# The Roman motet (1550-1600), a collective issue? New attributions and reflections on authorship in the light of a new document

Anne Piéjus

► To cite this version:

Anne Piéjus. The Roman motet (1550-1600), a collective issue? New attributions and reflections on authorship in the light of a new document. Early Music History, 2022, Early Music History, 40, pp.253-293. 10.1017/S0261127921000036. halshs-03498145

HAL Id: halshs-03498145

https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03498145

Submitted on 9 Mar 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

Public Domain
ANNE PIÉJUS

Email: anne.piejus@cnrs.fr

THE ROMAN MOTET (1550–1600): A
COLLECTIVE ISSUE? NEW
ATTRIBUTIONS AND REFLECTIONS ON
AUTHORSHIP IN THE LIGHT OF A NEW
DOCUMENT

*In 1984 Noel O'Regan demonstrated that Roman manuscripts containing Lasso's motets were reworkings of motets found in published editions. This article reopens an investigation of the Roman manuscript motet books in the light of an autograph booklet by the Oratorian priest and censor of music Giovanni Giovenale Ancina (1599). This document contains two lists of motets, comprising a wide selection that reflects a search for variety in the number of voices (with a preponderance of eight-voice motets), age and style of the motet. It shows a large number of concordances with several manuscript anthologies related to the Oratorian circles. Ancina's booklet allows us to propose new attributions for motets by Zoilo and Prospero Santini, better known as a chapel master. Finally, a comparison with existing sets of music books qualifies the multiple authorship of the motet in the Roman erudite milieu of that time.*

In a seminal article published more than thirty-five years ago,<fnref n="1" /> Noel O'Regan compared the editions of three eight-voice motets by Orlando di Lasso (*Confitebor tibi, Jam lucis orto* and *In convertendo*)<fnref n="2" /> with music manuscripts connected to the Chiesa Nuova, the church of the

My warmest thanks to Noel O'Regan for our fruitful discussions and his careful reading of an earlier version of this article.

The following abbreviations are used:

Müs S-B Münster, Santini-Bibliothek

Rf Rome, Archivio della Congregazione dell'Oratorio di S. Filippo Neri

Rn Rome, Biblioteca nazionale centrale, Ms. Mus.

Rsc Rome, Biblioteca del Conservatorio di Musica Santa Cecilia, Ms.

Rv Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana

Rvat CG Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Cappella Giulia

<footnote n="1">¹ N. O'Regan, 'The Early Polychoral Music of Orlando di Lasso: New Light from Roman Sources', *Acta Musicologica*, 56 (1984), pp. 234–51.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² *Confitebor tibi* and *Jam lucis orto* in the *Thesaurus Musicus* I (Nuremberg: Montanus & Neuber; RISM B/I 1564¹), *In convertendo* in the *Modulorum 6–10 vocibus* II (Paris: Le Roy and Ballard, 1565; RISM L784).</footnote>
Anne Piéjus

Congregation of the Oratory in Rome. Up to and including Wolfgang Boetticher,<fnref n="3" /> musicologists had considered that these Roman manuscripts contained early versions of these motets, dating back to Lasso's time in Rome in 1552–3, when he was in contact with Filippo Neri, founder of the Congregation of the Oratory.<fnref n="4" /> They concluded that the Roman versions were closer to the composer's intentions than the published editions. This initial assumption about the manuscripts, and the idea of a faithful copy compiled forty years later, were qualified by O'Regan, who demonstrated that these manuscripts contained not originals, but rather reworkings of the published versions, which had been prepared independently of Lasso's will. The musical modifications consist in dividing the voices into two harmonically independent choirs, notably by removing the staggered voice entries and 6/4 chords. These handwritten enlarged versions testify to the growing popularity of *cori spezzati* in Rome, which O'Regan's comparative study has helped to better situate chronologically.

Today, more attention is paid to the gap between written trace and sounding reality and to the rewriting and the plasticity of works; the transitional status of the writing is more readily considered in the flow of transformations that musical works undergo. The case of the polyphonic compositions of the Roman school – motets, psalms, antiphons, hymns and sequences to be sung either during liturgical services or at more informal spiritual meetings – is an excellent example of this renewed interest in philology, as the history of early polychorality is based in particular on comparative analyses of published editions and handwritten copies, with additional information from eyewitness accounts and payment records (including the remuneration of music copyists).<fnref n="5" /> The study of the Roman manuscripts, and of how they were conceived, copied, used and circulated among the choirmasters, provides a better understanding of their origins and sheds light on the history of musical practices, since the manuscripts, intended for performers, bear the traces of use by musicians.

It is not known for which Roman church Lasso's motets were adapted. Considering the manuscript anthologies in which these rewritten versions appear, they may have been copied for the

<footnote n="3">³ W. Boetticher, *Orlando di Lasso und seine Zeit* (Kassel and Basel, 1958), pp. 178–87.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ On Lasso’s Roman network, see N. O’Regan, ‘Orlando di Lasso and Rome: Personal Contacts and Musical Influences’, in P. Bergquist (ed.), *Orlando di Lasso Studies* (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 132–57.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ N. O’Regan, ‘Transmission and Adaptation in Manuscript Sources of Roman Polychoral Music around 1600’, paper read at the 18th Biennial International Conference on Baroque Music, Cremona, 2018.</footnote>
The Roman Motet (1550–1600): A Collective Issue?

Cappella Giulia, the Arciconfraternita della Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini or the Chiesa Nuova, where much polychoral music developed.<fnref n="6" /> It was for this congregation that the first Roman poly-choral motets – which appear in Giovanni Animuccia’s *Secondo libro delle laudi* – were published in 1570.

In addition, the Oratory was a particularly active centre of arrange-
ments of motets and masses.<fnref n="7" /> Giovanni Francesco Anerio’s famous rewrit-
ing of the *Missa Papae Marcelli* by Palestrina, reduced from six to four
voices,<fnref n="8" /> is only one example among many. Several manuscripts from
the congregation’s library contain spiritual motets, masses, laudi and mad-
rigals that were rewritten, thereby modifying the polyphony and suppress-
ing or adding parts. One of them (Rv O. 32), which belonged to Giovanni
Giovenale Ancina, is a large eight-part manuscript by several hands, dating
from the very late sixteenth century. It contains sixteen motets and twenty-
four laudi, half of which were taken from Animuccia’s second book of
laudi, and motets belonging to the Florentine Renaissance tradition.
Though conservative in their texts and musical forms (with a preponder-
ance of *ballate grandi*), some of them, initially for three or four voices, were
reworked in O. 32 for a larger number of voices.

Here we can draw a parallel with the intense work done by this same
congregation of largely erudite secular priests, who devoted time and
particular care to copying and commenting on the sometimes monu-
mental works of their confreres (such as the *Annals* by Cardinal
Baronio),<fnref n="9" /> expurgating texts and turning secular madrigals into spiritual

<footnote n="6">⁶ Among the substantial bibliography, see more specifically A. F. Carver, *Cori spezziati: The Development of Sacred Polychoral Music to the Time of Schütz* (Cambridge, 1988), 107–25; O’Regan, ‘The Early Polychoral Music of Orlando di Lasso’, pp. 242–3 and Noel O’Regan, ‘Roman Polychoral Music: Origins and Distinctiveness’, in F. Luisi, D. Curti and M. Gozzi (eds.), *La scuola policorale romana del Settecento* (Trento, 1997), pp. 43–64.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ On the rich musical life of the Congregation of the Oratory, see especially A. Morelli, *Il Tempio armonico: Musica nell'Oratorio dei Filippini in Rome* (1575-1705), Analecta Musicologica, 27 (Laaber, 1991); D. Filippi, 'Selva Armonica': La musica spirituale a Roma tra Cinque e Seicento (Turnhout, 2008); A. Piéjus, Musique et dévotion à Rome à la fin de la Renaissance: Les Laudes de l'Oratoire, Épitome musical (Turnhout, 2013); and Piéjus, Musique, censure et création: G. G. Ancina et le Tempio armonico (1599), Biblioteca della Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa (Florence, 2017).</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ See *Two Settings of Palestrina’s Missa Papae Marcelli: Giovanni Francesco Anerio and Francesco Soriano*, ed. H. J. Busch (Madison, WI, 1973).</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ On the Oratorian collective writing, see *Il primo processo per S. Filippo Neri nel codice vaticano latino 3798*, ed. G. Incisa della Ronchetta and N. Vian, 4 vols. (Vatican City, 1957-63); M. Borrelli, *I documenti dell'Oratorio napoletano*, i (Naples, 1964); Borrelli, *Le testimonianze baroniane dell'Oratorio di Napoli* (Naples, 1965); G. Marciano, *Memorie historiche della Congregazione dell'Oratorio, nelle quali si da ragguaglio della fondazione di ciasceduna delle congregationi sin'ora erette ...* (Naples, 1693). See also A. Cistellini, 'I libri e la libreria di san Filippo Neri', *Memorie oratoriane*, 18 (1997), pp. 7-43; G. Finocchiaro, *Cesare Baronio e la tipografia dell'Oratorio: Impresa e ideologia* (Florence, 2005); H. Jedin, *Kardinal Caesar Baronius: Der Anfang der katholischen Kirchengeschichtsschreibung im 16. Jahrhundert* (Aschendorff-Münster, 1978); A. Piéjus, 'Les sermoncini de la Chiesa Nuova: Sermons et musique'</footnote>
Anne Piéjus

ones.<fnref n="10" /> These were then carefully reread, annotated and revised within a
real *scriptorium*.<fnref n="11" />

Noel O'Regan concluded his 1984 study by opening many perspec-
tives on and questioning the authorship of the polychoral arrangements
that were sung in one of the greatest Roman churches. Lasso, who had
long earlier left Rome, could not be responsible for the revisions of his
own motets, which were reworked and copied between 1580 and 1600.
In addition, the manuscripts containing Lasso's motets also contain later
motets, both original ones by Ruggiero Giovannelli, Tomás Luis de
Victoria, Giovanni Maria Nanino, Felice Anerio and others, and
reworked versions of Palestrina's and Luca Marenzio's motets. Active
at the time these manuscripts were copied, some of these musicians
(such as Palestrina and Annibale Zoilo) could have been the authors
of the reworkings of their own motets, as well as those of Lasso. Due
to a lack of documentation, the history of these music books has
remained unresolved, and it is still unclear who commissioned and cop-
ied this abundant musical material.

My aim here is to reopen this chapter in the musical and material
history of the Roman manuscript books in the light of an unpublished
document that provides valuable information on the way in which
partbooks were conceived and compiled. The investigation has also
led to possible new attributions and the results invite us to reconsider
the multiple authorship in the constitution and transmission of the
repertoire.

A MUSIC CENSOR'S 'BEST OF'

During my research in the archives of the Congregation of the Oratory
in Rome, and in particular in those of Giovanni Giovenale Ancina
(1545–1604),<fnref n="12" /> a scholar and polymath whose abundant manuscript
archives have not yet been fully exploited, I found a small autograph
notebook in the middle of a miscellany gathered under the generic title
of *canto ecclesiastico* (Rf A. I. 35, c). This document had never previously
been recorded in the archives of the Oratory of Rome. It contains lists of

à l'Oratoire de Rome entre 1570 et 1630', *Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa*, 39 (2003), pp. 441-74.

