DIAMM FACSIMILES

6
 DI MM
DIGITAL IMAGE ACHIVE OF MEDIEVAL MUSIC

DIAMM COMMITTEE
MICHAEL BUDEN (Faculty Board Chair)
JULIA CAIG-McFEELY (Diamm Administrator)
MATIN HOLMES (Alfred Brendel Music Librarian, Bodleian Library)
EMMA JONES (Finance Director)

NICOLAS BELL
HELEN DEEMING
CHISTIAN LEITMEIR
OWEN EES
THOMAS SCHMIDT

diamm facsimile series

general editor
JULIA CAIG-McFEELY

volume editors
ICHAD WISTEICH
JOSHUA IFKIN
 The
ANNE BOLEYN
MUSIC BOOK
(Royal College of Music MS 1070)

Facsimile
with introduction

BY
THOMAS SCHMIDT and DAVID SKINNER
with KATJA AIAKSINEN-MONIER

DI MM
facsimiles
 © COPYIGHT 2017 UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
PUBLISHED BY DIAMM PUBLICATIONS
FACULTY OF MUSIC, ST ALDATES, OXFORD OX1 1DB

ISSN 2043-8273
ISBN 978-1-907647-06-2
SERIES ISBN 978-1-907647-01-7

All rights reserved. This work is fully protected by The UK Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988. No part of the work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or
otherwise without the prior permission of DIAMM Publications.

Thomas Schmidt, David Skinner and Katja Airaksinen-Monier assert the right
to be identified as the authors of the introductory text.
Rights to all images are the property of the Royal College of Music, London.
Images of MS 1070 are reproduced by kind permission of the Royal College of Music.

Digital imaging by DIAMM, University of Oxford

Image preparation, typesetting, image preparation and page make-up by Julia Craig-McFeely

Typeset in Bembo

Supported by
The Cayzer Trust Company Limited
The Hon. Mrs Gilmour

Printed and bound in Great Britain by

Short Run Press
Exeter
 CONTENTS

Preface ii

INTODUCTION

1. Context and Earlier Ownership 1

David Skinner

2. Physical Description and Genesis 12

Thomas Schmidt

3. Decoration 21
Katja Airaksinen-Monier

4. Repertoire 24
Thomas Schmidt

Bibliography 33

Appendices:
Thomas Schmidt

I Gathering Structure and Scribes 38

II Inventory 39

III Sources and Editions 45

IV Table of Corrections in Section I 51

FACSIMILE
 Preface

The Royal College of Music (RCM) holds one of the largest special collections of any conservatoire, including
manuscript and printed music, historic instruments, pictures, programmes and personal archives.
The origins of the College and its collections are to be found in a scheme initiated by Prince Albert, Queen
Victoria’s Consort, after the 1851 Great Exhibition, to establish a centre for science, technology and the arts in
South Kensington in London. The impetus for a new conservatoire grew from the concern that the country was
failing to provide adequate training for would-be professional musicians. Firm planning for the RCM was initiated
by the Prince of Wales, the future Edward VII, at a meeting in 1882, at which he spoke of his wish that a new col-
lege should ‘be to England what the Berlin Conservatoire is to Germany, what the Paris Conservatoire is to France,
or the Vienna Conservatoire to Austria – the recognised centre and head of the musical world.’
Two pre-existing collections – the libraries of the Concerts of Ancient Music, presented by Queen Victoria, and
of the Sacred Harmonic Society, purchased by a group of benefactors on the society’s dissolution in 1882 – formed
the nucleus of the RCM’s library. Further individual donations when the RCM moved to its present building in
1894 brought some prized possessions, including the clavicytherium from c.1480, the harpsichord by Alessandro
Trasuntino, the virginals by Giovanni Celestini and the autograph manuscript of Mozart’s Piano Concerto in C
minor K491. Since then the RCM collections have been augmented by many further gifts, most notably from staff
and students associated with the College. The catalogue of portraits has grown into the most comprehensive of its
kind in the UK, including paintings of musicians, drawings, engravings, photographs and busts. At the same time,
the RCM has assembled a very large collection of concert programmes, amounting to some 700,000 items cover-
ing all types of classical music.
Most recently the Royal College of Music has published facsimile editions of a number of manuscripts and a
large selection of illustrative postcards. These initiatives have helped support the College’s current position at the
forefront of developing and promoting a subtle blend of education and training in which the context for perform-
ance has become an all-important part of the student experience. This activity has coincided with a broader revo-
lution in performance practice driven by the use of historical instruments, a greater understanding of style and a
more informed approach to the study of source material. Such developments have brought new recognition of the
value of the RCM special collections to today’s performing musicians.
Few are aware that the Royal College of Music inherited from the Sacred Harmonic Society a volume of music
that is thought to have been owned and possibly used by Anne Boleyn. One of the most significant manuscripts of
early sixteenth-century music in Britain, it is also one of the College’s greatest treasures, and certainly its most his-
toric. The book is modest in dimensions, beautifully hand-written, and it contains vocal music by some of Europe’s
most celebrated composers. The pages of the manuscript have recently been disassembled and appropriately
rebound to enable it to be available for study by future generations of scholars. In collaboration with the Digital
Image Archive of Medieval Music (DIAMM) the RCM is now able to present the book in the form of a facsimile
edition. Every page has been photographed in high resolution, and we have commissioned three of the world’s lead-
ing experts to write a detailed study of the book’s history and contents. It is a privilege and a delight to make widely
available for the first time ‘The Anne Boleyn Music Book’, RCM MS 1070.
The Editors wish to thank the following staff of the Royal College of Music for their help in the preparation
of this volume: Lily Harriss (Director of Development and Alumni Relations), Deborah Meyer, Kayleigh Glasper,
Peter Linnitt (Librarian), and Sonja Schwoll (conservator).Thanks are also due to Julia Craig-McFeely and Matthias
Range, who most ably saw the manuscript through to publication.

Prof. Colin Lawson CBE

Director, Royal College of Music

ii
INTODUCTION
 1
Context and Earlier Ownership
David Skinner

In this age of technology and digitisation, the arrival of Gascongne, as well as Claudin de Sermisy who rose to
another lavish facsimile of an important early musical fame some 20 years later.There is also a single odd addi-
source is always welcome. This project, however, is tion by the Flemish composer Jacob Obrecht, who is at
somewhat special and the impetus behind its industry least known to have travelled through France in 1492.2
unique. Here is offered a full-colour reproduction of While RCM 1070 does carry some considerable
Royal College of Music MS 1070 (hereafter RCM authority for the repertory it contains, what intrigues us
1070), complete with historical introduction, a detailed most about the manuscript is not necessarily the music
manuscript study and extensive inventory, although the or composers represented, but its possible connection
manuscript is not particularly noteworthy in terms of its with this most notorious queen of Henry VIII.
physical beauty. It is roughly the size of an A4 notebook, Henry VIII’s impassioned pursuit of Anne Boleyn
the music entirely copied on paper and, until only was to have major consequences for the political and
recently, long preserved in a rather unattractive, scuffed religious life of England in Reformation Europe. Henry
and tired Victorian binding. It is certainly not the prod- wanted a son and heir; for Anne, Henry was willing to
uct of a professional scriptorium, and the various sec- divorce his first queen of 24 years (at least 15 of them
tions range from being reasonably well organised to spent in a happy marriage), break with Rome and make
works left incomplete or skeletal at best. himself Head of the Church in England, and destroy
However, two major things can be claimed for those near and dear to him who dared to stand in his
RCM 1070: firstly, it is one of three important manu- way, most notably Cardinal Thomas Wolsey and Sir
script collections of early sixteenth-century French Thomas More. Yet having achieved his ambitions, and
motets now on English soil; secondly, and perhaps of after the birth of a healthy daughter, Elizabeth, who was
greater curiosity to many, it contains the inscription to become the greatest Tudor monarch of his issue,
‘Mres A Bolleyne / Nowe thus’ which seems to suggest Henry had Anne executed after only three years of mar-
that it once belonged to Henry VIII’s ill-fated second riage on multiple charges of adultery. The five accused
queen, Anne Boleyn (c.1501–1536).1 Of the 42 compo- included her brother, George Viscount Rochford, and
sitions preserved in RCM 1070 (including three French her music tutor and lutenist Mark Smeaton. Was she
chansons) only seven are unica, so the large majority of guilty? We will probably never know. The circumstances
the pieces may be found in other sources. Josquin that led to Anne’s death have long been the subject of
Desprez, who was at this time a fully ‘international’ debate and speculation. The same may be said for her
composer whose fame was widespread, is represented by seeming connection to RCM 1070. Anne’s upbringing,
10 works, while most of the other known composers, however, would certainly have nurtured an interest in
who were more narrowly defined by their association the arts, and especially music.
with the French court in the early 1500s, are repre- Anne is thought to have been born in c.1501, not in
sented by far fewer works: these composers include Jean her family home at Hever Castle as many assume, but in
Mouton, Antoine de Févin, Loyset Compère, Antoine Norfolk, probably in Blickling.3 In the spring of 1513 she
Brumel, Pierrequin de Therache, and Mathieu became a maid in honour in the household of Margaret
of Austria (daughter of the Holy Roman Emperor,
RISM sigla are used for manuscript references throughout. Maximilian I), who was famous for her patronage of
1
For the inscription see below. Contemporaneous with musicians and who is known to have possessed important
RCM 1070 is Cambridge, Magdalen College Pepys MS 2
1760, while slightly later is the exquisitely produced choir- Rob C. Wegman, Born for the Muses: the Life and Masses of
book from the Habsburg-Burgundian workshop of Petrus Jacob Obrecht (Oxford, 1994), 310. See complete inventory
Alamire and given to Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon below, 43.
3
in the late 1510s, London, British Library, MS Royal 8 G The most authoritative biography of Anne Boleyn is by Eric
vii. See Herbert Kellman (ed.), The Treasury of Petrus Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn (Oxford, 2004). Anne
Alamire: Music and Art in Flemish Court Manuscripts 1500– is thought to have been born in either c.1501 or c.1507, but
1535, incl. essays by Wim Blockmans, Eric Jas, Herbert the former date is now generally accepted as most probable.
Kellman, Jacobijn Kiel, Honey Meconi, Eugeen Scheurs, For an alternative view of the events surrounding her death,
Dagmar Thoss and Flynn Warmington (Ghent/Amsterdam, see George W. Bernard, Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attraction (New
1999), 110. Haven, 2010).
2 The Anne Boleyn Music Book

music books. In the following year, 1514, Anne’s father Queen of Navarre, and Duchess of Alençon and Berry.
arranged her transfer to the French court where she was Urkevich goes further to suggest that it is a ‘woman’s
to attend Henry VIII’s sister, Mary, who was to marry song book’, as the texts ‘frequently invoke women’.7
Louis XII. Anne was later to serve under Mary’s step- While many works in RCM 1070 place some emphasis
daughter, Queen Claude, with whom she stayed until on female piety, marriage and childbirth, a greater num-
being called home to England late in 1521. It was in ber of works do not. Indeed one can come to a number
France, however, during seven formative years, that Anne of hypothetical conclusions based on the texts of indi-
developed her interests in music, illuminated manuscripts, vidual motets. Most recently Michael O’Conner has
poetry, dance, and the game of love.4 There is little doubt made a connection between the opening motet Forte si
that Anne Boleyn would have been exposed to the finest dulci Stigium boantem and Anne of Brittany (1477–1514)
music of the age while in France, including the work of who also features in Antoine de Févin’s Adiutorium nos-
composers represented in RCM 1070, but it does not trum in the latter part of the music book.8 However, as
necessarily follow that she would have taken a particular the two works were copied by different scribes and in
interest in performing or even collecting the music of her different sections of the music book, it is not possible to
youth.The only evidence for this is RCM 1070 itself, and draw any general conclusions here.9
scholars have long approached this manuscript with some It is unwise to frame theories about ownership based
trepidation and scepticism. on sections of texts in individual works; hypothesis built
The most extensive musicological studies of RCM on hypothesis will inevitably lead to circular reasoning,
1070 were undertaken by Edward Lowinsky in the early often with a number of possible conclusions. What we
1970s, and by Lisa Urkevich more than 20 years later.5 do know for certain is that i) RCM 1070 is demonstra-
Joshua Rifkin was first to make sense of the manu- bly a French production, probably begun in the early
script’s gathering structure and scribal layers, as well as years of the sixteenth century, ii) the music is largely
to offer some sound observations on dating.6 Lowinsky’s drawn from French courtly circles from around the last
study was unfortunately flawed from the start for he two decades of the fifteenth and the first decade of the
believed that the book was prepared for Anne Boleyn sixteenth century, and iii) the curious inscription or sig-
while Queen of England (1533–36); on this basis he nature referring to ‘Mres A Bolleyne’, in an early sixteenth-
advanced the theory that the music directly reflects century English hand, appears near the middle of the
Anne’s situation at that time, and even posited that the music book.
probable scribe was none other than her lutenist and
accused lover, Mark Smeaton. Urkevich argues that
much of the book dates from the early years of the six- Nineteenth-Century Ownership
teenth century, long before Anne was in France, so
could not have been prepared for her. She proposes, RCM 1070 has been part of the music collection at the
however, that RCM 1070 was given to the young Anne Royal College of Music since its foundation in 1883.The
Boleyn ‘most probably’ by Marguerite de Navarre book came to the college with nearly 5000 additional
(1492–1549), who was variously Princess of France, volumes which originated from the recently dissolved
Sacred Harmonic Society.10 The Society was founded in
4
On Anne Boleyn’s early education and her exposure to 1832 for amateur choral enthusiasts who met weekly to
music and the arts, see Ives, 18–36. explore exclusively sacred choral repertoire. It first met in
5
Edward E. Lowinsky, ‘MS 1070 of the Royal College of the Gate Chapel in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, but in 1836 was
Music in London’, Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association granted use of the grand and expansive Exeter Hall,
96 (1969–70), 1–28, and id., ‘A Music Book for Anne which stood on the north side of The Strand and had
Boleyn’, in Florilegium historiale. Essays presented to Wallace K. been erected in 1831 on the site of the former London
Ferguson, eds J. G. Rowe and W. H. Stockdale (Toronto,
1971), 161–235; repr. with an appendix in id., Music in the 7
Urkevich further elaborates her theories on possible owners
Culture of the Renaissance ed. Bonnie J. Blackburn, 2 vols and donors of RCM 1070 in ‘Music Books of Women:
(Chicago, 1989), ii: 484–528 (Blackburn provides an inven- Private Treasures and Personal Revelations’, Early Modern
tory of RCM 1070, 511–20); and Lisa A. Urkevich, ‘Anne Women 4 (Tempe, Arizona, 2009), esp. 175–7.
Boleyn, a Music Book, and the Northern Renaissance 8
Courts: Music Manuscript 1070 of the Royal College of Michael O’Conner, ‘Anne Boleyn’s Song Book: Where did
Music, London’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Maryland, 1997). it come from?’, paper delivered on 11 February 2017 at the
6
Society for Christian Scholarship in Music, Scripps College,
Joshua Rifkin, ‘A Black Hole? Problems in the Motet Claremont, California.
around 1500’, in The Motet around 1500: On the Relationship 9
of Imitation and Text Treatment, ed. Thomas Schmidt-Beste I am grateful to Thomas Schmidt for this observation.
10
(Turnhout: Brepols, 2012), 21–82, at 71–76. Edward The collection was purchased for £3000, the large major-
Nowacki, however, was first to highlight the French charac- ity (£2000) contributed by Sir Augustus Adderley, while
ter of RCM 1070. See, Edward Nowacki, ‘The Latin Psalm the remainder was raised by a number of lesser donations.
Motet 1500–1535’, Renaissance-Studien: Helmuth Osthoff See, William Barclay Squire, Catalogue of Printed Music in
zum 80. Geburtstag, Frankfurter Beiträge zur the Library of the Royal College of Music, London (London,
Musikwissenschaft 11 (Tutzing, 1979), 159–84. 1909), [i].
 Context and Earlier Ownership 3

residence of the Earls of Exeter. In its heyday the Sacred Robert William Haynes (1828–1879) was a well-
Harmonic Society championed the major choral works known London publisher of law books who set up shop
of Spohr, Mendelssohn and especially Handel; in 1859 with Henry George Stevens at 13 Bell Yard, Temple
the choir is known to have numbered 2765.11 Bar.15 Apart from donations to the Sacred Harmonic
From the outset the Society sought to collect sacred Society, his musical interests remain unknown. While it
music from all periods, and relied on generous dona- is clear that Haynes joined the Society at Christmas
tions from its long list of benefactors. We know of the 1853 and donated the music book in the following year,
acquisition of RCM 1070 from a modern, typewritten any earlier ownership has remained open to speculation
note from the 1970s pasted in the front of the book stat- until now. The 1854 description of Haynes’ gift states
ing that it was given to the Society ‘in 1854 by Robert that the ‘Latin Antiphonary’ was written on vellum,
William Haynes a member of the Society and frequent although the book consists entirely of paper. The com-
benefactor’. The 21st Annual Report of the Society, pilers of the Society’s Twenty-First Annual Report seem
published in 1854, lists the following five donations by simply to have taken their description of the book from
a Mr R.W. Haynes. The first item refers to RCM 1070: the small printed clipping pasted inside its front cover.
A Latin Antiphonary, beautifully written on vellum [sic] (See figure 1.)
and illuminated.
A Dissertation on Irish Music, by William Beuford, A.M.
A neatly written unpublished MS., illustrated by
coloured drawings. Figure 1: Clipping from William Pickering’s auction
Dubos’ Reflections of Poetry, Painting and Music. 3 vols. catalogue (London, 1854), pasted onto the inside of the
nineteenth-century front cover of RCM 1070
Maxwell’s Essay upon Tune.
Marshall’s Art of Reading Church Music.12 The information sheet dating from the 1970s and
Haynes was admitted to the Society in the previous pasted opposite this clipping states that it ‘is from an
year, and is among the new members listed at unknown sale catalogue prior to 1854’.16 This clipping
Christmas 1853.13 The ‘Latin Antiphonary’ must have has now been identified: it is from one of a series of
been a curious addition to the Society’s collection. It catalogues made following the death of the great
was given a fuller description in the 1855 supplement Victorian book collector William Pickering, whose
to the 1853 catalogue of the Library that was printed private library and antiquarian stock were auctioned
at a time when the collection had been increasing rap- between March 1854 and January 1855.17 The sale on
idly. The librarian, William Husk, states in his preface 12 December 1854 included 203 manuscripts to be
that ‘additions made to the Library during the past two sold by S. Leigh Sotheby and John Wilkinson at their
years are equal to one third of its entire contents in house on 3 Wellington Street, Strand, ‘at one o’clock
January, 1853.’ In the Supplement William Haynes is precisely’. The ‘Antiphonarium’ was among the first
listed among the 110 donors, whose number included items to be sold that Tuesday afternoon, and appears as
the great music publishers Vincent Novello and his son lot 4.18 Robert William Haynes therefore clearly pur-
Joseph Alfred, as well as Prince Albert. RCM 1070 is chased the music book with the sole purpose of
described under item 133 as follows: donating it immediately to the Sacred Harmonic
Society; he presumably had little personal contact with
A Collection of Latin Hymns, Psalms, &c., for Three, the manuscript after its purchase from the Pickering
Four, Five, and Six Voices (each part being written sep-
arately, but on the same folio). The only Composers’
sale. (See figure 2 overleaf)
names given are those of Jacob Obrecht and Josquin des
Pres, each of which is placed to one piece. The name
“Mris A. Bolleyne” is written on one leaf. Towards the
15
end of the volume two or three French Songs are Haynes’ death is recorded in The Law Times 66 (London,
inserted. Some of the initial letters are coloured. Small 1879), 303.
folio. Written about the 16th century. 16
The covers, from c.1854, were removed in 2016.
Presented to the Society by Mr. R.W. Haynes.14 According to the conservator, Sonja Schwoll, the book was
11
rebound at some point in c.1900, though the original
William H. Husk, ‘Sacred Harmonic Society’ in A boards were kept; the clipping was removed and reattached
Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Sir George Grove, 4 to a new pastedown.
vols (London, 1898), iii: 209–11. 17
12
James Martin McDonnell, ‘William Pickering, (1797–
Twenty-First Annual Report of the Sacred Harmonic Society 1894), Antiquarian Bookseller, Publisher, and Book
(London, 1854), 21. Urkevich, ‘Anne Boleyn, a Music Book’ Designer: A Study in the Early Nineteenth Century Book
(p. 6) speculated only that RCM 1070 ‘may have been pre- Trade’, (Ph.D. diss., The Polytechnic of North London,
sented in 1854’. 1983), 6.
13
Twenty-First Annual Report of the Sacred Harmonic Society, 71. 18
Catalogue of the Collection of Manuscripts and Autograph Letters
14
Supplement to the Catalogue of the Library of the Sacred formed by the late Mr. William Pickering of Piccadilly, Bookseller
Harmonic Society (London, 1855), 27. (London, 1854), [1].
4 The Anne Boleyn Music Book

breviaries, monastic and private deeds, but also (as lot 80)
an account book of Henry VIII’s Privy Purse expenses
from November 1529 to December 1532 (a period,
incidentally, when the king was courting Anne Boleyn).
This item is one of which Pickering was particularly
proud, doubtlessly thought of by the sellers as one of his
most prized possessions, heading a list of eye-catching
items on the title page of the auction catalogue.
Pickering owned the Privy Purse accounts from at least
as early as 19 November 1826, when he corresponded
with Sir Walter Scott about a ‘curious MS. Household
Book of King Henry VIII’, which he promised to show
to the author when he next visited London.21 The fol-
lowing year, in 1827, the accounts were edited by
Nicholas Harris Nicolas and published by Pickering.22
In his introduction, Nicolas was able to trace the account
book back from its earliest known private owner, Sir
Orlando Bridgeman, Lord Keeper (1606–1674) to its
acquisition by Pickering from ‘the sale of an Undertaker
and Broker, of the name of Gomme’.23 A copy of the
1827 edition currently in the library of the University of
Toronto contains a note claiming that the account book
was purchased at the Gomme auction in 1821 ‘for
for[ty?] shillings’, and that ‘it is at this time in the posses-
sion of Mr Pickering, Bookseller in Chancery Lane, who
has fixed the Price of it at £100 guineas — September
1827’.24 Pickering spent the remainder of his life unsuc-
cessfully attempting to sell the original.
As Pickering had two related items in his collection
— the privy purse expenses of Henry VIII during the
king’s courtship with Anne Boleyn, and a music manu-
script containing the name of ‘Mres A. Bolleyne’ — it is
tempting to suggest the remote possibility that they
came into the bookseller’s possession together,
although the music book does not appear in later cat-

Figure 2: Catalogue clipping as it appears in 21

Pickering’s Catalogue Ibid., 12. The correspondence is in the National Library of
Scotland, MS 3903, f. 177.
William Pickering (1796–1854) was one of the most 22
Nicholas Harris Nicolas (ed.), The Privy Purse Expences of
prominent English booksellers and publishers from the King Henry the Eighth from November MDXXIX, to December
first half of the nineteenth century. James Martin MDXXXII (London: 1827).The original manuscript is now
McDonnell explains that between 1820 and 1845 London, British Library, Add. MS 20030.
Pickering worked hard to become ‘one of the leading 23
Nicolas, vii.
rare book dealers in London’, not only as an antiquarian 24
Electronic copy available at https://archive.org/details/
but also as a publisher issuing new editions of classic and henryprivypurse00nicouoft (accessed 27 February 2017).
standard authors.19 His first shop was opened in June Gomme is probably James Gomme, FSA (d. 1825), a cabinet
1820 at 31 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, in the heart of London’s and furniture maker who may have acted as a banker as
secondhand-book district. Four years later he moved to there survives a token issued by him, dated 1811. A note in
57 Chancery Lane, where he remained until finally set- the catalogue states that ‘Gomme collected works of art,
tling at 117 Piccadilly.20 which were sold by auction after his death in the Town Hall
In terms of his tastes in collecting, Pickering tended shown on the token’. See https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-
to have a preference for books of the fifteenth and six- archive/past-catalogues/pr ices-realised.php?auction
teenth centuries, with a particular fondness for sixteenth- _id=35&layout= detailed&offset=1040&limit=80, lot 1070
century English books. The manuscript stock assembled (accessed 27 February 2017). I am most grateful to Nicholas
Rogers for this information. Pickering’s account book was
after his death contained not only early bibles, Roman
again listed for sale in a catalogue of 1834, although for the
19
greatly reduced price of £63. See [William Pickering],
McDonnell, 3. Catalogue of Biblical Classical and Historical Manuscripts and of
20
Ibid., 10–11. Rare and Curious Books (London, 1834). Lot 19.
 Context and Earlier Ownership 5

alogues during his lifetime. The only thing that can be

said for certain is that Pickering acquired it at some
point before 1854, but it seems very possible that, like
a number of his volumes, it had been in his collection
for several years if not decades.
Urkevich suggests that RCM 1070 was in England
at least towards the end of the eighteenth century. On
the back of the last page is a note in ink stating ‘This Figure 3: ‘Anne Boleyn’ inscription in RCM 1070, f. 79r
MSS. [sic] is about 250 y[ear]s old’, with an additional (enlarged detail)
contemporaneous note in pencil below adding ‘that is
in the year 1540’, so the inscriptions must have been in London, served as an alderman and was elected Lord
made around 1790. Indeed, while the author(s) of these Mayor in 1457.26 Anne’s father, Thomas, used the motto
notes are unknown, at least the first one, in ink, is writ- in his garter stall (he was invested in 1523). Thomas had
ten in what looks like a late-eighteenth-century hand. two sisters, Anne Clere (1487–1538) and Anne Shelton
Additionally, of the two sets of numbering throughout (1475–1555), both of whom could conceivably have
the book (page numbers at the top centre, and folio been styled ‘Mres A Bolleyne / Nowe thus’, but neither
numbers in the top right page corners), the former have is known to have received formal education in France
been identified by Joan Littlejohn, an assistant research or to have had any interest in music. So, assuming that
librarian at the RCM until 1983, as being in the hand the inscription does indeed refer to the Anne Boleyn,
of John Stafford Smith (1750–1836). Smith was a noted and that she is styled as ‘Mistress’, one should be able to
singer, composer and editor, and was once a pupil of provide a terminus ante quem for the inscription.
William Boyce as well as having transcribed works for Lowinsky asserts that the accompanying musical sym-
Sir John Hawkins’s A General History of the Science and bols may actually refer to Anne’s death, she that was
Practice of Music (London, 1776). It would appear that at ‘once so proud and upright, now had fallen into the
a much later date William Barclay Squire (1855–1927) dust’. He goes further to suggest that the three minims
added the folio numbers, also identified by Littlejohn.25 refer to her three years as Queen of England, and that
The nineteenth-century trail of the book then goes they ‘were intended to say how fast they had passed by,
cold, but it seems probable that the volume was in pri- whereas the longa with its stem downward was to be a
vate ownership for some time before, if not indeed from sign of the end that had come in a catastrophic reversal
the start. A re-examination of certain markings in RCM of fate.’27 Ives takes a similarly speculative view of the
1070 may suggest that the book was in England from a notation, suggesting that ‘the musical notes refer to time,
very early stage in its history. so the three minims could be a code for the interval
Anne and Henry knew was unavoidable before the
longa of a happy conclusion’.28 Urkevich counters that,
RCM 1070 and Sixteenth-Century Evidence as Queen of England, ‘she would not have been repre-
of English Ownership sented in a music book as Mistress Boleyn, particularly
not with her father’s motto’. She goes on to make the
i) ‘Mres A Bolleyne / Nowe thus’ valid point that after 1529 Anne would not have used
‘the lowly title “Mistress”’ after her father was elevated
The curious and enigmatic inscription or signature ‘Mres to the earldoms of Wiltshire and Ormond on 8
A Bolleyne / Nowe thus’ buried in the middle of RCM December 1529, although without specific corroborat-
1070 alongside Loyset Compère’s Paranymphus salutat ing examples.29 Others have surmised that she would
virginem has puzzled scholars for decades. It is clearly in have continued to be known as Mistress Anne Boleyn
an early sixteenth-century English hand, and its appear- until her creation as Marchioness of Pembroke on 1
ance in a French production has generated much spec- September 1532.30 However, as will be seen, Urkevich’s
ulation. Is it evidence that RCM 1070 was dedicated or assumption is quite correct.
given to Anne Boleyn during her time in France?
Could it have been written by someone close to her? 26
Ives, 3. He was buried in St Lawrence Jewry, Cheap Ward,
Might the scribe be referring to Anne’s situation at any London, where ‘Now thus’ was ‘32 times dispersed in
point during her adult years? Is it in fact Anne Boleyn’s Brasse all over the Gravestone’. John Stow, A Survey of
signature? Does it have anything to do with her what- London (London, 1598; 4th edn by Munday and Dyson,
soever? We will probably never know. However some 1633), 285.
27
thoughts may be put forward to place some of these Lowinsky, ‘MS 1070’, 8. Such wild speculation is fuelled
questions in a clearer light. (See figure 3) further by an accompanying footnote that ‘Sir Jack Westrup
‘Nowe thus’ had been the motto of the Boleyn fam- made the observation that the longa looked like an axe.’
ily since the time of Anne’s paternal great-grandfather, 28
Ives, 258.
Sir Geoffrey Boleyn, who made his fortune as a mercer 29
Urkevich, ‘Anne Boleyn, a Music Book’, 105.
30
This was the view of William J. Tighe of Muhlenberg
25
Urkevich, ‘Anne Boleyn, a Music Book’, 7–9. College. Private communication via Nicholas Rogers.
6 The Anne Boleyn Music Book

