No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 September 2016
Frank Dobbins in memoriam
In 1976 Louise Litterick proposed that Cambridge, Magdalene College, Pepys Library MS 1760 was originally prepared for Louis XII and Anne of Brittany of France but was gifted to Henry VIII of England in 1509. That the manuscript actually was prepared as a wedding gift from Louis to his third wife Mary Tudor in 1514, however, is indicated by its decorative and textual imagery, which mirrors the decoration of a book of hours given by Louis to Mary and the textual imagery used in her four royal entries. Analysis of the manuscript’s tabula and texts suggests that MS 1760 was planned by Louis’s chapelmaster Hilaire Bernonneau (d. 1524) at the king’s behest. The new theory elucidates the content and significance of Gascongne’s twelve-voice canon Ista est speciosa, which appeared beneath an original portrait of Mary Tudor and was intended to mirror the perfection of the Blessed Virgin and her ‘godchild’ Mary.
1 A facsimile edition of Pepys MS 1760 was published by Howard Mayer Brown in 1988 as volume 2 in his series Renaissance Music Sources in Facsimile (New York, 1988). More recently the manuscript has been published online in colour by the Digital Image Archive of Medieval Music (DIAMM), which may be seen at www.diamm.ac.uk/jsp/Descriptions?op=SOURCE&sourceKey=1671#imageList. The images are used here by permission of the Pepys Library, Cambridge University. Much of the relevant scholarly literature pertaining to the dating and provenance of the manuscript is identified in its entry in the Census-Catalogue of Manuscript Sources of Polyphonic Music 1400–1550, Renaissance Manuscript Studies, 1, gen. ed. C. Hamm, University of Illinois Musicological Archives for Renaissance Manuscript Studies, 5 vols. (Neuhausen-Stuttgart, 1979–88). All music manuscripts mentioned in this article are cited according to their sigla in the Census-Catalogue. The sigla of printed books refers to the listing in Recueils imprimés XVI e –XVII e siècles, ed. F. Lesure (Répertoire international des sources musicales; Munich-Duisberg, 1960).
2 The Pepys Library at Magdalene College, Cambridge is of considerable importance for scholars in many disciplines, and has been widely discussed in the scholarly literature. The entire contents of the library are exhaustively catalogued and described in Pepys Library, Catalogue of the Pepys Library at Magdalene College, Cambridge, gen. ed. R. Latham, 7 vols. (Cambridge, 1978–92). The principal description of MS 1760 is in volume 4 of this series. An earlier published catalogue of the portion of the collection including Pepys 1760 appears in James, M. R., Bibliotheca Pepysiana: A Descriptive Catalogue of the Library of Samuel Pepys, Part 3, Mediaeval Manuscripts (London, 1923)Google Scholar. A pictorial introduction to the Pepys Library and a useful discussion of its history appears in Hobson, A., Great Libraries (New York, 1970), pp. 213–221 Google Scholar.
3 It is not clear if the music and text were written by the same or different scribes. All the music appears to have been copied by a single hand, and all the texts appear to have been copied by a single hand, but the music clefs clearly were written with a pen having a wider nib than the pen used for the texts (my thanks to Bonnie Blackburn for pointing this out). The text hand used throughout the MS includes elements found in both bâtarde handwriting and humanistic book script. Humanistic elements include, among others, straight-backed d; use of tall s; roundness of aspect, well-separated letters; use of two-compartment g; and the use of the ct ligature. For examples of batârde and humanistic book scripts, see Brown, M. P., A Guide to Western Historical Scripts from Antiquity to 1600 (London, 1990), pp. 108–111 Google Scholar, 126–7 and 130–1. Fenlon, Iain stated that MS 1760 was written by a single hand throughout in his description of the manuscript in Cambridge Music Manuscripts, 900–1700 (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 123–126 Google Scholar. He described the script as ‘a finely formed bâtarde hand’.
4 The most thorough analysis in print of the meagre evidence pertaining to Févin’s biography and the de Févin family of Arras remains Clinkscale, E., ‘The Complete Works of Antoine de Févin’ (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1965), pp. 1–25 Google Scholar. Archival evidence placing Févin in Blois in 1506 appeared in Dumitrescu, T., ‘The Chapel Musicians of Louis XII and Anne de Bretagne at Blois: New Documents, New Singers, and a Prioris Problem’, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Musicological Society, Québec City (Nov. 2007)Google Scholar.
5 For example, his motet Caro mea vero est cibus appears to have been composed in 1512–13 as a royal response to Louis XII’s excommunication by Pope Julius II; Christus vincit Christus regnat sets a version of the Laudes regiae, a text recited at Francis I’s coronation in Jan. 1515; and the militaristic text of Deus regnorum, which begs God to give peace and ‘da servo tuo Francisco regi nostro de hoste triumphum’ may well have been inspired by Francis’s victorious Italian campaign of 1515–16. Concerning Caro mea see Brobeck, J. T., ‘Style and Authenticity in the Motets of Claudin de Sermisy’, Journal of Musicology, 16 (1998), pp. 26–90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at pp. 60–2. For discussion of the style of Gascongne’s motets and an alphabetical list of concordant sources by piece see Brobeck, , ‘The Motet at the Court of Francis I’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1991), pp. 467–491 Google Scholar. Colin, M.-A., ‘The Motets of Mathieu Gascongne: A Preliminary Report’, in T. Schmidt-Beste (ed.), The Motet around 1500: On the Relationship of Imitation and Text Treatment? (Turnhout, 2012), pp. 335–381 Google Scholar provides a detailed discussion of the motet texts and an updated list of concordant sources that is arranged chronologically.
7 A corrected transcription of the names in the 1515 chapel list was first presented in Brobeck, ‘The Motet’, 17; additional discussion in Brobeck, , ‘Musical Patronage in the Royal Chapel of France under Francis I (r. 1515–1547)’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 48 (1995), pp. 187–239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at pp. 196–8. The unnamed maître de chapelle in the 1515 compte was correctly identified as Hilaire Bernonneau by Cazaux, Cristelle in La Musique à la cour de François Ier (Paris, 2002), pp. 71 Google Scholar, 343.
8 The 1517–18 chapel list was first described in Brobeck, ‘The Motet’, pp. 9–30, and is discussed and transcribed in Brobeck, ‘Musical Patronage’, pp. 190–201, 236–8. The chapel list is also transcribed in Cazaux, La Musique, pp. 237–39. Documents pertaining to Gascongne from the Sainte-Chapelle appear in Brenet, M., Les Musiciens de la Sainte-Chapelle (Paris, 1910, repr. Geneva, 1973), pp. 69–71 Google Scholar. Concerning Gascongne’s papal supplication, see Sherr, ‘The Membership of the Chapels’, p. 81.
9 The most complete summary of musical and archival evidence pertaining to Josquin’s biography appears in Fallows, D., Josquin (Centre d’études supérieures de la Renaissance, Collection Épitome musical; Turnhout, 2009)Google Scholar, passim.
10 Concerning Prioris, see Dumitrescu, T., ‘Who was Prioris? A Royal Composer Recovered’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 65 (2012), pp. 5–65 Google Scholar. For biographical information and scholarly literature on Mouton, Richafort and Robert de Févin, see the articles in Grove Music Online.