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Mainly in Ancina’s editions but also, to a lesser extent, in the collections of laudi edited by the Roman congregation from 1577 to 1598.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ See Piéjus, *Musique, censure et création*, especially pp. 84–5.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² See Piéjus, *Musique, censure et création and Musique et dévotion à Rome à la fin de la Renaissance*. On Ancina’s life and career, the main source is P. G. Bacci, *Vita del V. Servo di Dio Gio. Giovenale Ancina della Congregatione dell’Oratorio e poi Vescovo di Saluzzo ...* (Rome, 1671).</footnote>
poetic incipits of madrigals, which successively classify vernacular vocal pieces by number of voices, then in alphabetical order, and finally by quires (*quaterni* and *quinterni*), ordering the pieces with a view to future publication. The patient search for poetic and musical sources, and the comparison with the works attributed to Ancina, led me to realise that these were the preparatory indexes intended to feed his great work, the well-known *Tempio armonico*<fnref n="13" /> (of which only the first two parts were published). Simultaneously, these lists reveal the extent of the censorship project: they are indeed lists of secular madrigals he intended to turn into laudi and sacred canzonettas. Most of the titles show concordances with autograph notes by Ancina.<fnref n="14" />

Musically, the expurgation takes the rather banal form of spiritual parodies of madrigals and canzonettas. Ancina's action as a music censor is nevertheless fascinating, since this editorial work was linked to a pastoral approach in favour of spiritual music and the eradication of secular music, some episodes of which have acquired legendary status, such as his cutting up a book of madrigals by Jean de Macque<fnref n="15" /> or the late 'conversion' of Marenzio on his deathbed.<fnref n="16" /> These almost caricatured gestures were, however, the expression of an ethical and philosophical reflection on sacred music, which also led Ancina to become a counsellor for the Congregazione dell'Indice, which, at the end of the sixteenth century, was under the influence of the congregation of the Oratory.<fnref n="17" />

<footnote n="13">¹³ On the *Tempio armonico* project and its internal organisation, see C. Bianco (ed.), *Il Tempio armonico: Giovanni Giovenale Ancina e le musiche devozionali nel contesto internazionale del suo tempo. Convegno internazionale di studi, organizzato dall'Istituto per i beni musicali in Piemonte, Saluzzo, Scuola di alto perfezionamento musicale, 8-10 ottobre 2004*, Le chevalier errant. Studi sulla musica degli Antichi Stati Sabaudi e del Piemonte, 5 (Lucca, 2007), especially M. Giuliani, 'Il *Tempio Armonico*: Storia di un ciclotipo progetto', pp. 3-47 and S. Lorenzetti, 'Tempio Armonico/Teatro Armonico: Musica come forma di eloquenza sacra nella ritualità liturgico-devozionale tra Cinque e Seicento', pp. 181-208, and Piéjus, *Musique, censure et création*, mainly chapters 2 to 4, pp. 47-135.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ Ancina's hand has been formally identified thanks to the signed dedications of several copies of his *Tempio armonico*. It corresponds to many corrections, both poetic and musical, in editions and manuscripts in the Biblioteca Vallicelliana and the Archive of the congregation of the Oratory, which also preserve several manuscripts in the same hand, among which a notebook on the intimate circumstances of the expurgation of the madrigals' words, linked to nocturnal carnal impulses and an effort to atone through writing (see Piéjus, *Musique, censure et création*, pp. 204-9).</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ On Macque's close relationship to and misadventures with Ancina, see P. G. Bacci, *Vita del V. Servo di Dio Gio. Giovenale Ancina*, p. 263 and Piéjus, *Musique, censure et création*, pp. 251-2.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ Piéjus, *Musique, censure et création*, pp. 254-5, and M. Bizzarini, *Luca Marenzio: La carriera di un musicista tra Rinascimento e Controriforma* (Comune di Coccaglio, 1998), pp. 221 ff.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ On the Oratorian influence on the Congregazione dell'Indice see Piéjus, *Musique, censure et création*, pp. 152-72; on Ancina's implication and his own Index (never promulgated), pp. 150, 170-2.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_1.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1 The title of Ancina's notebook (Rf A. I. 35, c)</figcaption></figure>

The initial title of the notebook Rf A. I. 35 c, added on the cover, announces laudi that are ready to print.<fnref n="18" /> This has been corrected to another one specifying that there are also madrigals and motets (see Figure 1).<fnref n="19" /> Indeed, the book also contains two further lists of motets, again in Ancina’s hand, but with no connection to the tables of spiritualised madrigals, nor to any kind of censorship: these lists simply occupy blank sheets of paper in the same notebook. An alphabetical table concludes the notebook (fols. 25r–28r), with an additional list on two unnumbered loose sheets (see Figure 2), entitled ‘Nota d’alcuni Motteti più scelti di diversi/da copiarsi trà quei di messir Prospero/ che riescano più ariosi, vaghi,/et affettuosi per l’Oratorio’. This second list does not follow any of the organisational principles generally observed in motet books (i.e. by liturgical calendar or the number of voices), and could be the draft for an alphabetical table.

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ ‘libro delle laudi sp[irit]uali nottate et scritte/à 3. 4. 5. 6. et 7. voci’. The titles do not specify that these are not works but only tables.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ ‘Laudi et Madrigalli à 3. 4. 5./ 6. 7. 8 et 12 voci/Item Motetti à 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 12 et 16 voci.’</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2 Ancina's preparatory list of motets (Rf A. I. 35 c, loose sheets 1°–2°)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2 (continued)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2 (continued)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2 (continued)</figcaption></figure>
The Roman Motet (1550–1600): A Collective Issue?

Collecting ‘the most beautiful motets for the Oratory’

How can we understand this choice of ‘the most chosen motets of various [authors] to be copied’ among ‘those of Messir Prospero’? The expression could designate motets ‘to be chosen from those of Messir Prospero’ (intended for Prospero Santini), but more probably means ‘to be copied to add to Messir Prospero’s repertoire’. The subjunctive ‘che riescano’ would then refer to all of Santini’s motets, and Ancina’s additions would help to make them more melodic, prettier and more moving (‘più ariosi, vaghi, et affettuosi’).

A Roman musician, ‘Prospero nostro’, as he was familiarly called by the Oratorians, was a central figure in the music of the Congregation of the Roman Oratory, where he seems to have been introduced by Jean de Macque, a personal friend of Ancina’s, in the mid-1580s. A lauda by Santini was published in a collective Oratorian book in 1588.<sup>20</sup> Organist at Saint-Yves-des-Bretons, Santini was named ‘brother of the house’ in November 1592, that is, a layman attached to the congregation of the Oratory, of which he became chapel master a few months later. This office provided for him to conduct the music of the church as well as that of the spiritual gatherings (the so-called oratories) and to perform the role of organist if necessary. He held this position from 1593 to 1602, when, although a layman, he was appointed Prefect of Music. For unknown reasons that may have been artistic, administrative or related to his secular status, Santini was dismissed a few months later, in July 1603, in favour of a perhaps more talented musician, the ‘Franco-Flemish’ Francesco Martini.

Of Santini’s works, the laudi are preserved, published in particular by Ancina in his *Tempio armonico* (1599) and his *Nuove laudi ariose* (1600). Dictionary records generally only mention his double-choir motet *Angelus Domini descendit*, on the grounds that it was published.<sup>21</sup> Yet, according to Ancina’s list, Prospero Santini is the author of at least five other motets. This is not surprising for a chapel master who served for ten years: rather, one would have expected a chapel master to have set many more motets and masses to music. If Ancina’s lists were indeed intended to enrich Prospero Santini’s repertoire, one might wonder why some of his own motets are included in the list. The purpose of the list was apparently not to introduce the chapel master to new motets, but rather to provide him with material: readable copies, perhaps arrangements, in separate parts, including his own works.

<footnote n="20"><sup>20</sup> ‘Deh, se pietosa sei’, *Il terzo libro delle laudi spirituali* ... (Rome: Gardano, RISM B/I 1588<sup>11</sup>).</footnote>

<footnote n="21"><sup>21</sup> *Selectæ cantiones excellentissimorum auctorum* (Rome: Zannetti, 1614; RISM B/I 1616<sup>1</sup>).</footnote>
Anne Piéjus

The title of these two lists indicates that the motets were intended for the Oratory. This polysemic term refers both to the congregation itself and to the ritualised spiritual meetings it promoted and organised. Some of these *oratori* were reserved for priests and prepared minds; others welcomed lay people. Open to the laity, the *oratorio grande* took place just before Vespers and included polyphonic music: polyphonic laudi and, in some circumstances, motets were sung, especially during winter vesperal meetings.

At the beginning of the seventeenth century, Oratorians tended to sing works with different numbers of voices in the same oratory,<fnref n="22" /> but we do not know whether they were executed by a single choir or several. Testimonies remain imprecise. Despite the regular presence of instruments and the solemnity generally adopted during the winter period, no witnesses mentioned polychoral music during the oratories – even though Animuccia’s second book of laudi (1570) contains polychoral motets as well. It therefore seems difficult to establish whether the motets on Ancina’s list, many of which are polychoral, were intended for oratories or for the church, or both. After a date that remains uncertain, polychoral motets and masses were sung in the church of the congregation, the Chiesa Nuova, often with the collaboration of pontifical singers, during the most solemn offices: Easter, Christmas, the Nativity of the Virgin Mary and the feast of St Gregory, the patron saints of the church, and Saints Papias and Maur, whose relics were acquired by the Oratory, and whose feast was celebrated in a double service. After the death of the founder Filippo Neri in 1595, the anniversary of his death, on 26 May, provided an occasion for a spectacular display of splendour and was added to the solemn celebrations. In 1597 the decrees of the congregation for this occasion mention a ‘very solemn Mass, with music and four choirs, as never before sung not only in this church, but perhaps throughout Rome’.<fnref n="23" /> In the following year, this commemorative Mass was embellished with a sermon by Ancina and a ‘very beautiful music’ with three choirs accompanied by a violin, trombones, harp and viola, conducted by Felice Anerio.<fnref n="24" /> In 1599 the same Anerio composed a new solemn piece for three choirs.<fnref n="25" /> It is not known precisely

<footnote n="22">²² In G. F. Anerio’s *Teatro armonico spirituale* (Rome: Robletti, 1619), a testimony to the habits of the 1610s, spiritual madrigals composed for the same solemnity systematically require a different number of voices.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ F. Zazzara, ‘Diario delle onoranze, a S. Filippo Neri dalla morte alla canonizzazione’, *Quaderni dell’Oratorio*, 6 [1962], pp. 7–8; A. Cistellini, *San Filippo Neri, l’oratorio e la concregazione oratoriana* (Brescia, 1989), ii, p. 1168.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ Cistellini, *San Filippo Neri*, p. 1261.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵ Morelli (*Il Tempio armonico*, especially pp. 93 and 178) noted many other accounts of polychoral music for the solemn festivities at the Chiesa Nuova.</footnote>
The Roman Motet (1550–1600): A Collective Issue?

which motets were performed in these exceptional circumstances, any
more than for oratorii and other spiritual gatherings, despite efforts to
reconstitute the repertoire from the few musical sources preserved
and the accounting records.<fnref n="26" />

The list and the table drawn up by Ancina contain the same motets (seventy-four in the list and seventy-eight in the alphabetical table<fnref n="27" />), but there are some discrepancies, probably unintentional (see Appendix, Table 1). They mention the textual incipit (often abbreviated), the number of voices and the name of the composer of each piece, with a few exceptions. This double list reflects the Oratorians’ interest in anthologies, which also characterises the three musical editions that have been attributed to Ancina.<fnref n="28" /> It also illustrates the usual written way of passing on the motet: books of various authors, either printed or handwritten, were the most frequent mode of conserving, transmitting and disseminating the motet throughout the Renaissance – even if books by single authors played an increasing part at the end of the century.