The stylisation of the children of titled men in the were executed in the Compère set like those in the
sixteenth century can be less than straightforward. But, gatherings at the beginning of the book, so we can
quite fortuitously, in the case of Anne Boleyn there is only speculate on this point.
one document that provides a clear result, and that just The inscription itself is clearly highly stylised, with
happens to be Pickering’s Privy Purse expenses of calligraphic elaboration. The decorative words are sur-
Henry VIII, which, it will be remembered, cover the rounded by musical devices not only evident in the
period November 1529 to December 1532. The fol- three minims and longa, but also in the diamond note
lowing are the first two entries referring to Anne heads in the decorations on either side of her name,
Boleyn (italics mine): with a sharp sign following ‘Bolleyne’, and what may
Item the same daye [23 November 1529] paied to Water be interpreted as a fermata or ‘corona’ over the abbre-
Walshe for certeyne stuf by him prepared for maistres viated ‘Mres’.35 Eric Ives observes that the letter ‘A’ in
Anne of divers parsonnes As apperith by a bille — the inscription very closely resembles that in the ‘amat’
CCxvij li. ix. viij d. monogram that can be found in Anne Boleyn’s psalter,
Item the same daye [14 December 1529] paied to as well as carved in the organ screen at King’s College,
george taylor servant to my lady Anne for Cokkes the fote Cambridge.This leads him to conclude that ‘the collec-
man — iij li. vij s. vj d.31 tion must belong to the period from 1527 when Henry
Anne is referred to as ‘maistres’ in the earlier account and Anne were confidently looking forward to an early
and from 14 December as ‘my lady’, a style that is used marriage and the arrival of children, precisely the
in the accounts thereafter. This neatly coincides with themes of many of the compositions’,36 although these
Thomas Boleyn’s elevation to the earldom of Wiltshire themes are found in many collections of early sixteenth-
and Ormond on 8 December.32 century motets.
Then there is the location and stylisation of the If this were the name of a person with little or no
inscription. If it were meant as a dedication to Anne fame there would probably be no difficulty in surmis-
Boleyn, one would expect it to appear at the beginning ing that the inscribed name is more than likely to be
of the book; if not on a preliminary flyleaf, then the that person’s signature. As was common at the time,
first opening of music, whereas ‘Mres Anne Bolleyne’ is Anne Boleyn tended to change her handwriting
written, seemingly quite randomly, near the middle of according to the language in which she was writing,
the music book (f. 79) on the recto side of Compère’s and also according to the formality of the occasion.37
Paranymphus following the tenor voice part. It is therefore impossible to link the highly decorative
Intriguingly however, Thomas Schmidt’s re-examina- inscription in RCM 1070 with anything that survives
tion of the book’s structure when unbound in 2016 has from Anne Boleyn’s hand. But as the terminus ante
provided incontrovertible physical evidence that the quem for the inscription has been established to be
signature appears on the first opening of what is con- before December 1529, and given the observations
sidered to be one of the ‘stage one’ quires in the orig- concerning its position in the manuscript and its dec-
inal copying process; he speculates whether ‘this might orative nature, one logical conclusion is that this is a
have been the intended starting point of the original fanciful musical signature, and by one who had con-
compilation by Scribe Ia’.33 Paranymphus is the first of nections with this music book. That this might be a
three motets by Loyset Compère (c.1445–1518), who is musical signature of Anne Boleyn in her youth, either
the oldest composer in the book, and Schmidt further at the French court or during the early years of her
notes that as he was still prominent at the French court return to England, seems the most plausible conclu-
after his retirement in around 1500, this ‘would have sion at present. It would follow, therefore, that when
made for quite an effective opening statement’, Anne was summoned back to England at the end of
although he concedes that there are no ‘material clues 1521 the music book travelled with her, although
regarding the order in which Scribe Ia intended these there is not a shred of evidence to back up such a
gatherings to appear’.34 In addition, no coloured initials claim. The book, however, did indeed end up in
England at some point prior to Pickering’s ownership
in the early- to mid-nineteenth century. Fortunately
31
Nicholas, The Privy Purse Expences of King Henry the the book itself provides further clues as to its early
Eighth, 3, 10. history in England.
32
I am grateful to Nicholas Rogers for drawing my attention
to these account entries.
33
See below, 17. Joshua Rifkin had already suspected that this 35
was the case when examining the gathering structure based Certainly the expected ‘tres’ is the normal form for the
primarily on the presence or otherwise of watermarks to ending of ‘mistress’ in the accounts and elsewhere. Lowinsky
determine conjugate leaves, as the binding was then too (‘MS 1070’) and Urkevich (‘Anne Boleyn, a Music Book’)
tight to deploy the usual means for such investigation. use ‘-tris’, although the ‘i’ seems clearly to be an ‘e’, as fol-
Rifkin, ‘A Black Hole?’, 71. lowed by Ives and here.
36
34
See Schmidt’s chapter on the ‘Physical Description’ below, Ives, 257.
37
for the quotations p. 17. I am grateful to Nicholas Rogers for this information.
 Context and Earlier Ownership 7

Figure 4: RCM 1070, ff. 1v–2r. Anonymous setting of Forte si dulci Stigium boantem

ii) English hands in RCM 1070

While RCM 1070 is a French production, largely or
wholly copied in France during the early sixteenth cen-
tury, there are at least two examples of where it was
touched by English hands or, at the very least, by hands
showing signs of English influence. The first instance is
found in the opening motet, the enigmatic Forte si dulci
Stigium boantem, an anonymous work which is set to a Figures 5a and 5b: RCM 1070, f. 1v, details from the third
neo-Latin poem (also anonymous) linking the New and fifth staves
Testament story of Lazarus with Olympus and the Greek
gods. Here the main scribe demonstrates his consum- by musicians who were almost certainly not associated
mate skills to the full: with neatly executed and finely with the manuscript’s original context – indeed one of
spaced musical notation, clear text underlay, and the rare examples of added accidental performance
coloured decorative initials.38 (See figure 4) marks of any sort in a choirbook of the period’.39
It is clear that a contemporary English hand took to These so-called ‘letter cancellation signs’, it must be
‘editing’ the opening of the superius part by adding emphasised, have thus far been found in only one
sharps, which on two occasions are cancelled by a Continental source. The exception is Jena, Thüringer
specifically English letter-f form of the fa sign (see fig- Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, MS 9 (Jena 9), a
ures 5a and 5b). Theodor Dumitrescu was the first to choirbook from the famous Alamire scriptorium that
report this important observation, explaining that was clearly prepared for Henry VIII but which never
English sources are ‘considerably more liberal with reached English shores. It is the only Alamire manu-
marked sharps than are continental books’, and that script devoted to an English composer, and contains
1070 ‘provides a rare and important confirmation of use only two works: the mass O bone Jesu by Robert Fayrfax

38 39
These decorative initials are considered more fully by Katia Theodor Dumitrescu, The Early Tudor Court and International
Airaksinen-Monier below. Musical Relations (Ashford, 2007), 151–2.
8 The Anne Boleyn Music Book

(1464–1521) and a fragmentary motet. Flynn

Warmington notes some ‘unique notational peculiari-
ties’ in the manuscript and that ‘a few features of English
music script are retained’, including cancellation signs
and blackened clefs, both particularly English notational
habits.40 It would appear that either this unique speci-
men from the Alamire scriptorium was prepared with
English singers in mind (particularly Henry VIII’s
Figure 6a: A = Above: dots are placed above the stave-line.
Chapel Royal), or the source used for the actual copy- Continental manuscript sources in general from c.1500.
ing was an exemplar of English origin. Jena 9, however, Mechelen Choirbook, B-MEa-ms-ss, f. 97v
contains one other English notational feature in the
scribe’s rendering of the dots of addition.
In a recent collaborative study led by John Milsom,
an intriguing pattern has emerged concerning the
habits of English and Continental scribes when notating
dots of addition when the note is placed on a stave-line
(rather than in a space).41 The dot can be variously
placed above, below, or on the line itself; there are five
basic patterns that have emerged from the study’s exam-
ination of a large corpus of English and Continental Figure 6b: B = Below: dots are placed below the stave-line.
manuscripts and prints. (See figures 6a-e.) All English manuscript sources generally from c.1500. The
It is significant to note that of the 50-plus manu- Eton Choirbook, GB-Wrec, MS 178, f.50v
scripts from the Alamire scriptorium, dots of addition are
invariably placed above the stave-line (A), while in Jena
9 they are placed below (B), and there has yet to be an
English musical source identified post c.1500 that does
not place the dot below the stave-line.42 In RCM 1070,
the main scribe (Scribe I) is consistent in placing his dots
on the stave-line as illustrated above (E), a practice that
had moderate currency on the continent;43 Scribe II, the
‘editor’ of the music book, places his dots according to
the direction of melodic movement (D).44 Intriguingly, Figure 6c: C = Chaotic: no logic to the placing of dots,
four compositions in the music book, all of which were above or below the stave-line. Pepys Manuscript, CB-Cmc
almost certainly added in the later stages of copying, fol- Pepys 1760, f.20r modern foliation (16r original foliation)
low the English practice of placing the dots below the
staff-line (B). The anonymous drinking song Gentilz
galans, published in 1520, is appended at the very end of

40
Warmington in Kellman, 100. The anonymous motet is
argued to be an elevation motet thematically tied to
Fayrfax’s mass O bone Jesu. See David Skinner’s booklet text
for Robert Fayrfax: The Masses, The Cardinall’s Musick, dir.
Andrew Carwood, CD GAUX353 (ASV Records/ Figure 6d: D = Directional: dots follow the direction of the
Gaudeamus, 2003). melodic movement. Some continental manuscripts and
41
John Milsom (lead author), ‘Dots Before the Eyes: Regional printed editions. RCM 1070, f. 108r
Preferences for the Placement of Dots of Addition’, Tijdschrift
van de Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiede-
nis (forthcoming); I am most grateful to John Milsom for
sharing his article before publication. The dotting categories
which follow are Milsom’s own formulations.
42
Milsom notes that dots below the lines have been found in
two pre-1500 continental manuscripts: in the Mellon
Chansonnier (mid-1470s) and in a fascicle of Brussels 5557
(c.1470). Brussels contains music by English composers;
Mellon does not. However, both were copied at a time Figure 6e: E = Equivalent: dots are placed on the stave-line,
when many English singers were working abroad. equivalent to the note. Some continental manuscripts.
43
One example of this is the ‘L’homme armé’ codex Naples 40. RCM 1070, f.20v
44
See Thomas Schmidt’s analysis of the scribal hands
below, 15–18.
 Context and Earlier Ownership 9

the book (ff. 133v–134), while the short setting of Sicut an added ‘altus’ was first printed by Attaingnant in 1528
lilium by Antoine Brumel (c.1460–1512/13) is simply (15283 and 15288), more than six years after Anne
copied on some blank pages earlier in the manuscript (ff. Boleyn’s return to England from France; the collection
92v–93); both are in the hand of Scribe III and are his was revised by Attaingnant in 1531 (15312). RCM 1070
only contributions. Scribe IV likewise is responsible only is the only English source of this chanson.49
for two works, copied consecutively near the end of the The reading of the superius in RCM 1070 at first
music book (ff. 113v–115): Jouyssance vous donneray by sight seems to follow in some details that of the second
Claudin de Sermisy (c.1490–1562) and the anonymous version in Cop. 1848, most notably at the start where
setting Venes regrets, venes tous, also on existing blank the voice enters after a minim rest, whereas in 1528 it
pages. Both were first published in 1528. is on the beat with the typical Parisian chanson rhythm
It is impossible to determine when these four addi- of a semibreve followed by two minims.50 The 1528
tional songs were copied into RCM 1070, but given that print also has an added passing note at ‘La ou pretent
all display this seemingly distinct English method of vostre esperance’ which does not occur in Cop. 1848
placing dots of addition below the stave-line, this may and RCM 1070, suggesting that the latter represents an
indicate that they were added after it reached England. early version of the four-part remake of the song. In
The presence of Sermisy’s Jouyssance is particularly inter- 15312 the added passing note is omitted and the minim
esting. All of the known composers in the music book rest at the beginning is reinstated, and therefore in line
were dead by 1522 apart from Sermisy, who would have with earliest melody as in Cop. 1848. Attaingnant was
been at the peak of his career in the 1520s. The text was Sermisy’s most prolific publisher and the printer is
composed by the French court poet Clément Marot known to have published different versions of the same
(1496–1544), who provided the inspiration for at least chanson.51 Such is the case with Jouyssance in a print
22 of Sermisy’s works. Anne would certainly have had issued in February 1536, which most closely resembles
occasion to know both men: Marot was a rising star at the reading in RCM 1070: this includes repeating the
court during Anne’s time in France, while Sermisy was a entire chanson in full rather than indicating the repeat
favourite musician of Francis I who became a member of the final section with a signum congruentiae, which is
of the king’s chapel from around 1517.45 present in the other sources (Cop. 1848, 15283&8 and
Jouyssance was one of the most popular chansons of its 15312),52 see Figures 7a–d overleaf, Superius of Claudin
day. Indeed, this is the music depicted in the famous de Sermisy, Jouyssance vous donneray.
painting Three Ladies Making Music, which survives in at The version in RCM 1070 could, of course,
least four (varied) versions, the most striking of which is equally have been copied from an unknown manu-
perhaps that by the anonymous ‘Master of the Female script source, but it does seem to follow the reading in
Half-Length Portraits’ from c.1530–c.1560, now in the Attaingnant 1536 more closely than any other source.
collection of the Counts Harrach at Castle Rohrau near Regardless of its origin, it would seem likely that
Vienna.46 The chanson is preserved in no fewer than 15 Jouyssance and the anonymous Venes regrets were added
undated manuscript sources,47 the earliest being MS Ny to the music book well after Anne Boleyn’s return to
kgl. Samling 1848, 2° in the Royal Library at England. A number of earlier writers have attempted
Copenhagen (Cop. 1848), which contains two different to link Jouyssance with Henry and Anne’s situation
three-part versions,48 while the four-part version with while courting from 1526 until their marriage in
1533. Anne famously kept her distance from the king
45 when it came to the most intimate forms of contact,
At some point between 1533 and 1536 Anne received a
presentation copy of Le Pasteur évangélique thought to be by
and the text of Jouyssance seems to touch on this mat-
Marot. In its introduction the author provides a flattering ter: ‘I will give you pleasure, my dear, and thus I will
comparison between the English and French royal couples ensure that what you hope for ends well … but if it
and adds a prophecy that Anne would provide Henry with weighs you down, appease your hurting heart: every-
a son who would grow strong. Anne would later offer thing will be good for those who wait.’ Eric Ives goes
Marot refuge from persecution for his religious beliefs. See further to suggest that there can be ‘little doubt that
James P. Carley, The Books of King Henry VIII and his Wives Henry joined Anne to sing these and others like
(London, 2004), 125; Ives, 259, 273–4. them’.53 But this is all pure guesswork, and any con-
46
Graf Harrach’sche Familiensammlung, Schloss Rohrau nection between this chanson and Henry and Anne is
(Austria), W. F. 169 (oil on oak, 60x53 cm). For a brief study
on the chanson in paintings see John Parkinson, ‘A Chanson 49
Jane Bernstein, ‘An Index of Polyphonic Chansons in
by Claudin de Sermisy’, Music & Letters 39 (1958), 118-22. English Manuscript Sources, c.1530–1640’, Royal Musical
47
See the inventory below. Association Research Chronicle 21 (1988), 21–36.
50
48
Peter Woetmann Christoffersen, French Music in the Early Christoffersen, vol. 3, xv.
Sixteenth Century: Studies in the Music Collection of a 51
Ibid., vol. 1, 72.
Copyist of Lyons. The Manuscript Ny kgl. Samling 1848 2o 52
in the Royal Library, Copenhagen, 3 vols (Copenhagen, In Attaingnant 1536 only the superius begins with a minim
1994); Christoffersen dates the three-part version of rest, while the other parts begin on the semibreve.
53
Jouyssance to around 1520 (see vol. 1, 96–7). Ives, 259.
10 The Anne Boleyn Music Book

wholly circumstantial, if not completely fanciful. In

summary, we have a chanson composed by Clement
Marot set to music by Claudin de Sermisy, both men
well known to Anne Boleyn, and entered into a music
book containing her name. It does not form any part
of the main production of RCM 1070 but was clearly
added at a later date. The first four-part version of
Jouyssance was published by Attaingnant in 1528, in the
middle of Henry and Anne’s courtship, and a version
more closely resembling that in RCM 1070 was issued
by Attaingnant in February 1536. Anne’s swift down-
fall began two months later towards the end of April.
Figure 7a: Attaingnant 15288 On 2 May she was arrested and charged with adultery,
and was locked in the Tower of London until her exe-
cution on Friday morning, 19 May. A tragic end to a
dramatic life.
Finally, note should be taken of the Latin proverbs that
immediately follow Jouyssance and Venes regrets in
RCM 1070. On f. 116v there appear three inscrip-
tions: two lines from Erasmus’s Adagia, and an uniden-
tified scribble in a secretary hand which may or may
not be English.
The Adagia is an annotated collection of Latin and
Greek proverbs compiled by Desiderius Erasmus and
first published in 1500. Erasmus continued to expand
the collection until his death in 1536. For anyone
interested in tracking down classical quotations in the
sixteenth century, Erasmus’s Adagia was the first port
Figure 7b: Attaingnant 15312 of call, rather than searching for the ancient authors
themselves.54 The quotations are Erasmus’s own edited
versions; the first is taken from Horace’s Epistles
(I.7.98), a poem about Voteius the Auctioneer, which
concludes that every man should ‘measure yourself by
your own foot’ (‘Tuo te pede metire’), essentially say-
ing that you are better off where you are than where
you want to be. The following, beginning ‘Nosce teip-
sum’ (‘Know thyself ’), is from a line of Persius’s Satire
(4, line 52), a poem that ends in a similar vein. In the
original, it reads ‘Tecum habita, ut noris quam sit tibi
Figure 7c: Attaingnant 15362
curta supellex’ (‘Live with yourself that you may know
how under-furnished you are’). Both quotations offer
the same sentiment: don’t get ideas above your station.
Lowinsky claims that the warnings were addressed to
Mark Smeaton, although it is impossible to determine
when the Latin lines were added to the book or
whether they have anything to do with anyone in par-
ticular.55 The content of the unidentified scribble on
the left, which so far has proved indecipherable,
remains a mystery.

54
I am most grateful to Leofranc Holford Strevens for his
comments on these inscriptions. A useful modern English
edition may be found in Watson Barker (ed.), The Adages of
Erasmus (Toronto, 2001).
Figure 7d: RCM 1070 55
Lowinsky, ‘A Music Book for Anne Boleyn’, 509.
 Context and Earlier Ownership 11

Figure 8: Latin proverbs in RCM 1070, f. 116v

‘Anne Boleyn’s Music Book’ hand in the motet Forte si dulci (the opening work in the
book) is perhaps most revealing as to its early history in
Opinions about the early ownership of RCM 1070 England. To this we may add the evidence of Milsom’s
vary widely. Facts have been few, and speculation rife. ‘B-dotting’, a practice commonly exercised by English
The pertinent question has always been whether Anne music scribes, found in four later additions to RCM 1070
Boleyn or anyone in her circle ever came into contact (the three French chansons and Brumel’s Sicut lilium),
with this book. It is impossible to claim her (or anybody suggesting that these works may have been added soon
else’s) direct ownership of RCM 1070 based on musical after the book reached English shores. Its subsequent his-
content alone, but we do have that contemporary musi- tory before ownership in the nineteenth century by the
cal inscription ‘Mres A Bolleyne / Nowe thus’, which, it antiquarian William Pickering remains unknown.
may be argued, could only refer to the Anne Boleyn. In 2015, a commercial recording, Anne Boleyn’s
Whether it is in her own hand, or written by someone Songbook, was released by the early music ensemble
connected with her, is of course another matter. Alamire, and the fantasy surrounding Anne Boleyn’s
However, we are at least able here to offer new obser- possible ownership was played out both in performance
vations about the book’s content and history, as well as and in the press.57 Speculation as to her involvement
a fresh perspective of its physical construction. with the book has been variously offered, from Anne
What do we really know? There is now generally uni- having no connection whatsoever, to the possibility that
versal consensus that RCM 1070 is of French origin and, the book might have passed through her hands at some
apart from the later additions of music by Sermisy and point in its history, to, at the most extreme, the notion
others, contains music from French courtly circles from that she did indeed possess the book and even might
c.1480 to c.1510. The copying could have begun around have personally participated in its content. Hard evi-
the end of this timespan when the bulk of the repertoire dence, however, must prevail and there is still very little
would already have been composed.56 It is impossible at to prove any direct ownership of RCM 1070 by any
this point to offer anything further regarding its origins particular person before the nineteenth century. Still,
or its earliest owners. What is certain, is that, within this while the weight of circumstantial evidence surround-
French production, there are clear examples of the book ing Anne Boleyn’s possible connection is extremely
having been in contact with early sixteenth-century light, evidence that it had a post-French ‘English’ history
English hands, and that the book indeed ended up in is more substantial. Someone must have owned the
England and probably from a very early date. With the book, and the inscription ‘Mres A Bolleyne / Nowe thus’
inscription ‘Mres A Bolleyne / Nowe thus’, which may seems a good place to start. Should RCM 1070 require
date from Anne’s early years in France or after her return a label, the best we can offer at present remains ‘The
to England in 1521, the appearance of an early English Anne Boleyn Music Book’.

