the observation made by Van
Benthem, the first section of Absalon displays a text/music fit much more in keeping
with La Rue's style thanJosquin's. This is the point here, not that, technically speaking,
there is more use of melisma in Planxit autem David than in Considera Israel.

Harmonic Sixths

Davison, commenting on the similarity between the descending triadic passage that
closes Absalon and a similar one in the Gloria from La Rue's Missa de sancta cruce, says that
'It is [...] less than certain whether or not it [La Rue's Gloria] modulates round part of
the circle of fifths'.50 Van Benthem never claimed that it did, making Davison's critique
rather beside the point. When Van Benthem said the Gloria passage was identical to that
ofAbsalon, the reference was to the appearance of the sixth in the triadic succession. It is
obvious without even bringing in the circle of fifths that the two are not literally
identical; the progression in Absalon begins on anf' with a descending major triad, while
that of the Gloria starts on e" with a descending minor triad; the mass has five voices and
Absalon has four, the mass has one voice not involved in the imitation and so on.
Davison cites several examples ofsixths approached stepwise inJosquin's music. He is
forced to admit that none resembles Absalon as much as La Rue's Gloria does - one is not

even a descending sequence. Again the question of degree of similarity arises, and again
La Rue is the closer composer. More significantly, none of the examples he cites is from
a secure work ofJosquin's. Concerning Domine ne projicias me Patrick Macey says 'on
stylistic grounds its authenticity seems doubtful',"5 while In illo tempore has a conflicting
attribution to Arnold von Bruck and is more likely by him.52 Finally the psalm motet
Dominus regnavit, though bearing a superficial resemblance to Josquin, betrays the hand
of a lesser composer in numerous ways, including mechanical changes in texture, the
embarrassingly obvious text painting in the atypical octave leap on 'Elevaverunt',
unimaginative and overwhelmingly exact repetition, the lack of melodic reference to
chant, and a numbing insistence on F as a cadential pitch. To these inauthentic traits can
be added the use of a sixth in the passage of descending thirds that Davison has pointed

12

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
out, for Van Benthem's assertion that Josquin never did this stands up very well under
scrutiny.53

Circle of Fifths
Davison argues against a similarity between the closing ofAbsalon and the opening of La
Rue's chanson Ce n'est pasjeu (see Example 2) on the grounds that 'modulation is no
more certain here than in the La Rue Gloria passage'. Again, Davison has misin-
terpreted Van Benthem, who very carefully puts 'modulation' in quotation marks. Van
Benthem is actually quite restrained; Edward Lowinsky eagerly flatted the tenor a in m.
7,54 and it sounds not only good but better than leaving it unflatted. Flatting it also
maintains the integrity of the imitation. Although Davison sees merely imitation here
the work opens on a unison d' that is rapidly paired withf' (hence a minor sonority); La

Example 2. Pierre de la Rue, Ce n'est pas jeu, opening

INI did , r ?J I J I I
Ce n'est pas jeu

8 Ce n'est pas jeu, ce n'est

Ce n'est pas jeu,

d'es - tre sy for

aI i

s pas jeu d'es - tre sy

ce n 'est pas jeu

Ce n'est pas jeu, ce

13

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Rue then proceeds to a new imitative entry on g, against b'-flat in the superius (again
minor) followed by the imitative entry on c against e'-flat in the altus (once more minor).
Davison discounts the significance of the bassus Fin m. 7 but La Rue clearly thought it
was rather important: this is the lowest note La Rue has used in the piece so far and he
gives it a full breve. The note above it, the a that cries out to be flatted, likewise receives a
full breve, the first time in the work we have heard simultaneous breves. Only one more
voice is present, and although it is a moving line (semibreve followed by two minims),
the pitch is reiterated. This is the only time in the work so far that we have not had a
moving line that included semiminims. Here we have the moment of greatest repose so
far, and the triad built on the Bassus F receives the strongest emphasis of any sonority yet
heard in the work by virtue of its static nature. La Rue could scarcely have made the
arrival on F more prominent. In other words, the ear essentially hears a progression from
'D minor' to 'G minor' to 'C minor' to 'F minor', a mini-circle of fifths.
Davison points to Josquin's Belle pour l'amour de vous as the equivalent of La Rue's
procedure here, but that is far from the case (see Example 3). Josquin starts on A. The
second imitative entry, on d', provides the fifth of its triad, not the root. The next entry,
ong, is now the third of its triad. Whereas La Rue has constructed a bass line that moves
at the fifth, Josquin's imitative entries, though themselves on descending fifths, fit into
sonorities determined by other considerations. This is far from La Rue's procedure in
Ce n'est pas jeu, and farther still from Absalon. Again, whose music comes closer to
Absalon? La Rue's.

Borrowing and Transformation

La Rue's chanson Pourquoy non shares many striking similarities with Absalon, including
a two-flat key signature, the same very low pitch, similar clefs and vocal ranges, related
melodic formulae and phrase structures, and a chord progression on an emotional text.
Further, the Gloria of La Rue's Missa de sancta cruce contains a passage similar to the
conclusion of Absalon.55 Even Davison concedes that the similarities between Absalon
and La Rue's Pourquoy non and the Gloria from his Missa de sancta cruce are too striking to
be coincidental. Clearly we are talking about borrowing here. But Davison finds it
inconceivable that La Rue should borrow 'substantial elements from one of his more
popular chansons, and a progression from one of his masses'.56 He finds it more likely
that another composer would have done so, citing Nicolas Craen's reworking of La
Rue's Sancta Maria virgo in his Ecce video.57
This is a surprising assertion to make in view of La Rue's own history of self-
borrowing. La Rue is actually astonishing in this respect, for three of his masses are
based on his own models: his Missa Ave sanctissima Maria on his own canonic six-voice
motet, and his Missa Tous les regretz and Missa Incessament on his own chansons.
Considering that these are among the very earliest full-fledged parody or imitation
masses, if not literally the first examples, it is noteworthy that he turns to himself for his
sources.58 La Rue also utilizes small-scale borrowing, drawing both on his own works
(snippets of the melodic material from his chanson Ce n'estpasjeu appear in De l'oeil de la

14

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Example 3. Josquin des Prez, Belle pour l'amour de vous, opening