Roman Musicians and Great Figures of the Motet

The eighty motets are the result of a selection made by a connoisseur,
himself a musician working in the music chapels. Remarkable indeed
are the number and variety of composers (see Appendix, Table 2).
The majority are Roman or were active in Rome or Naples, where
Ancina stayed from 1586 to 1596, playing a major role as an interme-
diary and promoter of church music.<fnref n="29" /> These are often personal

<footnote n="26">²⁶ See A. Addamiano and A. Morelli, ‘L’archivio della cappella musicale di Santa Maria in Vallicella (Chiesa Nuova) a Roma nella prima metà del Seicento: Una ricostruzione’, *Le Fonti Musicali Italiane*, 2 (1997), pp. 37–67, and R. Darby, ‘The Liturgical Music of the Chiesa Nuova, Rome (1575–1644)’ (PhD thesis, The University of Manchester, 2018), available online: https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/theses/the-liturgical-music-of-the-chiesa-nuova-rome-15751644(eac12ff5-339a-413b-8c05-eade9235645a).html.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷ The list includes a *Hodie concepta* by Orazio Vecchi and an *Exultent deo* by Giovanni Francesco Anerio which are lacking in the alphabetical table; conversely, the alphabetical table mentions five more eight-voice motets (*Ave Maria* by Tomás Luis de Victoria, *Heu mihi Domine* by ‘N. Fiamengo’, a *Magnificat* by Romoldo Naldi and an *Ecce Maria genitrix* by Felice Anerio), a five-voice *Alma Redemptoris Mater* by Giovanni Francesco Anerio, plus the eight-voice *Sacris solemniis* by Agostino Agazzari, which was added by another hand.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸ *Nuove laudi spirituali ...* (Naples: Stigliola; RISM B/I 1594³); on the attribution to Ancina, see Piéjus, *Musique, censure et création*, pp. 101–5; Tempio armonico della Beatissima Vergine N. S.... (Rome: Muzi; RISM B/I 1599⁵⁶); *Nuove laudi ariose ...* (Rome: Muzi; RISM B/I 1600³).</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹ Not only did he conduct and teach plainchant, he also organised and developed the musical practice of the Neapolitan congregation (the Gerolamini). He established links with the musicians and asked for musical repertoire from Rome and created the Vespers oratory that was held in the cathedral, which later allowed him to create the ‘oratory of the princes’, a spiritual concert associated with preaching and meditation which was held in the homes of the Neapolitan aristocracy.</footnote>
Anne Piéjus

acquaintances of the Oratorian: Ruggiero Giovannelli, the brothers Felice and Giovanni Francesco Anerio, Jean de Macque, Cristoforo Montemayor and Asprilio Pacelli, as well as direct collaborators, such as Prospero Santini. Vernacular pieces by several of them also appear in Ancina's *Tempio armonico*, exactly contemporary with these lists, and in his *Nuove laudi ariose*, published in the following year: works by Giovannelli, Nanino, Bartolomeo Roy (from whom he probably commissioned works) as well as Giovanni Animuccia and his brother Paolo, representatives of the previous generation, whose works he also republished. It is worth noting that Ancina did not select any Marenzio motets, even though he personally knew the musician.

Also present in this list of motets are chapel masters active in Rome such as Annibale Stabile, who had left the Urbs in 1595; Annibale Zoilo, who died in 1592; Romolo Naldi<fnref n="30" /> and Paolo Quagliati, to whom Ancina refers by his position ('organist at Santa Maria Maggiore'); and those from whose editions he republished several spiritual parodies in his *Tempio armonico*,<fnref n="31" /> as well as the central figures Lasso (whom he did not know personally, but one of whose pieces he parodied<fnref n="32" />), Palestrina, Tomás Luis de Victoria, and Francisco Guerrero, another Spaniard who passed, albeit briefly, through the Oratorian circles. Guerrero had been strongly supported by his compatriot Francesco Soto de Langa, a pontifical singer and pillar of the music of the Congregation of the Oratory, who had been in charge of editing his *Liber Vesperarum*.<fnref n="33" /> As for Victoria, who had also left Rome, thirteen or fourteen years before Ancina drew up these lists, he had been a familiar of the Oratorians and close to Ancina. Copies of personal letters Victoria sent to the Oratorian priest are conserved in the archive of the Congregation of the Oratory.<fnref n="34" /> At Ancina's request, Victoria had dedicated to the Duke of Savoy his *Motecta festorum totius*

<footnote n="30">³⁰ R. Naldi was organist at St-Louis-des-Français in 1585 and from 1587 to 1590. The dedication of his motet book published in 1600 is also signed from Rome.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">³¹ Quagliati edited spiritual rewritings of vernacular canzonettas in his *Canzonette spirituali a tre voci, libro primo* (Rome: A. Gardano; RISM 1585⁷). Ancina reissued three of them (probably from the print) without further modification. See Piéjus, *Musique, censure et création*, esp. pp. 58, 100, 368, 376.</footnote>

<footnote n="32">³² 'Poiché 'l mio largo pianto/Amor ti piace tanto' by Lasso (*Musica divina*; Antwerp: Phalèse and Bellère; RISM B/I 1583¹⁵) is parodied in 'Poiché 'l mio largo pianto/Vergin ti piace tanto' in the *Nuove laudi ariose*.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³ Rome: Gardano, 1584 (RISM G4873). See Anne Piéjus, 'Foreign Musicians and Musical Networks in Late Sixteenth-Century Rome: Spanish Composers between the Oratory and the National Churches', in E. Corswarem and M. Berti (eds.), *Music and the Identity Process: The National Churches in Rome in the Early Modern Period*, Epitome musical (Turnhout: 2020), pp. 347–56; Cistellini, *San Filippo Neri*, p. 464.</footnote>

<footnote n="34">³⁴ Rf A. I. 34 and Rf A. I. 36, b, fol. 1.</footnote>
The Roman Motet (1550–1600): A Collective Issue?

*anni*,<fnref n="35" /> which also contains a Latin epigram by Ancina.<fnref n="36" /> And while in Naples, needing to provide the Neapolitan musical scene with good-quality music, Ancina insistently asked the Roman Oratorians to send him music by Victoria.<fnref n="37" />

'Ipolito', who can be identified as Ippolito Tartaglino,<fnref n="38" /> was also active in Rome (where he may have met Ancina) in the 1570s and in Naples in the 1580s.<fnref n="39" /> Ancina refers to him by his first name, a sign that they were personally acquainted, as he does with Felice Anerio, Asprilio Pacelli and Ruggiero Giovannelli. However, he doubts the authorship of *Ecce quam bonum*. From Tartaglino's works he also selected an *Ave Regina celorum* of which he did not have a copy at the time he drew up his list, since he indicates, in the margin of the title: 'lo tiene il P. Soto'. We know of only one edition of Tartaglino's music, dedicated to Alessandro Farnese and published by a little-known Roman printer, Giovanni Osmarino, in 1574.<fnref n="40" /> The Neapolitan congregation of the Oratory, to which Ancina belonged for ten years, certainly had a copy to hand.<fnref n="41" /> This book of motets for five and six voices in fact opens with an *Ave Regina celorum*. It is not known whether an Oratorian wrote a double- or triple-choir arrangement of this motet: no such version appears in today's known musical sources.<fnref n="42" />

In addition to these musicians linked, directly or indirectly, to Ancina, he also included works by lesser-known composers such as

<footnote n="35">³⁵ Rome: Gardano, 1585 (RISM V1433).</footnote>

<footnote n="36">³⁶ On Victoria's Roman networks, see O'Regan, 'Victoria in Rome', *Leading Notes*, 9/1 (1998), pp. 26–30; O'Regan, 'Tomás Luis de Victoria's Roman Churches Revisited', *Early Music*, 28 (2000), pp. 403–18; D. Filippi, *Tomás Luis de Victoria* (Palermo, 2008); on his relationship with Ancina, see Piéjus, *Musique et dévotion à Rome*, p. 193 and 'Foreign Musicians and Musical Networks'.</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷ Letter dated 5 August 1588, Rf A. I. 20. Piéjus, *Musique, censure et création*, p. 21.</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸ Among the musicians named 'Ippolito' present in Rome or in Roman sources, Tartaglino is the most probable. Gambocci (fl. 1571–99), contralto and *maestro di cappella*, left no known music; Bonanni and Landinelli were only singers.</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹ Born in Modena around 1539, Tartaglino was *maestro di cappella* of S. Maria Maggiore. He also performed at the Arciconfraternita del SS. Crocifisso at S. Marcello and served as an organist of S. Pietro (at least in 1577). See T. W. Bridges, 'Tartaglino, Hippolito', *Grove Music online* (2001), and J. Lionnet, *Musiciens à Rome de 1570 à 1750*, Versailles, CMBV, online at http://philidor.cmbv.fr/Publications/Bases-prosopographiques/Musiciens-a-Rome-de-1570-a-1750. Having left Rome, probably in 1580, Tartaglino settled in Naples, where he served as organist of the SS. Annunziata until his death in 1582. Five of his madrigals were printed in collections; his only book of motets is partially missing; some musical fragments are still conserved at the archive of S. Marcello.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ *Motettorum quinque, & sex vocum, liber primus* (Rome: Giovanni Osmarino, 1574; RISM T232).</footnote>

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ RISM A/I/8, 320, mentions the *quinto* part.</footnote>

<footnote n="42">⁴² Rn 77–88 contains six settings of *Ave Regina celorum*: two for eight voices, four for twelve voices and one for sixteen voices. None is a rewriting of Tartaglino’s version published by Osmarino.</footnote>
Josquino della Sala and the Franciscan Girolamo Vespa, active in Fermo, Osimo and Ascoli, whom Ancina probably met during the long journey through the Marches that he had just completed at the time he drew up his lists of motets.

Finally, the Oratorian selected works by composers from other geographical regions, mainly northern Italian composers: Vincenzo Ruffo, Pietro Vinci, Giovan Matteo Asola, Pietro Ponzio, Orazio Vecchi (whose madrigals Ancina intended to purify<sup>43</sup>) and his homonym Orfeo Vecchi.

Like the anthologists of his generation, Ancina therefore selected both recent motets and older favourites such as Verdelot's *Si bona suscepimus* for six voices. First published by Jacques Moderne in 1532, <sup>44</sup> it was one of the most widespread and frequently copied motets in the sixteenth century.<sup>45</sup> While its value as a model is sufficient to account for its presence in manuscript anthologies seventy years after its publication, or perhaps more,<sup>46</sup> its success with Oratorians was probably based on its Florentine connections as well: this motet, whose text is taken from the book of Job, was associated with the memory of Savonarola, as was *Ecce quam bonum*, taken from Psalm 132.<sup>47</sup> The first generation of the Oratory of Rome was faithful to Savonarola's memory, associated with the republicanism of the Florentine diaspora in Rome. Musicians working for Filippo Neri, such as Giovanni Animuccia, himself a fervent *piagnone*,<sup>48</sup> may have contributed to the fortune of this motet in the Holy City.<sup>49</sup> Ancina's affinity with this

<footnote n="43"><sup>43</sup> Piéjus, *Musique, censure et création*, pp. 127–31.</footnote>

<footnote n="44"><sup>44</sup> *Secundus liber cum quinque vocibus. Fior de mottetti tratti dalli mottetti del fiore* (Lyon: J. Moderne; RISM B/I 1532<sup>9</sup>).</footnote>

<footnote n="45"><sup>45</sup> See J. Haar, ‘Orlande de Lassus: *Si bona suscepimus*’, in M. Everist (ed.), *Models of Musical Analysis: Music before 1600* (Oxford, 1992), pp. 154–67, as well as C. C. Judd, ‘Learning to Compose in the 1540s: Gioeffo Zarlino’s *Si bona suscepimus*’, in S. Clark and E. E. Leach (eds.), *Citation and Authority in Medieval and Renaissance Musical Culture: Learning from the Learned* (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 184–205, and the *Motet Database Catalogue Online*, ed. J. Thomas, http://legacy.arts.ufl.edu/motet/default.asp.</footnote>