57
Anne Boleyn’s Songbook, Music & Passions of a Tudor Queen,
56
As already suggested in Rifkin, ‘A Black Hole?’, 75. Alamire, dir. David Skinner, CD 175 (Obsidian: 2015).
 2
Physical Description and Genesis
Thomas Schmidt

RCM 1070 is a small folio volume of 134 paper leaves, illuminations rather than the content, as is the case in
with a (trimmed) page size of 287 x 190 mm. Like other books from the same period, although given the
many books of polyphony from this period, it was not rather unassuming nature of the decoration in this par-
made in a single and consistent copying and collation ticular book, greed or visual appeal seem questionable as
process from start to finish, but was assembled in several possible motives.3 The two missing leaves after f. 116, on
stages; in fact, as we will see, it is not clear whether it the other hand, almost certainly contained blank ruled
was ever deemed ‘complete’. These stages and the staves only, given that the three pages preceding the
underlying codicological structure were until recently lacuna are already blank and the scribe had apparently
obscured by a rebinding that dates from the late nine- abandoned filling the gathering with music halfway
teenth century, which had altered the gathering dispo- through. Perhaps somebody was just looking for a few
sition radically.1 The dismantling of this binding in July pieces of readily available manuscript paper. In any case,
2016, however, revealed that a number of the original by the time John Stafford Smith added his pagination in
bifolia were still partially intact, and elsewhere traces of the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century, the
the original stitching of the gatherings confirmed these books was already in the state we find it today since the
findings. Combined with other clues, such as the distri- sequence of numbers contains no gaps;4 the same of
bution of ruling patterns and scripts, the presence or course applies to the 20th-century pencil foliation that
absence of watermarks (of which every bifolium con- will serve as the point of reference for this study.
tains only one) and the presence of blank pages indicat- With the exception of two leaves added at the very
ing gathering boundaries, this has made it possible to end at a later date, the entire book is copied on one and
reconstruct with confidence the original structure of the same type of paper which is of medium thickness
the book (see Appendix I).2 From this, it transpires that and of a high quality. It is exceptionally well preserved,
the book consists almost in its entirety of gatherings of with few signs of corrosion or decay; the only exception
four bifolia, or quaternios, with some leaves removed is some discolouration at the bottom outside corners
from the book at a later stage. The single missing folios from page-turning, as well as a degree of yellowing at
after ff. 6 and 17 – which also result in lacunae in the the very beginning and end of the book and on some
music – were perhaps later excised out of interest in the internal pages. Urkevich takes the thumbing traces on
the corners as an indication that RCM 1070 was used
The observations made here draw on repeated viewing of the in performance.5 While there is every possibility that
manuscript, but are also strongly indebted to the seminal study this may have been the case, the staining may just as well
in Rifkin,‘A Black Hole?’, at 71–6.The codicology of the book point to other types of use: singing was not the only
has also been studied in detail in Urkevich, ‘Anne Boleyn, a possible mode of reading a polyphonic book. Indeed,
Music Book’, and ead., ‘Anne Boleyn’s French Motet Book, a the fact that – as Urkevich herself points out – the dis-
Childhood Gift. The Question of the Original Owner of MS colouration is most pronounced on in the first three
1070 of the Royal College of Music, London, Revisited’, in Ars gatherings, which contain the decorated initials and
musica septentrionalis: De l’interprétation du patrimoine musical à miniatures, may indicate that the reason for their heavier
l’historiographie, eds Barbara Haggh and Frédéric Billiet (Paris,
2011), 95–119. Urkevich, however, was led astray by the mod-
3
ern collation and binding, so her codicological findings have Other examples of polyphonic music books with illumi-
been superseded, as have those by Lowinsky, who was the first nated pages removed are found in the ‘Alamire’ corpus,
scholar to study the book in detail: see Lowinsky, ‘MS 1070’, such as Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Mss. Capp. Sist. 34,
and id., ‘A Music Book for Anne Boleyn’. 36, and 160, or Jena, Thüringische Universitäts- und
1
The binding removed in 2016 was dated by Sonja Schwoll, Landesbibliothek, Chorbuch 7. For a more general discus-
the conservator carrying out the work, to c.1900.This bind- sion of leaves or miniatures excised from illuminated man-
ing reused older covers made of brown leather over stiff uscripts and their fate in later collections, see for example
pasteboard, apparently dating from the nineteenth century. Roger S. Wieck, ‘Folia Fugitiva: The Pursuit of the
2
Illuminated Manuscript Leaf ’, The Journal of the Walters Art
This structure had already been deduced in its entirety by Gallery 54 (1996), 233–54.
Rifkin (‘A Black Hole?’, 72–4) from the presence or 4
absence of watermarks on individual leaves, changes of Urkevich, ‘Anne Boleyn, a Music Book’, 7–8.
5
scribal hand, gaps in the music, and blank pages. Urkevich, ‘Anne Boleyn’s French Motet Book’, 97.
 Physical Description and Genesis 13

use is their visual appeal which would have attracted

readers and beholders throughout the centuries. It is
frequently observed that in illuminated manuscripts the
prettiest pages are the ones showing the greatest amount
of wear and tear. As to the discoloration of whole pages,
the first page of the second codicological unit (f. 23r) is
quite heavily stained which indicates that this unit – and
possibly others – at some point existed separately before
being bound together in a book. The same applies to f.
102v, the end of the first main section of the book; here, Figure 9a: RCM 1070, f. 1
only the left-hand side of the page is discoloured which
has led Urkevich to conclude that this part of the book
must have been folded lengthwise and stored in this
fashion at some point.6 There is, however, no trace of
actual folding on this page or the rest of the gathering,
and the edge of the discolouration is not straight and
clean enough to support such a theory.
The watermarks found in the main body of the
manuscript have the shape of an uncial ‘M’ outline
shape, identified by Lowinsky and Urkevich as similar to
nos 8416–8418 of Briquet’s Filigranes.7 Given the sum- Figure 9b: RCM 1070, f. 30
mative and selective nature of Briquet’s catalogue,8 it is
not possible to determine a precise match. In any case,
the marks in RCM 1070, while obviously of the same
type, appear in a number of variants (see Figures 9a–d)
inconsistently distributed across the entire book and are
thus – even taking into account the presence of ‘twins’
and disregarding the ‘rogue’ bifolium 74–75 (see Figure
9e) which presents a clearly different ‘M’ shape – possi-
bly from the same mill, but not from an identical batch.
But since all instances of these marks listed by Figure 9c: RCM 1070, f. 54
Briquet are found in Northern France (except for one
instance in the Low Countries) in the last two decades
of the fifteenth and the first two decades of the six-
teenth century, it is reasonable to assume that our paper
was made in this region around the same time as well.
The uniformity of the paper also suggests a single and
coherent context of production, a book made over a
short period of time in the same place. Nevertheless,
the preparation and ruling of the text block and the
copying of the text and music suggest two clearly dis-
tinct codicological sections, with three phases of copy-
ing and some additions at a later stage (this apart from
the entirely different paper used for the last two leaves Figure 9d: RCM 1070, f. 77
which were added later).
The first section encompasses folios 1–102, with all
pages pre-ruled with a five-line rastrum for eleven
staves. No pricking is visible, but the ruling is neverthe-
less even and neat, with only small irregularities in the
6
Ibid., 98.
7
Charles-Moïse Briquet, Les filigranes (Geneva, 1907), iii: 453.
Online at http://www.ksbm.oeaw.ac.at/_scripts/php/
BR.php (accessed on 20 June 2017).
8
The much more comprehensive watermark database based
on Gerhard Piccard’s work in the Hauptstaatsarchiv Stuttgart
(https://www.piccard-online.de/start.php) is strongly
focused on Southern Germany and Northern Italy; ‘M’
watermarks of this type are not present in this resource at all. Figure 9e: RCM 1070, f. 74
14 The Anne Boleyn Music Book

size of the text block and the alignment of staves which brown ink with an 11-mm rastrum, while the staves in
indicate that the preparation was done with a good eye gatherings IV–V and VII–VIII are 11.5 mm in height in
as the only guide. The preparation is entirely uniform, a lighter, reddish ink. Additionally, there are some
with no consideration for any specifics of the repertoire instances where later changes were made to the colla-
to be copied: it is designed to accommodate a standard tion. Folio 56 is clearly a replacement leaf, as evidenced
four-part texture. Both on the verso and the facing by the stub of the leaf originally conjoined to f. 61 still
recto, the first and seventh staves are indented by about visible in the gutter, and by a subtly different ruling,
2–3 cm, providing space for an initial indicating the with the bottom frame-line on f. 56v ruled in hard
beginning of a new voice part. The ruling is consistent point rather than ink. There is no visible break in scribal
enough to contemplate the idea that the gatherings activity here – we are in the middle of Mouton’s In illo
might have been bought pre-ruled from a stationer, but tempore – which suggests that this is not a retrospective
the somewhat variable darkness of the ink and the slight intervention but the rectification of some mishap dur-
irregularities of preparation ultimately mitigate against ing the original copying process.
that assumption, as does the fact that on at least one Gatherings XI and XIII were prepared along similar
page (f. 67v), the lower indentation is on the eighth lines (with the same number of staves and overall size of
rather than the seventh stave.9 text block) which together with the identical paper type
Within this first section, however, two clearly separate suggests a common parentage, but sufficiently different
stages can be distinguished. In the majority of gather- in detail to deduce a different stage of production. The
ings (that is, all except XI and XIII), the text block, ruled frame and text lines are in the same colour ink as
measuring c.230–240 x 130–135 mm overall, is defined (albeit a lighter shade than) the ruled staves, rather than
by a ruled frame in light red ink, with two vertical lines in red, and the bottom line is drawn not across but only
to the left and right across the entire page, and another between the two vertical bounding lines; the rastrum
frame line at the bottom, the latter ruled all the way itself is slightly smaller in size (10.5 mm). That a differ-
across the page and bifolium (this is best seen on blank ent implement was used to rule the pages of these two
ruled pages, such as ff. 93v–94r). Between the two ver- gatherings is also apparent from the way the ink is dis-
tical bounding lines, eleven staves are ruled; the frame pensed, with five small blobs of ink at the right end of
line at the bottom serves at the same time as the line for each ruled stave where the rastrum would have been
the underlaid text, and text lines in the same ink are also lifted off the page; this is clearly not the case in the other
present for all other staves, regardless of whether any gatherings (see for example ff. 86v–87r with the end of
text is in fact added. The consistent presence of the text gathering XI and the beginning of gathering XII).
lines as well as their integration into the overall ruling Things get a bit more complicated in gathering XIII
of the text block in fact suggests that they were entered which obviously saw some later changes to its compo-
first, and the staves then inserted into that frame.10 In sition.The two inner bifolia (ff. 97–100) are ruled in the
contrast to the staves which are almost always drawn way just described, while the bifolium 96/101 (now
very neatly between the vertical bounding lines, the text separate, but clearly conjoined originally) has light red
lines often overshoot into to the left- or right-hand staves of 11.5 mm in height; at first glance it might seem
margins. Slight variations – which, however, do not that the preparation is identical to that of gatherings
appear to affect the overall consistency of preparation IV–V and VII–VIII, but the rastrum used is not identical
and copying – are visible between gatherings I–III, VI, and the bottom frame-line is not drawn all the way
IX–X and XII, where the staves are ruled in a darker across the page. The outer bifolium (ff. 95/102) is irreg-
ular as well: while f. 102 is prepared identically to ff. 97–
9
Stationers plied a booming trade in Paris already from the 100, f. 95 is a replacement leaf like f. 56. This is apparent
13th century (see Richard H. Rouse and Mary A. Rouse, from the fact that the frame-lines and the ruling do not
Manuscripts and their Makers. Commercial Book Producers in line up across the two leaves and that the ruling on f. 95
Medieval Paris 1200–1500 (Turnhout, 2000)), but no evi- is again in lighter red ink with a rastrum of 11 mm (very
dence for commercially available ruled music paper from similar but probably not identical to that found in gath-
the French metropolis has thus far come to light. We know, erings I–III, VI, IX–X and XII).11 Since the music on
however, that carta rigata per musica (both for chant and for the outer leaves of the gathering is also copied in a
polyphony) was sold by stationers in Florence since at least
lighter, more reddish ink (if still by the same hand), this
the late 15th century; see Thomas Schmidt, ‘Making
Polyphonic Books in the Late Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth is not a matter of slightly differently prepared pages
Centuries’, in The Production and Reading of Music Sources. being combined in one gathering before copying
Mise-en-page in Manuscripts and Printed Books containing started, but must be an act of revision. The most plausi-
Polyphonic Music, 1480–1530, eds Thomas Schmidt and ble explanation seems to be that the beginning of the
Christian Thomas Leitmeir (Turnhout, 2017). gathering originally contained a different piece, or the
10
Such consistent ruling of text lines is in fact rare in poly- end of one that had started on a previous gathering. In
phonic music manuscripts from this period; in most order to replace this piece with Brumel’s Quae est ista
instances, the ruling of the staves is primary, and text lines quae processit, the scribe removed the first leaf and the
(where they are present at all) were added ad hoc by the
11
copyist rather than the ruler. Rifkin, ‘A Black Hole?’, 74.
 Physical Description and Genesis 15

entire second bifolium, as a consequence having to the occasional presence of the ‘Ia-type’ custos in the
recopy the first verso page of Josquin’s Liber generationis context of Ib as well, most clearly seen on f. 24r where
(which starts on f. 96v) and the portion of that same all custodes have this shape.
piece contained on f. 101. Why the scribe removed the The text script, presumably written by the same per-
entire second bifolium and not merely the front half of son as the music, is also very similar in both Scribe I
it (as he had done for f. 95) is impossible to say, and variants: it is the bastarda book hand typical for France
somewhat weakens this hypothesis; but it is difficult to (and the southern Low Countries) in the decades
conceive of any other scenario that fits the evidence. around 1500.14 The text hand is more elegant than that
The second section, on folios 103–132, while on the found in many other contemporary manuscripts of
same type of paper, is prepared very differently. The polyphonic music where – even in the more lavish
frame consists of only two vertical bounding lines in books – often less care is taken over entering the words
lead point to the left and right; there are only occasional than entering the notes.15 Within that, Ia seems on the
lines for the underlaid text added ad hoc in hard point whole somewhat more diligent than Ib in writing both
or pencil, and the number of ruled staves, now in a the words and the notes. The music notation is some-
much lighter reddish-brown ink, goes down from what more calligraphic, with very regular and evenly
eleven to nine. The rastrum is bigger (14 mm), as is the spaced noteheads, but on occasion widening the spacing
distance between staves, resulting in a very similar-sized to accommodate the verbal text; it also includes occa-
overall text block (c.240–250 x 135–140 mm). The sional elongated and embellished final notes. The text
music and text are in a reddish-brown shade of ink very script is also more calligraphic and ornate, with embel-
similar to that of the stave ruling. lished litterae notabiliores as second letters (after the unex-
Finally, the two added leaves are again ruled with 9 ecuted initials) at the beginning of voices, as well as
staves, but with a different rastrum (13 mm); the staves flamboyant ascenders on the letter v and descenders on
are drawn in a very irregular fashion, entirely unguided the letter g. Hand Ib, on the other hand, writes some
by bounding lines and with a variable overall text block unusually elaborate capital letters, especially towards the
that is much wider than any of the two main sections beginning of the book. As for the music hand, there
(up to 170 mm). The fact that the staves extend almost nevertheless seems no reason to doubt that these are
all the way to the outer edge of the page gives rise to two variants of the same hand given the similarity of the
the suspicion that the original paper was of a different letter shapes – see especially the looped d, h, l and v, or
size and had to be more severely trimmed to make it fit the long s with its characteristic fat and slightly forward-
the book block. leaning stem.
The production of Scribe II – who is responsible for
the copying of the second, shorter section (ff. 103–132)
Scribal hands – is by comparison less impressive calligraphically. His
hand is not as regular and well-formed as that of Scribe
The different preparations also match the distribution of I; there is less attention to making the noteheads or the
scribal hands. The first section is fundamentally the text script even and of equal size, with especially the
work of a single scribe (here referred to as Scribe I, fol- black noteheads (semiminims and fusae) smaller and
lowing Rifkin) whose hand, however, manifests itself in more irregularly shaped; generally his strokes seem
two different forms (referred to as Ia and Ib).12 quicker and hastier, with stems at uneven angles and
Urkevich deemed these to be two different scribes,13 noteheads varying between more rounded and more
but the similarities outweigh the differences to such a rhomboid shapes. Only in the last two gatherings (from
degree that they really have to be considered variants of f. 117 onwards) does the writing become more careful
the same hand.The noteheads, stems, fusa flags and acci- and even, although obviously still in the same hand. The
dentals are virtually identical, and so is the c-clef with text is once more written in a standard French bastarda,
its slightly downward-sloping compartments and an in a type not dissimilar to that of Scribe I, but again
elongated right descender. Additionally, the scribe in more irregular in size, angle and alignment, often with-
both forms consistently draws the stems of the notes as out great care in aligning words and notes. None of this
separate strokes from the noteheads, a practice not often indicates a lack of expertise; on the contrary, the work
found elsewhere. The clearest distinguishing feature
between the two variants is the shape of the custos 14
See Albert Derolez, The Paleography of Gothic Manuscript
which in version Ia has a double hook indicating the Books: From the Twelfth to the Early Sixteenth Century
note and a strongly curved ascender, while Ib favours a (Cambridge, 2003), 157–60.
single hook with a straight line ascending diagonally 15
On the relative expertise of scribes of polyphonic music
upwards. Any sense, however, that this might be a truly books in copying text and music see Thomas Schmidt-
separative variant between the two hands is dispelled by Beste, ‘Über Quantität und Qualität von Musikhand-
schriften des 16. Jahrhunderts’, in Die Münchner Hofkapelle
12 des 16. Jahrhunderts im europäischen Kontext, eds Theodor
Ibid., 71. Göllner and Bernhold Schmid (Munich, 2006), 191–211,
13
Urkevich, ‘Anne Boleyn, A Music Book’, 21–3, 44–8. at 203–11.
16 The Anne Boleyn Music Book

of Scribe II is virtually without errors.This is apparently first and/or last pages of gatherings uncopied when he
the work of a professional musician rather than that of knew that the relevant booklet was intended to be inte-
a professional scribe: the correct and efficient commu- grated into a larger book.17 But the very large Cappella
nication of content was more important to him than the Sistina codices were combined into booklets from indi-
visual appeal. The status of Scribe II as an expert musi- vidual single leaves after copying which allows for a
cian is further borne out by his role as the editor of the more flexible approach to compilation whereas no sim-
first section of the manuscript which allows us to recon- ilar case of purposefully leaving pieces incomplete is
struct with great precision how RCM 1070 was put known for codices put together from pre-existing book-
together as a book in a number of discreet stages.16 lets of real bifolia. As improbable as it might seem, given
Since his interventions (described in greater detail its internal consistency – with four complete pieces, at
below) consistently pervade the entire first section of least three of which are by the same composer – it thus
the book, it is furthermore clear that all parts of it were seems most likely that gathering XI is a survivor from a
already in existence when he started his work; he was consecutively copied series of gatherings. Perhaps its self-
the one responsible for combining them in the order we contained nature (and indeed perhaps the ‘Anne Boleyn’
find them today. signature on f. 87r) ensured its survival. Whatever the
The two gatherings prepared by Scribe Ia must have original plan though, it is clear that it was at least par-
existed separately at first, probably before any other tially abandoned. At the end, the same scribe did append
parts of the book were even started. Not only do they the unit to his own gathering XII at a later stage, by
clearly contain the earliest repertoire (on which more copying the missing end onto f. 87r; but that gathering
below), but they were adapted and integrated into the was itself left unfinished and without text which was left
book as pre-existent units. This is most apparent in to be added by Scribe II for the recopied page. At the
gathering XI (ff. 79–86). Here, the first composition beginning, gathering XI was inserted after a series of
begins already on f. 78v, with discantus and tenor blank openings where Scribe Ib had again interrupted or
(re)copied on the final verso of the preceding gathering abandoned his compilation of repertoire, and it was
by the later Scribe II; the last composition likewise again left to Scribe II to establish the connection.
extends across the gathering boundary, with the con- The situation is again somewhat different for gath-
cluding altus and bassus voice parts on f. 87r copied by ering XIII, the second surviving unit copied by Ia. It is
Scribe Ib (music) and again Scribe II (text). There are clear that it was not originally isolated: f. 102v contains
three possible scenarios for the compilation process. the beginning of Josquin’s genealogy motet Factum est
First, gatherings XI and XIII could be the sole survivors cum baptizaretur which forms an obvious pair with the
a longer series of units all copied by Ia, subsequently preceding sister work Liber generationis and surely must
integrated into the new structure by recopying the first have followed in its entirety on a subsequent (now lost)
and last pages. Second, Scribe Ia might have copied the gathering. However, the discolouration of the paper on
gathering purposefully without the first and last pages, that last page demonstrates that this additional gathering
anticipating from the start its integration into a longer must have been removed at a relatively early stage and
sequence of gatherings, the first and last pages to be that Section 1 of the book (which ends on this page)
copied onto the blank pages of the adjoining gatherings. must have existed separately for a while before section
Third, gathering XI could have started its existence as a 2 was appended. At the beginning of the gathering, on
quinternio, with the outer bifolium – with its empty the other hand, the situation is very similar to that of
outer pages – later discarded and the remainder inserted gathering XI; it begins on the first recto with the altus
into a new sequence of gatherings by recopying the first and bassus voices of the first piece, the discantus and
and last pages. tenor to be added on the facing verso of the preceding
Against the assumption of an original quinternio unit. But yet again, either the preceding gathering was
mitigates the fact that all other gatherings in this book discarded or Scribe I never got around to finishing the
are quaternios, and that the overwhelming majority of job and the gathering was eventually appended to gath-
Franco-Flemish music codices from the period likewise ering XII once more by Scribe II.
use quaternios as their standard codicological unit. Then But we are getting ahead of ourselves in terms of
again, the recopying of single pages at the beginning or Scribe I’s copying activities. After the creation of the
end of a gathering to achieve seamless transitions (rather two ‘Ia’ gatherings (and any other material from this first
than tolerating the blank openings which result from phase of copying now lost), that same copyist recom-
joining pre-existing booklets with their – given the menced the compilation, with the obvious intention to
nature of choirbook notation – necessarily blank outside create a much more substantial collection of motets. As
pages) does occasionally occur. However, the purposeful already indicated, however, this second stage again
omission of first and last pages to the same end is virtu- unfolded in fits and starts even though the campaign
ally unheard of, with the exception of a very few starts in a very promising and purposeful fashion. The
Cappella Sistina codices where Jeffrey Dean has argued first three gatherings were obviously compiled as a unit:
that the scribe did indeed, if rarely, appear to have left
17
Jeffrey J. Dean, ‘The Scribes of the Sistine Chapel, 1501–
16
See already Rifkin, ‘A Black Hole?’ 75, n. 184. 1527’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1984), 22–3, 80–3.
 Physical Description and Genesis 17

their copying extends across gathering boundaries, and those units with the pre-existing products of Scribe Ia
in contrast to the rest of the book, even the initials are serve to highlight rather than rectify their fragmentary
fully executed (see below). What is more, their content nature, as do the occasional pieces added later by differ-
proves that they were specifically designed to be the ent scribes.
beginning of the book as a whole, given the demonstra- The whole process thus emerges as follows. Scribe I
tive opening with a humanistic motet in Sapphic stan- began to copy motets into a series of isolated gatherings,
zas, in praise of Orpheus and Christ: a fitting start for but with the clear intention to join these gatherings
any book of motets and markedly set apart from the with others to form more substantial units. There must
(para-)liturgical or devotional repertoire that dominates have been more of these ‘Ia’ gatherings than are extant
the rest of the book. today, as indicated by the single page copied by Scribe
However, already this initial three-gathering unit II at the end of gathering III (f. 22v) which apparently
ends inconclusively, with a blank opening followed by a served the purpose to attach a now-lost gathering, and
final verso originally also blank (on which Scribe II the open-ended nature of gathering XIII which was
later copied the beginning of the anonymous O salve followed by at least one other, lost gathering by the
genitrix virgo dulcissima, in another attempt to create a same scribe. Since the first opening of the first of these
continuous sequence by joining an existing gathering stage-one gatherings contains the ‘Anne Boleyn’ signa-
or gatherings now lost). What follows are more single- ture, it is tempting to consider whether this might have
gathering or two-gathering units created by Scribe Ib been the intended starting point of the original compi-
(IV–V, VI, VII–VIII, IX–X, XII), each marked out as lation by Scribe Ia. This suggestion seems corroborated
separate by blank pages on the outsides; and as we will by the fact that this gathering begins with three motets
see below, their codicological consistency is matched by by Loyset Compère whose connections to the French
a consistency of repertoire. It seems reasonable to court had remained strong even after he apparently
assume that all these units – all copied on the same retired from its formal employ around 1500;18 this
paper and all motets – were created by Scribe Ib as part would have made for quite an effective opening state-
of a larger project, to be joined with the earlier ‘Ia gath- ment. But since there are no material clues regarding
erings’ eventually to form a complete book; but it is the order in which Scribe Ia intended these gatherings
equally apparent that if there was a masterplan regarding to appear, this notion must necessarily remain specula-
repertoire and order of compilation, this was never tive; all we can say with certainty is that these two
realised. Not only is the opening unit incomplete at the booklets represent the earliest stage of copying and
end (surely with an idea to copy more repertoire to fill indeed repertoire.
the blanks, perhaps hoping to find a piece or pieces that The same scribe then re-launched the process, draw-
‘fit’ into this particular space), but the copyist also aban- ing on the same type of repertoire and using the same
doned the compilation of several others as well, in various paper, but otherwise virtually from scratch. At least ini-
stages of incompletion. Gathering VI has a blank open- tially, he took a more systematic and comprehensive
ing at the beginning rather than the end, presumably approach than at the ‘Ia’ stage. A proper beginning is
indicating either the addition of a short piece that created both musically and codicologically, much more
would only fill one opening, or with the intention to music is copied, and one of the new gatherings is pro-
join this unit to another one by adding a piece that visionally attached to one of the pre-existing ones. Yet,
would fill the end of a preceding gathering (we cannot this second initiative was once again abandoned, leaving
know whether this would have been the current gath- the codicological units disjointed and in many cases
ering V though) and its own beginning. obviously unfinished.
Twice, the copying of units is abandoned at an even It was left to Scribe II to compile and shape what
more incomplete stage. The unit comprising gatherings seems to have been at this point a loose stack of gather-
IX–X contains only a single piece copied in its entirety ings into a proper book. He joined together various
– Josquin’s Praeter rerum seriem – which is followed by an units, and presumably put all of them in the order we
incomplete rendition of the same composer’s Virgo salu- find them today; and he also corrected a substantial
tiferi genitrix intacta (with no text provided except for the number of copying errors by Scribe I. There is, however,
recto of the first opening, and with the canonic cantus no attempt on his part to fill the numerous blank open-
firmus voice in the discantus missing from the first two ings with repertoire which would have been an obvious
openings, but strangely present on the last two) and a way to lend more coherence to the book. Instead, he
fragment of Jean Mouton’s Gaude Barbara beata (the first added whatever new repertoire he thought worth
opening only, again without text and even more adding in a separate (and differently prepared) section of
strangely with all notes lacking their stems). After this, his own, which itself is codicologically inconsistent in
the copying peters out completely and the remaining that it falls into two separate units (gatherings XIV–XV
five openings of the unit are left blank. Similarly, gath-
ering XII initially contained only Mouton’s untexted 18
See Joshua Rifkin et al., ‘Compère, Loyset’, Grove Music
Maria virgo semper laetare and three blank openings. In Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press (accessed
both cases, the attempts by Scribes Ib and II to integrate on 10 March 2017). <http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com
/subscriber/article/grove/music/06205>.
18 The Anne Boleyn Music Book