Bel - le pour l'a - mour de

el le pour I'a mour de

vous, pour l'a - mour de vous suis ve -

8 el - le pour la - mour de vous

el - le pour l'a -

fille du roy, Secretz regretz, and his four-voice Fors seulement)59

(part of the L'homme arms tune in the Credo of Missa Sancta deig
Tant que nostre argent durra at the conclusion ofhis first L'homme a
the concluding phrase ofJosquin's Ave Maria in the second Osa
doloribus, an unidentified dulcis amica Dei melody at the end
Maria). To have La Rue borrow from himself in Absalon f
compositional habits.
Davison is doubtful that La Rue is 'sufficiently text-orient
transform the Gloria passage into the textually-appropriate co
this is to ignore one aspect of La Rue's style. While it is true that
less text-dependent than Josquin, we find striking instances
meaning in more than one work and in more than one genre, w

15

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
one example and Pourquoy non another. Indeed, one can see Absalon in many respects as
Pourquoy non writ large. Further, although Davison suggests that Josquin 'may have
chosen to show his respect for Philip's best composer' in Absalon,61 it is far more likely
that La Rue was inspired by Josquin. In looking at La Rue's output overall we see a
surprising number of pieces that seem to owe their conception to specific works of
Josquin. These include the motet-chanson Plorer, gemir, crier/Requiem that was probably
prompted by Nymphes des bois; La Rue's two L'homme arme masses that look toJosquin's
pair; Considera Israel, inspired by Planxit autem; another motet-chanson, Cueurs desolez/
Dies illa,62 that is related in more than one way toJosquin's Cueurs desolez/Plorans ploravit;
and the Pleni of Missa de sancta cruce, which owes something to the second Agnus of
Josquin's Missa L'ami baudichon. As mentioned above, La Rue specifically quotes the
superius line ofJosquin's Ave Maria in the second Osanna of his Missa de septem doloribus.
It seems in many respects as if La Rue were in some kind of private, apparently
one-sided competition with Josquin. On the broadest scale, one can view La Rue's
compositional development as a move away from a more abstract style derived from
Ockeghem to a more text-sensitive style influenced by Josquin.63 In this scenario,
Absalon fits extremely well.

La Rue as Motet Composer

Davison offers the following appraisal ofLa Rue: 'La Rue's fame has always rested on his
settings of the Mass, rather than on his motets; on his skill as a contrapuntist and writer
of canons, rather than his sensitivity in matching music with words'.64 He then remarks
on the relatively small number of La Rue's motets contained in Habsburg-Burgundian
manuscripts in contrast to the large quantity of his masses in the same collections.
Surely it is time to begin a fresh evaluation of La Rue. His fame has been based, to put
it mildly, on an incomplete knowledge of his output,65 in which by virtue of sheer
number and bulk his masses have loomed large. Musicologists have typically valued
masses - the 'symphonies' of the Renaissance - at the expense of other genres. In the
case of La Rue's chansons, for example, if we were to judge by what scholars had said
over the past century we would essentially ignore the significant position they deserve
in any discussion of early sixteenth-century secular music. These richly varied and
genuinely attractive works are significant both because La Rue is one of the most
prolific composers in that area and because his songs represent ingenious and note-
worthy solutions to the problem of writing in an age of stylistic transition.66 This is
scarcely to deny the importance of his masses or La Rue's contrapuntal virtuosity, but
rather to acknowledge that composers can make contributions in areas and in ways for
which they are not 'famous'. That La Rue's motets and his handling of text/music
relations have been largely neglected is hardly an argument against his writing Absalon.
We are still discovering in what ways La Rue should be known, for his combined corpus
remains largely musica incognita.
As for the dissemination of La Rue's works in court manuscripts, several issues arise
here. First is the survival rate of these manuscripts; what remains is not all that was

16

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
produced, as we know from both archival records documenting the copying of
now-lost manuscripts and the fragmentary state of some of those that remain (including
AntwerpP M18.13/1, AntwerpP M18.13/2, AntwerpP R43.13, BrusselsSG 9423,
BrusselsSG 9424, JenaU 9, OxfordBA 831, and OxfordBLL a.8). La Rue's works are
featured in many court manuscripts (including BrusselsBR 15075, JenaU 12, Mont-
serratM 773, SubiacoA 248, and ViennaNB Mus. 15496, all consisting exclusively of
his compositions), but others give him a lesser role or none at all (such as 's-Hertogen-
boschAB 72A, 's-HertogenboschAB 72C, JenaU 3, MunichBS F, MunichBS 6,
MunichBS 7, ViennaNB 4809,67 ViennaNB 4810, ViennaNB 11778, ViennaNB Mus.
15495, and ViennaNB Mus. 18825, none of which contains any La Rue). La Rue's
absence or limited presence in a given court manuscript tells us little about the sum total
of his output; we are already aware of at least three lost compositions.68
Second, surely the tastes and requests of the manuscript recipients accounted for
some of the works included, i.e., again, the manuscripts, significant though they are, are
not the final say in what a composer produced. Third, while a mass collection dedicated
to a single composer is readily conceivable, since we are sometimes dealing with only
seven or eight works total, a motet collection compiled along similar lines is unlikely,
and in fact, no manuscripts survive that are so constituted. Although La Rue has 'only'
four in the Vatican collection, 69 he is the second best-represented composer there (only
Mouton surpasses him, with a probable seven works included; no other composer has
more than three), and the same is true for the manuscript London Royal 8 G. vii, where
he has 'only' three70 (Fevin and Mouton similarly have three each). The small figures
that Davison cites need to be seen in perspective; considering the large number of
composers from which the Habsburg-Burgundian court scriptorium drew their motet
repertoire, La Rue is one of the most frequently included.
Finally, who is to say that some of the motets in these manuscripts that have come
down to us anonymously are not by La Rue? This is surely the case for many of the
chansons contained in BrusselsBR 228, for example.71 Davison's statistics are again
misleading; ten of the motets in VaticanP 1976-9 - more than 25% - remain anony-
mous, while seventeen ofthose in London - a staggering half ofthe original collection -
lack identifying concordances.72 If some of these are La Rue's, we again must change
our perception of his motet representation.