<footnote n="46"><sup>46</sup> E.g., Rsc G.389, small (in-16) score dating from the beginning of the seventeenth century and taken from the Orsini collection.</footnote>

<footnote n="47"><sup>47</sup> On the uses of this motet in the liturgy, see D. Crook, ‘Proper to the Day: Calendrical Ordering in Post-Tridentine Motet Books’, in D. Filippi and E. Rodríguez-Garcia (eds.), *Mapping the Motet in the Post-Tridentine Era* (London and New York, 2019), pp. 16–35, in particular pp. 20–3.</footnote>

<footnote n="48"><sup>48</sup> A. Piéjus, ‘Il savonarolismo di san Filippo Neri attraverso poesie e canti’, in *Filippo Neri: Un santo dell’età moderna nel V centenario della nascita (1515–2015)*, Studi Vallicelliani, 3 (Rome, 2018), pp. 193–206.</footnote>

<footnote n="49"><sup>49</sup> There is no record of the motets sung at the Oratory in the early decades, nor of the success, among these heirs of Savonarolian thought, of masses based on *Si bona suscepimus*, such as that of Phinot – whose motets were sung – or that of Morales, for six voices, modelled on Verdelot’s motet and whose longevity is attested by the handwritten copies made in the seventeenth century (see Rvat Barb. lat. 4183).</footnote>
The Roman Motet (1550–1600): A Collective Issue?

memory is confirmed by further pieces: an *Ecce quam bonum* by
Tartaglino, and two settings of *Si bona suscepimus*: in addition to
Verdelot's<sup>50</sup> there is one for eight voices, which he attributes to
Zoilo. A third one (anonymous, for five voices) is present in another
Roman music manuscript copied in the same circles,<sup>51</sup> further proof
of the link between this motet and the spiritual heritage of
Filippo Neri.

Variety in the Music Pieces

The number of voices stated for each motet in Ancina's lists also reflects a search for variety: fifty-three motets for eight voices, fifteen for five voices, eight for six voices, two for four voices, one for twelve voices and one 'à 2 o 3 chori'.<sup>52</sup> The title of each of the two lists, which also announces motets for sixteen voices, is therefore incorrect, unless the lists are unfinished. Although not specified, a systematic analysis confirms that the number of voices is most probably that of the musical sources consulted by Ancina, who certainly copied out what he was reading or had in memory. The discrepancies between the list and the alphabetical table, which has the titles of the motets or their attribution (and, on one occasion, the number of voices) confirm, as do the corrections and the second thoughts, that these lists are a working document. A hasty and poorly written entry has added a *Sacris solemniis* by Agostino Agazzari.

Most of the eight-voice motets are by living composers, active in Rome
and close to Ancina: Giovannelli, Macque, Victoria, Felice Amerio,
Bartolomeo Roy and Prospero Santini, with additional older composi-
tions by Dominique Phinot and Lasso. Well known to the Romans,
and assimilated by Palestrina and Lasso, Phinot's three motets *Iam
non dicam, Tanto tempore and Incipit oratio Hieremiae* were then considered
a model for writing for double choir, as those of Victoria would be in the
following generation. For Ancina's generation, the production of poly-
choral motets was rarely a result of the arrangement of earlier works.
The majority of those he selected were originally polychoral and suited
to the spatial venues that were used during the festive celebrations.

Ancina's lists recall the principle that governs the drafting of the main
manuscript anthologies of motets of his generation: juxtaposing the
works of many different, though predominantly Roman, composers.

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰ Present in several Roman manuscripts, e.g., Rsc G.389, dated c. 1610, which contains 'old' motets mainly by Palestrina and Lasso but also by Crecquillon and Clemens non Papa and Verdelot's *Si bona suscepimus*. See A. Morelli, 'Intorno a un codicetto polifonico del primo Seicento (Rsc, G.389)', *Recercare*, 1 (1989), pp. 97–109.</footnote>

<footnote n="51">⁵¹ Rn 77–88. See below.</footnote>

<footnote n="52">⁵² Agazzari’s *Sacris solemniis* does not indicate the number of voices.</footnote>
In accordance with what can be observed more generally, the Franco-Flemish (but also Spanish) imprint on the motet in the first half of the century increasingly gave way to the influence of Italian composers, especially Romans. Ancina also combines the variety in the number of voices and the diversity of the texts and liturgical circumstances collated under the generic epithet of 'mottetti': the motets are associated with Psalms (such as *Super flumina Babylonis*, *Confitebor*, *Quam dilecta tabernacula*, *Ecce quam bonum*, *Cantabo Domino*, *Ecce nunc benedicite*), responsories (*Quae est ista*, *Lux perpetua lucebit*, *Tristis est anima mea*, *Heu mihi Domine*, *Duo seraphim*, *Tres sunt ...*), Marian antiphons (*Salve Regina*, *Ave Regina celorum*, *Beata Dei Genitrix*, etc.) and non-Marian hymns (*O lux beata Trinitas*, *Benedic anima mea Domino*, *Exaltate Regem regum*), sequences (*Lauda Sion*), and Lamentations, regardless of their place in the liturgical calendar or the office during which they were sung. Motets for Easter Sunday Mass, such as *Haec dies* (Gradual) and *Confitebor* (Offertory), are mixed with pieces for Pentecost, the Holy Trinity (*Gloria sit tibi Trinitas*), the Blessed Sacrament (*Egredimini filiae Sion*), others sung at Christmas, mixed with motets *per illo tempore*. The absence of a liturgical rubric makes it impossible to determine the precise destination of all the pieces, but the majority were used in the liturgy, which confirms that Ancina was considering the repertoire of the church rather than (or as much as) that of the oratories.

At first glance, Ancina’s choices therefore seem emblematic of a particularly brilliant generation of composers of the Roman school and of the *fin de siècle* taste for eight-part motets, particularly evident in printed books of that time. He selected contemporary pieces which circulated among choirmasters who knew each other and shared common interests, but also works by previous generations of great masters of the motet, mixing conservative and innovative trends, as most Roman chapels did. In doing so, Ancina demonstrates a marked taste for polychorality. On closer inspection, however, his choice is not that ordinary: not all these composers had been in Rome, and not all were performed on a regular basis. Asola, Naldi, Vecchi, and even Verdelot were not or were only rarely present in Roman musical manuscripts. Ancina, who had an extensive musical library at his disposal, obviously knew their works. His choice could reflect his propensity to create extremely varied selections and, at the same time, some accommodate peculiarly Oratorian tastes – inter alia by helping to perpetuate Savonarolian memory.<fnref n="53" />

<footnote n="53">⁵³ The *Tempio armonico* project had a strong symbolic dimension aimed at bringing together a great number of musicians, famous or not, amateurs and professionals, in a collective Marian praise conceived as universal.</footnote>
# The Roman Motet (1550–1600): A Collective Issue?

## RELATED MUSIC COLLECTIONS

While this anthology provides information on the tastes of a scholarly musician of the late sixteenth century, it also raises many questions about the role of these two lists in the genesis of manuscript musical anthologies, their function, the sources that made them possible, and their future: was this considerable number of motets actually copied, or did it remain a vain wish? Was the intention to compile a new anthology of motets, to complete existing collections or collections in progress, or to draw up an idealised list which would not only select the best motets but also consciously reject others? Ancina’s lists do not correspond exactly to any known manuscript, but have much in common with several.<fnref n="54" />

### *The Pateri Manuscript* (Rsc G.792–5/Rn 117–21)

One third of the motets selected by Ancina are included in the ‘Pateri manuscript’, a large manuscript anthology by several hands copied between 1590 and 1600 that contains motets and paraliturgical pieces for four to twelve voices. Of the twelve original parts, nine have been preserved.<fnref n="55" /> Fortunately, the missing parts of several motets can be reconstructed thanks to the partial copy of this manuscript drawn up in 1821 by the scholar and musician Fortunato Santini (who shares a name with the one mentioned in Ancina’s list), at the time when the complete partbooks were still kept by the congregation of the Oratory, before their confiscation and dispersion after 1866.<fnref n="56" />

The manuscript contains 111 pieces classified by number of voices (see Appendix): ‘mottetti’ but also – something scholars generally fail to mention – five vernacular pieces for six voices: three laudi by

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴ As Ancina’s lists are limited to textual incipits, identification of concordances is at risk of confusing motets sharing the same textual incipit. However, taking into account the composer’s name, the number of voices and, above all, the context (proximity to such a manuscript) makes it possible to formulate hypotheses.</footnote>

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵ Rsc G.792–5 (C1, A1, T1, B2), Rn 117–21 (A2, C3, A3, T3, B3). Some motets can be reconstructed since the A2 part contains the T2 of six motets and the A3 of eight motets.</footnote>

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶ Now Müs S-B Hs 3590. On Santini and his music collection, see in particular *Catalogo della musica esistente presso Fortunato Santini in Roma nel palazzo de’ principi Odescalchi incontro la chiesa de SS. XII Apostoli* (Rome, 1820); H. Jansen, ‘Die Musikbibliothek des Abbate Santini’, *Hochland. Monatsschrift für alle Gebiete des Wissens, der Literatur und Kunst, 23* (1925), pp. 762–5; K. G. Fellerer, *Die musikalischen Schätze der Santinischen Sammlung: Führer durch die Ausstellung der Universitätsbibliothek Münster anlässlich des III. Westfälischen Musikfestes in Münster i. Westf. vom 15. bis 17. Juni 1929* (Münster, 1929); S. Lattes, ‘Santini, Fortunato’, *Grove Music online* (2001).</footnote>
Animuccia<fnref n="57" /> as well as two spiritual madrigals by Marenzio and Philippe de Monte.<fnref n="58" /> The manuscript is unfinished: its sections are separated by several pages prepared for music that remained blank. Moreover, though the first motets give the name of the composer, the more one advances in the manuscript, the fewer indications they bear. An incomplete index fills the first three folios of the *canto primo* part (Rsc G.792). It seems to have been filled before the music copy was completed, since the foliation does not correspond exactly to the contents.

Each volume is marked at the bottom left with the name Pompeo Pateri by the hand that completed the introductory table, which probably means he was the first owner. Pateri played an important role in the Oratorian community, which he joined in 1574. He left memoirs and, like other first-generation Oratorians, donated his personal library to the congregation. This collection of motets was most probably added after his death, just as were other books, both manuscript and print, mostly on spiritual topics, belonging to him. His set of motets was certainly copied in Chiesa Nuova circles, but we do not know if it was for use in the church or as Pateri's own collection. Pateri was a music connoisseur. In 1582, he was in charge of training novices in plainsong. In 1589 Ancina wrote to him from Naples to get a copy of the Milanese edition of the motets of Matthias 'fiammingo' sent to him:<fnref n="59" /> Pateri was therefore part of the circle of musicians of the Roman Oratory who shared, exchanged and circulated music books, especially between the Roman and Neapolitan congregations. He also participated in the private financing of a second organ, which was probably installed in the Chiesa Nuova in 1612. This costly acquisition made the Oratorian Church the first in Rome to be equipped with two organs placed face-to-face.<fnref n="60" /> The main function of this second instrument (which may be the small organ still present in the tribune of the left transept) was to encourage the performance of spatialised polychoral pieces. This voluminous set of motet partbooks belonging to Pateri contains a significant proportion of polychoral works, tangible proof of the enthusiasm for polychorality.