and XVI–XVII, respectively) the first of which again notation of the continental type had become common
contains blank openings at the end. Maybe Scribe II had in Britain by this time, and likewise, the ‘bastard secre-
even begun collecting his own repertoire before he tary’ as the most common cursive script in England in
started collating and editing the first section; in any case, the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries can be
the fact that very similar paper is used for both sections virtually indistinguishable from its continental models.21
indicates that the two scribes worked in close chrono- This is not quite the end of the story: a small number
logical and geographical proximity, rather than that of pages (after ff. 6, 7, and 116) and even some complete
Scribe II just picked up Scribe I’s entirely unrelated gatherings (after ff. 22 and 102) were removed from the
productions at some later point.19 compilation at some subsequent stage. As the original
Such a shared context, however, cannot be assumed binding is lost, we cannot know with certainty when
for the activities of the two copyists who added material this happened, but it must have been before John
later on, onto openings left blank by the two original Stafford Smith added his pagination in the late eigh-
scribes. Two such copyists can be distinguished: ‘Scribe teenth or early nineteenth century.22
III’ adding a short motet by Antoine Brumel on ff. 92v–
93r and a chanson on the two added leaves at the end, Before we turn our attention to the illuminations
and ‘Scribe IV’ entering two further chansons on ff. and the repertoire, some comments are required on the
113v–115r. These two hands, similar yet clearly not the nature and the amount of corrections made by Scribe II
same, display the same basic characteristics as Scribes I in Scribe I’s work, and on the light these corrections
and II: white mensural notation and a French bastarda shed on the latter’s expertise as a copyist. As pointed out
text script. The music in both is notated in a competent above, Scribe I is above reproach as a graphic artist: the
but not particularly regular or elegant fashion, with musical notation is highly regular and beautifully
irregularly-shaped noteheads and variable spacing; the shaped, and the text hand matches or indeed surpasses
text script in both has some calligraphic pretensions, the music hand in its elegance. The care taken over the
with many bold and ornate letter shapes. Scribe III also visual appearance, however, is not matched by an equal
adds ornate cadel-type penwork initials on ff. 92v–93r competency regarding the actual musical content. This
while Scribe IV limits himself to a single discantus ini- is not to say that Scribe I was lacking totally in relevant
tial of a similar type (and indeed a similar motive) to expertise: the layout rules of polyphonic notation are
those of Scribe III on f. 113v.20 These pieces were largely maintained.23 Line breaks occur at mensural tac-
clearly added later, after the book as such had been tus boundaries, even when this results in uneven line
compiled and possibly even bound. This is evident not ends: sometimes the notation does not reach the end of
only from the fact that they were entered onto blank the stave, sometimes (especially where the line ends
openings of the existing preparation which means their with a series of smaller note values) it overshoots into
copying must have occurred after Scribes I and II had the margin. Page breaks – in compositions or parts of
finished their business, but also (with the exception of compositions which extend across more than one
the Brumel motet) that they belong to an entirely dif- opening – also largely coincide with cadences in such a
ferent genre – that of the ‘Parisian Chanson’ – whose way that the destination chord of the cadence is placed
dissemination from the 1520s onwards postdates the directly after the page turn at the beginning of the new
death of all composers responsible for the motets. opening. Thus, the singers would know through the
Both Scribe III and Scribe IV finally share the progressions of their clausulae what to sing even if their
peculiarity (discussed above in more detail by David reading of the notes on the page was momentarily
Skinner) of placing the dot of addition consistently obscured by the process of turning the page.
below the line: a practice that is exceptionally rare on There are, however, a number of instances where the
the continent, but on the other hand very consistently page turns are not synchronised between the four parts,
applied in Britain which allows us to consider the pos- an oversight which would have very seriously hampered
sibility that the later additions to the book were carried the performance, or indeed any type of polyphonic read-
out by English copyists, or copyists who had learned to ing of the music from the page. In one of these, in fact,
write music in England even though the repertoire they the error seems to have been caused by a flawed applica-
recorded still overwhelmingly points towards France. tion of the ‘cadence rule’ as outlined above: on f. 3v, the
The codicology offers few further clues in this regard tenor breaks nine breves earlier than the other voices, but
since three of the four pieces were added on blank precisely at a point where the syncopated discant clausula
openings of pre-existing gatherings and the remaining
21
one on two added leaves, both of which could have See M. B. Parkes, English Cursive Book Hands 1250–1500
happened anywhere and at any time after Scribes I and (Oxford, 1969), xi–xii and plate 15; Derolez, 160–2.
II had completed or abandoned their work and the 22
Urkevich, ‘Anne Boleyn, a Music Book’, 7–8.
book as such had been compiled. The white mensural 23
These are described in detail in Schmidt, ‘Making
Polyphonic Books’; see also Stanley Boorman, ‘Notational
19
Spelling and Scribal Habit’, in Datierung und Filiation von
See already Rifkin, ‘A Black Hole?’, 75 n. 184. Musikhandschriften der Josquin-Zeit, ed. Ludwig Finscher
20
Information kindly provided by Katja Monier. (Wiesbaden, 1983), 65–109.
 Physical Description and Genesis 19

would have suggested a page turn. Even more substantial incomplete nature of many pieces. The lack of text in
intervention was necessary at the break between ff. some sections is less of an issue here: in this period and
36v/37r and 37v/38r, where the tenor contains an entire repertoire, the words were virtually always added after
phrase more than the other voices. In the process of cor- the notes, and in any compilation left in an incomplete
recting this, Scribe II additionally took the opportunity state one would expect some text to be missing. Less
to move the page break to an appropriate place on a easily explained is the partial absence of the canonic dis-
cadence, which led him to remove an additional breves’ cantus/tenor part in Josquin’s Virgo salutiferi: it is lacking
worth of music in the three other voices, all of which, of in the prima pars (on ff. 68v–70r), thus leaving the poly-
course, had to be laboriously added at the beginning of phonic texture incomplete, but present in the secunda
the next opening. Even more confused is the break and tertia pars. It is hardly conceivable that the exemplar
between ff. 53v/54r and 54v/55r where Scribe I, possibly should have been lacking in this fashion; on the con-
led astray by the voice-pair texture with long intermit- trary, Scribe I must have known about the canonic
tent periods of rests, has the voices break at three different voice and planned to enter it, having reserved the
places in the music; his own realisation that something appropriate top-left quadrant of the opening, and hav-
was amiss here already at the initial copying stage ing placed a signum congruentiae in the altus to indicate
resulted in his deletion of four breves’ worth of music in where the canonic part was to enter after 40 breves of
the discantus, but this does nothing to improve the situ- rests. Could it be that the copyist was unsure how to
ation. To fix this, Scribe II had to add five and a half split the canonic voice across the two openings, given
breves in the tenor and altus, while deleting one and a that the break in the discantus would follow three
half breves from the discantus and a semibreve from the breves after that in the tenor (an issue that does not arise
bassus respectively in order to synchronise the voices and in the secunda or tertia pars which completely fit on one
create a regular new beginning on the following open- opening), and that the copy was abandoned before a
ing (in this case not the destination chord of a cadence, decision was made how to resolve that?
but the start of a homophonic section). Another notational idiosyncrasy which affects musi-
Alongside these botched page-breaks (which occur cal content is Scribe I’s habit of writing notehads and
with unusual frequency for a manuscript of this period), stems separately.This is most apparent in the fragmentary
we find a number other errors within individual voices copy of Mouton’s Gaude Barbara beata on ff. 72v–73,
which range from missing notes or stems to short which is stemless altogether; but on closer inspection it
phrases where, for example through eye-skip, a repeated is clear that Scribe I added the stems to the noteheads
group of notes was notated only once (for example f. in a separate stage throughout the entire book, as seen
13r; for a complete list of corrections see Appendix IV). in the differences in stroke width and ink colour, as well
A few of these were spotted and corrected by Scribe I as the occasional stem slightly offset from the tip of the
straightaway, while the majority were left for Scribe II notehead. Occasionally we can also see immediate cor-
to amend. Finally, space is sometimes a real concern for rections where notes were deleted before their stems
Scribe I: especially in the two bottom parts which start were added, for example at the end of the contratenor
at the indentation of stave 7 and thus have to fit on a voice on f. 88r where the last eight notes were cancelled
maximum of five staves as opposed to the maximum six by inserting a custos. This is worthy of note: in the
of the upper voices. Given the ‘modern’ homogeneous quicker teardrop-shaped notation, the upstem is an
or imitative textures which tend to require similar extension of the notehead anyway, but even for rhom-
amounts of space for all voices and a general attempt to boid-shaped notation, the entire note is more com-
fit motets or partes on no more than two openings, the monly drawn entirely in two strokes, the stem either as
copyist more than occasionally runs out of space, some- an upwards extension of the broad upstroke at the
times very seriously (see for example ff. 10v–11r, 13v– upper right-hand side of the notehead or as a down-
14r, or 41v–42r). This is not uncommon in polyphonic ward extension of the left-hand downstroke. Scribe II’s
manuscripts of the time, but here adds somewhat to the hand is in fact a very good example of this practice. The
impression of a scribe who was not in complete control. way the notes are written by Scribe I, on the other
In any case, the overall number of errors and infelicities hand, is quite error-prone, with the stems added in a
is substantial, and noticeably higher than in contempo- completely separate process, after copying whole pages
rary sources produced by professional scribes for musical and openings of noteheads only. This would make it
institutions. This impression is brought home with some more difficult to gauge the mensural composition of the
force by the fact that only a handful of these errors were music and indeed the total amount of music in every
noticed by Scribe I during the copying process itself, as voice. In this approach, the notes are treated almost as
opposed to the numerous errors spotted and corrections graphic shapes, to be written and arranged in a visually
made by Scribe II which, like the sections copied appealing fashion, than as conveyors of mensurally
entirely by that scribe, are much less concerned with organised content. This may well have contributed to
visual appeal than to musical correctness. the large number of errors especially at page turns
A final aspect that casts some doubt on the expertise where rhythmic synchronisation was crucial, as well as
of Scribe I as a music copyist is the fragmentary and to a number of wrong stems later erased.
20 The Anne Boleyn Music Book

The visual and material appearance of RCM 1070 paper), this is an unfinished object at multiple levels,
thus presents a somewhat ambivalent picture. On the and whatever plans were laid for the selection and
one hand, its individual parts (especially in the first sec- ordering of repertoire were abandoned at multiple
tion) were produced with considerable care and atten- junctures; the activities of Scribe II in the first section
tion, as witnessed by the level of calligraphy as well as are a salvaging job more than anything else, but one
the illuminations on the first 21 folios; as we will see likely more intended to make the book usable in per-
below, there is also a high degree of planning in terms formance than to make it presentable26 (and succeeding
of the choice and ordering of the repertoire. RCM only partially even in that). A telling comparison is the
1070 is in that sense much more than a commonplace so-called ‘Medici Codex’ (I-Fl 666) which was repur-
book, or a personal collection which grew serendipi- posed from what was likely a private collection of pope
tously over time (such as the collections found in Leo X’s favourite repertoire into a wedding gift by
Central Germany at the same time; for example, the reusing and in part reordering pre-existing sections.27
‘Leopold’ or ‘Apel’ codices24). This was an object of But whereas Medici, apart from its much more lavish
value to somebody, or indeed to several people in suc- material and calligraphic ambitions, was artfully turned
cession, if the activities of Scribe II are anything to go from one coherent and meaningful object into a differ-
by. It does not, however, bear the traits of a presentation ently (but equally)coherent and meaningful object, by
manuscript or a gift, contrary to what Lowinsky and adding (or expanding) an acrostic and by judicious
Urkevich have argued.25 Apart from the modest mate- addition of relevant repertoire, RCM 1070 retained its
rial (virtually all known presentation manuscripts of work-in-progress character throughout all its different
the period were copied on parchment rather than stages of production and possible use.

24
D-Mbs Mus. ms. 3154; Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek,
26
Ms. 1494. See already Urkevich, ‘Anne Boleyn’s French Motet Book’,
25
Lowinsky, ‘A Music Book’, 191–7; Urkevich, ‘Anne Boleyn’s 98–9.
27
French Motet Book’, 96–7. Theodor Dumitrescu already See Joshua Rifkin, ‘The Creation of the Medici Codex’,
expressed similar reservations; see his The Early Tudor Court Journal of the American Musicological Society 62 (2009), 517–
and International Musical Relations (Aldershot, 2007), 151. 70, at 562–7.
 3
Decoration
Katja Airaksinen-Monier

The first twenty openings in RCM 1070, ff. 1v–21r posed a page spelling out Ave Maria using initials
(gathering I to the fifth leaf of gathering III), are deco- derived from Germanic and Rhine Valley woodcut
rated with initials beginning each of the four voice- alphabets from the 1460s.2 In their initials, RCM 1070
parts.1 When a composition continues from the previous and the Angoulême Hours share a number of forms and
opening, each voice-part is (unusually for manuscripts of motifs, extending to the small details of three-petal
polyphony) preceded by a small miniature of equivalent flowers and groups of pearls placed in the corners of the
size, style and colouring to the initials. Thus on each backgrounds to the initials. Of regional interest is the
opening there are four initials/miniatures, 80 in total, in bow of the letter P beginning Porcio mea on f. 7v in
the first three gatherings. They are executed in the order RCM 1070, which is faceted, like the initials from f. 74r
of the leaves (rather than by bifolio) until the sixth leaf onwards in the Angoulême Hours.This so-called prismatic
of the third gathering. The initials here were presumably initial originated in the 1450s in humanistic manuscripts
not entered by the scribe, unlike the initials drawn by made in Padua, and became known soon thereafter in
Scribe III. Spaces were reserved for decoration of the western France (from books offered to René d’Anjou),
voice-parts throughout the first section of the manu- where they were adopted by local artists in the early
script, corresponding to Scribe I, but were left unfin- 1470s.3 In RCM 1070, initials are drawn directly on the
ished after f. 21r. Scribe II also left spaces in most of the paper and in the Angoulême Hours they are painted in
sections he copied; his intervention may have occurred monochrome; in both manuscripts, they are on back-
after the interruption of the illuminator’s work. Nothing grounds of muted tones of red and blue.
in the style or iconography indicates more than an The character of the hatching in ink in our manu-
approximate dating, to the first quarter of the sixteenth script resembles early engraving techniques on wood
century, which agrees with the dating of the writing. and copper. The contours of the letters and motifs are
The initials and miniatures were drawn in dark sharp, as if chiselled, and the amount of ornament was
brown ink (fainter towards the end of the series) against kept to a minimum as in printed engraved images.
blue and red backgrounds. They are composed essen- RCM 1070 is not by an artist of Testard’s standing, but
tially of French forms: acanthus leaves that are French in the series of initials in RCM 1070 demonstrates how
shape and movement, pruned tree trunks and branches, our artist, like his contemporary Testard, restlessly
hybrids, masks, a siren. The tempered colouring, the searched for new decorative and pictorial forms in both
eclectic montage of disparate forms, and their stylised, printed and manuscript books, constantly changing and
simplified aspect do not, however, lend themselves easily recombining motifs, as if to proclaim the superior
to any recognisable local style of French manuscript inventiveness of illuminators in the face of competition
illumination, and beckon comparisons with initials in from printers.
early printed books. The illuminator of our manuscript had neither
The palette and technique, as well as the interest in guide-letters nor indications for miniatures to instruct
typographic repertoires in RCM 1070 find parallels in his work. Consequently, in the beginning of Mouton’s
the Book of Hours illuminated around 1485 by
Robinet Testard in Angoulême, in western France, for 2
See Anne Matthews, ‘The Use of Prints in the Hours of
Charles d’Angoulême, the father of François I (Paris, Charles d’Angoulême’, Print Quarterly 3 (1986) 4–18, and
Bibliothèque nationale de France, Lat. 1173). Robinet François Avril in François Avril and Nicole Reynaud, Les
Testard (active in 1471–1531), the count’s official illu- manuscrits à peintures 1440-1520 (Paris, 1993), no. 229, 404–
minator, drew inspiration for his initials and miniatures 6. Testard’s patron, Charles d’Angoulême, was likewise fasci-
in this book of hours from woodcuts and engravings. nated by the technique of printing that was established in
Angoulême as early as 1491. Out of the 72 books deemed
He pasted in the manuscript engravings by Israël van
important enough to be described individually in the
Meckenem (based on designs by Master E. S. and inventory of his library at his death in 1496, as many as one
Schongauer) which he then over-painted, he painted third (24) were printed books. See Edmond Sénemaud, La
miniatures that were based on engravings, and he com- bibliothèque de Charles d’Orléans comte d’Angoulême au château
de Cognac en 1496 (Paris, 1861).
1 3
I am grateful to Patricia Stirnemann for numerous helpful François Avril, in Splendeur de l’enluminure: le roi René et les
observations. livres, ed. Marc-Édouard Gautier (Angers, 2009), 344.
22 The Anne Boleyn Music Book

composition In illo tempore accesserunt ad Jesum on ff. (known for its singing ability; f. 5r) are very close to
12v–13r, the artist mistakenly painted an initial I also for those found in engravings in Philippe Pigouchet’s book
the bassus, although both tenor and bassus begin at of hours printed in Paris in 1498. Similar animal forms
Accesserunt ad Jesum. The confusion appears to have been and flowers are found in initials printed by Felix
caused by the scribe’s leaving out the first letter A in the Baligault in Paris in 1494–1500. Certain motifs in RCM
text; the artist then painted an I as for superius and altus. 1070 were particularly appropriate to music. In addition
Our artist chose not to repeat initials, foregoing a to the siren, our artist also included a merman (f. 7r), a
uniform formal harmony that had been traditional in mythical creature likewise known for its melodic voice.
Gothic manuscripts. Instead, with each initial he Like the onocentaurs depicted in the Montchenu
invented something new, drawing from numerous Chansonnier painted in Savoy around 1475,8 the mer-
sources, as if compiling a repertory of forms. There are man here is armed with a wooden stick and a foliage
22 initials and miniatures incorporating foliage, 4 with shield. The motifs chosen by our artist were not meant
ribbons, 5 with branches, 33 with flowers, 3 with birds, to illustrate the music, apart from one possible exception.
12 with other animals, monsters and hybrids, and 7 with The covered chalice illustrating Jean Mouton’s
human figures. A selection will be described in order to Christmas motet Queramus cum pastoribus (f. 20v) may
situate the artist, as far as possible, within the large array refer to the offerings made by the three Magi.9
of his sources. Although certain motifs are depicted more than
On the first opening, which begins with the anony- once, the artist never repeated an element or a compo-
mous composition Forte si dulci stigium boantem, the sition exactly. In other words, he was constantly re-com-
upright of the letter F in the superius is formed of a rib- posing, freehand. The initials in the early openings are
bon wound around a staff, while the two traverses at the drawn in bold outlines, in the spirit of woodcuts. The
head and the foot of the initial are abbreviated acanthus artist often combined several motifs, which as a montage
leaves. The artist’s second initial F (in the tenor) is con- no longer make sense as a whole. Had he seen printers’
structed of pruned branches, the third initial F (in the or artists’ alphabet books? Because of the patchwork
altus) is a vertical cylinder made out of serrated leaves nature of the initials, it is challenging to place our artist
and the fourth initial F (in the bassus) is a budding staff in any one geographic region. As the work progresses,
with a central traverse attached with a finial. The ribbon however, his drawing relaxes. Towards the end of the
initial was particularly popular in French illumination series, with the depiction of human figures, his compo-
from the second quarter of the fifteenth century. Pruned sitions become looser, the ink is fainter and the work-
branches, branches écotées, which were an emblem of manship is less constructed and controlled. Does he
King René d’Anjou4 and an Orléanist emblem, are found reveal his origins? The strangest of all his pictures is the
in the initials in the Hours of Charles d’Angoulême (and man shown facing the beholder, sticking out his tongue
d’Orléans) of c.1485; the branch-initial was copied and and exposing his teeth (f. 12r). Such a grimace, consid-
disseminated by illuminators as a generic motif, partic- ered particularly vulgar in the Middle Ages, is unknown
ularly in Bourges, Tours and Paris.5 The cylindrical in late medieval French illumination, but appears in
foliage initial is likewise found in the Angoulême woodcut initials. An initial D used in 1499–1500 by
Hours, but was also known in England, as demonstrated Ambrosius Huber in Nuremberg shows a man facing the
by the Macclesfield Alphabet book.6 Adding to the tradi- viewer spreading his mouth with his forefingers into a
tionally French forms of foliage, our artist incorporated grimace and sticking out his tongue, while in Rouen in
the laurel wreath (composing vertical strokes of P on f. a copy of the Propriétaire printed by Jacques le Forestier,
7v and L on f. 11r), a motif known in French manu- an initial O is filled by a face of a man exposing his teeth
scripts at least by the early 1470s,7 and disseminated in in a wide grimace. Might the Rouennais examples sug-
the early sixteenth century by woodcut initials printed gest that our artist worked in northern France? While it
by Henri Estienne and Niccolini Sabbio. would be dubious to argue for an artist’s origin based on
A number of motifs may derive from books printed models that circulated with ease, particularly when
in Paris. The shape of the rose (f. 2v) and the siren printed in large numbers, there are details in our artist’s
style that advocate placing him in the north. The
4
See F-Pn latin 17732 (Hours of René d’Anjou, 1459–60). upward-turned gloomy eyes of all the human figures
5
As found, for instance in the Monypenny Breviary of depicted in the initials of RCM 1070 show a certain
c.1492–5 (private collection), the Hours of Frederick of affinity with those by English manuscript painters.10
Aragon of 1502 (F-Pn latin 10532), and still in 1526 in the
8
Gospel Book made for the young prince Charles II F-Pn Rothschild 2973.
d’Orléans, the son of François I (Madrid, Biblioteca 9
A very similar object is found decorating the above-men-
Nacional, Ms. Res. 51). tioned Liber de temporibus.
6
GB-Lbl Add. MS 88887. 10
See for instance the initial H on f. 126r in a copy of Fall of
7
As found for instance in the Italian initial added to the Princes illuminated probably in London around 1465–1475
French translation of Liber de temporibus made in Provence (Philadelphia, Rosenbach Museum, ms. 439/16, reproduced
for Jeanne de Laval before 1476 (current location unknown, in Kathleen L. Scott, Later Gothic Manuscripts, 2 vols
see Avril in Splendeur de l’enluminure, 370–1). (London, 1996), ii: ill. 440.)
 Decoration 23

Were our artist English, it would be no surprise that he book in vogue at the time. It might also reveal the
looked in Continental printed books for sources: there artist’s use of alphabet books as a model, in which
was no native school of initial-cutters in England. Apart groups of initials were found in such unfinished,
from a few letters acquired from Continental printers (De unpainted state. RCM 1070 is certainly a testimonial of
Worde from Covaert van Os, Julian Notary from André an artist’s interest in the newly emerging technique of
Bocard), or cut in France or from French models, the printing and engraved models, showing an amalgama-
English printers of the period had no printed initials.11 tion of sources and techniques from the period when
The reserve technique on painted ground was the techniques of hand-painted and printed illustration
probably meant to give the appearance of a printed were thriving side by side.

11
Oscar Jennings, Early Woodcut Initials (London, 1908), 108b.
 4
Repertoire
Thomas Schmidt

As has been pointed out in the past, the repertoire

contained in RCM 1070 is demonstrably, indeed
almost aggressively French.1 This corresponds with the
codicological and paleographical findings, and makes
the book one of the most valuable extant sources for
this repertoire. Given the degree to which polyphonic
music was cultivated in French institutions, and given
the important role the motet apparently played in ritual
and devotional practice,2 we must assume a rich written
transmission; but hardly any sources have survived. The
only other substantial contemporary collection which
has survived from France itself is Cambridge, Magdalen
College, Pepys MS 1760, which was made in the envi-
ronment of the Royal Court around the years 1508–
1514, thus almost exactly in the same timespan as RCM
1070.With 93 folios containing 24 motets and 27 chan-
sons, it is slightly less voluminous than the latter, but a
much more elaborate production (see Figure 10) whose
original illumination – and, as we will see, its repertoire
– clearly places it at the court itself rather than in its
broader context. It is elegantly written on parchment
and organised and compiled with a clear plan, ordered
by number of voice-parts and consistently copied from
beginning to end, with no blank pages or interrup-
tions.3 Beyond that, we have to rely for this repertoire
on contemporary or slightly later sources from other
regions of Europe, such as the books from the ‘Alamire
workshop’ at the Habsburg-Burgundian court4 or indeed
1
Lowinsky, ‘A Music Book for Anne Boleyn’, 161–2;
Urkevich, ‘Anne Boleyn’s French Motet Book’, 95–6, 99;
Rifkin, ‘A Black Hole?’, 75–6.
2
See John T. Brobeck, ‘Some “Liturgical Motets” for the Figure 10: GB-Cmc 1760, f. 6r modern foliation
French Royal Court: A Reconsideration of Genre in the (2r original foliation)
Sixteenth–Century Motet’, Musica Disciplina 47 (1993),
123–57; id., ‘Musical Patronage in the Royal Chapel of from Italy5 where French motets were highly valued.
France under Francis I (r. 1515–1547)’, Journal of the Much relevant repertoire also survives in printed editions,
American Musicological Society 48 (1995), 187–239.
3
See Louise Litterick, ‘The Manuscript Royal 20.A.XVI of the largely homegrown character of the mass settings which
the British Library’ (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1976), form the bulk of the Alamire repertoire, with Pierre de La
46–56; John T. Brobeck, ‘A Music Book for Mary Tudor, Rue figuring most prominently. Apparently the court had
Queen of France’, Early Music History 35 (2016), 1–93. no substantial motet repertoire of its own to draw on; for
4
Following a handful of pieces in the manuscripts I-Rvat example, only a handful of motets by the leading court
Chigi C.VIII.234 and B-Br 9126, anthologies from the composer La Rue himself survive.
5
Alamire workshop focusing on motets include the book for For example the ‘Medici Codex’ (I-Fl 666), the motet
Henry VIII (GB–Lbl Royal 8.g.viii), and the sets of part- books of the Papal Chapel (V-CVbav Capp. Sist. 26, 42, and
books A-Wn Mus.15941 and I-Rvat Pal. lat 1976–9. It is in 46), the Florentine anthology I-Fn II.I.232, or the choir-
itself telling that the motet repertoire in these Habsburg- books from various Northern Italian churches and cathe-
Burgundian sources is so French-dominated, in contrast to drals (Bologna, Casale Monferrato, Modena, Padua).
 Repertoire 25

first in publications by Ottaviano Petrucci and Andrea prolatione minore (‘cut C’), often with a passage in triple
Antico,6 followed by the output of the Parisian printer mensuration shortly before the end of the secunda pars,
Pierre Attaingnant which culminated in his thirteen- creating a heightened sense of urgency and closure in a
volume motet anthology of 1534–1535 containing sub- penultimate position. The texts are almost all in prose,
stantial amounts of retrospective repertoire composed either drawn from scripture or from the liturgy, but
around the turn of the century. drawing on a potentially associated cantus firmus only
The high esteem in which the French-court motet unsystematically and without any sense that the settings
was held and the degree to which it began ‘to sweep the are designed to replace the respective item in the actual
rest Europe’ from the 1510s onwards,7 renders RCM rite of the mass or office. Given the paraliturgical or
1070 even more important. It was produced where and devotional nature of the repertoire, books that order
when this genre originated; together with Cambridge motets according to liturgical use are rare, and RCM
1760, it might provide us with us an idea of what con- 1070 is far from even attempting such an approach.9 But
stituted its ‘core repertoire’ in the time and place of its the order and configuration of the repertoire is far from
origin. Typically for locally produced repertoire, RCM being haphazard, or merely pragmatic (for example by
1070 also contains virtually no ascriptions (the very few number of voices as is the case in a number of motet
that are there were added by a later hand); those for collections from the period). Instead, the compiler
whom the book was made would not have had to be grouped the pieces in the codicological units according
told who had composed the music. As pointed out in to repertorial subtype and composer.
the codicological description, the repertoire was assem- To start with the two earliest units copied by Scribe
bled not in a single campaign, but in fits and starts over Ia, gathering IX opens with three motets by the oldest
several stages and apparently some time, incorporating composer in the entire collection, Loyset Compère
previously separate items and with some pieces added (c.1445–1518), in the service of the French Royal court
considerably later. These stages are reflected not only in from at least 1486 to 1498.10 The selection seems, how-
the physical compilation, but also in the repertoire ever, to be less an attempt to establish the style associated
which was clearly accumulated over time from separate with that institution, but to demonstrate the breadth of
components which grow to form a larger whole. approaches to motet composition by that composer. The
The overarching paradigm that binds together all opening piece of the gathering, Paranymphus salutat, is a
these components to a greater or lesser degree (with the short setting for low voices apparently without reference
exception of the much later chansons, of course) is the to a cantus firmus, unusual in itself within the com-
structural model of the classic French-court motet. poser’s output. It does employ the ‘modern’ device of
According to Joshua Rifkin’s by now equally classic voice pairs, but more frequently in octave and unison
description, this type than in fifth and fourths, and in interleaved rather than
typically unfold[s] in a series of clauses initiated in each top-vs.-bottom pairs. Particularly striking is the begin-
instance by a matching pair of duos and closing on a ning: ‘modern’ in that it employs full imitation, but
full-voiced cadence frequently overlapped with the ‘archaic’ in that all voices start on the same pitch.
beginning of the next clause, although rarely to the Where Paranymphus is about density, supported by
extent of obscuring the boundaries from one clause to the closely woven texture as well as the richly complex
another. The duos themselves, which now prevailingly rhythms and counterpoint, Profitentes unitatem is much
couple superius with altus and tenor with bassus rather more lucid and spacious in every respect, not only by
than the interlaced disposition formerly more common, being more than twice as long. In many ways, it obvi-
proceed largely in imitation, as often as not at the fourth ously conforms to the new French court style, with
or fifth rather than the unison or octave. The opening
will often feature particularly expansive duos; shorter
widely spaced pairs of upper vs. lower voices, judicious
duos, sometimes homophonic, become more frequent use of homophony, and generally a very clear sense of a
towards the end. Brief passages in full-voice homophony musical structure matching the strophic layout and
sometimes leaven the formal progress and occasionally declamation of the text. The principal difference to the
even begin a composition; similarly brief episodes with
short motives tossed in imitation through all the voices 9
will make an occasional appearance as well.8 The most obvious example of a motet book broadly ordered
by liturgical function is I-Rvat Capp. Sist. 42; see Helmut
Further characteristics which could be added to this are Hucke, ‘Die Musik in der sixtinischen Kapelle bis zur Zeit
that the compositions are most frequently in two partes Leos X.’, in Zusammenhänge, Einflüsse, Wirkungen. Kongreß-
of roughly equal length, and that the underlying men- akten zum ersten Symposium des Mediävistenverbandes in
suration is virtually invariably tempus imperfectum cum Tübingen 1984, eds Joerg O. Fichte, Karl Heinz Göller and
Bernhard Schimmelpfennig (Berlin/New York 1986), 154–
6
67, at 161–2.
French repertoire is most prominent in Petrucci’s four vol- 10
umes of Motetti de la corona (1514–1519) and Antico’s three The literature on Compère remains sparse. Beyond the
volumes of Motetti novi (1520). New Grove entry on ‘Compère’ by Rifkin et al., the seminal
7
study remains Ludwig Finscher, Loyset Compère (c. 1450–
Rifkin,‘A Black Hole?’, 26. 1518). Life and Works, Musicological Studies and
8
Ibid., 27. Documents 12 (American Institute of Musicology, 1964).
26 The Anne Boleyn Music Book