Stylistic 'Fingerprints'

Davison comments on two further stylistic aspects of Absalon with the implication that
they argue against La Rue. The first is the absence of parallel fifths at cadences in
Absalon. Davison calls their presence 'something of a fingerprint' for La Rue. He then
proceeds to note that 'it is present in fifteen of the twenty-four reasonably safe motets'.
Put another way, it is absent in nine of these same motets, rather strong evidence that La
Rue was capable of avoiding them.
The second aspect is the clear imitative exposition at the start of Absalon. Again,
although Davison is trying to demonstrate that this is not 'normal' for La Rue, four

17

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
motets begin thus.73 Even if we eliminate the two works whose imitation extends only
for four notes, we are left with two motets (to say nothing of other genres) that begin
like Absalon. Thus, though Davison may say that Absalon lacks two 'fingerprints' of La
Rue's style, other works of his do as well.

WHY ABSALON WAS WRITTEN

Despite grave problems with making Absalon's style mesh with Josqui
hypothesis makes clear that he still favorsJosquin as author. Although he c
the work may have been written casually,74 that is virtually impossib
century composers did not write occasional motets on whim. Davison th
scenario built on the assumption that Absalon was written to mark the untim
Philip the Fair in September 1506. His hypothesis consists of two main pr
the court turned to Josquin in La Rue's absence, and that Josquin in
borrowed elements of La Rue's style as well as direct references to his
attempt to pay tribute to the absent composer and thus please his patron
Given that La Rue remained in Spain for almost two years after Philip's
the court really have turned instead to Josquin for this motet? Jos
relationship to Habsburg-Burgundy remains obscure, to say the least.75 Ce
manuscripts contain a considerable amount of his music, though much of
appears in posthumous sources.76Josquin also set texts by court poets on m
occasion,77 so in theory at least the scenario is possible. In practice, howev
argues against it.
The real stumbling block is both the overall 'La Rue' look ofAbsalon as w
of material from two of La Rue's own works. In the first place, it is not a
Josquin would have had access to La Rue's music. We know exceedingly
music at Cond6, Josquin's place of residence from 1504 on. But even i
Josquin's knowledge of La Rue's compositions, everything we know ab
style of borrowing speaks against an emulation of La Rue. Simply pu
essentially avoided either direct or general borrowing from named compo
Josquin was by no means averse to using preexistent material; indee
abound in borrowings. But these borrowings are almost always of ch
anonymous) or popular song (hence also anonymous). When Josquin do
thing from a named composer, it is typically to join in the lively contempor
of art-song reworkings, drawing on such wildly popular works as De tous
D'ung aultre amer, and Fortuna desperata (where it is not known whether
who the composer was).7" In these large compositional families, new c
paying a nod to an ongoing competitive tradition more than to the au
original piece.79 Further, scholars in recent years have stripped away or r
several previously accepted instances ofJosquin's borrowing from name
Lawrence Bernstein convincingly argued that F vin reworks Josquin's F
rather than the other way around; he also makes an excellent case against

18

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ticity of the Ma bouche rit given toJosquin (another work known only under his name).80
In the masses, Jennifer Bloxam neatly dispatched the always-problematic Missa Mater
patris, demonstrating instead that Brumel is its author.81 For an example ofhowJosquin
wrote when he truly wished to pay homage to a composer, one need look no further
than his motet-chanson Nymphes des bois, whose numerous subtle relations to Ock-
eghem's earlier motet-chanson for Binchois, Mort tu as navre de ton dart, eschew anything
as straightforward as a literal quote.82 It is unlikely in the extreme thatJosquin would ape
La Rue in a composition; for him to borrow so obviously would add yet one more item
to the already long list of features that make this motet anomalous in his output.83
Further, Philip the Fair was not the only son of a still-living ruler to die in the years
preceding the compilation of London Royal 8 G. vii. The Infante Juan, son of
Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile and their sole male heir, died at the age of
twenty-nine in October 1497. The courts of Spain and Habsburg-Burgundy were
tightly interconnected at this point. Juan had married Marguerite of Austria that very
year, and Juan's sister Juana had married Marguerite's brother Philip the Fair the
preceding year. A tragedy such asJuan's death would not go unnoticed in the North. At
the same time, his death paved the way for unbelievably rich territorial gain by Philip
himself. At that point, if Queen Isabella died before Ferdinand, the crown of Castile
would go first to her eldest daughter Isabella and then to her next daughterJuana - and
thus, in reality, Philip. This is precisely what happened. Philip's second voyage to Spain
in early 1506 (after his sister-in-law Isabella's death in 1498 and Queen Isabella's death
in 1504) was motivated by his concern to make his claims to the crown more tangible.
Philip's untimely death was actually extremely convenient for Ferdinand (hence the
rumors ofpoisoning) who then shared his crown not with an experienced male ruler in
the prime of life but rather with his grief-tormented and totally unprepared daughter.
Ferdinand's callousness towards his female offspring is amply documented in his
appalling treatment of his youngest daughter Katherine of Aragon, and he was no
kinder towards Juana. He eventually locked her up for the rest of her life (almost fifty
years) on the grounds - not completely substantiated by any means - that she was insane.
Clearly, here was a ruler who was not even slightly interested in relinquishing his power.
Whether the Habsburg-Burgundian court would have offered condolences in the form
of Absalonfili mi in a circumstance where their own potential gain was so great is by no
means obvious.

Another royal bereavement occurred with the death in April 1502 of Prince Arthur,
son and heir of Henry VII ofEngland. Although at that time the Habsburg-Burgundian
court was not intimately connected with England, they were far from anglophobic.
Traditional allies ofEngland against France, the court maintained contact even after the
demise of Burgundy proper and the large-scale expulsion of the English from France.
Obviously they wished to sustain good relations for potential future alliances, of which
there were many in the next twenty-three years.84 A musical gesture of sympathy for
Henry's loss would have been a powerful diplomatic gesture, and the date of Arthur's
death fits extremely well with one of the most striking aspects ofAbsalon's construction.