At least twenty-one of the motets in the Pateri manuscript are listed by Ancina (see the Appendix). Such numerous concordances suggest

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷ *O peccator che fai, Fu notte, o giorno* (both published in his *Secondo libro delle laudi* (Rome: Blado, 1570), of which Ancina had a handwritten, almost complete reworked version (Rv O. 32) and *Cantate allegramente*, which could be the only existing copy.</footnote>

<footnote n="58">⁵⁸ Respectively *Vorrei coi piedi degl'affetti ardenti* and *Come fermeza havrà*.</footnote>

<footnote n="59">⁵⁹ Cistellini, *San Filippo Neri*, p. 629 n. The book must be Matthias Werrecore's *Cantuum quinque vocum ... liber primus* (Milan, 1559).</footnote>

<footnote n="60">⁶⁰ Morelli, *Il Tempio armonico*, pp. 100–1.</footnote>
further hypothetical matches. The five-voice *Laudate Dominum* selected by Ancina is probably that of Josquino Salespino, or Josquino della Sala. Considering the commonplace practice of arranging music, it can be hypothesised that other incipits in Ancina's selection refer to rewritings (now lost) of motets present in Pateri's collections with a different number of voices: might the five-voice *Cantabo Domino* that Ancina chose without knowing its author match the anonymous six-voice piece present in the Pateri manuscript? Is the anonymous eight-voice *Duo Seraphim* related to the four-voice motet by Victoria, present in Pateri's manuscript and published by Gardano fifteen years earlier?<fnref n="61" /> Does the *Beata Dei genitrix* for eight voices refer to Guerrero's for six voices? No concordance can be established solely on the grounds that the motets are composed to the same text.

Errors and approximations, always possible in what looks very much like a draft, can complicate the search for sources, but also open up new avenues to explore. Ancina has selected a five-voice *Respice in me* by Paolo Animuccia. This motet does not appear in any known Roman manuscript.<fnref n="62" /> The Pateri manuscript, however, contains an anonymous *Respice hanc familiam tuam*, also for five voices. Did Ancina commit a *lapsus calami* and confuse two very close incipits? All these hypotheses remain open, since Ancina's lists do not include any music.

In any case, the certain concordances with the Pateri manuscript are so numerous that it would be tempting to consider it as the partial but fairly faithful realisation of Ancina's project. One argument in favour of this is that he hesitated to attribute *Ecce quam bonum*. If he had had the Pateri manuscript in front of him, would he have hesitated? It seems, however, that this is what happened: this 'forse' reflects a doubt about the attribution he was reading when he drew up his lists. The Pateri set pre-dates – at least partially – Ancina's list, and he used and even annotated it. The additions to the introductory table and some running titles, made by another hand in small writing in black ink, are without doubt in Ancina's own hand (see Figures 3–5). The graphics and ink are exactly the same as in his motet lists. He most probably annotated the musical manuscript, and above all its table, when drawing up his list. Some hesitations confirm this. For example, he chose a *Laudate Dominum* for five voices, but does not indicate the composer in either of his two lists; in the Pateri manuscript, this motet is credited to 'Josquino'. Ancina probably noticed the ambiguity and removed it after

<footnote n="61">⁶¹ *Motecta ... alia duodenis vocibus concinuntur ...* (Rome: Gardano, 1583; RISM V1422).</footnote>

<footnote n="62">⁶² It is preserved in the Bourdeney manuscript (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Rés. Vma ms. 851).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3 Rsc G.792, opening table, fol. 1r</figcaption></figure>

having read the music, by specifying ‘della Sala’ in the table of the book (Figure 4).

Ancina added to the table the names of several composers (Figure 5), clarified them (in the case of Josquino, the namesake of the famous Franco-Flemish master), corrected some poetic incipits, replaced others
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4 Ancina’s hand on Rsc G.792, fol. 1v, excerpt</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5 Ancina’s hand on Rsc G.792, fol. 2r, excerpt</figcaption></figure>

by the mention ‘2a pars’, removed a title (*Hic vir despiciens* by Guerrero) and then replaced it. In short, Ancina most probably made his annotations and corrections after the whole manuscript was copied. His interventions make up for the manuscript’s shortcomings: he attempted to improve the table, drawing up a selection at the same time. Indeed, some motets at the beginning of the manuscript’s index are marked with a cross, apparently by Ancina, who also used this method of selection in the margins of several laudi and motets in his autograph notebook Rf A. I. 35, c (see Figures 6–7). The fact that this beautiful manuscript belonged to Pateri was no obstacle to him. Ancina, a man of deep culture and singular character, did not hesitate to annotate other authors’ books, even to smear them with ink to the point of attracting reproaches and bitter remarks from his
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6 Rf A. I. 35, c [unnumbered page]</figcaption></figure>

companions, some of whom were trying at all costs to retrieve their property from him.<fnref n="63" />

<footnote n="63">⁶³ See, for example, a letter (Rf, B. III. 5, fol. 628) from Francesco Maria Tarugi, archbishop of Siena, to Giovanni Matteo Ancina (brother of Giovanni Giovenale) in which he complains about a book Ancina refuses to give back to him and tries to convince his brother to do his best to prevent Ancina from damaging the books by writing in them.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7 Rf A. I. 35, c [unnumbered page]</figcaption></figure>

The ‘Mottetti di Anerio’ and Other Manuscripts

Rn 77–88, a manuscript in twelve partbooks from the archive of the Chiesa Nuova, contains 102 pieces for four, five, six, eight, twelve, sixteen and twenty voices.<fnref n="64" /> Although it was later entitled ‘mottetti di Anerio’, it contains no motets by this composer; perhaps this set belonged to him. Though it shares repertoire with Pateri, it seems closer to the repertoire of the archconfraternity of Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini and may have ended up in the Chiesa Nuova via Felice Anerio. Despite the date set by the national catalogue (‘17th century’), this manuscript pre-dates the Pateri partbooks and Ancina’s selection. It contains autographs by Zoilo, who had left Rome for Loreto in 1584. This *ante quem* date is not valid for the entire book, which is a collection in various hands. It has eight exact matches

<footnote n="64">⁶⁴ The cataloguing of this manuscript by the Catalogo del Servizio Bibliotecario Nazionale (opac.sbn.it) is an example of the damage caused by gross Optical Character Recognition: names and incipits are mixed up; one of the motets has become ‘Ave regoma caelorum’; in other words, a search by incipit in the online catalogue is doomed to fail.</footnote>
with Ancina's lists (see Appendix, Table 3), one of which is lacking in Pateri. And we cannot exclude that Macque's *De Profundis*, listed by Ancina among the eight-voice motets, is the one by this composer, for nine voices, preserved in Rn 77–88.

Rvat CG XIII.24 (*olim* Capp. Giulia 34), a manuscript in twelve partbooks (of which the third choir is lost), also contains a number of motets that overlap with the other two manuscript sets and therefore with Ancina's lists. This could mean that the Chiesa Nuova – or at least Pateri – was keen to have music which was associated with the Cappella Giulia. These partbooks pre-date Ancina's selection by about fifteen years; they entered the archives of the Cappella Giulia in 1584.<fnref n="65" /> The handwriting and contents indicate that they were probably copied shortly before that. They contain four of the motets selected by Ancina, three of which are common to the 'Anerio' partbooks, which are almost contemporary with the manuscript.

Ancina's lists also display four concordances with Rn 33–34/40–46, an untitled<fnref n="66" /> set of thirty-five polychoral motets for eight to twelve voices. This collection, of which nine of the twelve separate parts are preserved,<fnref n="67" /> is contemporary with the Pateri set (late sixteenth century) and with Ancina's lists. Little is known about it, but O'Regan has suggested that it can be linked to the archconfaternity of Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini.<fnref n="68" /> As for Rn 77–88, it came into the possession of the Chiesa Nuova, but we do not know if it originated there or was conceived for use there. It should be pointed out that these four concordances are unique, as none of these motets appears in any other manuscript anthology.

Finally, Ancina obviously used books of single authors. Victoria's *Nisi Dominus* comes either from the 1581 edition or from the partially autograph copy of Victoria's antiphons (Rn 130) that the composer had prepared for the Oratorian Soto de Langa to publish and that remained in the Oratorian circles.<fnref n="69" /> Similarly, one of the two four-voice *Salve Regina* settings listed by Ancina (one of which is described as 'ariosa') could be

<footnote n="65">⁶⁵ See O'Regan, 'The Early Polychoral Music', p. 238.</footnote>

<footnote n="66">⁶⁶ Descriptive title: 'Composizioni vocali sacre'.</footnote>

<footnote n="67">⁶⁷ C1, T3 and B3 are missing.</footnote>

<footnote n="68">⁶⁸ O'Regan, *Institutional Patronage*, pp. 65–7. See also Darby, 'The Liturgical Music of the Chiesa Nuova', pp. 50–1.</footnote>

<footnote n="69">⁶⁹ On this manuscript, see E. Hernández Castelló, 'Il manoscritto musicale 130 della Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele II di Roma' (PhD thesis, Università di Bologna, 2005).</footnote>
by Montemayor, from an autograph copy that this musician, active in
Naples and Rome, had given him in October 1593.<fnref n="70" />

Several concordances can also be found with later manuscripts and
printed editions.<fnref n="71" /> They testify to the permanence of the Roman mo-
tet repertoire, and are not of direct interest to research on
Ancina’s lists.

*Genesis and Chronology of the Manuscripts*

The comparison between Ancina's lists and the Oratory's musical manu-
scripts sheds light on the respective roles of each of these documents.
The manuscripts from the Chiesa Nuova do not necessarily reflect the
repertoire in use there, since the archive inherited manuscripts from
other communities or, more likely, from musicians and collectors.
Each of them had their personal taste and conception of spiritual music
and played a specific role – for example, though both Soto de Langa and
Ancina edited anthologies, the former distinguished himself in musical
editions of single-author books (by Guerrero and Victoria), while Ancina
did not. It is therefore difficult to identify an Oratorian aesthetic in the
sense of a community of tastes and a unified artistic policy, especially
since the community was inspired by the principle of equality and inde-
pendence of its members.<fnref n="72" /> Nevertheless, musical concordances and sev-
eral clues confirm that Ancina made his selection from several sources.
In only one case did the Oratorian rely on his memory: in front of the *Ave
Regina celorum* that he assumes to be by Tartaglino, he indicates ‘lo tiene il
p. Soto’, a clue that he himself did not have it before his eyes. This is all
the more significant as, at the time he drew up his list, Ancina was the
librarian of the Congregation. He therefore had free access to the man-
uscript musical anthologies deposited by their owners. However, in this
congregation of secular priests, the sharing of material goods remained
limited. Most of the books, like paintings, were private property, even if
they circulated among colleagues: this is the case of the Pateri set, not yet
the property of the congregation, but which Ancina obviously used. In

<footnote n="70">⁷⁰ Rn 135. This manuscript appears, under the title 'Vesperi di Christoforo Montemaior m.s. cart. 178', in the first inventory of the Congregation's books, drawn up in 1608 (Rf B.VI.7). On this composer, see E. Simi Bonini, 'Il compositore spagnolo Cristoforo Montemayor', in Bianco (ed.), *Il Tempio armonico: Giovanni Giovenale Ancina e le musiche devozionali nel contesto internazionale del suo tempo*, pp. 249-63, and Darby, 'The Liturgical Music of the Chiesa Nuova'.</footnote>

<footnote n="71">⁷¹ E.g., Rvat Capp. Sist. 134 (datable from 1721) which contains, fols. 2v–13, Giovannelli’s eight-voice *Cantate Domino* selected by Ancina.</footnote>

<footnote n="72">⁷² This is also true about painting and its patronage. See A. Zuccari, ‘La politica culturale dell’Oratorio romano nella seconda metà del Cinquecento’, *Storia dell’arte*, 42 (1981), pp. 77–112.</footnote>
other words, he was aware of the existence of the manuscripts, had read them, but did not have them all simultaneously in front of him.