‘classical’ manifestation of that style as embodied by the place them amongst the earliest extant works both in
slightly younger Jean Mouton is the greater rhythmical Josquin’s oeuvre and in RCM 1070, while at the same
and melodic liveliness of the individual lines. time further strengthening the French connections of
Whereas these two compositions, as different as they the book. The long and extremely linear texts (‘patently
are, can be more easily associated with Compère’s later anti-musical’ according to Fallows), along the lines of ‘x
years, and thus the time in which RCM was compiled,11 genuit y’, lend themselves very easily to the kind of tex-
the third stems from an entirely different tradition: O tural varietas espoused by the French motet – voice-pairs
genitrix gloriosa / Ave virgo gloriosa is first transmitted as or trios in various configurations alternating with fully
two separate pieces in the Libroni of Milan Cathedral, imitative and occasionally homophonic passages, without
thus placing the composition into the composer’s being able to put them to use in the text-generated for-
tenure at the Sforza court in the mid-1470s. This motet mal trajectories which were to become such a trade-
does not form an actual part of the tradition of the mark of the style in later decades. Brumel’s Quae est ista
motetti missales (which replaced the movements of the quae processit which opens the gathering is less easily sit-
mass ordinary with short motet settings), but is very uated, if indeed it was originally meant to open the
much part of that style: with homophonic declamation gathering at all, given the codicological question marks
and the alternation of duple and triple metre not as a discussed above. His geographical and institutional links
climactic effect towards the end, but as a basic structural to France are much more tenuous, beyond a brief
principle. Only the fully imitative beginning looks for- tenure as maître de chapelle at Notre-Dame in Paris
ward to the ‘new style’ of the French motet, at an between 1498 and 1500; there is virtually no secure evi-
unusually early point in time.12 The fascinating diversity dence to date any of his works; and his idiosyncratic
of styles in Compère’s motet output assembled in this style defies easy stylistic categorisation. Given its pas-
gathering finally allows us to ask the question of sages of text-generated homophonic declamation,
whether the last composition, O virgo virginum might Hudson assumed a late date for Quae es ista and others
not be by the same composer.13 Although its relentlessly of its type, postulating an Italian origin for this style and
imitative texture sets it apart from Compère’s securely thus associating it with Brumel’s move to Ferrara in
attested motets, its structural use of voice pairs and 1506.15 Since, however, it has by now been amply
occasional homophony, but especially the rhythmically demonstrated that declamatory homophony is by no
and melodically complex lines emerging from the chant means a uniquely ‘southern’ trait,16 the archaic sonori-
model place it in at least credible proximity to ties and the combination of chant paraphrase with
Paranymphus and Profitentes. Given Compère’s long dense non-imitative counterpoint that characterises the
career and the diversity of his output, we would do well non-homophonic passages of the motet make a much
not to discount the notion that this might be a late twist earlier date, corresponding to that of Josquin’s two
of Compère’s compositional journey. genealogies, seem entirely plausible.
In the second ‘Ia’ gathering, the two genealogy set- The second production and compilation stage (‘Ib’)
tings by Josquin form a distinct pair that is clearly asso- is much more substantial (or much more fully pre-
ciated with the French court; indeed, if Jeremy Noble served), but remains faithful to the principle of assem-
and David Fallows are correct in placing them in the bling repertoire in gatherings or groups of gatherings by
period of the composer’s employment at the court of repertoire type. This principle was not always followed
Louis XI (probably in 1480 and 1481),14 this would through to the last; as we have seen, there are several
places where the copying was abandoned, and occasion-
11
Being unaware of the existence and date of RCM 1070,
ally pieces seem to have been added at the ends of units
Finscher (Loyset Compère, 201) even proposes a date as late because there was room left, but the emerging pattern
as 1510–12 for Paranymphus.
12
As Rifkin has pointed out, the two parts already appear Marian Motet’, 330–32.
together in I-Fn Ricc. 2794 (Joshua Rifkin, ‘Munich, 15
See Antoine Brumel, Opera Omnia, vol. 5: Motetta, ed.
Milan, and a Marian Motet: Dating Josquin’s Ave Maria … Barton Hudson, Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae, 5/5
virgo serena’, Journal of the American Musicological Society 56 (American Institute of Musicology, 1972), pp. xiv–xv.
(2003), 239–350, at 262–3, 309).The piece had thus reached 16
the French court by the 1480s, possibly brought there by See Thomas Schmidt-Beste, Textdeklamation in der Motette
the composer himself; by this time it had emancipated itself des 15. Jahrhunderts (Turnhout, 2003), passim. The text-
from the Milanese tradition and had become a proper generated nature of the French motet around and after
‘motet’. 1500 (often including declamatory homophony) has also
13
been commented upon by John T. Brobeck, ‘Antoine de
This possibility is already raised in Rifkin, ‘A Black Hole?’, Févin and the Origins of the “Parisian Motet”, in The Motet
29, albeit with a degree of scepticism. around 1500. On the Relationship between Imitation and Text
14
See Jeremy Noble, ‘The Genealogies of Christ and Their Treatment?, ed. Thomas Schmidt-Beste (Turnhout, 2012),
Musical Settings’, in Essays on Music and Culture in Honor of 311–24, and most recently (regarding Brumel specifically)
Herbert Kellman, ed. Barbara Haggh (Paris, 2001), 197–208; by Matthew J. Hall, ‘Brumel’s Laudate Dominum de caelis and
David Fallows, Josquin (Turnhout, 2009), 94–99. But see the “French-Court Motet”’, Journal of the Alamire Foundation
also the scepticism voiced in Rifkin, ‘Munich, Milan, and a 8 (2016), 33–54.
 Repertoire 27

is clear enough. The repertorial units (which, inciden- If true, this would make it a contemporary of the two
tally, line up almost perfectly with the different ruling genealogy motets transmitted in the older layer of
patterns identified above) can be identified as follows: RCM 1070 (if indeed they themselves are as early as
1. French court motets (nos 1–6, gatherings I–III) Fallows has argued), and as such, one of the earliest
2. Sequence settings by Josquin (nos 8–10, gatherings examples of the French-court style in existence, as well
IV–V) as one of the earliest psalm motets (in the sense of a
3. Shorter, homophonic settings (nos 11–13, remainder non-liturgical setting) ever written. In any case, it is a
of gathering V) composition of astonishing thematic and structural
4. French court motets (nos 15–20, gatherings VI–VIII) tightness, with extended interplay of matching voice
5. Late tenor motets by Josquin (nos 21–22, gatherings pairs in stretto fuga imitation, often still at the more ‘old-
IX–X) fashioned’ distance of unison and octave, but increas-
6. French court motets (no. 28, gathering XII) ingly in fourths and fifths as well.21 It is indeed only the
The most straightforward and characteristic repertoire extremely tight and typically Josquinian motivic coher-
category is of course the French-court motet, whose ence, culminating in the return of the opening motive
general characteristics as described by Rifkin have been (with the opening words) in diminution, that saves the
cited above. The composer who dominates this category composition – roughly twice the length of a normal
in RCM 1070 is its classic and historically most influen- Mouton or Févin motet and taking far longer to reach
tial representative, Jean Mouton, with five of the thirteen its climaxes, with only few passages in full four-voice
relevant compositions – possibly six depending on homophony – from becoming tedious. Still, Scribe Ib
whether In illo tempore is by him or by Pierre Moulu. No granted it pride of place right behind the opening
other composer is represented with more than one work motet: it was obviously seen as a telling specimen of the
in the relevant gatherings. Mouton’s compositions here French-court style in the first years of the sixteenth
are like a ‘best of ’ anthology of the French-court style, in century, regardless of whether it was written for the pre-
four voices, in two partes, and fully syntactic. RCM 1070, vious or for the current King Louis.
in addition, is one of the earliest sources to transmit More generally, though, Mouton predominates in
Mouton motets at all although the composer was born this slice of the repertoire, to the point that one is
in the 1450s and was thus decidedly middle-aged by the tempted to speculate whether one or two of the anony-
early years of the sixteenth century.17 Still, there is no mous works might not also have come from his pen
indication that any of the repertoire in the ‘French- (remembering that all ascriptions for the repertoire
court’ sections of RCM 1070 is older than a few years, found in RCM 1070 comes from concordant sources).
with the possible exception of Sancti dei omnes (no. 17) This concerns in particular Maria Magdalena et altera
whose dating has been the source of some controversy.18 Maria (no. 15): the supple and elegant melodic lines,
Whatever its date, Sancti dei omnes represents a somewhat starting with syllabic declamation and opening motifs
less than fully developed version of the French-court containing leaps of a fourth or fifth which are then bal-
style, lacking the balanced phrasing and sense of pace of anced and rounded off by descending melismas, are as
the mature Mouton;19 non-matching voice pairs (that characteristic of Mouton as the paired duos in trans-
tend towards the rambling) alternate with more than posed imitation.22 Finally, there is the typical unerring
usually extended passages of homophony. sense of pace and structural climax, here culminating in
The contrast with another motet in this group could the repeated words ‘Iesum quem quaeritis non est his’
not be greater: Memor esto verbi tui (no. 2), famously (‘Jesus whom you seek is not here’), with Mouton’s
written by Josquin (according to Henricus Glareanus) trademark homophonic acclamation with one voice
to remind King Louis XII of France (r. 1499–1512) of rhythmically offset, and the concluding multiple
a benefice he had promised him (‘Remember the word ‘Alleluias’. The latter are directly reminiscent of the
unto thy servant’). Indeed, David Fallows has controver- repeated ‘Noel’ shouts of the Christmas motet
sially argued that Glarean errs in placing the composi-
tion with Louis XII, but that the adressee was in fact 21
Louis XI (r. 1461–1483) which would result in the See John Milsom, ‘Josquin des Prez and the Combinative
composition having to be dated as far back as 1480–1.20 Impulse’, in The Motet around 1500. On the Relationship
between Imitation and Text Treatment?, ed. Thomas Schmidt-
Beste (Turnhout, 2012), 211–46, at 221–2: Josquin’s ‘melo-
17
Rifkin, ‘A Black Hole?’, 36. dic lines tend to be underlaid syllabically, and they often
18
draw on a narrow selection of intervals, arranged into short
See the discussion in ibid., 34–43. Rifkin himself (43) pro- patterns that are repeated obsessively or sequentially.’ On
poses a date of c.1500 or slightly before. Josquin’s ‘Obsessive Compositional Personality’, see also
19
Ibid. Jesse Rodin, Josquin’s Rome. Hearing and Composing in the
20
See Fallows, Josquin, 91–3. Rifkin, however, voices scepti- Sistine Chapel (New York, 2012), 41–94.
22
cism against such an early dating (‘A Black Hole?’, 48–50); See Rifkin, ‘A Black Hole?’, 38. Urkevich judges this com-
the arguments against it are more comprehensively sum- position to be ‘somewhat amateurish’ (‘Anne Boleyn, a
marised in Richard Sherr, ‘Laudat autem David: Fallows on Music Book’, 278), but without explaining why. I fail to
Josquin’, Music & Letters 92 (2011), 437–61, at 449–55. discover any less than fully accomplished traits in it.
28 The Anne Boleyn Music Book

Quaeramus cum pastoribus (no. 6) which is even more basic setup is that of the French-court motet, with syn-
compact and declamatory than usual in Mouton, very tactic phrases and well-shaped melodies, matching
possibly because of its seasonal association with the voice-pairs and gradual climaxes; but there is a stronger
French noel.23 This contrasts with the equally text-dri- sense of the ponderous, a certain stop-and-go quality
ven lavish melismas in Maria Magdalena on ‘Angelus perhaps more reminiscent of Févin’s style than of
domini descendit de caelis’ (‘The angel of the Lord Mouton’s. Then again, the frequent homophonic accla-
descended from the heavens’) and shortly after ‘surrexit’ mations and the steady pace may have to do with the
(‘he has risen’), but does not detract from the general celebratory text and possible function, so seeing a setting
stylistic proximity. These fingerprints diverge subtly yet that is slightly out of the ordinary in terms of texture and
noticeably from those of the other protagonist of the presentation of the text should not come as a big sur-
French-court motet, Antoine de Févin, whose settings prise or carry too much weight in attribution.
are less tightly structured, tending to display a greater Of the subgroups within the book that form a con-
contrast between longer, sometimes slightly less focused trast to the French-court core, the most intriguing is
melismas on the one hand and more frequent full-voice perhaps the small cluster of compositions which con-
declamatory homophony on the other, as can be seen cludes gathering V. All three are short and largely homo-
for example in Tempus meum est ut revertar (no. 16). phonic settings of Marian antiphons, two of them for
The equally unascribed setting of Psalm 116, low voices, either elaborating on a pre-existing chant
Laudate dominum (no. 3), is less squarely situated within (like Fer pietatis and Sub tuum praesidium) or at least
the French-court style, given its shortness and overall adopting a style that makes it look as though they do
greater simplicity of texture. The matching voice pairs (like Mouton’s Tota pulchra es, where no model is
are there, and so are the elegantly shaped motives and known). They are too elaborate to form part of the
the rousing climax towards the closing doxology; but straightforward traditions of chant harmonisations
the stylistic markers are not sufficiently developed to which flourish throughout the period, best preserved in
suggest an attribution with confidence. Such uncer- sources from Italy such as the Montecassino (I-MC 871)
tainty is even much greater for the antiphon setting or Grey (ZA-Cp Grey 3.b.12) codices, but almost too
Regina celi letare (no. 20), paraphrasing the chant in all simple to be classed with the fully-fledged motets in
four voice-parts in often highly rhythmically active, RCM 1070 or elsewhere. One only needs to compare
melismatic lines. This is entirely commonplace for such Mouton’s Tota pulchra es with his other compositions in
settings around this time (and in subsequent decades), the book to see this. It is most strongly reminiscent of
but not specific to any one composer. the cantus fractus technique of creating polyphonic set-
Forte si dulci is a special case. Edward Lowinsky spec- tings whereby a note-against-note chant harmonisation
ulated that it is, as the composition opening the book is broken up either in the accompanying voices only or
and as a setting of contemporary humanist poetry in indeed in all voices to create the aural impression of
Sapphic metre, an occasional piece providing evidence polyphony (often including pseudo-imitation) without
regarding the receiver of the book as a gift. According to deviating from the underlying scaffold.26 This has led
this now-discredited theory, the motet is addressed to David Skinner to speculate that Fer pietatis might even
Anne Boleyn herself, on occasion of her wedding in be English given its sonorous proximity to the antiphons
1533.24 Urkevich, on the other hand, places it at the setting in the Eton Choirbook and its cognates.27 But
French court, addressed to Louise of Savoy or the personal connections of RCM 1070 with England
Marguerite d’Angoulême as possible first owners.25 notwithstanding, there is no hint anywhere in the book
Since the text does not provide specific clues to a living that any of its repertoire might be English. This seems
person or persons, such identifications must necessarily more a case of a late survival of a compositional tech-
be speculative, and it is not this author’s intention to add nique that had gone out of fashion on the continent by
further such speculations; but in any case, the piece was the late fifteenth century but survived gloriously and
obviously intended to open the book (in its second stage; very persistently in England.28
see above). Its solemn humanistic verses typically com- By comparison, the Josquin motets preserved in two
bining classical and sacred imagery must have been distinct clusters are much more elaborate; but they are
newly composed to mark some occasion, their meaning
intended to be obvious only to the participants. As one 26
See Rob C. Wegman, ‘Compositional Process in the
might expect, this affects the musical setting as well. The Fifteenth–Century Motet’, in The Motet around 1500. On
the Relationship between Imitation and Text Treatment?, ed.
23
On the tradition of song-inspired Christmas motets, see Thomas Schmidt–Beste (Turnhout, 2012), 175–95.
Thomas Schmidt-Beste, ‘Psallite noe! Christmas Carols, the 27
‘While based on chant from a Parisian antiphoner, the
Devotio Moderna and the Renaissance Motet’, in Das music appears English in style with its full, open texture,
Erzbistum Köln in der Musikgeschichte des 15. und 16. short bursts of undeveloped imitative passages and cadential
Jahrhunderts, Beiträge zur Rheinischen Musikgeschichte formulae’. David Skinner, booklet text for Anne Boleyn’s
172, ed. Klaus Pietschmann (Kassel, 2008), 213–31. Songbook, Music & Passions of a Tudor Queen, Alamire, dir.
24
Lowinsky, ‘A Music Book for Anne Boleyn’, 172–6. David Skinner, CD 175 (Obsidian: 2015).
25 28
Urkevich, ‘Anne Boleyn’s French Motet Book’, 103–12. Wegman, ‘Compositional Process’, 193–5.
 Repertoire 29

also much less clearly associated with the French court. court in 1503/4, on a text by the Italian humanist
The first group is united insofar as their texts (but only Ercole Strozzi, with the canonic Ave Maria gratia plena
partly their melodies) are drawn from sequences, their cantus firmus treated ‘isorhythmically’ in diminution
strophic structure lending itself very naturally to be and little of the clarity and economy that characterises
highlighted by the principle of textural contrast inher- the French-court style.33
ent in the young genre. But beyond that, they could None of the five Josquin motets in these two groups
hardly be more different. The four-voice Mittit ad vir- is linked more than indirectly to the French court,
ginem (no. 9) is a relatively strict setting of the sequence whether stylistically or biographically. The conclusion is
chant with many of the traits of the French-court style. inescapable that the compiler chose them not on the
Here, a Josquinian penchant for close imitation is com- basis of their close association to current norms of local
bined with less typical free counterpoint against the style or practice, but was rather aiming for an anthology
chant model and a less pronounced sense of structural of the most impressive and interesting products in the
direction than found elsewhere in his oeuvre; the sense genre, by a composer whose oeuvre was clearly still val-
is more that of a set of variations on the sequence ued greatly and who retained links to the French court
melody.29 Although RCM 1070 is again one of its ear- at least up to 1504. It is surely not an accident that of
liest sources, Mittit ad virginem certainly sounds old the five, all except Mittit ad virginem were at the time and
within it, as does of course the famous Ave Maria … have remained amongst the composer’s most highly val-
virgo serena, another precursor to the French-court style, ued contributions to the genre.
even more so if Fallows’ controversial hypothesis of a The overall dominance of the French-court reper-
Northern origin and a date of c.1475 is correct.30 The toire in the ‘Scribe I’ section of RCM 1070 is con-
Stabat mater (no. 8), finally, comes as a complete surprise, firmed by the pieces apparently added by Scribe Ib
as a totally differently-paced five-voice tenor motet after the copying of the repertoire-specific groups was
with its uniquely unrelenting chanson cantus firmus in complete, possibly because there was no more reper-
which the (often homophonic) voice pairs play a very toire of a given type available. Pierrequin Therache’s
different structural role, a stylistic outlier within the Verbum bonum et suave (no. 14), although completing
book for these and a number of other reasons.31 the ‘cantus fractus’ gathering V, is another French-court
The same applies to the pair of Josquin motets in motet, albeit in a far less elegant manifestation com-
gatherings IX–X. Again the standard four-voice tex- pared to Mouton and others (with a great deal of
ture for which the book was planned and ruled is foursquare declamation of the sequence text and
expanded, to five, and in Praeter rerum seriem (no. 21) melody);34 the same applies to the fragmentary rendi-
even to six voices. While Praeter rerum (composed tion of Mouton’s own Gaude Barbara beata (no. 23) fol-
apparently after Josquin had returned to Condé) sets a lowing on from the Josquin tenor motets in gathering
Parisian sequence going back at least to the thirteenth X. There is not enough left of the anonymous O Salve
century and extant in the Notre-Dame repertory32 genitrix (no. 7) – two voices of the prima pars – to get a
and thus has a French connection at least through its comprehensive sense of the piece, but it is clearly
chant model, the five-voice Virgo salutiferi that follows another specimen of the French-court style, with alter-
it was demonstrably written in Ferrara for the Este nation of homophony and imitation in voice pairs. It is,
however, not constructed tightly enough either in
29
terms of motivicity or in terms of contrapuntal struc-
The stylistic anomalies may mean that the ascription to ture (see the rambling non-imitative contrapuntal lines
Pierrequin de Therache in Henricus Glareanus’ exemplar of
Petrucci’s Motetti C (1504/1) may deserve further consider-
in bars 35–48) to be considered as the work of one of
ation (see the discussion in New Josquin Edition 24, Critical the leading French masters.
Commentary, 97–8). Given its placement within RCM Scribe II, in his role as editor and compiler, seems to
1070, however, Scribe I clearly considered the motet to be pick up where Scribe I left off, almost in a conscious
Josquin’s. effort to fill gaps left by Scribe I, to include types of reper-
30
Fallows, Josquin, 60–5. Against that, see Rifkin, ‘Munich, toire and composers previously neglected. This unfolds
Milan, and a Marian Motet’. once again partly in distinct codicological units: gather-
31 ings XIV and XV contain three-voice repertoire (thus far
See John Milsom, ‘Motets for Five or More Voices’, in The
Josquin Companion, ed. Richard Sherr (New York, 2000),
not included at all), again leaving the latter gathering
281–320, at 300: ‘Yet the simplicity, solemnity, “whiteness” incomplete, possibly with the intention to add more
of the music is startling, and strikingly appropriate for the
33
context. Again it is a one-off work; Josquin wrote nothing Ibid., 248–51. See also John Milsom, ‘Josqin des Prez and
else that remotely resembles it.’ See also Fallows, Josquin, the Combinative Impulse’, at 214–31.
213–15; Agnese Pavanello, ‘Stabat Mater / Vidi Speciosam. 34
Lowinsky, never hesitant to pass judgment, calls Therache
Some Considerations on the Origin and Dating of Gaspar a ‘sturdy craftsman’ (The Medici Codex of 1518: A Choirbook
van Weerbeke’s Motet in the Chigi Codex’, Tijdschrift van de of Motets Dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici, Duke of Urbino, ed.
Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 60 Edward E. Lowinsky, Monuments of Renaissance Music, 3–
(2010), 3–19, at 16–7. 5, vol. 3: Historical Introduction and Commentary (Chicago and
32
Fallows, Josquin, 286–9. London, 1968), 146).
30 The Anne Boleyn Music Book