11 Bouquet, M.-T., ‘La cappella musicale dei duchi di Savoia dal 1450 al 1500’, Rivista Italiana di Musicologia, 3 (1968), pp. 233–285 Google Scholar. See also Wright, C., ‘Antoine Brumel and Patronage at Paris’, in I. Fenlon (ed.), Music in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Patronage, Sources and Texts (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 37–60 Google Scholar.
12 Archival documents placing this musician at the church of St-Sauveur in Blois, along with numerous other members of the royal chapel who held benefices there, are described in Dumitrescu, ‘The Chapel Musicians’.
13 In 1971 Edward Lowinsky suggested that the composer ‘Hyllayre’ was Hilaire Penet (b. 1501), a view countered by Lawrence F. Bernstein, who argued that the composer in MS 1760 was the Ferrarese singer Hilaire Tuleron ( Lowinsky, , ‘A Music Book for Anne Boleyn’, in J. G. Rowe and W. H. Stockdale (eds.), Florilegium historiale: Essays Presented to Wallace K. Ferguson (Toronto, 1971), pp. 161–235 Google Scholar, at pp. 162–4 (repr. in Lowinsky, E. E., Music in the Culture of the Renaissance, ed. B. J. Blackburn (Chicago, 1989), pp. 483–538 Google Scholar, at pp. 484–5); and Bernstein, , ‘ La Courone et fleur des chansons a troys: A Mirror of the French Chanson in Italy in the Years between Ottaviano Petrucci and Antonio Gardano’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 26 (1973), pp. 1–68 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 8, n. 31). Given the heavily French royal court orientation of the music in MS 1760, more recent scholarship has pointed to Hilaire Bernonneau as the author of this chanson. See Sherr, ‘The Membership of the Chapels’, pp. 61–4; Brobeck, ‘The Motet’, pp. 577–8; Brobeck, ‘Musical Patronage’, pp. 196–8, 238–9; Cazaux, La Musique, pp. 342–3; Dumitrescu, ‘Chapel Musicians’, and Dumitrescu, ‘Who was Prioris’, pp. 53–4. Il mest advis que je voy perrichon is attributed to ‘Antho. Fevin’ in HerdF 9821, fols. [281v–282v]. The most complete analysis of the Herdringen manuscript appears in Fallows, D., ‘The Content of the Herdringen Scores’, in M. J. Bloxam, G. Filocamo, and L. Holford-Strevens (eds.), Uno gentile et subtile ingenio: Studies in Renaissance Music in Honour of Bonnie J. Blackburn (Centre d’études supérieures de la Renaissance, Collection Épitome musical; Turnhout, 2009), pp. 217–232 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 On links between the ducal court of Lorraine and the French royal court, see Freedman, R., ‘Music, Musicians, and the House of Lorraine during the First Half of the Sixteenth Century’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1987)Google Scholar, and Freedman, , ‘The Chansons of Mathieu Lasson: Music at the Courts of Lorraine and France ca. 1530’, Journal of Musicology, 8 (1990), pp. 316–356 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 On the authorship of J’ayme bien mon amy, see Litterick, L., ‘Who Wrote Ninot’s Chansons?’, in R. Sherr (ed.), Papal Music and Musicians in Late Medieval and Renaissance Rome (Oxford and Washington, 1998), pp. 240–269 Google Scholar; and the Grove Music Online article on Ninot le Petit by D. Fallows and J. Dean. The chanson was not included in the Ninot le Petit opera omnia edition of Hudson, Barton, Ninot le Petit: Collected Works, ed. B. Hudson (Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae, 87; n.p., 1979)Google Scholar. My most sincere thanks go to Dr Julia Craig-McFeely, the Director and Project Manager of the Digital Image Archive of Medieval Music (DIAMM), who provided me with ultraviolet photographs of this and numerous other folios in MS 1760.
16 Brunet’s biography was first explored in detail in Reynolds, C., ‘Musical Careers, Ecclesiastical Benefices, and the Example of Johannes Brunet’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 37 (1984), pp. 49–97 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The biography and musical output of the composer named Johannes Brunet were re-evaluated in Dean, J., ‘Johannes Brunet and Nato canunt omnia ’, Revista de musicología, 16, no. 5, del XV Congreso de la Sociedad Internacional de Musicología: Culturas Musicales del Mediterráneo y sus Ramificaciones, 5 (1993), pp. 2656–2672 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17 The orthography of Boytel’s name in the tabula of MS 1760 requires comment, since the downward extender has been omitted from the ‘y’. A trace of the missing extender is clearly visible from an ultraviolet photograph of the tabula. For a similar ‘y’ in the tabula without a downward extender see the orthography of On a mal dit de mon amy on fol. 3r. Concerning the Jean Boitel who was a vicar of Tours, see Tours, Archives Départementales, 37, Cote: G/1023 (www.bvh.univ-tours.fr/Minutes/resrecherche.asp?motclef=lad&offset=120). The name Jean Boitel was not uncommon during the first half of the sixteenth century. An individual named Boitel, Jean wrote Coustumes generalles du bailliage d’Amiens avec celles des prevostez de Monstroeul, Beauquesne, Foullois, Saint Riquier, Doullens et Beauvoisis nouvellement publiées (Paris, 1516)Google Scholar. This Jean Boitel was a greffier in the bailliage of Amiens in 1507. See Manuscrits de Pagès, marchand d’Amiens, écrits à la fin du 17e et au commencencement du 18e siècle sur Amiens et la Picardie, i, ed. L. Douchet (Amiens, 1856), p. 477. Another Johannes Boytel served as a perpetual vicar at the altar of the Holy Cross and Saints Philip and James Apostles in the church of Saint Mary the Virgin in Prempfzlow, Pomerania, in 1493 ( Klempin, R., Diplomatische Beiträge zur Geschichte Pommerns aus der Zeit Bogislafs X (Berlin, 1859), pp. 91 Google Scholar, 182). Finally, in 1541 a ‘Jean Boitel’ prepared a compte of ‘cens et rentes’ due to the Abbey of St-Éloi of Noyon for the abbé commendataire, the Cardinal de Tournon, who also was serving as the maître de chapelle for the French royal chapel at that time (Inventaire sommaire des Archives Departementales antérieures à 1790, Oise, Archives ecclésiastiques, série H, ii, ed. E. Roussel (Beauvais, 1897), p. 142).
18 The other four manuscripts are FlorBN Magl. 117, LonBLH 5242, FlorBN II.I.232 and FlorL 666. The latter two manuscripts appear on this list because they contain all five motets in Josquin’s O admirabile commercium cycle. Concerning the dating and provenance of the manuscript sources mentioned here and in the Appendix, see the literature cited in the Census-Catalogue and also Christoffersen, P. W., French Music in the Early Sixteenth Century: Studies in the Music Collection of a Copyist of Lyons; The Manuscript ‘Ny kgl. Samling 1848 2o in the Royal Library, Copenhagen (Copenhagen, 1994)Google Scholar; Cristoffersen, ‘The Uppsala Chansonnier MS 76a: Dating and Function’ (http://uppsala.pwch.dk/Dating.html); Kraft, I., Einstimmigkeit um 1500: Der Chansonnier Paris, BnF f. fr. 12744 (Beihefte zum Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 64; Wiesbaden, 2009), p. 69 Google Scholar; and Joshua Rifkin’s review of Kraft’s work in Speculum, 86 (2011), pp. 516–18. Obrecht’s motet may have entered into French circulation during the final decade of the fifteenth century, to judge from an archival record from Antwerp discovered by Eugeen Schreurs revealing that Obrecht made an extended visit to France in 1492–3. See Wegman, R. C., Born for the Muses: The Life and Masses of Jacob Obrecht (Oxford, 1994), p. 310 Google Scholar, n. 54.