Print seems to have played a minor role in Ancina's compilation work: the list specifies that Macque's *Ave Maria* was not printed, which could suggest that the other pieces he listed were. In fact, apart from Vinci's motets, which appear in Ancina's list in the order in which they were published, and perhaps *Lux perpetua* by Stabile,<fnref n="73" /> he seems mainly to have used handwritten sources. Many of the pieces he chose were unpublished and some (such as Salespino's motets) remained so. In addition, books by single authors, collective editions and the vast majority of printed anthologies bore the composer's name at the top of the pieces. However, Ancina, on several occasions, expressed hesitation, which confirms that he used handwritten sources instead. While the names left blank may be simple omissions, the mention 'incerto' proves that some authors were unknown or unfamiliar to him. Thus he attributed a motet to a 'regular canon of San Giovanni in Laterano'; after hesitation, he crossed out this mention and handed the authorship over to Orfeo Vecchi. Similarly, in front of another title, he noted 'forse d'Ipolito': a doubt concerning a composer whom he nevertheless called by his first name. Ancina most probably did not refer to Tartaglino's only edition, but to a manuscript now lost, or to his own memory.

Ancina's lists, which were most probably intended to serve as the basis for a new anthology, therefore shed light on the process of collecting, selecting, classifying and, in some cases, rewriting musical pieces, operations of which the main manuscripts are the result. They also prove how firmly the constitution of the motet anthologies was based on the principle of addition, one manuscript being supplemented by others.

## MUSICAL CONCORDANCES AND NEW ATTRIBUTIONS

Several motets in Rn 77–88 and in the Pateri set have no attribution. Some of them, whose composer's name Ancina knew, were famous and concordances can be established with other musical sources, mainly printed. These attributions deserve to be added to the existing catalogues. The four-voice *Ave Maria* copied without a composer's name in Rn 77–88 is none other than that of Palestrina. It also appears in the Pateri manuscript and in several published editions.<fnref n="74" />

<footnote n="73">⁷³ Printed in Stabile's *Sacrarum modulationum* (1585).</footnote>

<footnote n="74">⁷⁴ *Motecta festorum totius anni ...* I (Venice: Gardano, 1563; RISM P689), which met with exceptional success.</footnote>
The Roman Motet (1550–1600): A Collective Issue?

Similarly, Lasso’s *Confitebor tibi* is still considered anonymous in catalogues by the simple fact that it was copied without the author’s name in Rn 77–88.

The Pateri manuscript, on the other hand, contains both attributed and anonymous pieces, some of which can easily be identified: the *Alma Redemptoris Mater* is Palestrina’s.<fnref n="75" /> The five-voice *Mandatum novum*, like the *O crux benedicta* that precedes it, is by Pietro Vinci, and was published in his *Secondo Libro de Mottetti a cinque voci* (Venice, Scotto, 1572). Indeed, it was added to Ancina’s lists under the name of Vinci.<fnref n="76" />

In addition to these musical concordances, fresh attributions can be made. Several anonymous motets present in these manuscripts show no concordance with other music sources. Ancina’s lists are then of major interest. The similarity of literary incipits certainly needs to be supported by other elements, but it is nevertheless a reliable clue, all the more so as concordances are many and we now know that Ancina compiled his ‘best of’ from these sets of music. The eight-voice *Sancta Maria, succurre miseris*, anonymous in the Pateri manuscript, is most probably by Prospero Santini, as Ancina’s list suggests. The eight-voice *Super flumina Babylonis* from the same manuscript would, according to the same method, be by Annibale Zoilo.<fnref n="77" />

This last case, however, is singular, since Fortunato Santini, scoring and copying most of the Pateri collection with the greatest care 120 years later, attributed this *Super flumina* to ‘Godmell’. Whom to believe? The contemporary musician, who lived and worked amidst the collections, or the great collector working at a distance of more than two centuries? Fortunato Santini sought to fill in the gaps in his source. Not only did he attribute the motets copied without the composer’s name, but he also modified several attributions that appear in the Pateri set. If several attributions of anonymous

<footnote n="75">⁷⁵ Assigned to Marenzio (and published in L. Marenzio, *Opera Omnia*, iii, ed. B. Meier and R. Jackson (Neuhausen-Stuttgart, 1979) solely on the basis of Fortunato’s Santini attribution in Müs Hs 3590, it is attributed to Palestrina in Capp. Giulia XIII.24.</footnote>

<footnote n="76">⁷⁶ Vinci’s name is mentioned in the alphabetical list. In the other list, the title *Mandatum novum*, without an author’s name, has ‘dell’istessa’ [muta di mottetti]. The *Mandatum novum* and *O crux benedicta* also follow one another in the original edition, which was most probably used by both the copyist of the Pateri manuscript and Ancina.</footnote>

<footnote n="77">⁷⁷ Rn 77–88 contains a motet on the same psalm, but for sixteen voices and completely different.</footnote>
motets, particularly those of polychoral motets, are accurate,<fnref n="78" /> many are wrong.<fnref n="79" /> ‘Godmell’ is assigned eight motets in Santini’s copy, even though several are now attributed with certainty to other composers.<fnref n="80" /> Ancina is partly responsible for this blunder perpetrated centuries after his death: in completing the Pateri manuscript, he attributed two motets to ‘Godimel’ (see Figure 3 above): a four-voice *Da pacem* with no author’s name and an *Ecce nunc tempus admirabile* that the table credited to ‘Mel’, an Italianised patronymic that refers either to Gaudio Mei (or Meli), a Provençal composer who made his career in Rome in the middle of the sixteenth century,<fnref n="81" /> or to the madrigalist Rinaldo del Mel (1554–98), from Mechelen, which Ancina published in his *Tempio armonico*. As a consequence, Ancina decided by ascribing this motet to Gaudio rather than Rinaldo.<fnref n="82" /> Fortunato Santini, 200 years later, extended this attribution to other motets, which incidentally reveals that he had trouble distinguishing stylistically different generations of composers. Fortunato Santini’s copies, however, are not sufficient to establish attributions. As far as the *Super flumina Babylonis* is concerned, the attribution to Zoilo therefore deserves to be considered likely.

<footnote n="78">⁷⁸ At least: six-voice *Beata dei genitrix* by Ruffo and *Beata Mater* by Zoilo; eight-voice *Deus misereatur nostri* and *In convertendo* by Lasso; *O bone Jesu, O Domine Jesu Christe, Beata es Virgo Maria, O admirabile commercium, Videntes stellam magi* and *Laudate Dominum* by Palestrina; *Alma redemptoris mater* by Marenzio; *Egredimini* by A. Gabrieli; *Regina celi laetare* and *Ego flos campi* by Guerrero; *Nocte surgentes* by G. M. Nanino; *Illo tempore* by Zoilo; *Domine in virtute* by Victoria; *fabilute Deo* by Marenzio; *Regina celi laetare* and *De profundis* by Macque; twelve-voice *Exultate Deo, Dominus regit me* and *Exultate Deo* by Macque; *Laudate Dominum in tympanis* and *Ecce nunc benedicite* by Palestrina; *Laudate Dominum in sanctis* by Zoilo; *Omnes gentes* by Giovannelli. See the Appendix.</footnote>

<footnote n="79">⁷⁹ Five-voice *O crux benedicta, Mandatum novum* to Godmell (*recte* Vinci); six-voice *Vidi turbam magnam* to Palestrina (*recte* Ruffo), *Derelinquat impius* to Macque (*recte* Palestrina) and *Locutus sum in lingua mea* to Guerrero (*recte* Lasso); eight-voice *Domine in virtute* to Victoria (*recte* Palestrina), *Confitebor tibi* to Animuccia (*recte* Lasso), *Salve Regina* to Godmell (*recte* G. F. Alcarotti) and *Surge propera* also to Godmell (*recte* Vinci). See the Appendix.</footnote>

<footnote n="80">⁸⁰ *Da pacem* for four voices (assigned to Godmell by Ancina’s hand), *Mandatum novum* and *O crux benedicta* for five voices, *Exultent Deo* for six voices, *Surge propera, Salve Regina* and *Super flumina* for eight voices, *Salve Regina* for twelve voices. See the Appendix.</footnote>

<footnote n="81">⁸¹ L. Bianchi, *Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina*, French translation (Paris, 1994), pp. 197–8.</footnote>

<footnote n="82">⁸² And under no circumstances to Claude Goudimel. A tenacious legend, denied by Baini as early as 1828 (G. Baini, *Memorie storico-critiche della vita e delle opere di Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina ...* (Rome, 1828), pp. 22–3), confuses the Huguenot composer who did not set foot in Rome and whose ten known Latin motets are all composed for small numbers of voices, with the Provençal Gaudi Mel or Meli, to the extent that the national online catalogue attributes Oratorian motets to Claude Goudimel, and the Grove article on Gaudi Mel refers to the same Goudimel.</footnote>
# The Roman Motet (1550–1600): A Collective Issue?

## CO-AUTHORSHIPS

The gaps between Ancina's two lists, the hesitations about the number of voices of the pieces and the plurality of attributions nevertheless provide valuable insights into the plasticity of the motet and raise questions about what makes a piece of music's identity.

If the textual incipits seem to be a reliable starting point for tracking motets, several elements obscure the identity of the compositions listed by Ancina. First, as already said, the Romans willingly adapted the number of voices of the music they performed – this is precisely the conclusion to which O'Regan's study of Lasso's motets leads. Ancina apparently reported the number of voices from the musical sources; the differences between his two lists and between the lists and the music books therefore raise questions about further versions that may have been reworked. Second, and here of greater importance, the name of the composer is not always clear. Ancina initially attributed the *Puer natus est nobis* which was to resonate under the vaults of the church for Christmas to 'Aspril', a name he corrects to 'Felice'. Pacelli and Anerio were first cousins, and their careers crossed paths many times.<fnref n="83" /> Did Ancina confuse them? He may also not have mastered the trade in music copies between the two musicians, both chapel masters and, as such, heavy consumers of polyphonic motets.

No hypothesis can be ruled out, but none has the value of a model, and each motet attributed to several composers, such as each *riformato* motet, must be examined in detail. Thus, when Ancina assigns the eight-voice motet *Exultate Deo* to 'Felice/Rug.', there is no evidence to suggest he was confused between Anerio and Giovannelli, since he was personally bound to both of them. Are we to understand that Giovannelli reworked a motet by Anerio? Or, more probably, that Anerio adapted a motet by Giovannelli for the Chiesa Nuova?

If the majority of the eight-voice motets in the Pateri manuscript were adapted to the polychorality in use at the Oratory of Rome, the same congregation, as has been said, was also making reductions. Palestrina's *Vidi turbam magnam*, a six-voice motet published in 1569,<fnref n="84" /> appears, still for six voices (CAATTB), in the Pateri manuscript.<fnref n="85" />

<footnote n="83">⁸³ See Piéjus, *Musique et dévotion à Rome*, p. 70.</footnote>

<footnote n="84">⁸⁴ Liber primus Ioannis Petraloisii Praenestini Motettorum ... (Rome: Dorico, 1569; RISM P1700).</footnote>

<footnote n="85">⁸⁵ Where it is credited to Ruffo, following a long-established incorrect attribution. See also the *MOTET Database Catalogue Online* (http://legacy.arts.ufl.edu/motet/). C. Marvin, in *Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina: A Guide to Research* (New York, 2002), pp. 103–4, rectifies the error and attributes this motet to Palestrina, as does the *Printed Sacred Music in Europe 1500–1800* database (http://www.printed-sacred-music.org/).</footnote>
Anne Piéjus

Ancina did not select this version but its Oratorian avatar, a 'Palestrina reformed by Messire Prospero', reduced from six to five voices.