pieces of the same type, but eventually for somebody else The two three-voice compositions are harder to
to add two chansons. Gatherings XVI–XVII contain a place, the texture having become far less common in
more mixed bag of compositions, but with another two the years before 1500 in general (certainly as far as the
five-voice settings by Josquin paired together in the mid- motet is concerned). Where it does survive is in chant
dle. Stylistically, the repertoire is much more heteroge- settings, whether liturgical or paraliturgical; and both
neous as well, and not nearly as clearly associated with the compositions copied here are of this type. They are also
French-court motet, which is determinedly for four not fundamentally dissimilar from each other in that
voices anyway, a texture rare here. Only the two final set- they present the cantus firmus consistently in one voice
tings, Févin’s (or Mouton’s) Adiutorium nostrum (no. 40) and then create a contrapuntal texture partly based on
and Sancta trinitas unus deus again by Févin (no. 41),35 con- the chant melody around it. Having said that, Obrecht’s
form clearly to this paradigm. Sancta trinitas, although its Alma redemptoris mater places the cantus firmus in the
transmission history is long and varied enough to become bassus and weaves dense counterpoint above it, with
ascribed to no fewer than five other composers, is vintage much imitation either between the two upper voices or
Févin. The short single-part composition is syntactically in pre-empting the chant material in the bassus. On the
articulated by full textures at the beginning on ‘Sancta other hand, Gabrielem archangelum (setting the verse of
trinitas’, in the middle again on ‘trinitas’ and at the end on the Marian responsory Gaude Maria38 and thus possibly
multiple repeats of ‘et usque in saeculum’; in between are the secunda pars of a motet of that title) is set – unusually
lenghty (and mostly non-matching) dialogues between for RCM 1070 – for high voices.39 Here, the chant is in
top and bottom voice pair, sometimes themselves homo- the middle voice, with the surrounding voices once
phonic and sometimes breaking into the trademark ram- again engaging in much pre-imitation of the chant,
pant melismas. Adiutorium nostrum is harder to pin down, albeit in a texture that is more rhythmically active yet
unsurprisingly given that it is transmitted both as a free- also simpler contrapuntally, with the outer voices fre-
standing motet ascribed to Févin and as the secunda pars of quently in parallel thirds with the chant or in parallel
Mouton’s Caeleste beneficium.36 Slightly more ponderously tenths between each other.40 Both settings look and
paced than many of the latter’s compositions, it is never- sound older than the surrounding repertoire, but that
theless a specimen so typical for the French-court motet may be a function of genre rather than style; they could
that a decision on who wrote it seems difficult to make have been written in the 1480s as well as in the early
on style alone. The two Josquin motets, Huc me sydereo 1500s. More importantly, they look and sound more
and Homo quidam fecit, finally link back to the composi- Flemish than French;41 Obrecht, what is more, spent
tions by the same composer in the first section (gatherings most of his life in Flanders (visiting France only once, in
X and XI): large-scale tenor motets full of canonic (Homo 1492) and is not known to have had any associations
quidam) or isorhythmic (Huc me sydereo) artifice. Homo with the House of Valois.
quidam in particular bears no resemblance to the French- This more tenuous connection with the French
court style nor links to that institution. Huc me sydereo, on court is indicative of the second section of RCM 1070
the other hand, written though it seems during Josquin’s more generally, corresponding to the non-French
sojourn at Ferrara, does look ‘French’ in its frequent alter- Josquin motets discussed above. But we may come full
nation of non-interlacing voice-pairs. Indeed, as Jeffrey circle to France again with the intriguing Popule meus.
Dean has found, the text by the humanist poet Maffeo This motet cycle – already as such unique in the con-
Vegio (1407–1458) appears in a prayer book belonging to
Anne of Brittany. Still, the pairing points less to a direct 38
According the the CANTUS database (http://cantusdata-
stylistic or institutional link than again to works being val- base.org/id/006759a), the chant is used alternatively for the
ued for their intrinsic interest.37 feasts of the Annunciation, Assumption and Purification.
39
See already Urkevich, ‘Anne Boleyn, a Music Book’, 280.
35
Sancta trinitas is one of the more popular motets of the first 40
There is a very slim chance that the piece may be the lost
half of the sixteenth century and ascribed to various other setting of the same text by Antoine Busnoys mentioned in
composers besides Févin, also surviving in a six–voice ver- a letter of 1495 by the trombonist Alvise da Zorzi to
sion with two added voices by Arnold von Bruck; but there Francesco II Gonzaga of Mantua; see Rodolfo Baroncini,
can be no reasonable doubt that the original is by Févin. ‘“Se canta dalli cantori overo se sona dalli sonadori”: Voci e
36
See Michael Alan Anderson, St. Anne in Renaissance Music. strumenti tra quattro e cinquecento’, Rivista italiana di musi-
Devotion and Politics (Cambridge, 2014), 143–75. cologia 32 (1997), 327–65, at 348, 355–7. Zorzi does, how-
37
See Rifkin, ‘A Black Hole?’, 50–54, referring back to his ever, specify that this setting is for ‘quattro voxe’ rather than
own study ‘Motivik – Konstruktion – Humanismus: Zur three. Too little of Busnoys’ liturgical music survives to
Motette Huc me sydereo von Josquin des Prez’, in Die allow any stylistic judgments as to the likelihood of this
Motette: Beiträge zu ihrer Gattungsgeschichte, eds Herbert ascription, but one would on the whole expect a more
Schneider and Heinz–Jürgen Winkler, Neue Studien zur imaginative setting from a composer of his stature.
41
Musikwissenschaft 5 (Mainz, 1992), 105–34. See also Jaap The chants used point towards a Franco-Flemish origin,
van Benthem, ‘Josquins Motette Huc me sydereo, oder but the research required to narrow the source down furt-
Konstruktivismus als Ausdruck humanistisch geprägter her geographically (if indeed this is possible) would trans-
Andacht?’, in ibid., 135–64. cend the boundaries of this study.
 Repertoire 31

text of RCM 1070 – is otherwise only transmitted in four motets with RCM 1070, which given the close
central European sources; its four (or five, if one counts geographic and chronological proximity of their genesis
the first Ego eduxi on ff. 117–118r separately) partes is in fact not a surprisingly large, but a surprisingly small
loosely paraphrase the chant of the improperia for number. This impression is reinforced by the fact that in
Good Friday which is also the source of the text. The the main body of RCM 1070 compiled by Scribe I (the
composition does display some features of the French- more obviously ‘French’ section of the book) there is
court style, with voice-pairs (albeit mostly interlaced) only one single concordance: Verbum bonum by the rel-
alternating with full-voice imitative polyphony and atively peripheral Therache, possibly even added as an
homophonic acclamation. However, given the tendency afterthought, as I have argued above. Scribe II adds two
of the underlying chant to recite on one note, and the more; Brumel’s Sicut lilium, finally, does not really figure
shortness of the individual partes, the overall effect is since it was added later by a different scribe. Several
much more compact than that of most other motets of Italian sources and even the much later compilation by
that type: climaxes are reached more quickly, and the the Swiss humanist Aegidius Tschudi share substantially
text, again conforming to genre expectations, is often more material with RCM 1070.44
delivered rather than developed through the music. In In that sense, the repertoires of RCM 1070 and
all this, Popule meus is remarkably similar to other cycles Cambridge 1760 complement rather than overlap each
from the period consisting of a sequence of short other, the latter drawing rather differently on the
motets linked through a common liturgical and/or tex- French-court repertoire, not least in terms of preferred
tual context.42 composers. In Cambridge 1760’s motet section,
A further clue that is as specific as it is intriguing is Mouton is represented with a mere four compositions
provided by the context in which Popule meus is trans- (out of a total of 26), and Josquin with but one, while
mitted in the Central European concordances: in all relatively more room is given to Févin (six), Prioris
three of them, it follows directly after Loyset Compère’s (four) and Gascongne (three), all of whom are largely or
Officium de Cruce cycle (In nomine Iesu omne genuflectatur), entirely absent from RCM 1070. The chronology of
also written for Holy Week. At this point, we have to compilation does not help in explaining this discrep-
start considering very seriously Compère’s authorship of ancy since the two books were put together a few years
Popule meus as well, its placement in the late section of apart at most.45 At the time of compilation, Prioris (who
RCM 1070 notwithstanding. The two cycles share all thanks to Theodor Dumitrescu’s research we now know
hallmarks of his style as growing out and developing to be Denis Prieur, maître de chapelle to Louis d’Orléans
from its origins in the Milanese motetti missales: compact before and after his accession to the French throne as
phrasing, a substantial amount of homophonic recitation Louis XII in 149846) had enjoyed the longest connec-
(often lightly articulated by the delayed entry of one tion to the court while Mouton plausibly joined the
voice), interlaced voice pairs which are in themselves retinue of Queen Anne of Brittany as early as 1502.47
often homophonic rather than imitative, the occasional Févin’s association may date from as late as 1507, and
full point of imitation, shorts bursts of rhythmically Gascongne is not securely attested until 1517, but must
highly active counterpoint to link the text phrases. Add surely have had links to the court from at least a decade
to this the presence of the cycle in a book that is devoted earlier, if not more. Prioris is clearly the oldest composer
to polyphony from the French court, and the notable
role Compère played at this court (and consequently in 44
the earlier layers of the collection), and we have a very I-Fn II.I.232 has seven concordances with RCM 1070
and V-CVbav Capp. Sist. 42 six, as does Petrucci’s Motetti
strong case for his authorship indeed. de la corona volume (RISM 1514/1). Further afield, even
Even the later additions aside (see David Skinner, the ‘Tschudi Liederbuch’ (CH–SGs 463) also has six, seven
above, for the discussion of the place of the three chan- if one counts the late addition of the chanson Gentils
sons in the manuscript, added to which is Brumel’s galans compaingnons.
short song-motet Sicut lilium), the overall repertoire – 45
For a summary of the dating of Cambridge 1760, see
while still placing the French-court style at its centre – Rifkin, ‘A Black Hole?’, 45. Brobeck, ‘A Music Book for
is thus not quite as homogeneous as one might assume Mary Tudor’, proposes a new dedicatee for the book: Mary
at first glance, particularly when taking into account Tudor, who married King Louis XII in 1514. But this
Scribe II’s contributions. The choices made are perhaps hypothesis, whatever its merits, would not change the hit-
best understood in comparison with the other, virtually herto proposed copying and compilation period of c.1508–
contemporary French collection, Cambridge 1760.43 1514 by more than a few months.
This much more obviously ‘courtly’ production shares 46
See Theodor Dumitrescu, ‘Who Was “Prioris”? A Royal
Composer Recovered’, Journal of the American Musicological
42
On this repertoire, see the research project ‘Motet Cycles Society 65 (2012), 5–65.
(c. 1470–c.1510). Compositional Design, Performance, and 47
Louis Royer, ‘Les musiciens et la musique à l’ancienne col-
Cultural Context’ based at the Schola Cantorum Basiliensis légiale Saint-André de Grenoble du XVe au XVIIIe siècle’,
(http://www.motetcycles.com). Humanisme et Renaissance 4 (1937), 237–73, at 243. See also
43
The most recent study of this book is Brobeck, ‘A Music Rifkin, ‘A Black Hole?’, 33–4, drawing on further research
Book for Mary Tudor’. by Dumitrescu.
32 The Anne Boleyn Music Book

in the group, with chansons transmitted in manuscripts greater distance to the court, relatively speaking, is also
dating back to the 1470s, and his motets likewise look reflected in their freedom to include more extraneous
and sounds slightly more old-fashioned than those of material. Yet again, the impression is reinforced that the
the others (with the possible exception of the timelessly book, while clearly made in the court’s orbit, is a collec-
beautiful Dulcis amica dei). But the reason he takes pride tion based on personal choices and preferences, by two
of place in Cambridge 1760 is much more likely to do collectors who quite systematically sought out repertoire
with the fact that this was an ‘official’ court production of their preferred genres and composers, with a clear
as witnessed by the heraldry displayed therein;48 and predilection for Mouton and Josquin. That these should
Prioris, while of advanced age, was after all still maître de go on to become the most popular motet composers of
chapelle at the time its compilation was begun. the subsequent decades, and the enduring representatives
The compilers of RCM 1070 were under no such of this genre more generally (something which for
restrictions when choosing their repertoire, and may have Mouton at least, cannot have been a foregone conclusion
deemed Prioris’ motets outdated by this point. Their around 1505), is a testament to their discerning taste.

48
As summarised by Brobeck, ‘A Music Book for Mary
Tudor’, 9–12.
 Bibliography

Anderson, Michael Alan, St. Anne in Renaissance Music: Devotion and Politics (Cambridge, 2014).
Avril, François, and Nicole Reynaud, Les manuscrits à peintures 1440–1520 (Paris, 1993).
Barclay Squire, William, Catalogue of Printed Music in the Library of the Royal College of Music, London
(London, 1909).
Barker,Watson (ed.), The Adages of Erasmus (Toronto, 2001).
Baroncini, Rodolfo, ‘“Se canta dalli cantori overo se sona dalli sonadori”:Voci e strumenti tra quattro e cin-
quecento’, Rivista italiana di musicologia 32 (1997), 327–65.
Bernard, George W., Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attraction (New Haven, 2010).
Bernstein, Jane, ‘An Index of Polyphonic Chansons in English Manuscript Sources, c.1530–1640’, Royal
Musical Association Research Chronicle 21 (1988), 21–36.
Boorman, Stanley, ‘Notational Spelling and Scribal Habit’, in Datierung und Filiation von Musikhandschriften der
Josquin-Zeit, ed. Ludwig Finscher (Wiesbaden, 1983), 65–109.
Briquet, Charles-Moïse, Les filigranes (Geneva, 1907). Online at http://www.ksbm.oeaw.ac.at/_scripts/php/
BR.php (accessed on 20 June 2017).
Brobeck, John T., ‘Some “Liturgical Motets” for the French Royal Court: A Reconsideration of Genre in the
Sixteenth–Century Motet’, Musica Disciplina 47 (1993), 123–57.
———, ‘Musical Patronage in the Royal Chapel of France under Francis I (r. 1515–1547)’, Journal of the
American Musicological Society 48 (1995), 187–239.
———, ‘Antoine de Févin and the Origins of the “Parisian Motet”’, in The Motet around 1500. On the
Relationship between Imitation and Text Treatment?, ed. Thomas Schmidt-Beste (Turnhout, 2012), 311–24.
———, ‘A Music Book for Mary Tudor, Queen of France’, Early Music History 35 (2016), 1–93.
Brumel, Antoine, Opera Omnia, vol. 5: Motetta, ed. Barton Hudson, Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae, 5/5
(American Institute of Musicology, 1972).
Carley, James P., The Books of King Henry VIII and his Wives (London, 2004).
Christoffersen, Peter Woetmann, French Music in the Early Sixteenth Century: Studies in the Music Collection of
a Copyist of Lyons. The Manuscript Ny kgl. Samling 1848 2o in the Royal Library, Copenhagen, 3 vols
(Copenhagen, 1994).
Dean, Jeffrey J., ‘The Scribes of the Sistine Chapel, 1501–1527’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1984).
Derolez, Albert, The Paleography of Gothic Manuscript Books: From the Twelfth to the Early Sixteenth Century
(Cambridge, 2003).
Dumitrescu, Theodor, The Early Tudor Court and International Musical Relations (Aldershot, 2007).
———, ‘Who Was “Prioris”? A Royal Composer Recovered’, Journal of the American Musicological Society
65 (2012).
Fallows, David, Josquin (Turnhout, 2009).
Finscher, Ludwig, Loyset Compère (c. 1450–1518). Life and Works, Musicological Studies and Documents 12
(American Institute of Musicology, 1964).
Hall, Matthew J., ‘Brumel’s Laudate Dominum de caelis and the “French-Court Motet”’, Journal of the Alamire
Foundation 8 (2016), 33–54.
34 The Anne Boleyn Music Book

Hucke, Helmut, ‘Die Musik in der sixtinischen Kapelle bis zur Zeit Leos X.’, in Zusammenhänge, Einflüsse,
Wirkungen. Kongreßakten zum ersten Symposium des Mediävistenverbandes in Tübingen 1984, eds Joerg O.
Fichte, Karl Heinz Göller and Bernhard Schimmelpfennig (Berlin/New York 1986), 154–67.
Husk, William H., ‘Sacred Harmonic Society’, in A Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Sir George Grove,
4 vols (London, 1898), iii: 209–11.
Ives, Eric, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn (Oxford, 2004).
Jennings, Oscar, Early Woodcut Initials (London, 1908).
Kellman, Herbert (ed.), The Treasury of Petrus Alamire: Music and Art in Flemish Court Manuscripts 1500–1535,
incl.essays by Wim Blockmans, Eric Jas, Herbert Kellman, Jacobijn Kiel, Honey Meconi, Eugeen Scheurs,
Dagmar Thoss and Flynn Warmington (Ghent/Amsterdam, 1999).
The Law Times 66 (London, 1879).
Litterick, Louise, ‘The Manuscript Royal 20.A.XVI of the British Library’ (Ph.D. diss., New York
University, 1976).
Lowinsky, Edward E., ‘MS 1070 of the Royal College of Music in London’, Proceedings of the Royal Musical
Association 96 (1969–70), 1–28.
———, ‘A Music Book for Anne Boleyn’, in Florilegium historiale. Essays presented to Wallace K. Ferguson, eds
J. G. Rowe and W. H. Stockdale (Toronto, 1971), 161–235; repr. with an appendix in id., Music in the
Culture of the Renaissance, ed. Bonnie J. Blackburn, 2 vols (Chicago, 1989), ii: 484–528.
McDonnell, James Martin, ‘William Pickering, (1797–1894), Antiquarian Bookseller, Publisher, and Book
Designer: A Study in the Early Nineteenth Century Book Trade’ (Ph.D. diss., The Polytechnic of North
London, 1983).
Matthews, Anne, ‘The Use of Prints in the Hours of Charles d’Angoulême’, Print Quarterly 3 (1986) 4–18.
The Medici Codex of 1518: A Choirbook of Motets dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici, Duke of Urbino, ed. Edward E.
Lowinsky, Monuments of Renaissance Music 3–5 (Chicago and London, 1968).
Milsom, John, ‘Motets for Five or More Voices’, in The Josquin Companion, ed. Richard Sherr (New York,
2000), 281–320.
———, ‘Josquin des Prez and the Combinative Impulse’, in The Motet around 1500. On the Relationship
between Imitation and Text Treatment?, ed. Thomas Schmidt-Beste (Turnhout, 2012), 211–46.
Nicolas, Nicholas Harris (ed.),The Privy Purse Expences of King Henry the Eighth from November MDXXIX, to
December MDXXXII (London, 1827).
Noble, Jeremy, ‘The Genealogies of Christ and Their Musical Settings’, in Essays on Music and Culture in Honor
of Herbert Kellman, ed. Barbara Haggh (Paris, 2001), 197–208.
Nowacki, Edward, ‘The Latin Psalm Motet 1500-1535’, Renaissance-Studien: Helmuth Osthoff zum 80.
Geburtstag. Frankfurter Beiträge zur Musikwissenschaft 11 (Tutzing, 1979), 159–84.
Parkes, M. B., English Cursive Book Hands 1250–1500 (Oxford, 1969).
Parkinson, John, ‘A Chanson by Claudin de Sermisy’, Music & Letters 39 (1958), 118-22.
Pavanello, Agnese, ‘Stabat Mater / Vidi Speciosam. Some Considerations on the Origin and Dating of Gaspar
van Weerbeke’s Motet in the Chigi Codex’, Tijdschrift van de Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse
Muziekgeschiedenis 60 (2010), 3–19.
[Pickering, William], Catalogue of Biblical Classical and Historical Manuscripts and of Rare and Curious Books
(London, 1834).
———, Catalogue of the Collection of Manuscripts and Autograph Letters formed by the late Mr. William Pickering of
Piccadilly, Bookseller (London, 1854).
 Bibliography 35

Rifkin, Joshua, ‘Motivik–Konstruktion–Humanismus: Zur Motette Huc me sydereo von Josquin des Prez’, in
Die Motette: Beiträge zu ihrer Gattungsgeschichte, eds Herbert Schneider and Heinz–Jürgen Winkler, Neue
Studien zur Musikwissenschaft 5 (Mainz, 1992), 105–34.
———, ‘Munich, Milan, and a Marian Motet: Dating Josquin’s Ave Maria … virgo serena’, Journal of the
American Musicological Society 56 (2003), 239–350.
———, ‘The Creation of the Medici Codex’, Journal of the American Musicological Society 62 (2009), 517–70.
———, ‘A Black Hole? Problems in the Motet around 1500’, in The Motet around 1500. On the Relationship
between Imitation and Text Treatment?, ed. Thomas Schmidt-Beste (Turnhout, 2012), 21–82.
Rifkin, Joshua, et al. ‘Compère, Loyset’, Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press,
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/06205 (accessed on 10 March 2017).
Rodin, Jesse, Josquin’s Rome. Hearing and Composing in the Sistine Chapel (New York, 2012).
Rouse, Richard H., and Rouse, Mary A., Manuscripts and their Makers: Commercial Book Producers in Medieval
Paris 1200-1500 (Turnhout, 2000).
Royer, Louis, ‘Les musiciens et la musique à l’ancienne collégiale Saint-André de Grenoble du XVe au
XVIIIe siècle’, Humanisme et Renaissance 4 (1937), 237–73.
[Sacred Harmonic Society], Twenty-First Annual Report of the Sacred Harmonic Society (London, 1854).
———, Supplement to the Catalogue of the Library of the Sacred Harmonic Society (London, 1855).
Schmidt, Thomas, ‘Making Polyphonic Books in the Late Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries’ in The
Production and Reading of Music Sources. Mise-en-page in Manuscripts and Printed Books containing Polyphonic
Music, 1480–1530, eds Thomas Schmidt and Christian Thomas Leitmeir (Turnhout, 2017).
Schmidt-Beste, Thomas, Textdeklamation in der Motette des 15. Jahrhunderts (Turnhout, 2003).
———, ‘Über Quantität und Qualität von Musikhandschriften des 16. Jahrhunderts’, in Die Münchner
Hofkapelle des 16. Jahrhunderts im europäischen Kontext, eds Theodor Göllner and Bernhold Schmid
(Munich, 2006), 191–211.
———, ‘Psallite noe! Christmas Carols, the Devotio Moderna and the Renaissance Motet’, in Das Erzbistum
Köln in der Musikgeschichte des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts, Beiträge zur Rheinischen Musikgeschichte 172, ed.
Klaus Pietschmann (Kassel, 2008), 213–31.
Scott, Kathleen L., Later Gothic Manuscripts, 2 vols (London, 1996).
Sénemaud, Edmond, La bibliothèque de Charles d’Orléans, comte d’Angoulême au château de Cognac en 1496
(Paris, 1861).
Sherr, Richard, ‘Laudat autem David: Fallows on Josquin’, Music & Letters 92 (2011), 437–61.
Skinner, David, booklet text for Anne Boleyn’s Songbook, Music & Passions of a Tudor Queen, Alamire, dir. David
Skinner, CD 175 (Obsidian: 2015).
———, booklet text for Robert Fayrfax: The Masses, The Cardinall’s Musick, dir. Andrew Carwood, CD
GAUX353 (ASV Records/Gaudeamus, 2003).
Splendeur de l’enluminure: le roi René et les livres, ed. Marc-Édouard Gautier (Angers, 2009).
Stow, John, A Survey of London (London, 1598; 4th edn by Munday and Dyson, 1633).
Urkevich, Lisa A., ‘Anne Boleyn, a Music Book, and the Northern Renaissance Courts: Music Manuscript
1070 of the Royal College of Music, London’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Maryland, 1997).
———, ‘Music Books of Women: Private Treasures and Personal Revelations’, Early Modern Women 4 (Tempe,
Arizona, 2009), 175–85.
36 The Anne Boleyn Music Book

———, ‘Anne Boleyn’s French Motet Book, a Childhood Gift. The Question of the Original Owner of MS
1070 of the Royal College of Music, London, Revisited’, in Ars musica septentrionalis: De l’interprétation du
patrimoine musical à l’historiographie, eds. Barbara Haggh and Frédéric Billiet (Paris, 2011), 95–119.
van Benthem, Jaap, ‘Josquins Motette Huc me sydereo, oder Konstruktivismus als Ausdruck humanistisch
geprägter Andacht?, in Die Motette: Beiträge zu ihrer Gattungsgeschichte, ed. Herbert Schneider and Heinz–
Jürgen Winkler, Neue Studien zur Musikwissenschaft 5 (Mainz, 1992), 135–64.
Wegman, Rob C., Born for the Muses: the Life and Masses of Jacob Obrecht (Oxford, 1994).
———, ‘Compositional Process in the Fifteenth-Century Motet’, in The Motet around 1500. On the
Relationship between Imitation and Text Treatment?, ed. Thomas Schmidt-Beste (Turnhout, 2012), 175–95.
Wieck, Roger S., ‘Folia Fugitiva: The Pursuit of the Illuminated Manuscript Leaf ’, The Journal of the Walters
Art Gallery 54 (1996), 233–54.
APPENDICES

Thomas Schmidt
 Appendix I: Gathering Structure and Scribes
(after disbinding on 26 May 2016)
Solid lines indicate leaves still conjoined, dotted lines bifolia deduced from the context
+ = leaf containing watermark
1+ 47 95
2+ 48+ 96
3+ 49 97
4 I:I:IbIb 50 98+
VII: Ib
VII: Ib 98+ XIII:IaIa
XIII:
5+ 51+ 99
6 52+ 100+
7 53 101+
54+ 102+
8
9 55+ 103+
10 56 104
11 II: Ib
II: Ib 57+ 105+
12+ 58+ VIII:IbIb
VIII: 106+ XIV:IIII
XIV:
13+ 59 107
14+ 60 108
15+ 61 109+
62 110
16
17+ 63 111+
18 III:
III:IbIb 64 112+
19+ (22v: II) 65+ 113+
XV: II
(22v: II) XV: II
(113v-115r:
20+ 66 IX:IbIb
IX: 114 (113v–115r: IV)
21 67+ 115+ IV)
22+ 68 116
69+
23 70+ 117
24 118+
25 71+ 119+
26 IV: Ib 72 120
IV: Ib XVI:IIII
XVI:
27+ 73+ 121+
28+ 74+ X:IbIb
X: 122
29+ 75 (78v:II)
(78v: II) 123
30+ 76 124+
77+
31+ 78 125
32+ 126+
33+ 79 127
34+ V: Ib
V: Ib 80+ 128+ XVII:IIII
XVII:
35 81 129
36 82 XI:IaIa
XI: 130+
37 83+ 131
38 84+ 132+
85
39+ 86+ 133+
XVIII: IV
XVIII:IV
40 134
41 87+
42 VI: Ib
VI: Ib 88+ XII: Ib
43+ 89+ XII: Ib
(87r: music Ib,
44+ 90+ (87r: music Ib,
45+ 91 text text II;
II; 92v–93r:
92v-93r: III;
III; 94v:II)
46 92 94v: II)
93
94
 Appendix II: Inventory
The spelling of the titles follows the discantus voice in the source (where text is present). Concordances exclude intabulations
or quotations in theoretical treatises. For choirbooks, the position in the concordant source is given in folios; for sets of part-
books and for unfoliated fragments, the position in numerical sequence in the source is provided. No attempt to provide a
complete list of modern editions has been made; only the most reliable and/or most easily accessible editions are listed (for a
resolution of the sigla used here, see Appendix III). For compositions unattributed in the source, ascriptions in square brackets
are to the most commonly accepted composer; round brackets indicate alternative ascriptions.

