THE VAST REPERTORY of English fifteenth-century settings of the Mass Ordinary is now available in critical editions to such an extent that general overviews seem possible. Particular progress has recently been made with editing compositions of the post-Dunstaple generation, datable approximately between 1435 and 1465; it is on this repertory that the present study will focus. The historical and critical interpretation of this music faces questions of cultural context, of dating and transmission, of performance practice, of ritual function, of sonority and aesthetics, allegorical meaning and structural innovation. Previous research has largely been inclined towards named authors – Dunstaple, Power, Benet, Bedyngham, Frye, Plummer – usually in the context of the editions themselves. Typically, discussion of styles has been stimulated by contested composer attributions or hypothetical new ascriptions. The numerous anonymous works have attracted less attention, although there are studies of stylistic layers in the earliest part of the repertory, of the authorship of the anonymous M. Caput (m7), and of a few mid-century cycles. The following short contribution attempts to throw some light on a relatively neglected aspect of compositional style and aesthetics: imitative counterpoint. In the mid-fifteenth century this technique seems to have been relatively infrequent (at least in England), so that its occurrences may offer all the more useful clues towards attribution, dating and general stylistic classification. One observation to be elaborated here is that the uses of imitative counterpoint in English masses of this period are drastically differentiated. There is neither a simple stylistic progression in time (for example, from less to more imitation), nor can it easily be explained why certain compositions should be full of the device, others bare. The fascinating possibility emerges that imitative composition depended on the whim of composers, and in some – although not all – cases may have functioned as a personal fingerprint.

This essay will first survey some contrapuntal characteristics of imitative writing in this repertory, paying attention to stricter and freer forms, and to rhythmic and textural implications. Special kinds of imitative counterpoint and its highlighting will be observed. Then it will consider the significance of the technique for text-setting, text underlay, textual meaning and general form.