19

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Arthur died in 1502; Pourquoy non was written by 1501, the year it was published in
Odhecaton.85 The possible chronological proximity of two pieces so close stylistically is
intriguing; if La Rue wrote the work to commemorate Arthur rather than Philip, he
borrowed from a piece that was much more recent in his compositional output. It is an
enticing prospect to have La Rue reaching back not nearly as far in his compositional
past for his musical borrowings.
IfAbsalon were written on Arthur's death, the Habsburg-Burgundian court scriptori-
um would have been providing a codex copy in London Royal 8 G. vii of what had
probably been originally transmitted as an elaborate fascicle. And if the manuscript were
a wedding gift, then the inclusion of Absalon becomes even more symbolic, for it was
Arthur's death that enabled Henry VIII both to become king and to marry Katherine of
Aragon, Arthur's widow. Kellman has noted that the work may originally have closed
the manuscript - a fitting place for the composition, a final reminder of what made
Henry's royal future possible.86
Finally, the death being mourned in Absalon might be that of one of Henry VIII's
male offspring. Of these, only Prince Henry, born on New Year's Day, 1511, lived long
enough (just over seven weeks) to generate formal mourning. Such an event gives the
pleas for children earlier in the London manuscript even greater poignancy. Or the
motet could have been written for Arthur but included in the manuscript as a double
commemoration in memory of both Arthur, the original 'Absalon', and Prince Henry,
the recent loss.

Considering a possible English connection for Absalon leads us to questions about

inserting the motet in Royal 8 G. vii in the first place. Although no one has commented
on the curiousness of its inclusion, sending a motet on such delicate subject matter
without good reason would be an audacious move on the part of the Habsburg-
Burgundian court. England at this time was extremely sensitive to issues of inheritance,
especially given the weak claims the Tudors actually had to the crown. To include a
motet dealing with the death ofa male heir would be in the poorest of taste had not such
an event already occurred to the recipient of the manuscript (Absalon's later transmis-
sion, of course, was in impersonal printed collections). This suggests either that the
motet was written to commemorate Arthur, or that London Royal 8 G. vii was
compiled after the death of Henry VIII's son Henry in February 1511 (whether written
for him or not). Of these two possibilities, the former seems the less likely, given the still
somewhat distant relationship between England and Habsburg-Burgundy at the time of
Arthur's death. The alternative leads us to a further narrowing of the time of origin of
London Royal 8 G. vii, with new limits being from after February 1511 to before
March 1514.

Once we take Absalon into account we have a collection in Royal 8 G. vii for which
almost every text resonates with the intended recipients.87 As the collection was
apparently first planned, it opened with three works that essentially functioned as pleas
for children (male) and closed with Absalon, which acknowledged the grievous loss of a
son. The works in between included the motet for Charles, six settings of Virgil texts

20

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
(all of which could speak to painful aspects of Katherine's life),"8 a very extensive series
of Marian motets (again with their connotations of motherhood), and all-purpose
works on Christ or the Trinity.
Of the remaining three motets, Maxsimilla Cristo amabilis was linked to the order of
the Golden Fleece, ofwhich Henry was a member,89 and Doleo super te, on the death of a
brother, clearly had relevance for the king as well. This leaves the motet for St.
Christopher, Egregie Cristi martir Cristophore. As St. Christopher is the patron saint of
travelers, could this work have been included as a herald for an upcoming journey?
With virtually every other work in the manuscript connected in some way to Henry
and Katherine, could this motet be as well?
Henry traveled to the continent in June 1513 and remained through most of
October, sailing home on the twenty-first of that month. While abroad he engaged in
multiple conflicts with the French and won several important battles. He also met
Emperor Maximilian personally, and on 17 October signed a treaty in Lillejoining with
Maximilian, Ferdinand, and Marguerite in alliance against France, and simultaneously
renewing the engagement of Charles and Henry's sister Mary. Clearly, this October
meeting would be the perfect time for the gift from the Habsburg-Burgundian court of
a sumptuous presentation manuscript carefully tailored to Henry's past and desired
future. This scenario suggests a manuscript compiled in the summer and early fall of
1513 to provide a parting gift for the victorious king, with the St. Christopher motet
referring to the hazardous return voyage across the Channel. The inclusion of Absalon
would then take on additional resonance, for on 8 October Katherine was reported
delivered of a son, who was either stillborn or died shortly after birth. At no other time
in the first quarter of the sixteenth century do we have such a confluence of factors
appropriate for the presentation of this manuscript: Henry and Katherine still youthful
enough to hope for an heir, but married long enough to have experienced the death ofa
longed-for son not once but twice; England joined by military treaty as well as betrothal
to the court of Habsburg-Burgundy and thus doubly concerned about the underage
Charles; the recipient physically present on the continent, a guest of the donors, about
to embark upon a potentially dangerous journey. It seems safe to conclude that on 17
October 1513 the recently-completed manuscript London Royal 8 G. vii reached its
new owner.

Introducing Juan, Prince Arthur, and Prince Henry

Absalon leads us even further from Josquin as author, fo
would the Habsburg-Burgundian court need to go bey
Rue was employed by the court at the time ofthe deaths o
what if the 'obvious' protagonist, Philip the Fair, were af
Could La Rue still have written the work?

Several scholars have already hypothesized that La Rue's motet Delicta iuventutis was
written to mourn Philip, but the discovery that the earliest version of the text lacks
Philip's name suggests otherwise."9 Van Benthem also noted that Absalon 'is absent from
manuscripts directly related to Marguerite's own musical establishment'.9' Certainly her