1 ff. 1v–5r I-Ma Trotti 519, 23v–24v

Forte si dulci stigium boantem [c.1521]/7, no. 13
II: Palas actea memoratur 1537/1, no. 50 (Mouton)
4vv. Scribe Ib 1540/4, no. 6
Concordances 1559/2, no. 17 (Mouton)
unicum M4017 (1555), no. 1
Modern Edition(s) Modern Edition(s)
Lowinsky 1969–1970, 20–28 (reprinted in Lowinsky 16CM 7, 1–10
1989, 521–28)
5 ff. 15v–18r
2 ff. 5v–10r Laudate deum in sanctis eius [Jean Mouton]
Memor esto verbi tui [Josquin Desprez] II: Quia cum clamarem ad eum
II: Porcio mea domine 4vv. Scribe Ib
4vv. Scribe Ib Incomplete: 1 folio missing after fol. 17.
Incomplete: 1 folio missing after f. 6. Concordances
Concordances A-Wn Mus. 15500, 279v–285r
CH-SGs 463, no. 88 A-Wn Mus. 15941, 68v–70r
D-Kl 24, no. 21 I-Pc A17, 32v–34r
D-Mbs 19, 26v–37r 1514/1 (1526/1), no. 7
D-Mu 322–5, no. 7 M4017 (1555), no. 12
I-Bc R142, 4v–7v Modern Edition(s)
I-Fn II.I.232, 176v–180r 16CM 4, 42–52
I-MOd 4, 98v–100r
NL-Ar V A 1, no. 1 6 ff. 18v–21r
US-BUu M/02/A3/p, no. 51 Queramus cum pastoribus [Jean Mouton]
V-CVbav CS 16, 165v–169r II: [U]bi pascas ubi cubes
1514/1 (1526/1), no. 2 4vv. Scribe Ib
1539/9, no. 18 Concordances
1559/2, no. 9 CH-SGs 463, no. 124
Modern Edition(s) D-Dl Grimma 51, no. 3
NJE 17.14 D-Rp 786–837, no. 108
D-Rp 838–43, 77v–81r
3 ff. 10v–12r D-Rp 878–82, no. 29
Laudate dominum omnes gentes GB-Lbl Add. 4911, no. 142
4vv. Scribe Ib I-Bc Q25, no. 16
Concordances I-Bsp 38, 19v–21r
unicum I-CMac FM 4, 23v–25r
Modern Edition(s) I-Fd 11, 30v–34r
Urkevich 1997, 285–90 I-MOd 3, 163v–166r
I-MOd 11, 3v–5r
4 ff. 12v–15r I-Pc D27, 105v–108r
In illo tempore Accesserunt ad iesum [Pierre Moulu]/ S-Uu 76c, 74v–75r
II: [P]ropter hoc dimittet homo patrem [Jean Mouton] US-BLu 4, no. 9
4vv. Scribe Ib US-BLu 8, no. 37
Concordances US-BLu 9a, nos 3 and 26
A-Wn Mus. 15941, 86r–87r (Mouton) US-BLu 9b, no. 10
CH-SGs 463, 47v–48r (Moulu) V-CVbav CS 46, 35v–37r
D-Dl 1/D/6, fol. 33r–v (Mouton) V-CVbav CS 77, 4v–12r
D-Rp 940–1, no. 48 1521/3, no. 8
D-Rtt 76, 72v–74r [c.1521]/7, no. 11
I-Bc Q19, 98v–100r (Moulu) 1529/1, no. 8
40 The Anne Boleyn Music Book

1553/2, no. 13 9 ff. 27v–31r

1559/2, no. 11 [M]ittit ad virginem [Josquin Desprez]
M4017 (1555), no. 6 II: [A]ccede nuncia (Pierrequin de Therache?)
Modern Edition(s) 4vv. Scribe Ib
Antico, 97–105 Ascribed to ‘Petrus de Therache’ in Henricus Glareanus’
[NJE **26.11] copy of 1504/1 (D-Mu 4° Liturg. 374)
7 ff. 22v Concordances
[O] salve genitrix virgo dulcissima V-CVbav CS 46, 130v–134r (Josquin)
[4]vv. Scribe II 1504/1, no. 40
Beginning of Superius and Tenor only J678 (1555), no. 6
Concordances Modern Edition(s)
unicum NJE 24.6
Modern Edition(s)
Urkevich 1997, 291–4 10 ff. 31v–33r
[A]ve Maria … virgo serena [Josquin Desprez]
8 ff. 23v–27r 4vv. Scribe Ib
Stabat mater dolorosa [Josquin Desprez] Concordances
II: [E]ya mater fons amoris CH-SGs 463, no. 130
5vv. Scribe Ib CZ-HK II.A.7, pp. 64–67
Concordances D-B 40021, 51v–52r
B-Br 215–6, 39v–43r D-GOl A98, 100v–103r
B-Br 9126, 160v–164r D-LEu 1494, 202v
B-LVu 163, no. 2 D-Mbs 19, 38v–43r
CZ-HK II.A.26, no. 4 D-Mbs 41, 226v–238r
CZ-HK II.A.41, no. 2 D-Mbs 3154, 147v–148r
CZ-RO 22, no. 69 D-Mu 322–5, no. 1
D-B Bohn 11, no. 138 D-Mu 326, no. 28
D-Mbs 12, 121v–132r D-Ngm 83795, no. 91
D-Mu 327, no. 8 D-Usch 237, no. 2
D-Mu 401, nos 44–45 E-Bbc 454, 124v–126r
D-Rp 891–2, no. 32 E-Boc 5, 56v–57r
D-Z 33.34, no. 9 E-SE s.s., 83v–85r
DK-Kk 1872, no. 5 I-Fn II.I.232, 111v–113r
DK-Kk 1873, no. 35 I-Fn Magl. XIX.164–7, no. 79
E-Tc 10, 11v–21r I-Md Librone 4, 118v–120r
E-V 16, no. 6 I-MOd 9, 24v–26r
E-V 17, no. 71 PL-Kj Berlin 40013, 170v–173r
GB-Lbl Harley 4848, 88–85 PL-Wu 5892, 7v–8r
I-Fn II.I.232, 22v–26r V-CVbav CS 42, 22v–24r
I-Rmassimo 23–4, no. 45 1502/1, no. 2
NL-L 1442, 70v–74r Modern Edition(s)
NL-Lml 1440, 258v–264r NJE 23.6
S-Uu 76c, 60v–62r
V-CVbav Chigi C.VIII.234, 241v–245r 11 ff. 33v–34r
V-CVbav CG XII.4, 94v–98r [F]er pietatis opem miseris
V-CVbav Vat.lat. 11953, 47v–51r 4vv. Scribe Ib
1519/2 (1526/3, 1527), no. 6 Concordances
1520/4, 156v–165 unicum
1538/3, no. 10 Modern Edition(s)
1553/2, no. 5 Urkevich 1997, 295–7
1559/1, no. 1
J678 (1555), no. 8 12 ff. 34v–35r
Modern Edition(s) [T]ota pulcra es amica mea [Jean Mouton]
NJE 25.9 4vv. Scribe Ib
Concordances
[c.1521]/6, no. 15
Modern Edition(s)
Shine 1953, 832–3
 Appendix II: Inventory 41

13 ff. 35v–36r 17 ff. 47v–51r

[S]ub tuum presidium confugimus [Antoine Brumel] [S]ancti dei omnes orate pro nobis [Jean Mouton]
4vv. Scribe Ib II: [C]riste audi nos sancta trinitas (Josquin)
Concordances 4vv. Scribe Ib
GB-Cmc 1760, 17v–19r Concordances
I-Fn II.I.232, 88v–89r E-Tc 13, 1v–10r (Josquin)
[c.1521]/6, no. 10 I-Bsp 39, 112v–115r
Modern Edition(s) I-CFm 59, no. 28
Brumel OO 5, 111–12 I-Md Librone 3, 176v–178r
I-Sc K.I.2, 116v–120r
14 ff. 36v–38r I-VEcap 758, 32v–36r
[V]erbum bonum et suave [Pierrequin de Therache] I-VEcap 760, 35v–39r
4vv. Scribe Ib V-CVbav CS 42, 11v–15r (Mouton)
Concordances V-CVbav CS 76, 158v–164r (Mouton)
GB-Cmc 1760, 3v–5r 1504/1, no. 24
GB-Lbl Royal 8.g.vii, 30v–32r M4017 (1555), no. 7
I-Fl 666, 40v–41r Modern Edition(s)
1519/1 (1526/2), no. 1 Josquin Werken, ‘Motetten’ 5, 27
1521/5, no. 4 Chorwerk 76, 15–24
Modern Edition(s) [NJE **26.14]
Medici, 95–99
18 ff. 51v–55r
15 ff. 40v–42r [B]ona dies per orbem lucescit [Mathieu Gascongne]
Maria Magdalene et altera Maria [Jean Mouton?] II: [P]ax vobis ego sum alleluya
4vv. Scribe Ib 4vv. Scribe Ib
Concordances Concordances
unicum D-Z 81.2, no. 26
Modern Edition(s) Modern Edition(s)
Urkevich 1997, 298–303 Urkevich 1997, 304–14
16 ff. 42v–46r 19 ff. 55v–58r
[T]empus meum est ut revertar [Antoine de Févin] [I]n illo tempore Maria Magdalene [Jean Mouton]
II: [V]iri Galilei aspicientes in celum II: [D]ic nobis Maria quid vidisti
4vv. Scribe Ib 4vv. Scribe Ib
Concordances Concordances
A-Wn Mus. 18825, 23v–26r A-Wn Mus. 18825, no. 6
CZ-HK II.A.29, 636–638 B-Amp M18.13/2, no. 1
D-Rp 876, no. 4 D-Mbs 41, 238v–251r
E-Tc 23, 179v–183r F-CA 125–8, no. 111
GB-Ob Lat. lit. a.8, no. 2 GB-Lcm 2037, 37v–39r
I-MOd 9, 35v–37r I-Bc Q19, 63v–66r
V-CVbav CS 44, 87v–90r I-BGc 1209, 85v–87r
V-CVbav Pal.lat. 1976–9, no. 26 I-MOd 9, 31v–33r
1514/1 (1526/1), no. 20 I-Pc A17, 51v–53r
1555/10, no. 10 I-VEcap 760, 8v–9r
Modern Edition(s) 1521/5, no. 6
Févin Mor 3, 119–26 [c.1521]/7, no. 20
16CM 4, 101–11 1529/1, no. 6
Modern Edition(s)
Antico, 365–74
[NJE **26.6]
42 The Anne Boleyn Music Book

20 ff. 58v–62r 22 ff. 68v–72r

[R]egina celi letare alleluya [V]irgo salutiferi genitrix intacta [Josquin Desprez]
II: [R]esurrexit sicut dixit alleluya II: [Tu potis es primae scelus]
4vv. Scribe Ib III: [Nunc caeli regina tuis pro gentibus]
Concordances 5vv. Scribe Ib (II)
I-VEcap 760, 80v–82r Canonic Superius voice missing in prima and secunda
Modern Edition(s) pars; only f. 69r texted
Urkevich 1997, 334–343 Concordances
D-Mu 401, nos 37–39
21 ff. 63v–68r I-Fl 666, 112v–116r
[P]reter rerum seriem [Josquin Desprez] V-CVbav CS 16, 170v–174r
II: [V]irtus sancti spiritus V-CVbav CS 42, 88v–92r
6vv. Scribe Ib 1534/6, no. 23
Concordances 1559/1, no. 7
B-LVu 163, no. 53 1519/2 (1526/3, 1527), no. 4
CH-SGs 463, no. 209 Modern Edition(s)
CH-SGs 464, no. 1 Medici, 297–310
CZ-HK II.A.29, no. 185 NJE 25.13
CZ-RO 22, no. 53
D-B Bohn 11, no. 67 23 ff. 72v–73r
D-Dl Glashütte 5, no. 151 [Gaude Barbara beata summe pollens] [Jean Mouton]
D-Dl Grimma 57, no. 19 4vv. Scribe II
D-Dl Pirna IV, 10v–18r Prima pars only; noteheads without stems, untexted
D-GOl A98, 10v–15r Concordances
D-Mu 401, nos 10–11 F-CA 125–8, no. 3
D-Rp 775–7, no. 53 I-CFm 59, 61v–63r
D-Rp C120, pp. 148–153 I-CT 95–6 and F-Pn 1817, no. 53
D-Z 94.1, no. 25 I-Fn II.I.232, 163v–166r
DK-Kk 1872, nos 88–89 S-Uu 76b, 120v–122r
E-Sc 1, 33v–42r V-CVbav Pal.lat. 1980–1, no. 11
E-Tc 23, 85v–89r 1514/1 (1526/1), no. 1
E-TZ 8, 50v–56r Modern Edition(s)
H-Bn Bártfa 2, no. 6 Morales OO 6 (= MME 21), 131–41
I-Bc R142, 45v–47r
I-Fd 11, 39v–44r 24 ff. 78v–80r
I-Rmassimo 23–4, no. 44 [P]aranymphus salutat virginem [Loyset Compère]
NL-L 1442, 141v–147r II: [E]cce virgo decora
NL-Lml 1440, 252v–258r 4vv. Scribe Ia (78v: II)
PL-WRu 54, no. 35 Concordances
S-Uu 76b, 117v–120r B-Bcx 27766, 69v–70r
V-CVbav CG XII.4, 115v–120r CZ-HK II.A.21, no. 64
V-CVbav CS 16, 160v–164r I-BGc 1209, 76v–78r
V-CVbav SMM 26, 101v–106r I-Pc A17, 112v–113r
V-CVbav Vat.lat. 11953, no. 29 1512/1, no. 47
1519/2 (1526/3, 1527), no. 2 [1521]/4, no. 12
1520/4, 13v–22r Modern Edition(s)
1537/1, no. 4 Compère OO 4, 39–40
1558/4, no. 3
J678 (1555), no. 12 25 ff. 80v–83r
Modern Edition(s) [P]rofitentes unitatem [Loyset Compère]
NJE 24.11 II: [D]igne loqui de personis
4vv. Scribe Ia
Concordances
I-CFm 59, 68v–70r
V-CVbav CS 42, 130v–132r
1504/1, no. 28
Modern Edition(s)
Compère OO 4, 41–4
 Appendix II: Inventory 43

26 ff. 83v–85r 30 ff. 94v–96r

[O] genitrix gloriosa mater dei [Loyset Compère] [Q]ue est ista que processit [Antoine Brumel]
II: [A]ve virgo gloriosa II: [E]t sicut dies verni circundabant
4vv. Scribe Ia 4vv. Scribe Ia (94v: II)
Concordances Concordances
DK-Kk 1848, 286r–287r I-Fn II.I.232, 86v–88r
I-Fr 2794, 9v–11r I-VEcap 758, 62v–64r
I-Md Librone 1, 149v–150r (2a p.) US-BUu M/02/A3/p, no. 15
I-Md Librone 2, 36v–37r (2a p.) [c.1521]/6, no. 16
I-Md Librone 3, 51v–52r (1a p.) Modern Edition(s)
I-Sc K.I.2, 182v–184r Brumel OO 5, 91–4
V-CVbav CS 46, 99v–101r
1502/1, no. 3 31 ff. 96v–102r
Modern Edition(s) [L]iber generationis Iesu Cristi [Josquin Desprez]
AMMM 13, 145–7 (2a p.), 148–50 (1a p.) II: [S]alomon autem genuit Roboam
Compère OO 4, 29–31 III: [E]t post transmigrationem Babilonis
4vv. Scribe Ia
27 ff. 85v–87r Concordances
[O] virgo virginum quomodo fiet istud [Loyset Compère?] D-Dl 1/D/505, pp. 416–421
II: [F]ilie Jerusalem quid me admiramini D-Mbs 10, 127v–145r
4vv. Scribe Ia (87r: Ib [music], II [text]) E-Tc 23, IVv–7r
Concordances I-CT 95–6 and F-Pn 1817, no. 38
unicum I-Fn II.I.232, 51v–57r
Modern Edition(s) I-Fn Magl. XIX.107bis, 23v–29r
Urkevich 1997, 315–20 S-Uu 76c, 64v–67r
V-CVbav CS 42, 41v–47r
28 ff. 87v–91r 1504/1, no. 3
[Maria virgo semper letare] [Jean Mouton] 1538/3, no. 37
II: [Te laudant angeli] (Gascongne)a 1559/2, no. 8
4vv. Scribe Ib J678 (1555), no. 1
untexted Modern Edition(s)
Concordances NJE 19.13
1519/1 (1526/2), no. 20
1534/3, no. 10 (Gascongne) 32 ff. 102v
[F]actum est autem cum baptizaretur [Josquin Desprez]
Modern Edition(s) [4]vv. Scribe Ia
16CM 5, 95–107 Beginning of Superius and Tenor only
Concordances
29 ff. 92v–93r 1504/1, no. 4
Sicut lilium inter spinas [Antoine Brumel] Modern Edition(s)
4vv. Scribe III NJE 19.3
later addition on blank staves
Concordances 33 ff. 103v–107r
CH-Sk 87–4, 11r–v [G]abrielem archangelum
D-HRD 9822–3, 4v II: [G]loria patri et filio et spiritui
D-LEu Thomaskirche 51, no. 46 3vv. Scribe II
D-Mu 326, 13r–v Concordances
D-Rp 940–1, no. 44 unicum
I-Fl 666, 32v–33r Modern Edition(s)
1520/1, no. 12 Urkevich 1997, 321–33
[c.1521]/6, no. 2
1538/8, no. 2
Modern Edition(s)
Brumel OO 5, 110
Medici, 72–3
44 The Anne Boleyn Music Book

34 ff. 107v–113r 37 ff. 117v–121r

[A]lma redemptoris mater Jac Obreth [P]opule meus quid feci tibi [Loyset Compère?]
II: [E]t stella maris II: Ego eduxi te de Egipto
III: Tu que genuisti III: [E]go eduxi te mare rubrum
IV: Virgo prius ac posterius IV: [E]go eduxi te per desertum
3vv. Scribe II V: [Q]uid ultra debui facere tibi
Concordances 4vv. Scribe II
1542/8, no. 27 Concordances
Modern Edition(s) D-Ngm 83795, no. 75
NOE 15.1 PL-Kj Berlin 40013, 286v–291r
PL-WRu 428, 219v–224r
35 ff. 113v–114r Modern Edition(s)
Jouyssance vous donneray [Claudin de Sermisy] Urkevich 1997, 347–60
4vv. Scribe IV
later addition on blank staves 38 ff. 121v–125r
Concordances [H]uc me sydereo Josquin.
A-Wn Mus. 18810, no. 66 II: [F]elle sitim magni regis
CH-Bu F.X.17–20, no. 70 5vv. Scribe II
CH-Bu F.X.59–62, no. 19 Concordances
D-B 40194, no. 11 B-Br 9126, 172v–174r
D-HRD 9822–3, no. 38 CH-SGs 463, no. 185
D-Mbs 1501, no. 7 CH-SGs 464, no. 2
D-Mbs 1516, no. 125 D-Rp 893, no. 43
D-Rp 940–1, no. 287 DK-Kk 1872, 75v–77r
D-Rtt 3/I, no. 75 H-Bn Bártfa Mus. Pr. 6, no. 13
DK-Kk 1848, no. 108–109, 130 I-Bc R142, 52v–54r
F-CA 125–8, no. 199 NL-Lml 1440, 246v–252r
I-Fn Magl. XIX.111, no. 2 V-CVbav CS 45, 181v–187r
I-Fn Magl. XIX.112, no. 10 1519/2 (1526/3, 1527), no. 1
PL-GD 4003, no. 56 1538/3, no. 1
PL-Tm 29–32 1558/4, no. 6
S-Uu 76c, 145r J678 (1555), no. 13
1528/3, no. 5 Modern Edition(s)
[c.1528]/8, no. 12 NJE 21.5
1536/3, no. 7
Modern Edition(s) 39 ff. 125v–128r
Claudin OO 3, 138–9 Homo quidam fecit cenam magnam [Josquin Desprez]
II: [V]enite comedite panem meum
36 ff. 114v–115r 5vv. Scribe II
Venes regres Concordances
4vv. Scribe IV V-CVbav CS 42, 137v–139r
later addition on blank staves 1508/1, no. 5
Concordances Modern Edition(s)
[c.1528]/5, no. 16 NJE 19.4
Modern Edition(s)
Urkevich 1997, 344–6 40 ff. 128v–130r
Adiutorium nostrum [Antoine de Févin]
(Jean Mouton)
4vv. Scribe II
Concordances
GB-Cmc 1760, 23v–25r (Févin)
GB-Lbl Royal 8.g.vii, 4v–6r*
GB-Ob Lat. lit. a.8, no. 1 (Févin)
V-CVbav Pal.lat. 1976–9, no. 34
1514/1 (1526/1), no. 22 (Mouton)*
(* as secunda pars of Caeleste beneficum)
Modern Edition(s)
16CM 4, 118–23
 Appendix II: Inventory 45

41 ff. 130v–132r
Sancta trinitas unus deus [Antoine de Févin]
(Arnold de Bruck, Craen,
Josquin Desprez, Costanzo Festa,
Jean Mouton, Cristóbal de Morales)
4vv. Scribe II
Concordances
B-Tc A 58, 14v–15r
CH-SGs 462, 51v–52r
CZ-HK II.A.29, pp. 147–148 (6vv.)
D-Bga 7, no. 55 (Craen)
D-B Bohn 5, no. 155 (6vv.)
D-Dl Glashütte 5, no. 156 (6vv.)
D-EIa s.s., 341v–343r (6vv.) (Josquin)
D-ERu 473/4, 33v–39r (6vv.)
D-LÜh Mus. A 203, no. 28 (6vv.)
D-Mbs 1536/3, no. 99 (6vv.) (Févin)
D-Rp 883–6, no. 33 (6vv.)
D-Rp 940–1, no. 234 (6vv.)
D-Rp C96, 99v–103r (6vv.)
D-Sl 25, 65v–72r (6vv.) (Févin)
DK-Kk 1872, no. 108 (6vv.)
DK-Kk 1873, no. 115 (6vv.)
E-Bbc 454, 176v–177r (Févin)
E-Tc 13, 25v–29r (Févin)
E-Zac 34, 56v–57v (Morales)
F-CA 125–8, no. 128
GB-Cmc 1760, 19v–21r (Févin)
GB-Lbl Royal 8.g.vii, 12v–14r
I-Bc Q27(2), no. 7
I-CFm 59, 85v–86r
I-Fn Magl. XIX.117, 61v–63r
I-MOd 9, 39v–40r (Févin)
I-Pc A17, 83v–84r
I-TVd 5, 31v–32r (Festa)
I-VEcap 760, 50v–51r (Févin)
S-Uu 76c, 71v–72r
V-CVbav Chigi C.VIII.234, 87v–88r (Févin)
1514/1 (1526/1), no. 13 (Févin)
1537/1, no. 3 (6vv.)
1555/11, no. 7 (6vv.)
1558/4, no. 10
Modern Edition(s)
Févin OC 3, 114–19
[NJE **26.13]

42 ff. 133v–134r
Gentils galans compaingnons
3vv. Scribe III
later addition on added leaves
Concordances
CH-SGs 463, no. 26
1520/6, no. 11
1542/8, no. 67
Modern Edition(s)
Urkevich 1997, 361–2
 Appendix III: Sources and Editions

A. List of Concordant Sources

1. Manuscripts
Siglum Library and Shelfmark no. in RCM 1070
A-Wn Mus. 15500 Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Mus. Hs. 15500 5
A-Wn Mus. 15941 Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Mus. Hs. 15941 4, 5
A-Wn Mus. 18810 Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Mus. Hs. 18810 35
A-Wn Mus. 18825 Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Mus. Hs. 18825 16, 19
B-Amp M18.13/2 Antwerpen, Museum Plantin-Moretus, Bibliotheek, MS M18.13
(fragment 2) (olim R43.13) 19
B-Bcx 27766 Conservatoire Royal de Bruxelles / Koninklijk Conservatorium Brussel,
MS 27766 24
B-Br 215-6 Bruxelles, Bibliothèque Royal Albert 1er/Brussel, Koninklijke Bibliotheek
Albert I, MS 215–216 8, 38
B-Br 9126 Bruxelles, Bibliothèque Royal Albert 1er/Brussel, Koninklijke Bibliotheek
Albert I, MS 9126 8
B-LVu 163 Leuven, Universiteitsbibliotheek, MS 163 (destroyed in August 1914) 8, 21
B-Tc A58 Tournai, Chapitre de la Cathédrale, BCT A58 41
CH-Bu F.X.17-20 Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, Musiksammlung, MS F.X.17–20 35
CH-Bu F.X.59-62 Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, Musiksammlung, MS F.X.59–62 35
CH-SGs 462 St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, MS 462 (Johannes Heer Liederbuch) 41
CH-SGs 463 St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, MS 463 (Aegidius Tschudi Liederbuch)
2, 4, 6, 10, 21, 38, 42
CH-SGs 464 St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, MS 464 21, 38
CH-Sk 87-4 Sion, Archives du chapitre de la Cathédrale, MS 87-4 29
CZ-HKm II.A.7 Hradec Králové, Muzeum Východních Čech, Knihovna, MS II.A.7
(Codex Specialník) 10
CZ-HKm II.A.21 Hradec Králové, Muzeum Východních Čech, Knihovna, MS II.A.21 24
CZ-HKm II.A.26 Hradec Králové, Muzeum Východních Čech, Knihovna, MS II.A.26 8
CZ-HKm II.A.29 Hradec Králové, Muzeum Východních Čech, Knihovna, MS II.A.29 16, 21, 41
CZ-HKm II.A.41 Hradec Králové, Muzeum Východních Čech, Knihovna, MS II.A.41 8
CZ-RO 22 Rokycany, Muzeum Dr. Bohuslava Horáka, MS 22 8, 21
D-B 40021 Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Musikabteilung,
MS Mus. 40021 10
D-B 40194 Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Musikabteilung,
MS Mus. 40194 35
D-B Bohn 5 Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Sammlung
Bohn Mus. MS 5 41
D-B Bohn 11 Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Sammlung
Bohn Mus. MS 11 8, 21
D-Bga 7 Berlin, Geheimes Staatsarchiv – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, MS XX. HA
StUB Königsberg Nr. 7 41
D-Dl 1/D/6 Dresden, Sächsische Landesbibliothek – Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek,
MS 1/D/6 4
D-Dl 1/D/505 Dresden, Sächsische Landesbibliothek – Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek,
MS 1/D/505 (Annaberg Choirbook) 31
D-Dl Glashütte 5 Dresden, Sächsische Landesbibliothek – Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek,
MS Glashütte 5 21, 41
D-Dl Grimma 51 Dresden, Sächsische Landesbibliothek – Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek,
MS Grimma 51 6
 Appendix III: Sources and Editions 47

D-Dl Grimma 57 Dresden, Sächsische Landesbibliothek – Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek,