19 Kellman, ‘Musical Links between France and the Empire, 1500–1530’, paper read at the Annual Meeting of the American Musicological Society, Toronto, Canada, 1970. The precise significance of the ermine tail continuation signs has been questioned by Louise Litterick, who argued that their use in MS 1760 ‘cannot be considered more than incidental’ since ermine tails constitute a distinct minority of such signs in the manuscript ( Litterick, , ‘The Manuscript Royal 20.A.XVI of the British Library’ (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1976), p. 50 Google Scholar, n. 30). That the whole and half ermine tails in MS 1760 were not merely decorative, however, is suggested by the fact that they are the only continuation signs in the manuscript that employ imagery used in contemporaneous heraldry. The following seven continuation signs appear in MS 1760: three-leafed ivy (fols. XXVIIIv–XXIXr, XLVIIv–XLVIIIr, LXIv–LXIIr, LXVIIIv–LXIXr, LXXIIv–LXXIIIr, LXXVv–LXXVIr, LXXVIIIv–LXXIXr); full ermine tail (XXXv–XXXIr, XLIIIv–XLIIIIr, LIIIIv–LVr, LXVIIv–LXVIIIr); half ermine tail (XXXIXv–XXXIXr; XLVIIIv–XLIXr); three dots (XLv–XLIr); cross (LIv–LIIr), three white rectangles (LIIv–LIIIr); and aix (LXXVIIv–LXXVIIIr).
20 Litterick, ‘The Manuscript Royal 20.A.XVI’, pp. 46–57. For an introduction to Bourdichon’s biography and works, see Gibbon, D. Mac, Jean Bourdichon: A Court Painter of the Fifteenth Century (Glasgow, 1933)Google Scholar. Concerning MS Latin 9474, see Harthan, J. P., Books of Hours: With Historical Survey and Commentary (London [c1977], repr. New York, ), pp. 128–133 Google Scholar. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France (hereafter BnF), lat. 9474 has been published online by the Bibliothèque nationale de France at http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b52500984v/f1.item, and is published here by permission.
21 The image is taken from http://bvmm.irht.cnrs.fr/consult/consult.php?VUE_ID=1333077, and is published here by permission of the Bibliothèque municipale de Lyon.
22 Harthan, Books of Hours, p. 128.
23 The following folios in Anne’s book depict plants painted on fol. IIr of MS 1760: fol. 27v, forget-me-nots; fol. 34r, hazelnut; fol. 48r, chickpea; fol. 54r, strawberry plant. Two dragonflies appear on fol. 34r along with the hazelnut.
24 The two varieties of forget-me-nots, ‘Ne me obliez mie’ and ‘Souviens vous de moy’, may be found on fols. 27v and 29v in the Grandes heures. Fol. 8r of Mary’s book also has a starflower and a daisy at the bottom of the page, which appear in the Grandes heures on fols. 18r and 44v respectively. The majuscules on fols. 31v, 43r, 52r, 54v, 64r, 82v and 93r of Mary’s book look like Bourdichon’s work. This manuscript is discussed in Wieck, R. S., ‘The Artist Jean Poyet and his Oeuvre’, in The Hours of Henry VIII: A Renaissance Masterpiece by Jean Poyet, ed. R. Wieck, W. M. Voelkle, and K. M. Hearne (New York, 2000), pp. 26–27 Google Scholar. It is published in Bibliothèque virtuelle des manuscrits médiévaux (http://bvmm.irht.cnrs.fr/consult/consult.php?COMPOSITION_ID=7232&corpus=decor&page=).
25 Wieck, ‘The Artist Jean Poyet’, pp. 26–7. The two inscriptions are on fols. 36r and 95r.
26 Woodfield marshalled much of the evidence linking MS 1760 to the English royal court in his 1973 MMus dissertation ‘The Pepys Manuscript 1760: A Critical Study of the Manuscript and its Origins, and a Transcription on the Works of Matthieu Gascogne Contained Therein’ (MMus, University of London, King’s College, 1973). I am indebted to Prof. Woodfield for generously sending me a copy of his master’s document, which sparked my own thinking about the history of the manuscript after its arrival at the English court. Since my copy of his study does not have pagination, I have added my own page numbers when referring to this source. The opening flyleaves of MS 1760 provide three early crossed-out shelf numbers for the manuscript, ‘No. 1281’ (1542 Westminster Palace Library number), ‘973B’ (original Pepys number) and ‘1065’ (1693 Pepys catalogue number). Although the original 1693 catalogue is no longer extant, that 1065 was the 1693 number is indicated by Pepys’s 1700 catalogue, the catalogue Supellex Literaria Samuelis Pepys, which provides both 1693 and 1700 numbers. See the facsimile edition of the 1700 catalogue in Catalogue of the Pepys Collection, vii, pts. 1–2. MS 1760 references occur on pp. 89 and 161 of pt. 1 and pt. 2, p. 177.
27 Henry VIII’s libraries have been comprehensively catalogued and evaluated in several works written by Carley, J. P., including The Libraries of King Henry VIII (London, 2000)Google Scholar and The Books of King Henry VIII and his Wives (London, 2004). The 1542 library inventory is described and the contents of the Westminster Library are catalogued in The Libraries, pp. 30–226. Carley describes Pepys 1760 as a part of Henry’s library in The Books of King Henry VIII, pp. 21–2.
28 Woodfield, ‘The Pepys Manuscript’, pp. –. Carley, The Libraries, p. 213. MS 1760 and LonBLR 20 A. xvi are listed on p. 213 of Carley’s catalogue. Carley suggests that these manuscripts correspond to ‘No. 37’ of the 1542 inventory, ‘A pricke songe booke of masses and anthemes’ (Carley, The Libraries, pp. 38 and 213). For a photograph of a very similar shelf number from the Westminster library c. 1548, see Carley, J. P., ‘The Royal Library under Henry VIII’, ch. 13 of L. Hellinga and J. B. Trapp (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain (Cambridge, 1999), p. 276 Google Scholar. Photographs of other royal manuscripts containing old royal library shelf numbers from the 1540s or earlier may be found in British Library, Digitised Manuscripts (www.bl.uk/manuscripts/). See, for example, Royal MS 20 B. xx, ‘no. 475’; Royal MS 19 B. xv, ‘no. 22’; Royal MS 19 C. iv, ‘no. 437’; Royal MS 16 C. ix, ‘no. 1414’; and Royal MS 20 A. ii, ‘no. 1046’.