21

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
personal collection of chansons and motets, BrusselsBR 228, would seem a perfect
place for its inclusion, given the numerous mournful works included therein. But one
can well argue that Philip's death is already represented twice in that manuscript, in the
motet-chanson Se je souspire/Ecce iterum (possibly by Marguerite herself)92 and in La
Rue's Doleo super te. This last work is the quarta pars of Considera Israel, and its text clearly
spoke for Marguerite: 'Doleo super te, frater miJonatha; decore nimis, et amabilis valde
super amorem mulierum. Sicut mater amat unicum filium suum, ita ego te diligebam.
Quomodo ceciderunt robusti et perierunt arma bellica' (I am distressed for thee, my
brotherJonathan; very pleasant hast thou been unto me; thy love to me was wonderful,
passing the love ofwomen. As her mother loveth an only son, so have I loved thee. How
are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished). This is the only place in
Considera Israel where Jonathan is referred to as brother, and Marguerite, who was
childless, could well have loved her only sibling with a mother's intensity.
If Considera Israel were written to mark Philip's death, as seems probable,93 would
there have been a need to compose Absalon at all for the same occasion? Indeed, yes, for
Absalon observes a father's grief and hence would be for Maximilian, while Considera
Israel marks a sister's mourning and thus would be for Marguerite. La Rue neglected
neither of his two patrons at this uncertain time. Further, viewing Considera Israel as a
composition for Marguerite solves the problem of why La Rue, in his imitation of
Josquin's Planxit autem David, started with the text 'Considera Israel' rather than earlier
as Josquin had done. The text that La Rue chose not to set was 'Planxit autem David
planctu huiusce modi super Saul etJonathan filium eius' (and David lamented with this
lamentation over Saul and overJonathan his son). This eliminated text would have been
inappropriate in a work for Philip's sister.
To return to the matter of logistics: Davison implied that La Rue's continued
presence in Spain after Philip's death (and particularly at the time of the funeral
obsequies) weakened his case. Yet Absalon might have come from some time later than
these events; Josquin's Nymphes des bois appears to date from more than a year after
Ockeghem's death,94 and Lupus's Ergone canticuit, also for Ockeghem, was decades after
the fact. Still, La Rue in Spain was by no means cut off from contact with his mother
court. Obviously the northern branch of the Habsburgs continued to maintain close
contact with Spain. Philip's son Charles was intended as its ultimate ruler; Maximilian
had, after all, arranged the double marriage of his children to Spanish royalty expressly
to insure the closest possible Habsburg connection with this rich counter-balance to
France's power. He was scarcely about to lose touch at this particularly delicate time.
But the Spanish court was not alone in being in communication with the North; La
Rue was too. This is known from a letter that Marguerite, now governer of the Low
Countries during her nephew Charles's minority, wrote to the church of Onze-Lieve-
Vrouw in Kortrijk, where La Rue had a valuable prebend. One of the requirements of
this non-resident prebend was that La Rue present himself in person annually; other-
wise his generous income would be forfeit. La Rue, much too distant from Kortrijk to
appear in 1507, appealed to Marguerite to intervene on his behalf. This she did, and La

22

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Rue's father appeared in Kortrijk with a letter from her requesting that La Rue be
excused from his annual obligation and that his father receive the income. It is possibly
in connection with this request that La Rue altered his chanson text A vous non autre to
refer to 'these fourteen years that I have served you'. 9
The timing of La Rue's request - or what we know of it - is curious. Obviously La
Rue wrote initially to his father, who approached Marguerite and then went to Kortrijk
after she had written her intercessory missive. His father appeared in Kortrijk on 24
August 1507.96 This August date is surprising in that La Rue was normally due to appear
in Kortrijk on 24 June. Given La Rue's documented interest in money - as well as his
concern for his family - it seems likely that his letter was written before the time that La
Rue was slated to appear in Kortrijk and that its arrival was delayed by the erratic nature
of the delivery of messages at such a great distance.97 IfLa Rue had planned his request to
appear before his scheduled annual appearance, the letter would have arrived during the
preparations for the funeral obsequies for Philip that took place on 18-19 July -
impeccable timing for the delivery of a mourning motet (or motets), either commis-
sioned or fr.eely offered by someone who needed a large favor in return.
Finally, unlike Josquin, La Rue had a personal - not just a professional - reason for
wishing to mourn Philip that may have inspired the deep expressiveness ofAbsalon. La
Rue's life appears governed by a continuing search for more secure, more prestigious,
and more remunerative employment,98 and he achieved his goal when he was hired for
Philip's chapel in November 1492.99 Under Philip he slowly worked his way up the
payroll, gradually acquired several lucrative benefices, and even arranged for a small
stipend for his needy parents. After Philip's death he was acting chapel master for his
widow Juana's musicians, and upon return to the Low Countries he was clearly the
leading musician at the court. During his years at the court he created an extensive body
of compositions for his patrons, many of them apparently to fulfill a need for a complete
polyphonic liturgy, and some very obviously intended as personal tributes. Did La Rue
serve as well as a musical father figure to the youthful (and musically sensitive) Philip and
Marguerite (whose own music-loving father moved back to Habsburg lands after Philip
came of age), teaching, providing musical guidance, helping to build a repertory of
compositions? Was La Rue in his own way a David to Philip's Absalon?100 Even if not,
Absalon could still portray the grief of someone who was actually present in Spain when
the tragedy happened, someone left to face an uncertain future robbed of a generous
and appreciative patron.
The likeliest scenario is thus as follows. Absalon was written on the death of Philip the
Fair; he is a far stronger candidate than Juan, Arthur, or the infant Henry. Stylistically
Absalon represents a compositional maturity La Rue had almost certainly not attained in
1497,101 and the deaths of neither of the English princes had the impact on the
Habsburg-Burgundian court that Philip's did. The work may have been written shortly
after Philip's death in September 1506, in preparation for the rites held inJuly 1507, or
at some later time. La Rue also composed Considera Israel, which refers to the loss of a
brother, for Philip's sister Marguerite. Both Absalon and the final section of Considera

23

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Israel were included in London Royal 8 G. vii, a sumptuous manuscript compiled as a
gift for Henry VIII and Katherine. In its original plan the manuscript opened with
motets that functioned as prayers for children (acknowledging that the couple were still
young enough to expect further pregnancies) and closed with Absalon in recognition of
the loss of the royal couple's heir. The collection also included a prayer for Charles's
safety (doubly appropriate at a time when Charles was both underage and affianced to
Henry's sister Mary) as well as a motet to St. Christopher, patron saint of travelers. The
most probable time for compilation of the manuscript was the summer and early fall of
1513 (while Henry was on the continent) with delivery of the manuscript on 17
October when Henry was in Lille concluding his alliance with Habsburg-Burgundy
and Spain, renewing Mary's betrothal to Charles, and about to embark on his journey
back to England.

Josquin is not the composer of Absalon, fili mi. Almost every feature of the work needs
explaining away, all in support of a late, geographically distant attribution in a source of
proven untrustworthiness. Numerous qualifying statements are required to make
Absalon's anomalies mesh with what we know ofJosquin. 'May well have been', 'might
well have wished', 'not far removed', 'perhaps', 'may have chosen' occur far too
frequently in Davison's discussion to yield a convincing picture. In contrast, simple
declarative statements are possible when comparing the work with La Rue's output,
since it shares so many similar features. Josquin's style provides a poor approximation of
that ofAbsalon; La Rue's provides a convincing model. When Absalon reveals attributes
that fit neither Josquin nor La Rue exactly, either the trait in question matches no
composer of the time, or La Rue is closer to Absalon than Josquin.
As William of Ockham said, 'Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem',102
i.e., the simplest solution is the best. Someone wrote this work. For now, our best bet is
Pierre de la Rue.