MS Grimma 57 21
D-Dl Pirna IV Dresden, Sächsische Landesbibliothek – Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek,
MS Pirna IV 21
D-EIa s.s. Eisenach, Stadtarchiv, Bibliothek, MS s.s. (Eisenacher Kantorenbuch) 41
D-ERu 473/4 Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitätsbibliothek, MS 473/4 41
D-GOl A98 Gotha, Forschungsbibliothek, MS A98 10, 21
D-HRD 9822-3 Jagdschloss Herdringen, Bibliotheca Fürstenbergiana, MS 9822-9823 29, 35
D-Kl 24 Kassel, Landesbibliothek und Murhardsche Bibliothek, 4° Ms. Mus. 24 2
D-LEu 1494 Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek, MS 1494 (Apel Codex) 10
D-LEu Thomaskirche 51 Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek, MS Thomaskirche 51 29
D-LÜh Mus. A 203 Lübeck, Bibliothek der Hansestadt, Musikabteilung, MS Mus. A 203 41
D-Mbs 10 München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Mus. MS 10 31
D-Mbs 12 München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Mus. MS 12 8
D-Mbs 19 München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Mus. MS 19 2, 10
D-Mbs 41 München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Mus. MS 41 10, 19
D-Mbs 1501 München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Mus. MS 1501 35
D-Mbs 1516 München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Mus. MS 1516 35
D-Mbs 1536/3 München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Mus. MS 1536/3 41
D-Mbs 3154 München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Mus. MS 3154 (Leopold Codex) 10
D-Mu 322-5 München, Universitätsbibliothek, MS 8° 322–325 2, 10
D-Mu 326 München, Universitätsbibliothek, MS 8° 326 10, 29
D-Mu 327 München, Universitätsbibliothek, MS 8° 327 8
D-Mu 401 München, Universitätsbibliothek, MS 4° Art. 401 8, 21, 22
D-Ngm 83795 Nürnberg, Germanisches National-Museum, Bibliothek, MS 83795 10, 37
D-Rp 775-7 Regensburg, Bischöfliche Zentralbibliothek, Proskesche Musikabteilung,
MS 775–777 21
D-Rp 786-837 Regensburg, Bischöfliche Zentralbibliothek, Proskes–he Musikabteilung,
MS 786–-837 6
D-Rp 838-43 Regensburg, Bischöfliche Zentralbibliothek, Proskesche Musikabteilung,
MS 838–843 6
D-Rp 876 Regensburg, Bischöfliche Zentralbibliothek, Proskesche Musikabteilung,
MS 876 16
D-Rp 878-82 Regensburg, Bischöfliche Zentralbibliothek, Proskesche Musikabteilung,
MS 878–882 6
D-Rp 883-6 Regensburg, Bischöfliche Zentralbibliothek, Proskesche Musikabteilung,
MS 883–886 41
D-Rp 891-2 Regensburg, Bischöfliche Zentralbibliothek, Proskesche Musikabteilung,
MS 891–892 8
D-Rp 893 Regensburg, Bischöfliche Zentralbibliothek, Proskesche Musikabteilung,
MS 893 38
D-Rp 940-1 Regensburg, Bischöfliche Zentralbibliothek, Proskesche Musikabteilung,
MS 940–941 4, 29, 35, 41
D-Rp C96 Regensburg, Bischöfliche Zentralbibliothek, Proskesche Musikabteilung,
MS C96 41
D-Rp C120 Regensburg, Bischöfliche Zentralbibliothek, Proskesche Musikabteilung,
MS C120 21
D-Rtt 3/I Regensburg, Fürst Thurn und Taxis Hofbibliothek und Zentralbibliothek,
MS Freie Künste Musik 3/I 35
D-Rtt 76 Regensburg, Fürst Thurn und Taxis Hofbibliothek und Zentralbibliothek,
MS Freie Künste Musik 76 Abth. II 4
D-Sl 25 Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, MS Musica folio I 25 41
D-Usch 237 Ulm, Stadtbibliothek, Von Schermarsche Familienstiftung, MS 237 10
D-Z 33.34 Zwickau, Ratsschulbibliothek, Mus.33.34 8
48 The Anne Boleyn Music Book

D-Z 81.2 Zwickau, Ratsschulbibliothek, Mus.81.2 18

D-Z 94.1 Zwickau, Ratsschulbibliothek, Mus.94.1 21
DK-Kk 1848 København, Det Kongelige Bibliotek, MS Gamle kongelige
Samling 1848, 2° 26, 35, 38
DK-Kk 1872 København, Det Kongelige Bibliotek, MS Gamle kongelige
Samling 1872, 4° 8, 21, 41
DK-Kk 1873 København, Det Kongelige Bibliotek, MS Gamle kongelige
Samling 1873, 4° 8, 41
E-Bbc 454 Barcelona, Biblioteca Nacional de Catalunya/Biblioteca Central, MS 454 10, 41
E-Boc 5 Barcelona, Centre de Documentació de l’Orfeó Català, MS 5 10
E-Sc 1 Sevilla, Catedral de Sevilla, Archivo Musical, MS 1 21
E-SE s.s. Segovia, Archivo Capitular de la Catedral de Segovia, MS s.s. 10
E-Tc 10 Toledo, Archivo y Biblioteca Capitulares de la Catedral, MS 10 8
E-Tc 13 Toledo, Archivo y Biblioteca Capitulares de la Catedral, MS 13 17, 41
E-Tc 23 Toledo, Archivo y Biblioteca Capitulares de la Catedral, MS
Reservado 23 16, 21, 31
E-TZ 8 Tarazona, Archivo-Biblioteca Capitular de la Catedral, MS 8 21
E-V 16 Valladolid, Archivo Musical de la Catedral, MS 16 8
E-V 17 Valladolid, Archivo Musical de la Catedral, MS 17 8
E-Zac 34 Zaragoza, Archivo de Música de las Catedrales, Armario B-2, MS 34 41
F-CA 125-8 Cambrai, Mediathèque Municipale, MS 125-128 19, 23, 35, 41
F-Pn 1817 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS nouvelles acquisitions
françaises 1817 17, 23, 31
GB-Cmc Pepys 1760 Cambridge, Magdalene College, Pepys Library, MS 1760 13, 14, 40, 41
GB-Lbl Add. 4911 London, British Library, Add. MS 4911 6
GB-Lbl Harley 4848 London, British Library, MS Harley 4848 8
GB-Lbl Royal 8.g.vii London, British Library, MS Royal 8.g.vii 14, 40, 41
GB-Lcm 2037 London, Royal College of Music, MS 2037 19
GB-Ob Lat. lit. a.8 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Lat. lit. a.8 16, 40
H-Bn Bártfa 2 Budapest, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár (National Széchényi Library),
MS Bártfa 2 21
H-Bn Bártfa Mus. Pr. 6 Budapest, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár (National Széchényi Library),
MS Bártfa Mus. pr. 6 38
I-Bc Q19 Bologna, Museo internazionale e biblioteca della musica, MS Q.19 4, 19
I-Bc Q25 Bologna, Museo internazionale e biblioteca della musica, MS Q.25 6
I-Bc Q27(2) Bologna, Museo internazionale e biblioteca della musica, MS Q.27(2) 41
I-Bc R142 Bologna, Museo internazionale e biblioteca della musica, MS R.142 2, 21, 38
I-BGc 1209 Bergamo, Civica Biblioteca – Archivi storici Angelo Mai, MS 1209 19, 24
I-Bsp 38 Bologna, Archivio musicale della Basilica di San Petronio, MS 38 6
I-Bsp 39 Bologna, Archivio musicale della Basilica di San Petronio, MS 39 17
I-CFm 59 Cividale del Friuli, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Biblioteca,
Cod. LIX 17, 23, 25, 41
I-CMac FM 4 Casale Monferrato, Archivio Capitolare, Fondo Musicale 4 (olim D(F)) 6
I-CT 95-6 Cortona, Biblioteca del Comune e dell’Accademia Etrusca, MS 95–6 17, 23, 31
I-Fd 11 Firenze, Opera di S Maria del Fiore. Archivio Musicale, MS 11 6, 21
I-Fl 666 Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana, MS Acquisti e doni 666
(Medici Codex) 14, 22, 29
I-Fn II.I.232 Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, MS II.I.232 2, 8, 10, 13, 23, 30, 31
I-Fn Magl. XIX.107bis Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, MS Magliabechi XIX.107bis 31
I-Fn Magl. XIX.111 Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, MS Magliabechi XIX.111 35
I-Fn Magl. XIX.112 Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, MS Magliabechi XIX.112 35
I-Fn Magl. XIX.117 Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, MS Magliabechi XIX.117 41
I-Fn Magl. XIX.164–7 Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, MS Magliabechi XIX.164–167 10
 Appendix III: Sources and Editions 49

I-Fr 2794 Firenze, Biblioteca Riccardiana, MS 2794 26

I-Ma Trotti 519 Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, MS Trotti 519 4
I-Md Librone 1 Milano, Archivio della Veneranda Fabbrica del Duomo, Sezione Musicale,
Librone 1 (MS 2269) 26
I-Md Librone 2 Milano, Archivio della Veneranda Fabbrica del Duomo, Sezione Musicale,
Librone 2 (MS 2268) 26
I-Md Librone 3 Milano, Archivio della Veneranda Fabbrica del Duomo, Sezione Musicale,
Librone 3 (MS 2267) 17, 26
I-Md Librone 4 Milano, Archivio della Veneranda Fabbrica del Duomo, Sezione Musicale,
Librone 4 (MS 2266) 10
I-MOd 3 Modena, Archivio Storico Diocesano di Modena-Nonantola, Mus. MS 3 6
I-MOd 4 Modena, Archivio Storico Diocesano di Modena-Nonantola, Mus. MS 4 2
I-MOd 9 Modena, Archivio Storico Diocesano di Modena-Nonantola,
Mus. MS 9 10, 16, 19, 41
I-MOd 11 Modena, Archivio Storico Diocesano di Modena-Nonantola, Mus. MS 11 6
I-Pc A17 Padua, Biblioteca Capitolare, Curia Vescovile, MS A.17 5, 19, 24, 41
I-Pc D27 Padua, Biblioteca Capitolare, Curia Vescovile, MS D.27 6
I-Rmassimo 23–4 Roma, Biblioteca privata dei Principi Massimo, MS VI/C6/23–4 8, 21
I-Sc K.I.2 Siena, Biblioteca Comunale degli Intronati, MS K.I.2 17, 26
I-TVd 5 Treviso, Biblioteca Capitolare del Duomo, MS 5 41
I-VEcap 758 Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, MS DCCLVIII 17, 30
I-VEcap 760 Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, MS DCCLX 17, 19, 20, 41
NL-Ar V A 1 Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, MS V A 1 2
NL-L 1442 Leiden, Gemeentearchief; Archieven van de Kerken, MS 1442 8, 21
NL-Lml 1440 Leiden, Stedelijk Museum in de Lakenhal, MS 1440 8, 21, 38
PL-GD 4003 Gdańsk, Biblioteka Polskiej Akademii Nauk, MS 4003 35
PL-Kj Berlin 40013 Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellonska, Berlin MS Mus. 40013 10, 37
PL-Tm 29-32 Toruń, Wojewódzka Biblioteka Publiczna - Książnica Kopernikańska,
MS J. 4° 29–32 35
PL-WRu 428 Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, MS I-F-428 (Viadrina Codex) 37
PL-WRu 54 Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, MS Brieg. Musik. K.54 21
PL-Wu 5892 Warszawa, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, Oddzial Zbiorów Muzycznych,
MS 5892 (olim Mf 2016) 10
S-Uu 76b Uppsala, Universitetsbiblioteket, Vokalmusik i Handskrift 76b 21, 23
S-Uu 76c Uppsala, Universitetsbiblioteket, Vokalmusik i Handskrift 76c 6, 8, 31, 35, 41
US-BLu 4 Bloomington, Indiana University, Lilly Library, Music MS 4 6
US-BLu 8 Bloomington, Indiana University, Lilly Library, Music MS 8 6
US-BLu 9a Bloomington, Indiana University, Lilly Library, Music MS 9a 6
US-BLu 9b Bloomington, Indiana University, Lilly Library, Music MS 9b 6
US-BUu M/02/A3/p Buffalo, State University of New York, Music Library, M/02/A3/p 2, 30
V-CVbav CG XII.4 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Capp. Giulia XII.4 8, 21
V-CVbav Chigi C.VIII.234 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Chigi
C.VIII.234 (Chigi Codex) 8, 41
V-CVbav CS 16 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Capp. Sist. 16 2, 21, 22
V-CVbav CS 42 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana,
MS Capp. Sist. 42 10, 17, 22, 25, 31, 39
V-CVbav CS 44 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Capp. Sist. 44 16
V-CVbav CS 45 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Capp. Sist. 45 38
V-CVbav CS 46 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Capp. Sist. 46 6, 9, 26
V-CVbav CS 76 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Capp. Sist. 76 17
V-CVbav CS 77 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Capp. Sist. 77 6
V-CVbav Pal.lat. 1976–9 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Pal. lat. 1976–1979 16, 40
V-CVbav Pal.lat. 1980–1 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Pal. lat. 1980–1981 23
50 The Anne Boleyn Music Book

V-CVbav SMM 26 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS S. Maria Maggiore 26 21
V-CVbav Vat.lat. 11953 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. lat. 11953 8, 21

2. Printed Editions
RISM Siglum Title (following the orthography of the original) no. in RCM 1070
1502/1 Canti. B. numero Cinquanta (Venice: Ottaviano Petrucci, 1502) 10, 26
1504/1 Motetti C (Venice: Ottaviano Petrucci, 1504) 9, 17, 25, 31, 32
1508/1 Motetti a cinque Libro primo (Venice: Ottaviano Petrucci, 1508) 39
1512/1 Aus sonderer kü[n]stlicher art und mit höchstem fleiss seind diss gesangkbüecher mit
Tenor Discant Bass un[d] Alt Corgiert worden in d. Kayserlichen unnd dess hailigen
reichs Stat Augspurg (Augsburg: Erhard Öglin, 1512) 24
1514/1 (1526/1) Motetti de la Corona [Libro primo] (Fossombrone: Ottaviano Petrucci, 1514;
repr. Rome: Giunta/Pasoti/Dorico, 1526) 2, 5, 16, 23, 40, 41
1519/1 (1526/2) Motetti de la Corona Libro secondo (Fossombrone: Ottaviano Petrucci, 1519;
repr. Rome: Giunta/Pasoti/Dorico, 1526) 14, 28
1519/2 (1526/3, 1527) Motetti de la Corona Libro tertio (Fossombrone: Ottaviano Petrucci, 1519;
repr. Rome: Giunta/Pasoti/Dorico, 1526 and 1527) 8, 21, 22, 38
1520/1 Motetti novi libro secondo (Venice: Andrea Antico, 1520) 29
1520/4 Liber selectarum cantionum quas vulgo mutetas appellant sex quinque & quatuor
vocum. (Augsburg: Grimm & Wyrsung, 1520) 8, 21
1520/6 Chansons a troys (Venice: Andrea Antico, 1520) 42
1521/3 Motetti libro primo (Venice: Andrea Antico, 1521) 6
[1521]/4 [Motetti libro secondo] (Venice: Andrea Antico, 1521) 24
1521/5 Motetti libro quarto (Venice: Andrea Antico, 1521) 14, 19
[c.1521]/6 Motetti e Canzone Libro Primo (Rome: [printer unknown], c.1521) 12, 13, 29, 30
[c.1521]/7 [Motetti et carmina gallica] (Rome: [printer unknown], c.1521) 4, 6, 19
1528/3 Chansons nouvelles en musique a quatre parties (Paris: Pierre Attaingnant, 1528) 35
[c.1528]/5 Trente et deux chansons musicales a quatre parties nouvellement et correctement
imprimees (Paris: Pierre Attaingnant, 1528) 36
[c.1528]/8 Trente et sept chansons musicales a quatre parties nouvellement et correctement
imprimees (Paris: Pierre Attaingnant, 1529) 35
1529/1 XII. Motetz a quatre et cinq voix composez par les autheurs cy dessoubz escriptz
(Paris: Pierre Attaingnant, 1529) 6, 19
1534/3 Liber primus quinque et viginti musicales quatuor vocum Motetos complectitur
(Paris: Pierre Attaingnant, 1534) 28
1534/6 Liber quartus. xxix. musicales quatuor vel quinque parium vocum modulos habet.
(Paris: Pierre Attaingnant, 1534) 22
1536/3 Second livre contenant xxxi. chansons musicales esleves de plusieurs livres par cy
devant imprimes (Paris: Pierre Attaingnant, 1536) 35
1537/1 Novum Et Insigne Opus Musicum, Sex, Quinque, Et Quatuor Vocum,
(Nürnberg: Hieronymus Formschneider, 1537) 4, 21, 41
1538/3 Secundus Tomus Novi Operis Musici, Sex, Quinque Et Quatuor Vocum,
(Nürnberg: Hieronymus Formschneider, 1537) 8, 38
1538/8 Symphoniae Iucundae Atque Adeo Breves Quatuor Vocum (Wittenberg:
Georg Rhau, 1538) 29, 31
1539/9 Tomus Secundus Psalmorum Selectorum Quatuor Et Quinque Vocum.
(Nürnberg: Johannes Petreius, 1539) 2
1540/4 Excellentissimi Musici Moralis Hispani, Gomberti, Ac Jacheti Cum Quatuor
Vocibus Missae (Venice: Girolamo Scotto, 1540) 4
1542/8 Tricinia. Tum Veterum Tum Recentiorum In Arte Musica Symphonistarum. Latina,
Germanica, Brabantica & Gallica (Wittenberg: Georg Rhau, 1542) 34, 42
1553/2 Liber primus collectorum modulorum (qui moteta vulgo dicuntur) quae iam olim
a praestantissimis et musicae peritissimis emissa (Paris: Nicolas du Chemin &
Claude Goudimel, 1553) 6, 8
 Appendix III: Sources and Editions 51

1555/10 Secundus tomus Evangeliorum, quatuor, quinque, sex, et plurium vocum (Nürnberg:
Johannes Montanus & Ulrich Neuber, 1555) 16
1555/11 Tertius tomus Evangeliorum, quatuor, quinque, sex, et plurium vocum (Nürnberg:
Johannes Montanus & Ulrich Neuber, 1555) 41
1558/4 Novum et insigne opus musicum, sex, quinque, et quatuor vocum, cuius in Germania
hactenus nihil simile usquam est editum (Nürnberg: Johannes Montanus &
Ulrich Neuber, 1558) 21, 38, 41
1559/1 Secunda pars magni operis musici (Nürnberg: Johannes Montanus &
Ulrich Neuber, 1559) 8, 22
1559/2 Tertia pars magni operis musici (Nürnberg: Johannes Montanus &
Ulrich Neuber, 1559) 2, 4, 6, 31
J678 (1555) [Josquin Desprez], Moduli, ex sacris literis dilecti et in 4, 5 et 6 voces distincti,
liber primus (Paris: Adrien Le Roy & Robert Ballard, 1555) 8, 9, 21, 31, 38
M4017(1555) [Jean Mouton], Selecti aliquot moduli, & in 4, 5, 6 & 8 vocum harmoniam
distincti, liber primus (Paris: Adrien Le Roy & Robert Ballard, 1555) 4, 5, 6, 17

B. Modern Editions

16CM Sixteenth-Century Motet. Previously Unpublished Full Scores of Major Works from the
Renaissance, ed. Richard Sherr, 30 vols (New York/London, 1991–1999).
AMMM Archivium Musices Metropolitanum Mediolanense, 16 vols (Milano, 1958–1968).
Antico The Motet Books of Andrea Antico, ed. Martin Picker. Monuments of Renaissance
Music 8 (Chicago/London, 1987).
Brumel OO Antoine Brumel, Opera Omnia, ed. Barton Hudson, 6 vols, Corpus Mensurabilis
Musicae 5 (American Institute of Musicology, 1969–72).
Chorwerk 76 Jean Mouton, Fünf Motetten zu 4 und 6 Stimmen, ed. Paul Kast. Das Chorwerk 76
(Wolfenbüttel, 1959).
Claudin OO Claudin de Sermisy, Opera Omnia, ed. Gaston Allaire and Isabelle Cazeaux, 7 vols,
Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae 52 (American Institute of Musicology, 1970–2013).
Compère OO Loyset Compère, Opera Omnia, ed. Ludwig Finscher, 5 vols, Corpus Mensurabilis
Musicae 15 (American Institute of Musicology, 1958–72).
Févin OC Antoine de Févin, Les œuvres complètes, ed. Edward Clinkscale, 4 vols (Henryville/
Ottawa/Binningen, 1980–97).
Josquin Werken Josquin des Prez, Werken, ed. A. Smijers, 12 vols (Amsterdam, 1921–69; repr.
Amsterdam, 1973).
Lowinsky 1969–1970 Edward E. Lowinsky, ‘MS 1070 of the Royal College of Music in London’,
Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association 96 (1969–70), 1–28.
Lowinsky 1989 Edward E. Lowinsky, ‘A Music Book for Anne Boleyn’, in Florilegium historiale.
Essays presented to Wallace K. Ferguson, eds J. G. Rowe and W. H. Stockdale (Toronto,
1971), 161–235; repr. with an appendix in id., Music in the Culture of the Renaissance,
ed. Bonnie J. Blackburn, 2 vols (Chicago, 1989), ii: 484–528.
Medici The Medici Codex of 1518. A Choirbook of Motets Dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici,
Duke of Urbino, ed. Edward E. Lowinsky. Monuments of Renaissance Music 3–5
(Chicago/London, 1968).
Morales OO Cristobál de Morales, Opera Omnia, ed. Higinio Anglès, 8 vols, Monumentos de la
Música Espanola: 11, 13, 15, 17, 20, 21, 24, and 34 (Rome, 1952–71).
NJE Josquin Des Prez, New Edition of the Collected Works, ed. Willem Elders et al., 30 vols
(Utrecht, 1987–2016) [‘New Josquin Edition’].
NOE Jacob Obrecht, Collected Works, ed. Chris Maas et al., 18 vols (Utrecht, 1983–99)
[‘New Obrecht Edition’].
Shine 1953 Josephine M. Shine, ‘The Motets of Jean Mouton’, 2 vols (Ph.D. diss., New York
University, 1953).
Urkevich 1997 Lisa A. Urkevich, ‘Anne Boleyn, a Music Book, and the Northern Renaissance
Courts: Music Manuscript 1070 of the Royal College of Music, London’ (Ph.D.
diss., University of Maryland, 1997).
 Appendix IV: Table of Corrections in Section I
Fols Correction1 Scribe making
correction
1v–2r A, line 1: last 3 notes moved up a third II
3v–4r D, end: semibreve rest erased II?
A, line 6: fusae f′-e′ corrected to e-d II
T, end: 9 breves’ worth of music and text added II
B, line 5: erroneous repetition of semibreve erased II?
4v–5r A, line 6: fusae f-e erased II?
6v–7r B, line 4: penultimate breve added II
7v–8r A, line 3: erasures II?
A, end: 1 breve erased II
8v–9r D, A, B, end: 1 breve’s worth of music and text added II
9v–10r D, A, B, beginning: 1 breve’s worth of notes erased II
T correction in last line
12v–13r D, end: semibreve and semibreve rest erased II
A, line 1: dotted semibreve (to become a minim, no stem yet) and coloured semibreve I
erased and replaced by coloured breve
B, line 3: 3 1/2 breves’ worth of music inserted by Scribe I at bottom (repeat of I, II
preceding phrase), later crossed out again (by Scribe II?). Passage of music actually
missing here (bb. 26–28) not added.
13v–14r D, beginning: semibreve and semibreve rest added II
14v–15r D, lines 3–4: text erased and corrected II
18v–19r T, line 1: ‘bar-lines’ added (apparently much later)
20v–21r D, line 1: g2-clef erased and corrected to g3-clef (music copied a third too high) ?
D, A: ‘bar lines’ added (apparently much later)
23v–24r B, line 3: f3-clef corrected to f4-clef. II?
24v–25r B, line 3: f3-clef corrected to f4-clef. II?
25v–26r B strongly stained (later addition?)
26v–27r D, line 4: one semibreve erased ?
A, line 2: minim replaced II
B, line 4: coloured semibreve e corrected to f; one superfluous minim crossed out II
27v–28r D, line 3: semiminim c′′ corrected to b′?; line 5: dotted semibreve – minim corrected to II
two semibreves
A, end: entire line missing, added in right-hand marginT, line 4: semibreve a erased and
replaced by semibreve c – minim b
B, end: entire line missing, added on blank stave on facing verso below Tenor
28v–29r A, B: first line and parts of second line crossed out II
30v–31r D, line 1: stem added; line 2: minim g′ erased and corrected to f′ II?
T, line 3: stem erased
31v–32r A, line 2: stem erased II?
32v–33r A, line 4: beginning of phrase erased and corrected (skipped ahead) I
T, line 3: erroneous phrase beginning erased and corrected (skipped ahead one phrase)
B, line 1: end of line erased and correctedline break issues in B
1
D, A, T, B stand for the respective voice parts (Discantus, Altus, Tenor, Bassus)
 Appendix IV: Table of Corrections in Section I 53

33v–34r D, line 1: erroneous g2-clef erased and corrected to c1-clef; line 3: semibreve added at I?
beginning
34v–35r B, lines 2–3: part of missing phrase (eye-skip) added through erasure and overwriting probably I
36v–37r D, A, B, end: 3 breves’ worth of music crossed out II
T, end: 13 breves’ worth of music crossed out
37v–38r D, A, B, beginning: 3 breves’ worth of music added II
T, beginning: 13 breves’ worth of music added
A, line 3: two semibreves erased and corrected
41v–42r T, lines 3–4: 2 breves’ worth of music erased (superfluous repetition of short phrase) ?
42v–43r A, end: cue note and rest added after custos II
43v–44r A, line 2: stem erased II?
44v–45r D, end: 3 1/2 breves’ worth of music erased (erroneous duplication of phrase, no II
correction on f. 45v)
T, end: one semibreve erased
45v–46r T, beginning: one semibreve added II
50v–51r D, line 2: one superfluous semibreve erased II?
A, line 3: c2-clef erased and replaced by c3-clef
52v–53r B, line 1: c3-clef replaced by f4-clef II?
53v–54r D, end, two stages of correction: four breves’ worth of notes erased at end at initial I and II
copying stage by I (no stems), then four more notes crossed out by II
A, beginning: four wrong notes, erased at initial copying stage; line 2: c3-clef erased
and replaced by c4-clef
A, T, end: 5 1/2 breves’ worth of music added by II
B, end: last semibreve erased and text crossed out
54v–55r D, beginning: four notes added by II
A, T, beginning: 5 1/2 breves’ worth of music crossed out
T, line 3: one stem erased
B, beginning: one dotted semibreve added II
55v–56r D, line 1: one stem erased
A, line 4: one minim g′ replaced by two minims a′ II
56v–57r B, line 3: one minim d erased and corrected to e; line 4: breve d erased and corrected ?
to semibreve
57v–58r B line 2: one stem erased ?
T, line 5: dotted semibreve–minim corrected to two semibreves
58v–59r D, line 3: one semibreve erased ?
B, line 5: one semiminim erased and corrected
61v–62r D, line 1: slip of the pen, erased I
T, line 2: erroneous repetition of previous phrase erased and overwritten
63v–64r T1, line 3: three notes crossed out, during initial copying process (no stems) I
64v–65r A, line 2: c2-clef added I
T2, line 1: minim erased and replaced II
65v–66r T2, line 3: custos corrected II
B1, line 1–2: omitted phrase repetition added (erroneous repetition of wrong phrase) I
66v–67r D, line 2: 3 1/2 breves’ worth of music crossed out and replaced II
B2, line 3: custos corrected
67v–68r T1, line 2: semibreve a corrected to b flat II
80v–81r A, line 2: one note erased ?
54 The Anne Boleyn Music Book

82v–83r T, line 4: one minim added II

86v–87r D, line 3: single note corrections ?
87v–88r A, line 5: last 8 notes cancelled by erasing the first of them and adding new custos I
(deleted during initial copying stage, before stems were added)
90v–91r A, line 3: dot of addition erased, during initial copying stage ?
95v–96r D, line 2: c4-clef corrected to c3-clef ?
96v–97r D, line 3: 5 notes erased (eye-skip to line above) and overwritten, during initial copying stage I
97v–98r D line 2: single note correctionT, line 4: one stem erased ?
98v–99r D line 4: one note corrected ?
100v–101r A, line 3: custos on c′ erased and corrected to d′; last line single note correction I
FACSIMILE