29 Bernstein, ‘La Courone et fleur’, p. 8, n. 31. Bernstein drew his information concerning Henry VIII’s heraldry from C. Davenport, English Heraldic Book Stamps (London, 1909), p. 220. The heraldry in MS 1760 must refer to a king and not a Prince of Wales, since Henry VIII’s arms while he was Prince of Wales (1502–9) included a label of three points argent over quarterly France and England. See J. H. and Pinches, R. V., The Royal Heraldry of England (London, 1974), p. 139 Google Scholar. Lowinsky was the first to observe that the arms must be those of the king and not the Prince of Wales (‘A Music Book for Anne Boleyn’, pp. 162–4).
30 In Bernard’s entry 6806 is his catalogue number for the Pepys Library and 87 is his number for MS 1760.
31 Pepys’s relationship with the compilers of Bernard’s catalogue and some of the correspondence concerning his contribution are discussed in The Catalogue of the Pepys Library at Magdalene College Cambridge, v: Manuscripts, pt. 1: Medieval, compiled by R. McKitterick and R. Beadle (Cambridge, 1992), p. xi; see also vii, pt. 1, p. xxvi. Other letters of Pepys to friends from 1694 concerning the catalogue appear in Letters and the Second Diary of Samuel Pepys, ed. R. G. Howarth (London, Toronto and New York, 1933), pp. 244–51. Concerning the biographies of Gibson, Bernard and Charlett, see the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB; www.oxforddnb.com).
32 Woodfield, ‘The Pepys Manuscript’, pp. –.
33 Ibid. The originals quoted by Woodfield may be viewed in Burney, A General History of Music, bk. 2 (1782) (http://javanese.IMSLP.info/files/imglnks/usimg/5/55/IMSLP72267-PMLP144843-Burney.pdf): ‘In the music book of Prince Henry afterwards Henry VIII., which is preserved in the Pepys collection at Cambridge, there are several of his [Josquin’s] compositions’ (p. 738); ibid., ‘About the first year of Henry the Sixth, 1422, French and English seem pretty equally balanced, and to have been used indifferently; however, very little improvement was made in our language and versification from the time of Edward the Fourth, to that of Henry the Eighth. Indeed, few English songs are to be found, which were set to original music during that period; it having been the fashion for the great to sing none but French words, as appears by the Music Book of Prince Henry, son of Henry the Seventh, in which all the songs are in French, Italian, or Latin’ (p. 784). A third citation of MS 1760 appears in the next volume of Burney’s history, which was published in 1789: ‘John Richefort, or Ricciafort, is placed by Walther in the middle of the sixteenth century; but he was certainly a composer many years before that period, as we find his name not only in the second book of the Motetti de la Corona . . . but to a motet in a music-book, preserved at Cambridge, of Henry VIII, when prince of Wales’. Burney, A General History of Music, from the Earliest Ages to the Present Period (1789), critical notes by Frank Mercer (New York, 1935), ii, p. 246.
34 The following scholars have argued that MS 1760 was compiled for Arthur, Prince of Wales prior to his death in 1502: Merritt, A. T., ‘A Chanson Sequence by Fevin’, in Essays on Music in Honor of Archibald Thompson Davison by his Associates (Cambridge, Mass., 1957), pp. 91–99 Google Scholar; Braithwaite, J. R., ‘The Introduction of Franco-Netherlandish Manuscripts to Early Tudor England: The Motet Repertory’ (Ph.D. diss., Boston University, 1967), i, pp. 54–55 Google Scholar; ii, passim; v, pp. 79–200; and Charles, S. R., ‘Hillary-Hyllayre: How Many Composers?’, Music & Letters, 55 (1974), pp. 61–69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
35 Concerning Anne Stanhope Seymour, see Alford, S., Kingship and Politics in the Reign of Edward VI (Cambridge, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pollard, A. F., England under Protector Somerset: An Essay (London, 1900; repr. New York, 1966), pp. 16 Google Scholar, 92, 112n., 182, 285n., 289, 319n.; and C. Armbruster, ‘A Woman for Many Imperfections Intolerable: Anne Stanhope, the Seymour Family, and the Tudor Court’ (Master’s thesis, Louisiana State University, 2013) (http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-11072013-100517/unrestricted/armbruster_thesis.pdf).
36 The will is transcribed in Higginbotham, S., ‘The Last Will of Anne Stanhope, Duchess of Somerset’, www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/the-last-will-of-anne-stanhope-duchess-of-somerset/ Google Scholar. On Honora Rogers and Edward Seymour, Viscount Beauchamp, see the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, s.v. ‘Edward Seymour’ (www.oxforddnb.com).
37 Much of the evidence presented in this paragraph has been drawn from Litterick, ‘The Manuscript Royal 20.A.XVI’, pp. 46–57.
38 Figure 4b is taken from www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/406784/the-battle-of-the-spurs. Detail from Anon., Flemish School (c. 1513), the British Royal Collection. Royal Collection Trust / © her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II 2016.
39 See Paris, BN MS f. fr. 19819, fol. 1r (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8427226q/f9.image).
40 The only way to see the overpainted portion of the inscription on fol. 2v is to look at the back side of the tabula folio (fol. 2r) under ultraviolet light, as appears in Figure 5(c). The image has been flipped so that the overpainted text can be read as if one were reading it from fol. 2v. Most of the overpainted text is illegible, but a word that might be ‘Celestis’ appears underneath the red dragon, and what may be ‘egregie’ is visible under the right side of the garter on the same line. Ian Woodfield was the first to employ ultraviolet photography to examine the overpainting and erasures in MS 1760.
41 Litterick, ‘The Manuscript Royal 20.A.XVI’, pp. 48, 51.
42 Ibid., p. 48. For a roughly contemporaneous depiction of the royal arms that is more accurate than the Pepys MS but still presents errors in the royal crown see the opening folio of LonBLR 8 G. vii, a music manuscript created in the workshop of Petrus Alamire in Mechelen at the behest of Margaret of Austria that probably was presented to Henry VIII and his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, between 1513 and 1525. See the Census-Catalogue entry and also British Library, Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts, Royal 8 G. vii (www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/record.asp?MSID=6516&CollID=16&NStart=80707).
43 See British Library, Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts, Royal 17 F. v (www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/record.asp?MSID=7687&CollID=16&NStart=170605). This heraldry obviously does not include the dragon and greyhound supporters, but it does have the looped Garter and the alternating fleurs-de-lis/crosses-pattée. The dragon and hound figures are often omitted from heraldry on Henry VII’s and Henry VIII’s manuscripts in the Royal Collection of the British Library.