In fact, Ancina's hesitations about the authorship of certain motets can be explained by this chapel master's role as arranger. Several divergences between the list and the table concern Prospero Santini: *Nos autem gloriari* is attributed to Santini in the table, but to P. Animuccia in the list; *Tres sunt qui testimonium* for eight voices (sung at the Offertory of the Trinity, following *Duo Seraphim clamabant*) is attributed on one side to Santini but on the other to 'del Santini Asprilio Paco', the first written over the second, which is underlined. The most likely hypothesis is that Santini adapted motets from Animuccia and Pacelli. In fact, Pacelli included an eight-voice setting of *Tres sunt* in his edition of double-choir motets of 1597.<fnref n="86" />

Prospero Santini's role revealed by these references in turn raises other questions. Following the logic disclosed by Ancina's list, there is no evidence that the *Sancta Maria, succurre miseris*, which the Oratorian attributes to Santini, is entirely due to the Chiesa Nuova's chapel master, who may once again have borrowed a motet and adapted it to the musical requirements of his own chapel. Even more: should the *Veni sponsa Christi* which Ancina attributes to Santini be considered lost, or is it an arrangement, by Santini, of Stabile's *Veni sponsa Christi* present in the Pateri manuscript?

While he was not a prolific composer, Santini was therefore an active secondary author, quick to adapt pieces of music to the requirements of the congregation for which he worked. In addition, he may be the copyist, or one of the copyists, of these manuscripts.

## CONCLUSION

From this monumental list, we first note the attributions: those of works, known elsewhere, by Lasso, Palestrina, Vinci, which deserve to be attributed in modern catalogues; but especially those which are totally new and which increase our knowledge of Annibale Zoilo and Prospero Santini, the man in the shadows who was nevertheless music master of one of the first polychoral *cappelle musicali* in Rome, the musician to whom the most beautiful motets of the time made their way, and whose talent as an arranger deserves recognition for the place he occupied in the 'life chain' of the works.

<footnote n="86">⁸⁶ *Motectorum et psalmorum qui octonis vocibus concinuntur, liber primus* (Rome: N. Muzi, 1597; RISM P24).</footnote>
The Roman Motet (1550–1600): A Collective Issue?

The case of Santini, rendered inconspicuous by a historiography combined with an anachronistic conception of the figure of the composer, invites us to consider the multiple ‘author-functions’ of the Roman motet – to use a Foucauldian concept particularly stimulating for studying the genetics of the Early Modern writing. Arrangements and rewritings obscure the first author’s figure in favour of a plurality of authorial figures and functions that still tend to be undervalued. While they often remain difficult to identify, the copyist, the arranger (and in this case we do not know whether they are the same), perhaps even the patron, play a decisive role in the creation of the motet, a musical genre dominated by a strong tendency towards recycling.

In the sixteenth century, composition (intended in its full etymological sense) always relied on existing material: textual sources,<fnref n="87" /> but also musical ones, especially in the motet, undoubtedly the most complex and refined genre of its time, and suffused with intertextuality that drew upon veritable cultural networks.<fnref n="88" /> Thus, if the composition itself is individual, it is nevertheless nurtured by multiple figures of authors, especially since imitation of the masters is of great value.<fnref n="89" /> Taking into account this multiple authorship is just as effective for the material study of these music books. Writing a motet, circulating, interpreting, copying and conserving it requires a series of material and scriptural interventions on a work itself nourished by those that preceded it. It is as if the composer were to gather under his name a collective creation to which he gives form and meaning in a personal work, perhaps followed by a redistribution of authorship over the course of the operations, forming a cyclical process: proofreading and correction, copying and conservation, interpretation, arrangement, borrowing again, citation, composition. This shared dimension of creation and this readiness to rewrite and adapt, omnipresent among church musicians (and all the more so since they formed

<footnote n="87">⁸⁷ See e.g. D. Filippi and A. Pavanello (eds.), *Motet Cycles between Devotion and Liturgy* (Basel, 2019), section on ‘Fashioning the Shape and Sound of Prayer Texts’, pp. 135–218.</footnote>

<footnote n="88">⁸⁸ Paraphrase-motet, integration (according to very different modalities) of the *cantus prius factus* into polyphony, etc. See in particular M. Fromson, ‘Imitation and Innovation in the North-Italian Motet, 1565–1605’ (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1988), which extends the study of parody genres to the motet and analyses the phenomena of borrowing, quotation, *imitatio* and *emulatio*; S. Rice, ‘Multiple Layers of Borrowing in *Sancta Maria* Motets’, in O. Rees and B. Nelson (eds.), *Cristóbal de Morales: Sources, Influences, Reception* (Woodbridge, 2007), pp. 141–57; D. Filippi, ‘Formal Design and Sonic Architecture in the Roman Motet around 1570: Palestrina and Victoria’, in J. Suárez-Pajares and M. Del Sol (eds.), *Estudios: Tomás Luis de Victoria* (Madrid, 2013), pp. 163–98.</footnote>

<footnote n="89">⁸⁹ See, among many others, the reference to Bonini and his lists of composers to be imitated in Filippi’s conclusion in ‘Formal Design and Sonic Architecture’, pp. 197–8.</footnote>
an organised community in Rome), reminds one of the semi-
collective intellectual practices of scholarly circles, among which
the Oratory, as has been said, held a prominent place. In either case,
the boundary is porous between the composer, the copyist and the
arranger.

This dynamic of adaptation and reworking – reflected in Ancina’s
list, but above all in the many rewritings mentioned at the beginning
of this article – made it possible to produce a large set of motets fairly
quickly, especially polychoral ones. However, should we consider that
the Romans’ enthusiasm for polychorality, by encouraging rewriting
and adaptation, thwarted the composition of new pieces? Certainly
not, since the ‘romanised’ Lasso, as the compositions on works by mas-
ters, colleagues, friends and cousins,<fnref n="90" /> are undoubtedly forms of com-
position, or at least additional creations. As for the polychoral tropism
that would have absorbed the creative energy, Ancina’s lists provide a
qualified answer. Although posterior to all the manuscript collections
examined here, motets with eight or more voices account for two-
thirds of his lists, while the four-voice motets are almost absent.
However, as far as they can be identified, most eight-voice motets
selected by Ancina are not polychoral, but rather for single-choir voie-
ces. This balance lies halfway between the polychoral tradition repre-
sented by manuscripts 77–88 and 33–34/40–46, and Pateri’s much
more diverse anthology, which contains half motets for eight or more
voices (including a large proportion of polychoral motets) and half
pieces for four, five or six voices.

In addition to this, comparing sources and considering their chro-
nology highlights the effort of the Oratorian to ensure a great diversity
of ages, styles and number of voices that could be used in various cir-
cumstances, which was one of the hallmarks of the chapel of his con-
gregation. Such variety refutes the idea that the motet was subject to
rapid change. On the one hand, the renewal required by the music
chapels did not prohibit the reworking of existing works; on the other
hand, the Oratorians, by combining seventy-year-old works and new
compositions, manifestly had a very clear conception of the value
of repertoire, demonstrably including a notion of heritage.

CNRS, IReMus, Paris

<footnote n="90">⁹⁰ See, for example, Ghiselin Danckerts's *Ave Maria* 'sopra Josquino'.</footnote>
APPENDIX

<table><caption>Table 1 Transcription of Ancina's alphabetical table (Rf A. I. 35 c, fols. 25r–28r) and discrepancies with the preparatory list</caption><thead><tr><th>No.</th><th>Title</th><th>Voices</th><th>Composer</th><th>Different or additional indications on the list</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Ave S[anctissi]maMaria</td><td>a 8</td><td>Di Paolo Quagl[iat]i org[anist]a a s[anta] M[aria] M[aggiore] d[i] Roma</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Ave Regina celor[um]</td><td>a 2 ò 3 chori</td><td>D'Hipolito P[adre] Soto</td><td>d'Hipp[oli]to lo tiene il P. Soto</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Ad te levavi oculos m[eos]</td><td>a 8</td><td>Felice Anerio</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Ave Maria</td><td>a 4</td><td>Palest[r]ina</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Ave Maria</td><td>a 8</td><td>Vict[ori]a</td><td>Vittoria</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Ave Maria</td><td>a 5</td><td>Gio[vanni] Macque</td><td>Gio[vanni] Macque no[n] stamp[at]a</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Benedic A[nim]a mea D[omi]no</td><td>a 5</td><td>Zoilo</td><td>¥ del Zoilo</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Beata es v[irg]o Maria</td><td>a 8</td><td>Rug[gier]o [Giovannelli]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Beata Dei Genitrix</td><td>a 8</td><td>[unattributed]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Confitebor</td><td>a 8</td><td>Orl[and]o</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Confitebor t[ibi] D[omine] q[uoniam] irat[us] es. M[ihi]</td><td>a 8</td><td>Palest[r]ina</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Cantabo Domino</td><td>a 5</td><td>Incerto</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Cantate D[omi]no Ca[n]t[icum] novu[m]</td><td>a 8</td><td>Rug[gier]o [Giovannelli] et 2ª Pars</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Cantate Angeli</td><td>a 8</td><td>Macque</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Cantate hodie</td><td>a 8</td><td>Hor[ati]o Vecchi</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Duo seraphim</td><td>a 8</td><td>Incerto</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Deus miser[eatur] n[ost]ri</td><td>a 8</td><td>Orl[and]o</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
(Continued)

<table><thead><tr><th>No.</th><th>Title</th><th>Voices</th><th>Composer</th><th>Different or additional indications on the list</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>18</td><td>De profundis</td><td>a 8</td><td>Macq[ue]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>Ecce quam bonum</td><td>a 8</td><td>di N[escio] forse d'Hipolito</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Egredim[in]i fil[iae] Sion</td><td>a 6</td><td>Vinc[enz]o Ruffo</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>Exaltate Rege[m] Regu[m]</td><td>a 8</td><td>Asula</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>Ecce nunc [benedicite] d[omi]n[u]m</td><td>a 12</td><td>Macque</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Gloria sit tibi Trinitas</td><td>a 8</td><td>Roy</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>H[a]ec Dies, qua[m] fecit d[omi]n[u]s</td><td>a 8</td><td>Vespa</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>Heu mihi D[omi]ne</td><td>a 5</td><td>Orl[and]o</td><td>Orl[and]o/De[n]tice</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>Heu mihi D[omi]ne</td><td>a 6</td><td>Guerrero</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[X¹]</td><td>Heu mihi D[omi]ne</td><td>a 8</td><td>D[i] N[escio] fiamengo</td><td>[missing]</td></tr><tr><td>27</td><td>Hodie apparuerunt</td><td>a 8</td><td>Rug[gie]ro</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>28</td><td>Hodie Regina</td><td>a 8</td><td>Macq[ue]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>In convertendo</td><td>a 8</td><td>Orl[and]o</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td>Iam no[n] dica[m] vos servos</td><td>a 8</td><td>Finot</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>31</td><td>Incipit oratio</td><td>a 8</td><td>Finot</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>Iubilate Deo</td><td>a 8</td><td>Rug[gier]o</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>Lauda Sion salv[ato]rem</td><td>a 2 chori</td><td>Romolo Naldi</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>34</td><td>Laudate Pueri D[omi]n[u]m</td><td>a 8</td><td>Palest[rin]a</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>35</td><td>Lux perpetua</td><td>a 8</td><td>An[n]ib[ale] Stab[il]e</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>36</td><td>Lauda Sion salv[ato]rem</td><td>a 8</td><td>Vict[ori]a</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>37</td><td>Laudate D[omi]n[u]m in s[anc]tis e[jus]</td><td>a 5</td><td>[unattributed]</td><td>Med[esi]mo [Montemayor] Jos[qui]n[o] de la S[al]a</td></tr><tr><td>38</td><td>Nos aut[em] gloriari</td><td>a 5</td><td>P[adre] Santini</td><td>P. Anim.a</td></tr><tr><td>39</td><td>Nisi d[omi]n[u]s</td><td>a 8</td><td>Vict[ori]a</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td>Ò lux B[eata] Trinitas</td><td>a 8</td><td>Romolo Naldi</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>41</td><td>O bone Iesu</td><td>a 6</td><td>Palest[rin]a</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
(Continued)