24

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1 These articles are J. van Benthem, 'Een verloren zoon als ondergeschoven kind. De
problematische toeschrijving van een beroemd motet', in Musica Antiqua. Actuele Informatie
over Oude Muziek 5 (1988), 22, 27-28; idem, 'Lazarus versus Absalon. About Fact and
Fiction in the Netherlands Motet', in TVNM 39 (1989), 54-82; J. Rifkin, 'Problems of
Authorship inJosquin. Some Impolitic Observations with a Postscript on Absalon,fili mi', in
Proceedings of the International]osquin Symposium, Utrecht 1986, ed. W. Elders (Utrecht 1991),
45-52; N. Davison, 'Absalomfili mi Reconsidered', in TVNM 46 (1996), 42-56.
2 The 'Josquin' sources are Selectissimae necnon familiarissimae cantiones [...] (Augsburg: M.
Kriesstein 1540 = RISM 15407), Tabulaturbuch auff die Lauten [...] durch Sebastian Ochsen-
khun (Heidelberg: J. Kohlen 1558 = RISM 1558220) and Tertia pars magni operis musici [...]
(Niirnberg: Montanus & Neuber 1559 = RISM 15592); on their interdependency see
Rifkin, 'Problems of Authorship', 48.
3 All the works in the original layer of this collection are without attribution.
4 With the exception of this collection, all manuscripts cited in this article will be identified
by an expanded form (city names will be given in full) of the sigla found in Census-Catalogue
of Manuscript Sources of Polyphonic Music 1400-1550, edd. H. Kellman & C. Hamm
(Neuhausen-Stuttgart 1979-1988). Renaissance Manuscript Studies 1, 5 vols.
5 H. Kellman, Introduction to London, British Library, MS Royal 8 G. vii, Renaissance Music
in Facsimile 9 (New York & London 1987), vii. Charles, at that time underage ruler of
Habsburg-Burgundy, is referred to in much of this article as Charles V even though he did
not attain that title until becoming Holy Roman Emperor in 1519.
6 Ibid.

7 Henry was only truly free to marry her after the death of his father on 22 April
and even then his decision to wed Katherine came without warning. See J.J. S
Henry VIII (Berkeley & Los Angeles 1968), 12.
8 On 17 December 1508; see H. Wiesflecker, Maximilian I. (Wien & Miinchen
Charles was later engaged to another Mary, this time Henry's daughter.
9 Mary was wed to Louis XII by proxy in August, but relations between the cou
deteriorating since March when both Emperor Maximilian and Ferdinand of S
their treaty with England of the previous October.
10 Numbers are from H. Meconi, The Manuscripts of the Habsburg-Burgundi
progress. The La Rue figure is actually rather conservative and would be much h
it to include the numerous anonymous chansons in BrusselsBR 228 and elsew
many scholars think are by the composer.
11 Davison, 'Absalomfili mi Reconsidered', 42.
12 Mentioned in H. Meconi, 'Poliziano, Primavera, and Perugia 431. New Light
desperata', in Antoine Busnoys, ed. P.M. Higgins (Oxford: Oxford University Pre
coming), 495, and discussed in detail in M.J. Bloxam, 'The Missa Mater Pat
sidered', paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Musicologic
November 1995.

13 See P. Macey, 'Josquin as Classic. Qui habitat, Memor esto, and Two Imitations Unmasked', in
JRMA 118 (1993), 1-43.
14 See P. Macey, 'Celi enarrant. An Inauthentic Psalm Motet Attributed to Josquin', in
Proceedings of the InternationalJosquin Symposium, Utrecht 1986, 25-44.
15 G. Reese &J. Noble, 'Josquin Desprez', NGD, ed. S. Sadie (London 1980).

25

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
16 On these works see H. Meconi, Style and Authenticity in the Secular Music of Pierre de la Rue
(Ph.D. Diss., Harvard University 1986), 120-121, 124-128, and 144-146.
17 See Meconi, 'Poliziano, Primavera, and Perugia 431'.
18 See H. Meconi, Introduction to Basevi Codex. Florence, Biblioteca del Conservatorio, MS 2439
(Peer 1990), 10-14 for a list of unique attributions in FlorenceC 2439.
19 See M. Picker, 'Three Unidentified Chansons by Pierre de la Rue', in MQ 46 (1960), 334.
20 See M. Picker, The Chanson Albums ofMarguerite of Austria (Berkeley & Los Angeles 1965);
L.E Bernstein, 'Chansons Attributed to Both Josquin des Prez and Pierre de la Rue. A
Problem in Establishing Authenticity', in Proceedings of the InternationalJosquin Symposium,
Utrecht 1986, 125-152; andJ. Milsom, Review of Pierre de la Rue, Opera omnia, Vols. 2-3,
in EMu 21 (1993), 479-482.
21 On Cent mille regretz as La Rue's see Meconi, Style and Authenticity, 143-144; and Bernstein,
'Chansons Attributed to Both Josquin des Prez and Pierre de la Rue'.
22 Van Benthem, 'Lazarus versus Absalon', 61, noted the apparent reluctance of the editors of
the original Josquin edition to publish the work.
23 I argue this point in H. Meconi, 'Sacred Tricinia and Basevi 2439', in I Tatti Studies 4 (1991),
151-199 and again in 'French Print Chansons and Pierre de la Rue. A Case Study in
Authenticity', in Music in Renaissance Cities and Courts. Studies in Honor of Lewis Lockwood,
edd. J.A. Owens & A. Cummings (Warren, Michigan 1996), 187-214.
24 Davison, 'Absalomfili mi Reconsidered', 43.
25 See D. Fallows, 'Josquin and Milan', in Plainsong and Medieval Music 5 (1996), 69-80; and A.
Roth, 'Judocus de Kessalia, Judocus de Pratis, and Johannes de Prato', paper presented at
Annual Meeting of the American Musicological Society, November 1996. After this article
was written, Paul Merkley and Lora Matthews presented documentation (at both the
International Musicological Society Meeting in London, August 1997, and the Annual
Meeting of the American Musicological Society, October 1997) for two Josquins, both in
Milan, one of whom was the composer.
26 P.E Starr, 'Josquin, Rome, and a Case of Mistaken Identity', in Journal of Musicology 15
(1997), 43-65.
27 Davison, 'Absalomfili mi Reconsidered', 43.
28 See the stemma given in P. de la Rue, Opera omnia, edd. N.St.J. Davison, J.E. Kreider, &
T.H. Keahey (Neuhausen-Stuttgart 1989- ). Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae 97 (7 vols.
to date), Vol. 5, xlix.
29 See Census-Catalogue, Vol. 4, 143.
30 Davison, 'Absalomfili mi Reconsidered', 44.
31 Ilfault morir, cited ibid., 55, as an example of a La Rue work with a low range, is not by the
composer at all; see Meconi, Style and Authenticity, 145-146.
32 For a discussion of low ranges in preceding generations, see K. Kreitner, 'Very Low Ranges
in the Sacred Music of Ockeghem and Tinctoris', in EMu 14 (1986), 467-479. Moulu goes
a half step lower than La Rue, to A,, in his motet-chanson Fiere attropos/Anxiatus est in me,
but this is given as an optional note and appears exclusively in the final sonority. The B,-flat
above that is not used. No composer explores low ranges to the extent that La Rue does.
33 His Requiem Mass (the textual motivation is clear here) and Pourquoy non, which is a
precursor to Absalon in many significant ways.
34 Low B,-flat appears in Tinctoris's Missa trium vocum.
35 Davison, 'Absalomfili mi Reconsidered', 44.