44 Lowinsky, ‘A Music Book for Anne Boleyn’, pp. 162–4.
45 Bernstein, ‘La Courone et fleur’, pp. 8, 13.
46 Litterick, ‘The Manuscript Royal 20.A.XVI’, pp. 46–57.
47 Fenlon, Cambridge Music Manuscripts, p. 125.
48 Brobeck, ‘A Missing Portrait and Mathieu Gascongne’s Canonic Motet Ista est speciosa: New Evidence for a Reinterpretation of the Origins of Pepys MS 1760’, paper read at the Annual Meeting of the American Musicological Society, Québec, Canada, 2007. Also presented at the Annual Meeting of the Central Renaissance Conference, San Antonio, Tex. (2007) and the Annual Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Chapter of the American Musicological Society, University of Denver (Apr. 2006). Frank Dobbins outlined his theory of the manuscript to me in an email dated 20 Apr. 2007: ‘My ideas on Pepys 1760 were outlined in Medieval and Renaissance Music conference at Cambridge in 2006 in the context of an edition of Harley 5242 which I have prepared for RRMR. Basically they revolve around the illumination and repertoire which suggest that the ms was compiled at Blois for Louis XII, who offers it as wedding gift to Mary Tudor, who brings it to England, passes it to her brother, whence it is further decorated and offered to Jane Seymour.’ Prof. Dobbins and I independently arrived at the conclusion that MS 1760 was prepared by Louis XII for Mary Tudor in 2005–6.
49 Robinson, Alexander, ‘Le Manuscrit “Magdalene College Pepys 1760” de Cambridge: Un miroir de la cour française pendant le règne de Louis XII (1498–1515)’ (Master 2 diss., Université Paris IV Sorbonne, 2009)Google Scholar. I am grateful to Mr Robinson for graciously sharing his dissertation with me in the summer of 2014, after I had been unable to obtain a copy of the document.
50 There are only seven staves on fol. IIr because of the bottom gold decorative border, though the registration of the staves on the page precisely mirrors the stave registration on all other folios in the eleven quaternion gatherings except for fol. Iv.
51 When one opens MS 1760 to the end of gathering 5 at fol. XXXIXv and the beginning of gathering 6 at fol. XXXIXr, there is a clear space between the gatherings sufficient to allow the reader to see all the way through to the back of the spine of the book. One can get some sense of this gap by looking at the DIAMM slide for fol. XXXIXv, in which one can clearly see the gap as well as the threads used to bind the gatherings to the spine.
52 On several verso pages in gatherings 1–5 blank spaces for initials on stave 5 have been filled in by hand, i.e., fols. XXXv, XXXVIIIv and XXXIXv. These spaces also have been filled in by hand in gathering 11 on fol. iiiiXXIIIIv and fol. iiiiXXIIIv, where three majuscules were needed on staves 1, 4 and 7 for Richafort’s a 5 D’amours je suys desheritée.
53 See, for example, fol. XXXIXv, staves 6–7 missing; fol. XLv, stave 7 missing; fol. XLIv, staves 6–7 missing.
54 For a listing of the continuation signs in MS 1760, see above, n. 19. Tenor or bass parts for three-voiced works are completed on the preceding verso pages on fols. XXVIIIv, XXIXv, XXXIXv, XLv, XLIIIv, XLVIIv, XLVIIIv, LIv, LIIv, LIIIIv, LXIv, LXVIIv, LXVIIIv, LXXIIv, LXXVv, LXXVIIv and LXXVIIIv.
55 Illuminations slightly overpaint music or text on fols. Vv, XIv, XIVr, XIVv, XVv, XXr, XXIIr, XXIIIr, XXIIIIr, XXVIr, XXXVIv, XLv and XLIr.
56 This was recently suggested by Alexander Robinson in ‘Le Manuscrit’, 54–69.
58 The following illuminated manuscripts in the Royal Collection of the British Library, among others, contain portraits of English monarchs and members of the royal family: Royal 1 C. v; Royal 2 A. xvi; Royal 2 A. xix; Royal 2 V. i; Royal 12 B. vi; Royal 15 E. iv; Royal 15 E. vi; Royal 17 D. iii; Royal 18 E. ii; Royal 19 A. v; Royal 19 A. xxii; Royal 19 C. vi; Royal 19 C. viii; Royal 20 A. ii; Royal 20 B. iv; and Royal 20 B. vi (see the British Library websites www.bl.uk/manuscripts/ and www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/welcome.htm). A review of the sixteen extant music manuscripts identified by the Census-Catalogue as having originated in France between 1500 and 1525 (v, p. 278) indicates that Pepys 1760 is the only one that once contained a miniature portrait.
59 The following MSS from the Netherlands court complex of music manuscripts contain donor/owner portraits (see Kellman, H. (ed.), The Treasury of Petrus Alamire: Music and Art in Flemish Court Manuscripts 1500–1535 (Ghent and Amsterdam, 1999), pp. 67–167 Google Scholar): BrusBR 228; BrusBR 9126; BrusBR 15075; JenaU 3; JenaU 4; JenaU 5; MechAS s.s.; VatS 160; VienNB 1783; VienNB mus. 15495; and VienNB mus. 15947. The essays in Kellman’s volume describe all of the portrait subjects as ‘donors’, although it is clear from the discussion of the manuscripts that these ‘donors’ owned the manuscript in which their portrait appears.
60 Concerning the Hours of Louis XII, see the fascinating essays in Kern, T. and Evans, M. (eds.), A Masterpiece Reconstructed: The Hours of Louis XII (Los Angeles and London, 2005)Google Scholar. See also Backhouse, J., ‘Hours of Henry VII’, in T. Kren (ed.), Renaissance Painting in Manuscripts: Treasures from the British Library (New York, 1983), pp. 1–20 Google Scholar; and Avril, F. and Reynaud, N., Les Manuscrits à peintures en France 1440–1520 (Paris, 1993), pp. 294–296 Google Scholar. On the Hours of Charles VIII, see J. Backhouse, ‘Jean Bourdichon and the Hours of Louis XII’, in A Masterpiece Reconstructed, p. 7. Anne’s picture in the Grandes heures shows her in front, accompanied by her three patron saints, Ursula, Anne and Catherine. Louis XII’s hours show him with Saint Michael the Archangel, Charlemagne, Saint Louis and Saint Denis. The owner portrait in Charles VIII’s book of hours includes Charlemagne.
61 The following manuscripts from the Netherlands court complex discussed in Kellman, The Treasury of Petrus Alamire, have portraits and heraldry that agree: BrusBR 228; BrusBR 9126; BrusBR 15075; JenaU 3; JenaU 4 (which has ten donor/owner portraits and six coats of arms); JenaU 5; MechAS s.s. (which has a single portrait containing ten figures and four coats of arms); VienNB 1783; VienNB mus. 15495; and VienNB 15497. Kellman’s volume describes all of these manuscripts as the property of the subject or subjects depicted in the portrait(s). VatS 160, on the other hand, has a portrait of Pope Leo X (r. 1513–21) and his heraldry, but also heraldry from Portugal and Hungary. The addition of the latter emblems, which are associated with the Habsburgs, suggested to Flynn Warmington that the manuscript was a gift to Leo between 1513 and 1521 from Margaret of Austria or Archduke Charles (Kellman, The Treasury of Petrus Alamire, pp. 135–6).
62 See Backhouse, ‘Jean Bourdichon and the Hours of Louis XII’, pp. 7–9.
63 Alexander Robinson proposed that the Bernard catalogue description of the missing portrait as a ‘Prince of Wales’ was mistaken, and that the original portrait depicted Louis XII (Robinson, ‘Le Manuscrit’, pp. 63–9). This is contradicted by Burney’s testimony as well as the evidence adduced here suggesting that the original portrait depicted a woman.
64 On associations of the ladybird and butterfly with the Virgin Mary and marriage, see Sébillot, P., Le Folk-lore de France, iii: La faune et la flore (Paris, 1906), pp. 308 Google Scholar, 321–2. According to Sébillot, the ladybird traditionally was called bête du Paradis (creature of Paradise) in Hainaut and petite bête de la vierge (little creature of the Virgin) in Flanders. For more on European folk associations of the ladybird with the Virgin Mary, see Gradl, H., ‘Zur kunde deutscher Mundarten’, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete des Deutschen, Griechischen und Lateinischen, 19 (1870), p. 57 Google Scholar, and Pott, A. F., ‘Religiöse Beziehungen in Namen von Naturgegenständen’, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete des Deutschen, Griechischen und Lateinischen, 4 (1855), pp. 174–175 Google Scholar.
65 ‘R. Ista est speciosa in Ordine ad recipiendam processionaliter Imperatricem vel Reginam’. Marbach, C., Carmina scripturarum scilicet antiphonas et responsoria ex sacro scripturae fonte in libros liturgicos Sanctae Ecclesiae Romanae (Strasbourg, 1907; repr. Hildesheim and New York, 1994), p. 277 Google Scholar.
66 Processionale monasticum ad usum congregationis gallicae Ordinis Sancti Benedicti (Solesmes, 1893), pp. 312–13; Il ‘Pontificalis liber’ di Agostino Patrizi Piccolomini e Giovanni Burcardo (1485), ed. M. Sodi (Monumenta studia instrumenta liturgica; Vatican City, 2006), pp. 537–9.
67 The full passage reads as follows: ‘Ordo ad recipiendam processionaliter Imperatricem vel Reginam. Quando Imperatrix vel Regina ad aliquam urbem aut insigne oppidum venit. Clerus processionaliter obviam dat [sic] ei extra portam. Imperatrix vel Regina osculatur crucem que per prelatum sibi porrigitur. Deinde sub baldachino ducitur usque ad ecclesiam ordine consueto. Interim cantatur responsorium. Ista est speciosa inter filias hierusalem. Sicut vidisti eam plenam caritate et dilectione in cubilibus et in ortis aromatum. V. Ista est speciosa quae ascendit de deserto deliciis affluens. Sicut vidisti. V. Gloria patri. Sicut vidisti. Deinde cantentur hymni vel alia cantica magis placentia. Cum Imperatrix vel Regina ecclesiam intrat prelatus accepto aspersorio aspergat eam. Deinde alios in genere, et procedant usque ad altare maius. Coram quo Imperatrix vel Regina genuflectat super faldistorio ibidem sibi parato et oret. Prelatus vero ascendat ante idem altare. Ubi stans versus ad orantem, detecto capite dicat: V. Salvam fac ancillam tuam Domine. R. Deus meus sperantem in te. . . V. Dominus vobiscum. R. Et cum spiritu tuo. Oremus. Deus cuius providentia in sui dispositione non fallitur. Ineffabilem clementiam tuam supplices ex oramus ut sicut Hester Reginam Israelitice plebis causa salutis ad Regis Assueri thalamum, regnique sui consortium transire fecisti, ita hanc famulam tuam Christiane plebis salutis gratia, ad gratiam tuam transire facias ut tibi super omnia iugiter placere desideret, et te inspirante, que tibi placita sunt toto corde perficiat, et dextera tue potentie illam semper vicet ubique circumdet. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. R. Amen. Deinde prelatus si sit episcopus vel maior solemniter populo benedicat. Tum sacris dimissis vestibus, Imperatricem vel Reginam usque ad hospicium comitetur.’
68 Alexander Robinson suggested that Marian texts related to birth could have been included in MS 1760 in reference to Anne’s attempts to produce an heir; ‘Le Manuscrit’, pp. 59–63.
69 On the Angers pilgrimage see Bonime, S., ‘Anne de Bretagne (1477–1514) and Music’ (Ph.D. diss., Bryn Mawr College, 1975), pp. 73–75 Google Scholar; Brobeck, ‘The Motet’, pp. 204–6 and ‘Antoine de Févin and the Origins of the Parisian Motet’, in Schmidt-Beste, Thomas (ed.), The Motet around 1500: On the Relationship between Imitation and Text Treatment? (Centre d’études supérieures de la Renaissance, Collection Épitome musical; Turnhout, 2012), p. 320 Google Scholar. The presence of Adiutorium nostrum in MS 1760 forms an important part of Alexander Robinson’s argument that MS 1760 was originally prepared for Louis, then repurposed as a wedding gift to Mary Tudor.
70 On evidence linking Richafort to Louis XII and Anne of Brittany see the article on Richafort in Grove Music Online. The stillborn son of 1512 was Anne’s sixteenth and final pregnancy. Sufficiebat nobis quotes Tobias 5:25, 5:24 and 10:4, portions of the biblical account that stress the distress suffered by Anne the mother of Tobias fils when he left home in the company of the angel Raphael and was gone far longer than his parents expected. There is no reference in the motet text to the subsequent joyous homecoming of Tobias fils with his new wife Sara.
71 Baumgartner, F. J., Louis XII (New York, 1994), p. 235 Google Scholar, citing de Brantôme, P., Oeuvres complètes, ed. L. Lalanne (Paris, 1864–82), vii, pp. 328–329 Google Scholar. The most detailed description of Mary Tudor’s engagement and marriage to Louis XII appears in Sadlack, E. A., The French Queen’s Letters: Mary Tudor Brandon and the Politics of Marriage in Sixteenth-Century Europe (New York, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
72 Baumgartner, Louis XII, p. 236.
73 Sadlack, The French Queen’s Letters, p. 56.
74 Baumgartner, Louis XII, pp. 239, 206–7.
75 A convincing case has been made that an anonymous portrait of Louis XII now in the Royal Collection at Windsor Castle was the portrait brought over to England by Perréal (see below, Figure 9a). See Dupont, J., ‘A Portrait of Louis XII Attributed to Jean Perréal’, Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, 89, no. 534 (Sept. 1947), pp. 234–239 Google Scholar.
76 A portrait attributed to Jean Perréal titled ‘Henry VIII as a young man’ was sold as Lot 56 by Sotheby’s in London on 25 Feb. 1959 for £160. See http://artsalesindex.artinfo.com/asi/lots/3258214. Any portrait by Perréal of Henry VIII painted prior to 1519 almost certainly would have depicted him without a beard, as demonstrated by the dendrochronological studies of a series of early portraits of English monarchs conducted by John Fletcher in the 1970s. Much of the relevant recent scholarly literature pertaining to Henry VIII’s early portraiture is summarised effectively by Pamela Tudor-Craig in ‘Iconography of the Painting’, in Biddle, Martin (ed.), King Arthur’s Round Table: An Archaelogical Investigation (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 2000), pp. 308–315 Google Scholar.
77 ‘Eodem tempore, Ludovicus audit Mariam, regis Anglie sororem, tante esse venustatis ut regis thoro digna censeretur. Concitantur senis medulle, et languescens animus redivivus effici visus est. Destinat itaque ad Angliam Johannem Parrhisiensem, alterum Apellem, qui Marie formam effingat. Quam ut accepit rex, semper illam commendans, in sua vota primores alioquin refragantes conciliat, Boheirus caduceator et nomine regis mariam conthoralem fore deposcit. Tandem apud Abbetisvillam hymenea celebrant. Quibus celebratis reduces galli parrhisios adveniunt. Ubi regina ut pote pacem adferens triumphanter excepta est/ ac regis gaudio cuncti considere parabant.’ http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k52505k/f198.image.r=Fasciculus%20temporum%20.langEN. My most sincere thanks go to Dr Cynthia White of the University of Arizona for assisting me with this transcription and translation.
78 Baumgartner, Louis XII, p. 240. Other accounts of Perréal’s trip to England appear in Richardson, W. C., Mary Tudor, the White Queen (London, 1970), p. 82 Google Scholar; Perry, M., The Sisters of Henry VIII: The Tumultuous Lives of Margaret of Scotland and Mary of France (New York, 1998), p. 90 Google Scholar; Bancel, E.-M., Jehan Perreal dit Jehan de Paris, peintre et valet de chambre des rois Charles VIII, Louis XII et François Ier: Recherches sur sa vie et son oeuvre (Paris, 1885), pp. 139–141 Google Scholar; and Maulde de La Clavière, R., Jean Perréal dit Jean de Paris, peintre de Charles VIII, de Louis XII et de François Ier (Paris, 1896), pp. 52–53 Google Scholar. Maulde de La Clavière places Perréal in London in Sept. 1514.
79 Richardson, Mary Tudor, p. 80.
80 Sadlack, The French Queen’s Letters, pp. 73–4.
81 Giry-Deloison, C., ‘“Une haquenée . . . pour le porter bientost et plus doucement en enfer ou en paradis”: The French and Mary Tudor’s Marriage to Louis XII in 1514’, in D. Grummitt (ed.), The English Experience in France c. 1450–1558: War, Diplomacy, and Cultural Exchange (Aldershot, 2002), pp. 132–134 Google Scholar.
82 The Boulogne entry is described in Leest, Jacques, Entrée solennelle de Marie d’Angleterre seconde femme de Louis XII en la ville de Boulogne le . . . septembre 1514, ed. Abbé D. Haigneré (Almanach de Boulogne; Boulogne, 1863), pp. 85–90 Google Scholar. Haigneré republished Leest’s account in ‘Réception solennelle de Marie d’Angleterre à Boulogne’, Recueil historique du Boulonnais (notices, articles, éphémérides), 1845–1893, III (Boulogne-sur-mer, 1899), pp. 71–5. The account of the Montreuil entry appears in F. Wormald, ‘The Solemn Entry of Mary Tudor to Montreuil-sur-mer in 1514’, in Conway Davies, J. (ed.), Studies Presented to Sir Hilary Jenkinson (London, 1957), pp. 471–479 Google Scholar. Several archival and published accounts of the entries into Abbeville and Paris are summarised in Giry-Deloison, ‘“Une haquenée”’, pp. 139–43.
83 Giry-Deloison, ‘“Une haquenée”’, pp. 152–8. The following two paragraphs summarise and closely paraphrase Giry-Deloison’s superb analysis of Mary’s four entries. For additional insight into Mary’s preparations for France, and the specific circumstances surrounding her trip in Oct. 1514, see also Sadlack, The French Queen’s Letters.
84 Chevalier, U., Repertorium hymnologicum: Catalogue des chants, hymnes, proses, sequences, tropes en usage de l’église latine depuis les origines jusqu’à nos jours (Louvain, 1892–1912)Google Scholar, iii, no. 25737, iv, no. 36836.
85 Gringore, Les Entrées royales, p. 132.
86 Giry-Deloison,‘“Une hacquenée”’, p. 157.
87 British Library, Cotton MS Vespasian B II has been edited and discussed in Baskervill, C. R., Pierre Gringore’s Pageants for the Entry of Mary Tudor into Paris: An Unpublished Manuscript (Chicago, 1934)Google Scholar. Baskervill states that the MS returned to England with Mary on p. x.
88 The following summary is drawn from the French original in Baskervill, Pierre Gringore’s Pageants, p. 12.
89 Sébillot, Le Folk-lore de France, iii, pp. 304, 278.
91 Cazaux, La Musique, p. 343.
92 The entry in AN KK 89, fols. 59r–v reads as follows: ‘A lui pour avoir faict de ___ aulnes de fin drap noir cinq robbes et cinq chapperons de dueil pour cinq des petitz chantres de la maison et chappelle dud feu sr estans soubz maistre Hillaire, qui est pour chacun robbe et chapperon au feur de xx st vallent la somme de c sts.’
93 During the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries music directors of the chapelle du roi such as Ockeghem, Longueval and Bernonneau bore several titles, one of which was ‘conseiller du roi’.
94 A newly uncovered archival notice indicating that Hilaire Bernonneau died in 1524 recently has come to light. Documents in the Archives Départementales of Vienne, série G (clergé séculier) note that ‘Hilaire Béronneau’ served as the Dean of the cathedral of St-Pierre-le-Grand in Poitiers from 1511 until his death in 1524. The catalogue entry for these records reads as follows: ‘1511–1524.—Hilaire Béronneau. Le Gallia ne l’a pas connu. La date de sa mort, arrivée en 1524, nous est donnée dans une réintégrande en la possession du doyenné de l’Église de Poitiers pour Mre Bertrand de Kneringhen, faite par le lieutenant général de la sénéchaussée de Poitiers, du 21 mars 1537 (Arch. de la Vienne, G 181 et 189)’ (Inventaire-sommaire des archives départementales antérieures à 1790. Vienne. Archives ecclésiastiques, Série G. – nos. 1 à 1343, ed. L. Rédet et A. Richard. Tome premier (Poitiers, 1883], i, pp. viii–ix). This information neatly dovetails with documents discovered in the Vatican archives by Richard Sherr concerning Bernonneau’s acquisition of this benefice (Sherr, ‘The Membership of the Chapels’, p. 64). The Inventaire-sommaire notes that Bernonneau was preceded as Dean by two other individuals with close ties to the French royal court, Olivier de Pontbriant, who worked as the Dean in Poitiers from 1456 to 1505 and concurrently served as the treasurer of the Sainte-Chapelle du Palais in Paris starting in 1476, and Aymar Gouffier, brother of Guillaume Gouffier (c. 1488–1525), one of the most influential figures at the French royal court in the early years of Francis I’s reign, who held the deanship from 1505 to 1511.
95 Similar terminology may be found as part of the canonic instructions for two movements of Compère’s Missa L’homme armé in VatC 234, the Sanctus (‘Tempora bina pausa. post has uni postonisa’) and the Agnus Dei III (‘Fuga unius temporis in epithono’). The former phrase indicates a canon at the lower 2nd, the latter a canon at the upper 2nd. See the facsimile edition of VatC 234, fols. 227v and 231v in Renaissance Music Sources in Facsimile, 22 (New York and London, 1987).
96 In the only other source of Gascongne’s canon, RegB 220–2, there are two sets of signs. The signs above the melody indicate where the successive voices enter, and the signs below the melody show where each part ends.
97 See Gosman, A., ‘Stacked Canon and Renaissance Compositional Procedure’, Journal of Music Theory, 41 (1997), pp. 289–317 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Burn, D., ‘Further Observations on Stacked Canon and Renaissance Compositional Procedure: Gascongne’s Ista est speciosa and Forestier’s Missa L’homme armé ’, Journal of Music Theory, 45 (2001), pp. 73–118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
98 Elders, W., Symbolic Scores: Studies in the Music of the Renaissance (Leiden, 1994), pp. 171–179 Google Scholar.
99 Burn, ‘Further Observations’, pp. 80–1.
100 Ibid., p. 93.
101 Theodor Dumitrescu has made a convincing case that LonBLR 11 E. xi was prepared and offered to Henry VIII in the spring of 1516 to celebrate his reunion with his two sisters Margaret and Mary ( , Dumitrescu, The Early Tudor Court and International Musical Relations (Aldershot, 2007), pp. 129–147 Google Scholar). In ‘Constructing a Canonic Pitch Spiral: The Case of Salve radix’, in Schiltz, K. and Blackburn, B. J. (eds.), Canons and Canonic Techniques, 14th–16th Centuries: Theory, Practice, and Reception History (Leuven, 2007), pp. 141–170 Google Scholar, Dumitrescu not only argues persuasively that Salve radix spirals from G to G♭, but also provides contemporaneous theoretical justification for such a reading.
102 The following account of Mary’s actions in early 1515 derives largely from Richardson, Mary Tudor, pp. 127–85. See also Perry, The Sisters of Henry VIII, pp. 108–14, and Sadlack, The French Queen’s Letters, pp. 91–118.
103 Richardson, Mary Tudor, pp. 146–7.
104 Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, Preserved in the Public Record Office, the British Museum, and Elsewhere in England, ii, pt. 1, ed. J. S. Brewer (London, 1864), p. 78.
105 Ibid., p. 102.
106 Ibid., pp. 75–6, 96. See also Richardson, Mary Tudor, pp. 176–85.
107 Richardson, Mary Tudor, pp. 173–4, 190; Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, pp. 87–8.
108 On this image of Louis XII taken from the British Royal Collection (www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/403431/louis-xii-king-of-france-1462-1515, © Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2016), see Dupont, ‘A Portrait of Louis XII Attributed to Jean Perréal’. The image provided for Mary Tudor is a painting hanging in the National Gallery in London under the name ‘The Magdalen’ that has a nineteenth-century label on the back identifying Mary Tudor as the sitter (see www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/netherlandish-the-magdalen). The attribution to Perréal is given in the explanatory notes to the Exhibition Illustrative of Early English Portraiture (London, 1909), p. 104, which were written by Lionel Cust, Director of the British National Portrait Gallery in 1909 (the image is taken from this source). The image of a youthful but jowly Henry VIII around 1525–6 was painted by Lucas Horenbout, a Flemish painter who worked at the English royal court from 1525 until his death in 1544. It may be seen at 222.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/420010/henry-viii-1491-1547, © her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2016. Notwithstanding the 1959 Sotheby’s sale of a portrait of Henry VIII ‘as a young man’ attributed to Perréal (see above, n. 76), no painting of Henry VIII can be definitively identified as the work of Perréal. That any portrait of Henry prior to 1519 almost certainly was beardless was demonstrated by the late John Fletcher, who used dendrochronological (tree-ring) evidence to show that a series of early portraits of Henry painted on oak boards, all but one of which show him beardless, must date from the second or early third decade of the sixteenth century. The beard in the single bearded early portrait of Henry, the Anglesey Abbey portrait, can be shown to have been a later addition through the use of x-ray analysis (see Tudor-Craig, ‘Iconography of the Painting’, pp. 307–15, and especially the X-ray image of the Anglesey painting on p. 311). In addition to the articles and books on Henry’s portraiture cited by Tudor-Craig see also Cust, Lionel, ‘Notes on Pictures in the Royal Collections—XXXIX: On the Portraits of King Henry VIII’, Burlington Magazine, 31 (1917), pp. 217–224 Google Scholar, and Hepburn, Frederick, ‘The Portraiture of Arthur, Prince of Wales’, Journal of the British Archaelogical Association, 148 (1995), pp. 163–164 Google Scholar and n. 68. The portrait of Henry as a young man that emerges from these studies differs shockingly from the conventional modern view of the monarch, which derives largely from several portraits painted by Hans Holbein the Younger in the 1530s and 1540s that show a large, overweight, and bearded monarch. As Tudor-Craig notes (n. 65), Henry rapidly gained weight between c. 1512 and 1515–20. The image of a skinny, beardless youth with underhung jaw depicted in the youthful portrait of the king now located in the Berger Collection of the Denver Art Museum (http://www.bergercollection.org/?id=5&artwork_id=69), though clearly the same individual appearing in the early portraits of Henry analysed by Fletcher and Tudor-Craig, is hardly recognisable as the person painted by Holbein. Tradition holds that Henry first grew a beard in about 1519 under the influence of Francis I.
109 Lowinsky, ‘A Music Book for Anne Boleyn’, pp. 162–4.
110 Litterick, ‘The Manuscript Royal 20.A.XVI’, pp. 46–57, and Fenlon, Cambridge Music Manuscripts, p. 125.
111 Brobeck and Dobbins; see above, n. 48.
112 Robinson, ‘Le Manuscrit’, pp. 54–69.
113 Lowinsky, ‘A Music Book for Anne Boleyn’, pp. 162–4.
114 Litterick, ‘The Manuscript Royal 20.A.XVI’, pp. 54 and 55.
115 Detailed discussion of royal entries by French queens from Isabelle of Bavaria (1389) through to Claude of France (1517) with original texts of the entries appears in Gringore, Pierre, Les Entrées royales à Paris de Marie d’Angleterre (1514) et Claude de France (1517), ed. C. J. Brown (Geneva, 2005)Google Scholar, passim. See pp. 195–214 (Anne in 1492); 215–56 (Anne in 1504); 127–56 and 257–72 (Mary in 1514); and 157–94 and 273–327 (Claude in 1517). See also Brown, C. J., The Queen’s Library: Image-Making at the Court of Anne of Brittany (Philadelphia, 2011), pp. 19–27 Google Scholar, 41–62.
116 Brown, The Queen’s Library, p. 48.
117 Gringore, Les Entrées royales, pp. 246–7.
118 I am grateful to Dr. Cynthia White of the University of Arizona for pointing out the nuances of this construction and assisting me with this translation.
119 The poem in Vespasian B II is transcribed in Gringore, Les Entrées royales, p. 104, n. 248. Choque’s Commémoration is discussed in detail and the final epigram is transcribed and translated in Brown, The Queen’s Library, pp. 279–305.
120 Robinson, ‘Le Manuscrit’, pp. 54–69.
121 Frank Dobbins suggested to me in 2007 that he thought MS 1760 might have been created in Blois. See above, n. 48.
122 The change in the title of Gascongne’s final chanson in MS 1760 from ‘Sy javoys marion’ (tabula) to ‘Sy jeusse marion’ (actual chanson) may indicate that this piece had not yet been composed at the time the tabula was created.
123 See above, n. 26.
No CrossRef data available.