<table><thead><tr><th>No.</th><th>Title</th><th>Voices</th><th>Composer</th><th>Different or additional indications on the list</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>42</td><td>O bone Iesu</td><td>a 8</td><td>Roy</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>43</td><td>O beatiss[im]e</td><td>a 8</td><td>Roy</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>44</td><td>Pater peccavi co[n] 2<sup>a</sup> p.</td><td>a 5</td><td>Rug[gier]o [Giovannelli]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td>Peccántem me quótid[ie]</td><td>a 5</td><td>[Giovanni Maria] Nanino</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>Item aliud</td><td>a 5</td><td>Animuccia</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td>Item</td><td>a 6</td><td>Finot</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>Psallite D[omi]no [omnes] s[anc]ti e[jus]</td><td>a 8</td><td>P[ietro] Pontio</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td>Puer q[ui] nat[us] est nobis</td><td>a 8</td><td>felice Amerio</td><td>Aspril Felice</td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td>Quam dilecta tabern[acul]a</td><td>a 8</td><td>orfeo Vecchi</td><td>Orfeo Vecchi</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>D'un can. Reg[olar]e</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Later[anens]e</td></tr><tr><td>51</td><td>Que est ista</td><td>a 8</td><td>Felice An[eri]o</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td>Quam pulchra es</td><td>a 5</td><td>D[i] Ales[sandr]o can[oni]co Reg[olare] lat[eranens]e<sup>2</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>53</td><td>Respice in me</td><td>a 5</td><td>P[aolo] Anim[ucci]a</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>54</td><td>Sup[er] flumina Babyl[onis]</td><td>a 8</td><td>An[n]ib[ale] Zoilo</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>Salve Regina</td><td>a 4</td><td></td><td>Ariosa, di N[escio] et un altra N[escio]<sup>3</sup></td></tr><tr><td>56</td><td>Sup[er] flumina</td><td>a 8</td><td>Vict[ori]a</td><td>[Unattributed]</td></tr><tr><td>57</td><td>Sicut Mater consolat[u]r</td><td>a 8</td><td>[G.M.] Nanino</td><td>G. M.<sup>a</sup> Nan.<sup>o</sup></td></tr><tr><td>58</td><td>Si bona suscep[imus] de</td><td>a 6</td><td>Verd[elo]t</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>59</td><td>Si bona suscep[imu]s</td><td>a 8</td><td>Zoilo</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>60</td><td>S[anc]ta Maria succ[ur]re</td><td>a 8</td><td>Santini</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>61</td><td>Tristis est An[im]a mea usq[ue]</td><td>a 8</td><td>Santini</td><td>Santini Zoilo</td></tr><tr><td>62</td><td>Tantu[m] [er]go sacram[ent]um</td><td>a 8</td><td>Rug[gier]o [Giovannelli]</td><td>a 5</td></tr><tr><td>63</td><td>Tres sunt q[ui] test[imoniu]m d[ant] i[n] c[elo]</td><td>a 8</td><td>Santini</td><td>d[e]l Santini Asprilio Pac[ell]o</td></tr></tbody></table>
(Continued)

<table><thead><tr><th>No.</th><th>Title</th><th>Voices</th><th>Composer</th><th>Different or additional indications on the list</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>64</td><td>Tanto témp[or]e vob[iscum] sum</td><td>a 8</td><td>Finot</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>65</td><td>Tota pulchra es</td><td>a 8</td><td>Montemayor</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>Voce mea ad</td><td>a 8</td><td>F[elice] Anerio</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>67</td><td>Veni sponsa [Christi]</td><td>a 8</td><td>P[adre] Santini</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>68</td><td>Virgo dulcis</td><td>a 8</td><td>P[ietro] Pontio</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>69</td><td>Vidi turbam m[agnam]</td><td>a 5</td><td>Palest[rin]a Rif[att]o da m[esser] Prosp[er]o [Santini]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>70</td><td>Una est colu[m]ba mea</td><td>a 8</td><td>Incert[o]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>71</td><td>Mandatu[m] novu[m] de</td><td>a 5</td><td>P[ietro] Vinci</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>72</td><td>O crux benedicta</td><td>a 5</td><td>Pietro Vinci</td><td>Del istessa [muta]. 5</td></tr><tr><td>73</td><td>Magnificat</td><td>a 8</td><td>Romolo Naldi</td><td>[missing]</td></tr><tr><td>[X<sup>4</sup>]</td><td>Sacris solemnijs</td><td>a 8</td><td>Agaz[z]ari</td><td>[missing]</td></tr><tr><td>74</td><td>Ecce Maria gen[itri]x</td><td>a 8</td><td>Franc[esc]o Aner[i]o</td><td>[missing]</td></tr><tr><td>75</td><td>Alma Redé[m]ptoris m[ate]r</td><td>a 5</td><td>D[e]l med[esim]o</td><td>[missing]</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Additions from the list (missing in the alphabetical table):</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>Exult[at]e Deo</td><td>a 8</td><td>Felice [Anerio]/Rug[gier]o [Giovanelli]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>60</td><td>Hodie co[n]cepta est</td><td>a 6</td><td>med[esim]o [Orazio Vecchi]</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="1">¹Unnumbered.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²This is presumably Alessandro Marino, who was a canon at the Lateran and who was named in the Bull of foundation of the Compagnia dei Musici di Roma.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³This means there were two different *Salve Regina* settings by unidentified composers.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Unnumbered.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 2 Motets listed in Rf A. I. 35, c (by composer)</caption><thead><tr><th>Composer</th><th>Incipit and voices</th><th>Multiple or doubtful attribution¹</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>[Anonymous]</td><td>Beata Dei Genitrix a 8<br>Duo Seraphim clamabant a 8<br>Salve Regina a 4<br>Salve Regina a 4<br>Cantabo Domino a 5<br>Una est columba mea a 8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>F. Anerio</td><td>Ad te levavi oculos meos a 8<br>Puer qui natus est nobis a 8<br>Que est ista a 8<br>Voce mea ad Dominum clamavi a 8</td><td>Exultate Deo adjutori nostro a 8</td></tr><tr><td>G. F. Anerio</td><td>Alma Redemptoris Mater a 5<br>Ecce Maria genuit vobis a 8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>G. Animuccia</td><td>Peccantem me quotidie a 5</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P. Animuccia</td><td>Respice in me a 5</td><td>Nos autem gloriari a 5</td></tr><tr><td>G. M. Asola</td><td>Exaltate Regem a 8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>S. Dentice</td><td></td><td>Heu mihi Domine a 5</td></tr><tr><td>R. Giovannelli</td><td>Beata es VirgoMaria a 8<br>Cantate Domino canticum novum a 8<br>Hodie apparuerunt a 8<br>Jubilate Deo a 8<br>Pater peccavi a 5<br>Tantum ergo sacramentum a 8</td><td>Exultate Deo adjutori nostro a 8</td></tr><tr><td>F. Guerrero</td><td>Hei mihi Domine a 6</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>O. di Lasso</td><td>Confitebor a 8<br>Deus misereatur nostri a 8<br>In convertendo a 8</td><td>Hei mihi Domine a 5</td></tr><tr><td>J. de Macque</td><td>Ave Maria a 5</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
(Continued)

<table><thead><tr><th>Composer</th><th>Incipit and voices</th><th>Multiple or doubtful attribution<fnref n="1" /></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>Cantate Angeli a 8<br>De profundis a 8<br>Ecce nunc benedicite Domino a 8<br>Hodie Regina a 8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[Alessandro Marino]</td><td>Quam pulchra es a 5</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>C. Montemayor</td><td>Tota pulchra es a 8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>B. Naldi</td><td>Lauda Sion salvatorem a 2 cori<br>Magnificat a 5<br>O lux B. Trinitas a 8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>G. M. Nanino</td><td>Peccantem me quotidie a 5<br>Sicut Mater consolatur a 8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>A. Pacelli</td><td></td><td>[Puer qui natus est nobis]<br>[Tres sunt a 8]</td></tr><tr><td>G. P. da Palestrina</td><td>Ave Maria a 4<br>Confitebor tibi Domine quia miseria tua a 8<br>Laudate pueri Dominum a 8<br>O bone Jesu a 8</td><td>Vidi turbam magnam a 5</td></tr><tr><td>D. Phinot</td><td>Iam non dicam vos servos a 8<br>Incipit oratio a 8<br>Peccantem me quotidie a 6<br>Tanto tempore vobiscum sum a 8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P. Ponzio</td><td>Psallite Domino a 8<br>Virgo dulcis a 8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P. Quagliati</td><td>Ave Santissima Maria a 8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P. Santini</td><td>Sancta Maria succurre miseris a 8<br>Veni sponsa Christi a 8<br>Tristis est Anima mea a 8</td><td>Nos autem gloriari a 5<br>Tres sunt qui testimonium a 8</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="1">¹Doubtful attributions are bracketed.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 3 Concordances between Rf A. I. 35, c and Roman sets of partbooks</caption><thead><tr><th>Incipit</th><th>No. of voices</th><th>Composer</th><th>Rsc 792-5/Rn 117-21</th><th>Rn 77-88</th><th>Rvat CG XIII.24</th><th>Rn 33-34/40-46</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ad te levavi oculos meos</td><td>8</td><td>F. Amerio</td><td>×</td><td></td><td>×</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ave Maria</td><td>4</td><td>Palestrina</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cantate Domino</td><td>8</td><td>Giovannelli</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>×</td></tr><tr><td>Confitebor tibi Domine</td><td>8</td><td>Lasso</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>De profundis</td><td>8</td><td>Macque</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Deus misereatur nobis</td><td>8</td><td>Lasso</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ecce nunc benedicite Domino</td><td>12</td><td>Macque</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ecce quam bonum</td><td>8</td><td>Tartaglino</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Egredimini et videte</td><td>6</td><td>Ruffo</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Heu mihi Domine</td><td>6</td><td>Guerrero</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Iam non dicam vos servos</td><td>8</td><td>Phinot</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>In convertendo</td><td>8</td><td>Lasso</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Incipit oratio</td><td>8</td><td>Phinot</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Gloria sit tibi Trinitas</td><td>8</td><td>Roy</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>×</td></tr><tr><td>Laudate pueri</td><td>8</td><td>Palestrina</td><td></td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nisi Dominus</td><td>8</td><td>Victoria</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>×</td></tr><tr><td>Mandatum novum</td><td>5</td><td>Vinci</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[O] Beatissimae</td><td>8</td><td>Roy</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>O bone Jesu</td><td>6</td><td>Palestrina</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>O crux benedicta</td><td>5</td><td>Vinci</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Peccantem me quotidie</td><td>5</td><td>Nanino</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sancta Maria succurre</td><td>8</td><td>Santini</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Super flumina</td><td>8</td><td>Zoilo</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Super flumina</td><td>8</td><td>Victoria</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Tanto tempore</td><td>8</td><td>Phinot</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Vidi turbam magnam</td><td>5</td><td>Palestrina</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Voce mea ad Dominum</td><td>8</td><td>Anerio</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>×</td></tr></tbody></table>