26

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
36 The retention of the low B,-flat in a manuscript intended for use outside court circles also
suggests that the scribe shrank from altering the pitch (to the more easily performed upper
octave) because it was such a necessary one; the upper octave was not even included as a
second option.
37 Davison, 'Absalomfili mi Reconsidered', 44.
38 See E.E. Lowinsky, 'Josquin des Prez and Ascanio Sforza', in II Duomo di Milano. Congresso
Internazionale Milano, Museo della Scienza e della Tecnica, 8-12 Settembre 1968, 2 vols., ed.
M.L. Gatti Perer (Milan 1969), Vol. 2, 20.
39 Credo de villagiis, Pourquoy non, and the Introit and Kyrie of the Missa pro fidelibus defunctis.
40 Davison, 'Absalomfili mi Reconsidered', 45.
41 Ibid., 44.
42 On the problems surrounding BrusselsBR 11239's place of origin, see H. Meconi, 'Pierre
de la Rue and Secular Music at the Court of Marguerite of Austria', in aarboek van het
Vlaamse Centrum voor Oude. Muziek 3 (1987), 50; and eadem, Style and Authenticity, 43-45.
43 While the NewJosquin Edition presents variants in mensuration and proportion signs, the
La Rue Opera omnia does not.
44 My examination of the sources agrees with both Van Benthem and Rifkin on this point.
45 Davison, 'Absalomfili mi Reconsidered', 45.
46 La Rue's composition starts at a slightly later point in the text, hence the different title.
47 Davison, 'Absalomfili mi Reconsidered', 46.
48 Discussed in H. Meconi, Pierre de la Rue (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming).
49 See for example the comment that 'the most difficult of all [to underlay] in Marguerite's
albums is probably Pierre de la Rue, the composer closest to both her and her scribe', in W.
Edwards, 'Text Underlay in Marguerite of Austria's Chanson Album Brussel 228', in
Jaarboek van het Vlaamse Centrum voor Oude Muziek 3 (1987), 46.
50 Davison, 'Absalomfili mi Reconsidered', 46.
51 P. Macey, 'Josquin's Misericordias Domini and Louis XI', in EMu 19 (1991), 176.
52 In one of the lost partbooks of K6nigsbergSU 1740. I would like to thank Patrick Macey for
bringing this attribution to my attention.
53 After I had written this, Patrick Macey kindly informed me of L. Finscher's article on this
motet, 'Josquin Desprez, Dominus regnavit (Psalm 92)', in Chormusik und Analyse. Beitrige zur
Formanalyse und Interpretation mehrstimmiger Vokalmusik, 2 vols., ed. H. Poos (Mainz 1983),
Vol. 1, 67-75. Finscher concludes 'Ob diese Komposition wirklich von Josquin ist, steht
dahin: ihre Quellenlage spricht kaum daftir, und ihr Stil ist vielleicht ein wenig zu klar und
zu rational, eher der Stil einer humanistisch gebildeten, an Josquins Psalmkompositionen
bereits geschulten Generation' (75).
54 See Lowinsky's comments in Ottaviano Petrucci. Canti B Numero Cinquanta, Venice 1502, ed.
H. Hewitt, MRM 2 (Chicago & London 1967), xi.
55 On the text 'Domine Deus agnus dei filius patris'; see Van Benthem, 'Lazarus versus
Absalon', 66.
56 Davison, 'Absalomfili mi Reconsidered', 52.
57 For a detailed comparison between the two pieces see Meconi, 'Sacred Tricinia', 169-173;
Craen essentially cribbed La Rue's piece. La Rue inspired other borrowing as well: his
Flemish song Mijn hert prompted a group of derivative settings, while Gascongne used both
this work and Pourquoy non as mass models. La Rue's Missa deferia seems to have inspired

27

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Fevin's, and he was even credited in one early source (albeit probably erroneously) as the
composer of the well-known Een vrolic wesen. Absalon fili mi provided material for an
anonymous mass in BolognaSP 31.
58 Discussed in H. Meconi, 'Pierre de la Rue and the Early Parody Mass', paper presented at
Harvard University, October 1995. I am currently preparing this paper for publication.
59 See Meconi, Style and Authenticity, 88.
60 Davison, 'Absalomfili mi Reconsidered', 52.
61 Ibid., 54.
62 Anonymous in its sole source but convincingly La Rue's.
63 Discussed in Meconi, Pierre de la Rue.
64 Davison, 'Absalomfili mi Reconsidered', 52.
65 The La Rue Opera omnia is still in the process of publication, and many pieces were only
very recently made available in modern edition.
66 In terms of the quantity of chansons alone La Rue is exceeded in output in his generation
only by Agricola and Compare (both of whom are much less progressive in their writing),
and Josquin.
67 This collection is devoted exclusively to Josquin.
68 His MissaJesum liate, Magnificat tertii toni, and the motet Salve Jesu for six voices.
69 VaticanP 1976-9. The motets are Salve mater salvatoris, Delicta iuventutis, Considera Israel, and
Ave regina caelorum.
70 Leaving aside Absalon, La Rue's motets are Ave regina caelorum, Vexilla regis/Passio Domini,
and Doleo super te.
71 See Picker, Chanson Albums and Milsom, Review of Pierre de la Rue, Opera omnia.
72 I have undertaken a stylistic investigation of these works. Two motets in ViennaNB Mus.
15941 are anonymous, but these are less promising because that collection has far more
attributions in the manuscript.
73 Davison, 'Absalomfili mi Reconsidered', 53. I exclude the canonic Salve Regina.
74 Ibid., 54.
75 For a discussion of some of the problems concerning this relationship see M. Picker,
'Josquin and Jean Lemaire. Four Chansons Re-examined', in Essays Presented to Myron PI
Gilmore, 2 vols., edd. S. Bertelli & G. Ramakus (Firenze 1978) Vol. 2, 447-456.
76 See H. Kellman, 'Josquin and the Courts of the Netherlands and France. The Evidence of
the Sources', inJosquin des Prez. Proceedings of the InternationalJosquin Festival-Conference, edd.
E.E. Lowinsky & B.J. Blackburn (London etc. 1976), 181-216.
77 In his Nymphes des bois and Cueurs desolez.
78 On Fortuna desperata see Meconi, 'Poliziano, Primavera, and Perugia 431'.
79 On art-song reworkings see Meconi, 'Art-Song Reworkings. An Overview', in]RMA 119
(1994), 1-42.
80 For Faulte d'argent see L.E Bernstein, 'Josquin's Chansons as Generic Paradigms', in Music in
Renaissance Cities and Courts, 35-55, esp. 51-55; for Ma bouche rit see idem, 'Ma bouche rit et

mon cueurlpleure. A Chanson a 5 Attributed to Josquin des Prez', in ournal of Musicology 12

(1994), 253-286.
81 See Bloxam, 'The Missa Mater Patris Reconsidered'.
82 On Nymphes des bois and its relation to Ockeghem see H. Meconi, 'Ockeghem and the
Motet-Chanson in Fifteenth-Century France', in Actes du Colloque Ockeghem, edd. J.-M.

Vaccaro & P. Vendrix (Tours: Centre d'Etudes Supbrieures de la Renaissance, forthcoming).

28

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
83 As Rifkin, 'Problems of Authorship', 52, notes, the motets De profundis and Absolve,
quesumus, Domine have also been suggested as responses byJosquin to Philip's death. Neither
work sounds like La Rue.

84 These include betrothals or attempted betrothals between Henry VII and Marguerite,
Henry VIII and Charles's sister Eleanor, Charles and Henry VIII's sister Mary Tudor, and
Charles and Henry VIII's daughter Mary.
85 Jaap van Benthem has presented an intriguing hypothesis (Van Benthem, 'Lazarus versus
Absalon', 69) that Pourquoy non was meant for Marguerite after the death of her husband
Juan. While this idea accords well with the first three lines of the chanson 'Pourquoy non ne
veuilje morir/Pourquoy non ne doyje guerir/La fin de ma doulente vie' (Why don't I want
to die? Why shouldn't I seek the end of my sorrowful life?) it fails to account for the
conventional courtly ethos of the final two lines 'Quant j'aime qui ne m'aime mye/Et sers
sans guerdon acquerir' (When I love someone who doesn't love me/And I serve without
obtaining a reward?).
86 Kellman, Introduction to London, British Library, MS Royal 8 G. vii, vi-vii, notes that the
three motets appearing after Absalon are in a different scribal hand, though they were added
before the manuscript left the court scriptorium. As Kellman points out, this final fascicle
does not match the plans of the earlier gatherings, other evidence for its being an
afterthought.
87 See Kellman, ibid., for some discussion of the manuscript's contents.
88 See F Tirro, 'Royal 8.G.vii. Strawberry Leaves, Single Arch, and Wrong-Way Lions', in
MQ 67 (1981), 24.
89 See Kellman, Introduction to London, British Library, MS Royal 8 G. vii, vi.
90 See La Rue, Opera omnia, Vol. 9, xliv.
91 Van Benthem, 'Lazarus versus Absalon', 69.
92 See M. Picker, 'Musical Laments for King Philip of Castile and His Musician Alexander
Agricola', in Revista de Musicologia 16 (1993), 2684-2695, for this suggestion.
93 Earlier in the motet is the text 'Jonathan in excelsis tuis occisus est' (Jonathan, thou wast slain
in high places), an obvious reference to Philip's death while technically a guest of King
Ferdinand in Spain.
94 The dating is discussed in my study on the motet-chanson, in progress.
95 For more on this work and the dating of its revision see Meconi, 'Sacred Tricinia', 155-158.
96 This date is sometimes mistakenly given as August 23.
97 On La Rue's interest in money and concern for his family, see H. Meconi, 'Free from the
Crime of Venus. The Biography of Pierre de la Rue', in Revista de Musicologia (1993),
2673-2683 as well as eadem, Pierre de la Rue.
98 Meconi, 'Free from the Crime of Venus'.
99 Although La Rue was technically hired by Maximilian, it was specifically to build up the
chapel for the attainment of Philip's majority in the following year. Philip, as a minor, was
dependent upon Maximilian for the administration of the court at this time.
100 Absalon's short text is cobbled together from three separate biblical passages, in each case a
father lamenting the loss of a son; see Lowinsky, 'Josquin des Prez and Ascanio Sforza', 20,
and Van Benthem, 'Lazarus versus Absalon', 62. Could this suggest the hand of a (poetic)
amateur, possibly La Rue himself?
101 For details see Meconi, Pierre de la Rue.
102 Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.

29

This content downloaded from

179.97.99.251 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:44:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms