The New Roman Style and Giovanni Maria NaninoThe New Roman Style and Giovanni Maria Nanino ANTHONY NEWCOMB T he last three decades of the sixteenth century saw the ﬂowering of an

The New Roman Style and

Giovanni Maria Nanino

ANTHONY NEWCOMB

The last three decades of the sixteenth centurysaw the flowering of an increasingly numerous group of madrigal com-posers working in Rome. Table 1 lists the members of this group. Theseidentifications are based on three anthologies that contain madrigalsexclusively by musicians working in Rome: Gardano 1574, Scotto 1582,and Amadino 1589. All are anthologies of madrigals for five voices, themost common scoring for these composers. (See the appendix for thesigla and the full bibliographical identifications for the sixteenth-century music prints cited in this article.)

The number of composers in this list is large by comparison with thenumber of musicians working in other major centers of madrigal pro-duction at the time, such as Venice or Ferrara and Mantua, and yet the

Earlier versions of this paper were read at the Italian MadrigalConference held at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst,16–17 April 2016; the symposium Music As Art: Theory, Philosophy,and the Western Canon, a 70th Birthday Celebration for KarolBerger, held at Stanford University, 27–28 October 2017; and theWinter Meeting of the Northern California Chapter of the Ameri-can Musicological Society held at the University of California,Berkeley, 10 February 2018. During the summer of 2018, Tonyreadied this article for submission at the encouragement of AnnaMaria Busse Berger and with the assistance of Jessie Ann Owens.Kate van Orden helped him prepare the final version for publica-tion that autumn, and Jesse Rodin and the JM editorial team wentthe extra mile to gather the requisite musical examples so that thewhole was finished before he passed away on 18 November 2018.

May he rest in peace. Tony is sorely missed, but some solacecomes from bringing to light an article that charts new directionsfor future scholars: it stands as a testament to Tony’s leadership inthe field and the intellectual generosity that touched so many of usaround the world. –K.v.O.(See also the dedication at the front of the issue.)

167

The Journal of Musicology, Vol. 36, Issue 2, pp. 167–194, ISSN 0277-9269, electronic ISSN 1533-8347. © 2019by The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permissionto photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s Reprints and Permis-sions web page, https://www.ucpress.edu/journals/reprints-permissions. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/JM.2019.36.2.167

https://www.ucpress.edu/journals/reprints-permissions

https://doi.org/10.1525/JM.2019.36.2.167

https://doi.org/10.1525/JM.2019.36.2.167

https://doi.org/10.1525/JM.2019.36.2.167

classic and compendious history of the Italian madrigal by AlfredEinstein reveals virtually no mention of any of these composers, save forLuca Marenzio.1 A quick consultation of the index of names in Einstein’sopus will show only a brief, passing mention of any of these Romanmadrigalists (save for Giovanni Perluigi da Palestrina, to whom Einsteinis quite unfair). Giovanni de Macque gets a brief mention in his role asteacher of Carlo Gesualdo, but there is no discussion of Macque’s piecesof the 1570s or early 1580s.2 Einstein admits that he had scored up noneof them. In fact, a listing of his (remarkably voluminous) transcriptionsof sixteenth-century Italian secular music3 shows that he transcribedalmost none of the output of the Roman composers of the 1570s and1580s, again save for Marenzio.4 Even in the case of Marenzio, Einstein’s

TABLE 1.Madrigalists working in Rome and published in Roman anthologies

Anerio, FeliceDragoni, Giovanni AndreaGiovannelli, RuggieroMacque, Giovanni deMarenzio, LucaMoscaglia, Giovanni BattistaNanino, Giovanni MariaPalestrina, Giovanni Pierluigi daRoy, BartolomeoSoriano, FrancescoStabile, AnnibaleZoilo, Annibale

1 Alfred Einstein, The Italian Madrigal, trans. Alexander H. Krappe, Roger H. Sessions,and Oliver Strunk, 3 vols. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1949).

2 Ibid. Palestrina is discussed on p. 623, Macque on p. 697 (both in vol. 2).3 Einstein Music Collection, a miscellaneous collection of early vocal and instrumental

music, copied by Alfred Einstein at Smith College, Northampton, Mass., 194–?, eighty-fiveplus thirteen volumes, consulted on Film 5703 in the Jean Gray Hargrove Music Library atthe University of California, Berkeley.

4 Vol. 17 of the Smith College Einstein Music Collection contains Einstein’s transcriptionof Dragoni’s Fourth Book for Five Voices (1594), apparently complete, though I have notchecked the completeness of the transcription. Vol. 71 contains his transcription of all sixmadrigals of the multi-section madrigal “Mentre ti fui sı grato” set by six Roman composersin Scotto 1582. Vol. 74 contains his transcriptions of the following pieces by Nanino fromBook I (1571): “Le strane voci,” “Una candida cerva,” “Aspra fu pur a me,” and “Morir nonpuo il mio core”; from Book II (1581): “Lasso, ch’ogni augelletto” and “Giocand’e crudofato.” Vol. 75 contains his transcription of “Deh coralli ridenti” from Book III (1586). Vol.78 comprises “Quivi sospiri” by Soriano (I.5, 1581) as well as “Poiche il camin m’e chiuso”and “Amatemi ben mio” by Giovannelli (I.5, 1586).

the journal of musicology

168

annoyance with the “frankly hedonistic tone” (p. 629) and the “lighterspecific gravity” (p. 628) of Marenzio’s Second Book for Five Voices(1581) and the “shallower” tone (p. 627) of his Third Book for FiveVoices (1582) reveals a growing impatience compared to his relativeesteem for the First Book especially (pp. 624–29).5 It is in his discussionof the books from 1582 to 1585 that Einstein’s exasperation becomesclearest (pp. 646ff.), where he condemns the texts as “trite andcommonplace” (p. 659) and as “wholly sensuous and hedonistic” (pp.646–47), complaining at one point that Marenzio “even sacrifices hisrefined literary taste” (p. 649). These pages (624–59) should have givenEinstein the opportunity to discuss the texts and music of the otherRomans of these years. Yet he ignores the music and openly condemnsas frivolous the dominant style of the texts.6 We find a similar, evenstronger, critique of Marenzio’s poetic choices made by Nino Pirrotta,underscoring the extent to which the Roman repertoire and its aes-thetics have been misprized and—as I shall argue—misunderstood.7

A chronological listing of single-author prints by the Roman compo-sers in Table 1 demonstrates the growing importance and productivity ofthis group of Roman composers, of which Einstein was seeminglyunaware (table 2).8 For reasons that will become clear, it seems justifiedto begin this listing with Giovanni Maria Nanino’s First Book for FiveVoices, which Christina Boenicke and I in our edition of Nanino’s ma-drigals have assigned to 1571. (The first edition is lost.)9 The criticalformative years of the group and its style are those between 1574 and1582, the dates of Gardano 1574 and Scotto 1582, the first two books ofmusic to anthologize madrigals by the musicians of Rome. While

5 These page references and those in the next two sentences refer to Einstein, TheItalian Madrigal.

6 For a discussion of Einstein’s historiographical attitudes, see Sebastian Bolz,“Cipriano de Rore, Alfred Einstein, and the Philosophy of Music History,” in Cipriano deRore: New Perspectives on His Life and Music, ed. Jessie Ann Owens and Katelijne Schiltz(Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2016), 451–77.

7 Pirrotta’s dismissal is especially surprising, since he was one of the first scholars toacknowledge the importance of the Roman madrigal. In his essay “Note su Marenzio e ilTasso,” he claims: “L’apparente scarso interesse di Marenzio per la poesia del Tasso, e il suoaccogliere a volte testi mediocri e perfino sconclusionati, non mi induce a respingerecompletamente il giudizio di Einstein sul gusto raffinato di Marenzio, ma solo a temper-arne l’entusiasmo. . . . Alla poesia del Tasso Marenzio preferı . . . la poeticita mediocre emeno impegnata di versificatori anonimi o semi-anonimi.” See Nino Pirrotta, “Note suMarenzio e il Tasso,” in Scelte poetiche di musicisti: teatro, poesia e musica da Willaert a Malipiero(Venice: Marsilio, 1987), 78–79.

8 Throughout this essay the following customary system is used to refer to sixteenth-century madrigal publications: I.5 ¼ First Book for five voices; II.4 ¼ Second Book for fourvoices; and so on.

9 Giovanni Maria Nanino, Complete Madrigals, Recent Researches in the Music of theRenaissance, 158, 162, 168, ed. Christina Boenicke and Anthony Newcomb (Middleton,WI: A-R Editions, 2012–18), Part 1, xv–xvi.

newcomb

169

TABLE 2.Chronology of madrigal publications by Roman composers,

1571–99

Year Composer/Title sig. Publisher

1571 G.M. Nanino I.5 Gardano (?)1572 Stabile I.5 Gardano1574 Quarto libro delle muse a 5 Gardano1575 Dragoni I.5 Scotto

Dragoni II.5 ScottoMoscaglia I.4-6 “Amorosi gigli” Gardano

1576 Macque I.6 Gardano1578 Massaino II.5 Scotto1579 Dragoni III.5 Scotto

Macque [I].4-6 GardanoMoscaglia II.5 Rampazetto

1580 Marenzio I.5 Gardano1581 Dragoni I.4 Scotto

Macque Madrigaletti I.6 GardanoMarenzio II.5 GardanoMarenzio I.6 GardanoNanino & Stabile II.5 GardanoPalestrina I.5 GardanoSoriano I.5 Gardano

1582 Macque Madrigaletti II.6 GardanoMarenzio III.5 GardanoMoscaglia II.4 Vincenti & Amadino,

pub. in 1585Dolci affetti a 5 Scotto

1583 Macque I.5 Gardano [lost? Was inBibl. Borghese Rome]

1584 Dragoni I.6 ScottoMarenzio Madrigali spirituali a 5 Alessandro GardanoMarenzio IV.5 Vincenti & AmadinoMarenzio II.6 Gardano

1585 F. Anerio Madrigali spirituali I.5 Alessandro GardanoF. Anerio II.5 Alessandro GardanoGiovannelli I.4 Alessandro GardanoMarenzio I.4 Alessandro GardanoMarenzio V.5 ScottoMarenzio III.6 Scotto

(continued)


170

TABLE 2. (continued)

Year Composer/Title sig. Publisher

Marenzio Villanelle I.3 Vincenti & AmadinoMarenzio Villanelle II.3 Vincenti & AmadinoMarenzio Villanelle III.3 Alessandro GardanoMoscaglia III.5 ScottoStabile III.5 Scotto

1586 F. Anerio Canzonette I.4 Vincenti & AmadinoGiovannelli I.5 GardanoMacque I.4 VincentiNanino III.5 GardanoPalestrina II.4 Scotto

1587 F. Anerio I.5 VincentiMarenzio IV.6 AmadinoMarenzio Villanelle IV.3 VincentiMarenzio Villanelle V.3 ScottoMacque II.5 VincentiMoscaglia IV.5 Scotto

1588 Marenzio a 4-6 VincentiG. B. Nanino I.5 Gardano

1589 Giovannelli II.4 GardanoMacque II.6 GardanoLe gioie a 5 Amadino

1590 F. Anerio I.6 Amadino1591 Marenzio V.6 Gardano

Bart. Roy I.5 Coattino1592 Soriano II.5 Coattino1593 Giovannelli II.5 Gardano1594 Dragoni IV.5 Vincenti

Marenzio VI.5 Gardano1595 Marenzio VII.5 Gardano

Marenzio VI.6 Gardano1598 Marenzio VIII.5 Gardano

Giovannelli III.5 Vincenti1599 Giovannelli III.5 Gardano

Marenzio IX.5 GardanoG. B. Nanino II.5 Scotto

newcomb

171

Gardano 1574 does not explicitly reference Rome, Scotto 1582 calls outthe Roman provenance of his edition in the title: Dolci affetti, madrigalia cinque voci de diversi eccellente musici di Roma.

To judge from the styles and positioning of madrigals in the pro-claimed (Scotto 1582) and unproclaimed (Gardano 1574) Romananthologies, and by the reprinting of pieces in Italian and Northern collec-tions in the early 1580s, the leaders of the new style in its first years (midto late 70s) were Nanino (born 1543–44) and Macque (born 1548–50).Marenzio (born 1553–54) enters the lists with his First Book for Five Voices(Gardano 1580), and becomes the great virtuoso of the style as the decadeprogresses. Palestrina (born 1525–26), an important older figure inGardano 1574, becomes less prominent in Dolci affetti (Scotto 1582) andin Gardano 1582, a reprint of Gardano 1574 that revises the order of thepieces to Palestrina’s disadvantage.

Giovanni Animuccia (ca. 1520–71) seems to have been a reveredfather figure for the Roman group. Although pieces by Animuccia holdpositions of honor in Gardano 1574 (they open and close the print), bythis time he can no longer be considered an active force, since he haddied in 1571.

Nanino’s leadership of the new Roman school from the outset canbe deduced from Gardano 1574 and its reprint (Gardano 1582).Although Palestrina and Animuccia, the composers of the older gener-ation, each have four pieces in the original edition of 1574, the situationchanges subtly in Gardano 1582. The six-voice piece by Animuccia thatclosed Gardano 1574 is omitted from Gardano 1582. In Gardano 1574one of Palestrina’s four madrigals in the print is given the second place,directly following Animuccia’s honorific opening piece. The first ofNanino’s three madrigals then follows Palestrina’s. In the 1582 reprintthe order of these two is reversed, giving Nanino the pride of place rightafter Animuccia.

Nanino’s dominant position in the group is affirmed in the second“Roman” anthology, Dolci affetti (Scotto 1582), which now explicitly pro-claims its origins on the title page as containing pieces de diversi eccellentimusici di Roma (by various excellent musicians of Rome). Nanino nowopens and closes the collection, and only he has four pieces in thecollection. Marenzio, Moscaglia, Macque, and Zoilo have two pieceseach. The remaining ten composers in the group (including Palestrina)have only one piece each.

By the time of Scotto 1582 the Roman musicians seem to be quite self-consciously aware of themselves as a coherent school, alluding to andcompeting with each other. For example, Macque and Nanino (bothimportant presences since Gardano 1574) are clearly looking at Marenzio,the new guy on the block after 1580. In the case of Macque, as evidence for


172

this conscious competition with Marenzio I would cite the third and fourthmadrigals of the six-madrigal opening piece in Scotto 1582. The text is anItalian translation by the Tuscan/French poet Luigi Alamanni of an odeby Horace (a dialogue between two lovers). The six strophes of the poemare set by six Roman composers, one strophe per composer. Macque setsthe fourth strophe, following Marenzio’s setting of the third strophe.

Or, pien d’altro desio,Seguo l’amata mia vaga AmarantaChe dolce suona e canta;Per cui morir desioS’a lei cresce di vita il morir mio.

�Strophe 3, set by Marenzio

Or un laccio, un ardoreTirsi e me stringe e strugge e d’amor tuttiAndiam cogliendo i frutti;Per cui due volte e piu morir desioS’a lui cresce di vita il morir mio.

�Strophe 4, as set by Macque

The last two lines in the original read as follows:Per cui per l’alma e ‘l coreBramo ad ogni hor, ma me n’ha privo amore.

Macque has destroyed the metrical and rhyme scheme by replacing theconcluding two lines of his strophe with the concluding two lines ofMarenzio’s strophe. Sixteenth-century sources for the poem agree thatMacque’s concluding lines are not found in the poem.10 I conclude thatMacque was responsible for revising these two lines, which he does torefer to and compete directly with Marenzio.11

As further evidence of this competition with Marenzio within thegroup, now in the case of Nanino, I would cite competing settings of theottava stanza Dolorosi martir by Nanino and Marenzio. I have written aboutthe chronology and interaction of these settings at some length in thesecond volume of the edition of Nanino’s madrigals and won’t repeat allof my argument here.12 The upshot is that I believe that Marenzio’s

10 Delle rime di diversi illustri signori napoletani, e d’altri nobilissimi ingegni, novamenteraccolte, e con nova additione ristampate (Venice: Giolito, 1555), p. 476, in a section titledEpigrammi di m. Luigi Alamanni, with a separate dedication to La Serenissima Madama Mar-gherita signed by Alamanni in Paris, 8 January 1546.

11 A modern edition of the two settings can be found in Nino Pirrotta, ed., I musici diRoma e il madrigale (N.p.: Academia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia, 1993), 13–15 and 16–19. Thetextual and musical resemblances between Macque’s and Marenzio’s settings of the Horacestanzas and Macque’s alteration of the text are pointed out in James Chater, Luca Marenzioand the Italian Madrigal, 1577–1593 (Ann Arbor, UMI Research Press, 1981), 1:14–15.

12 See Nanino, Complete Madrigals, Part 2, xxxvi–xxxvii.

newcomb

173

setting, published in June 1580, reacts directly to Nanino’s, published inearly January 1581. Both composers had not published madrigals forsome years before this. Thus the two books presumably represent forboth composers pieces from several years before publication. That thetwo composers had ample opportunity to know each other’s work duringthese previous years is indicated by the figure of Lelio Pasqualini, towhom Nanino’s book (Gardano 1581, with Annibale Stabile) of January1581 is dedicated. The dedication mentions the courtesy shown Naninoin Pasqualini’s house, which it calls a “ricetto de virtuosi” (meeting placeof virtuosos). One will remember that the opening poem of Marenzio’sFirst Book of June 1580, Liquide perle d’amor, was discovered by JamesChater to be by Pasqualini.13

Let me return now to the related settings of Dolorosi martir by Naninoand Marenzio, both presumably from 1580 or before. The exchange didnot end there. Nanino, completely exceptionally, then wrote a new, con-siderably more extreme and daring setting of the same text, published inhis Third Book of 1586 (Gardano 1586)—a new setting clearly reactingto Marenzio’s setting published in mid-1580.14 This complex and expres-sively bold setting stands out in Nanino’s entire output, the style of whichis usually reserved, dominated by facile rhythms, and rather easily acces-sible to singer and listener alike. This piece, by contrast, is full of cross-rhythms and seems to be a self-conscious reaction to Marenzio’s moretypically Roman setting.

Thus the composers of the Roman school seem to have seen them-selves as a coherent and distinctive group, the “various excellent musi-cians of Rome” proclaimed on the title page of Scotto 1582. Nanino’sleadership of the Roman school up to and through this print is manifest,although, as noted above, Nanino merits scarcely a mention by Einstein.The pioneering studies of the Roman madrigal school by Ruth DeFordand Chater recognize Nanino’s qualitative excellence as a composer, butdo not go into his quantitative dominance during the period 1570through 1582, the formative years of the new style.15

To give an idea of Nanino’s place in the madrigal culture of the1570s, one can review the contents of the (rather few) Italian printedmadrigal anthologies of this decade.16 As already mentioned, pieces by

13 Chater, Luca Marenzio, 1:6 and 1:131n52.14 For a modern edition see Nanino, Complete Madrigals, Part 3, 90–98; or Anthony

Newcomb, The Madrigal at Ferrara, 1570–1597 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,1980), 2:192–200.

15 Ruth Irene DeFord, “Ruggiero Giovannelli and the Madrigal in Rome, 1572–1599,”2 vols. (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1975), 155–65; and Chater, Luca Marenzio, 1:13–14.

16 VE 1574, VE 1575/1, VE 1575/2, VE 1576/1, and VE 1577/1. I cite the identi-fication numbers (Vogel/Einstein, or VE) from Emil Vogel, Bibliothek des gedruckten welt-lichen Vocalmusik Italiens aus den Jahren 1500–1700, mit Nachtragen von Prof. Alfred Einstein


174

the barely thirty-year-old Nanino were among the most numerous andprominently placed in Gardano 1574. In what looks to be the most wide-ranging and prestigious anthology of the decade, Gardano 1576, theyoung Nanino and his madrigal appear together with those whom thetitle page of the anthology justifiably claims to be the autori illustri of i piubelli madrigali che hoggidi si cantino (the illustrious authors of the mostbeautiful madrigals that are sung today). In this anthology, dedicatedby the printer Gardano to the Duke of Bavaria, Nanino appears in thecompany of such older autori illustri as Andrea Gabrieli, Orlande deLassus, Philippe de Monte, Palestrina, Cipriano de Rore, and Giachesde Wert.

Most significant for my purposes is that Nanino’s pieces in each ofthese two anthologies (Gardano 1574 and Gardano 1576) show the ear-liest examples of what I shall claim to be distinctive and novel stylisticelements of the new Roman style. I shall return to these pieces below.Important here is that no other piece in the international and broadlyrepresentative anthology of 1576 looks and sounds anything like thesepieces by Nanino of 1574 and 1576.17 This is a new style represented byNanino’s pieces, and one emanating from Rome. Moreover, both ofthese pieces were frequently reprinted in the miscellanies of favoritepieces of the end of the century.

First I will present a compendium of the distinctive elements of thisnew Roman style, as inaugurated in selected prints of 1574–79 andfirmed up in prints of 1580–82. These elements by no means saturatethe madrigals of this Roman school. But they are distinctive and theyappear first in the early pieces of this school in the 1570s and then withincreasing frequency in the madrigals of the leaders of this school acrossthe 1580s.

To my mind the most distinctive trait of the new style is its openembrace of repetition. The most characteristic pieces of this new styleshow a willingness to repeat literally short bits of music, three or fourtimes. The repeated passages are often cadence formulas or short mo-tives based on leaps of a fourth or fifth, often found in tonally focusedduets, where they are tossed from voice group to voice group in easily

-(Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962) rather than those from RISM series B, since Vogel/Einstein gives the contents of the anthologies. In order to limit the field of study, I shallfocus throughout this essay on the five-voice (and occasionally the four-voice) madrigal asthe dominant and most representative genre of these decades, as does DeFord in“Ruggiero Giovannelli.” Hence I do not consider VE 1579/1 and VE 1579/2. VE 1577/1 is by the same compiler (G.B. Mosto da Udine) as these two anthologies of 1579, but itsurvives in only two partbooks.

17 I have copies of editions or my personal transcriptions (unfortunately not inelectronic form) of all the pieces from VE 1574/1 and VE 1576/1, which I would be glad toshare with anyone interested.

newcomb

175

heard, transparent textures. This characteristic is already clear in Nani-no, “Scopriro l’ardor mio,” from Gardano 1576 (ex. 1).18

These repeated motivic formulas often set brief fragments of thepoetic texts, split off from the entire line and repeated with the music.The texts are thus broken apart, atomized into sometimes contrastingmusical-textual units. For examples see Marenzio, “Spuntavan gia,” mea-sures 1–12 and 15–16; Macque, “Or un laccio,” measures 1–31 (bothfrom Scotto 1582); and Nanino, “Non son le vostre mani” (ex. 2).19

A subcategory of this repetition is the sequence, usually scalar, of oneof these verbal-musical fragments, often covering a tonally significantinterval, such as the fifth or octave around the fifth or first degree of thetonal center. The first clear instance of this that I have found is the closingsection of Nanino’s often reprinted madrigal “Donna gentil” from Garda-no 1574 (ex. 3). Such scalar sequences are common in Marenzio of the1580s. See “Rivi fontane e fiumi” (Amadino 1589), measures 25–29. For anonly slightly later version of this technique, one might recall the closingmeasures of Claudio Monteverdi’s “Ecco mormorar l’onde” of 1592.20

Another subcategory is the repetition of a simple progression of twoor three chords, usually related by fourth or fifth and decorated bytriadic or scalar upper voices. “Non son rose” in “Non son le vostre mani,”cited above, is an example, or “vaghi fioretti” in Marenzio’s already cited“Spuntavan gia.” This technique becomes so common as to be almostubiquitous. It already shows up clearly in the closing section of Nanino’s

18 Nanino, Complete Madrigals, Part 2, 116–17. Other instances are: Nanino, “Dolcefiammella mia” (Gardano 1581), measures 1–6, for which see ibid., 15; or Marenzio,“Spuntavan gia” (Gardano 1580), measures 1–27, 44–48, for which see Luca Marenzio,Samtliche Werke, ed. Alfred Einstein, Publikationen alterer Musik IV.1 (Hildesheim: Olms,1962) (hereinafter Marenzio/Einstein), 5–7; or Luca Marenzio, The Complete Five Voice Ma-drigals, ed. John Steele (New York: Gaudia Music and Arts, 1996), vol. 1 (hereinafter Ma-renzio/Steele), 13–18. This latter edition has the disadvantage of transposing some of themadrigals downward to restrict the upper limit of the top voice. Marenzio’s and Macque’scommon use of this technique is described in Chater, Luca Marenzio, 1:14 (with 2:98, ex. 17).These passages would appear to fit what Giovanni Maria Artusi, in his Arte del contraponto, calls“gioco” (play) and describes as a “reiterata percussione fatta spesse volte” (a reiteration [ofa group of notes] made several times). See Chater, Luca Marenzio, 1:50 and 52.

19 Marenzio/Einstein, 5; and Marenzio/Steele, 13–14. A modern edition of theMacque is I musici di Roma e il madrigale, ed. Nino Pirrotta, 16–17. For a modern edition ofthe Nanino, see Nanino, Complete Madrigals, Part 3, 45–49.

For early instances of these first two characteristics see also Girolamo Conversi,Canzoni alla Napolitana I.5 (Scotto 1572), as James Chater has suggested to me, especiallythe much reprinted “Sola soletta” and “Ma se tempo gia mai.” A modern edition is GirolamoConversi, 21 Canzoni alla napolitana, ed. Marco Giuliani (Trent: Edizione NOVA, 1996), 8–9,19–20. That having been said, Conversi’s texts, unlike Nanino’s, are the short stanzas of thecanzonetta, and the settings do not have the musical extension and variety of Nanino’smadrigals of the 1570s.

20 For the Nanino see Nanino, Complete Madrigals, Part 2, 97. For the Marenzio seeMarenzio/Steele, 6:60; or Newcomb, The Madrigal at Ferrara, 2:13–17.


176

“Scopriro l’ardor mio” (from Gardano 1576) cited above (ex. 4). It is verycommon in Macque’s pieces of the later 1570s.21

example 1. Nanino, “Scopriro l’ardor mio,” showing the repetition ofmm. 52–56 in mm. 59–65

21 Transcriptions of Macque’s madrigals, the complete set of partbooks of which wereavailable in 1970, can be found in William Richard Shindle, “The Madrigals of Giovanni deMacque,” 2 vols. (Ph.D. diss., Indiana University, 1970).

newcomb

177

A further characteristic of the style is its frequent dominance by basslines—especially long-note progressions, usually stepwise, either leading upto important cadences or governing the sequences mentioned above. Thefirst instance of the latter that I have found is the end of “Donna gentil”from Gardano 1574, cited above. The passage from Nanino’s “Non son levostre mani” shown in example 2 is a fine illustration of this procedure,especially in the way the bass abandons its part in the motivic play of

example 1. (Continued)


178

measures 5–7 to direct the upper parts in longer note values toward a mod-ulation and cadence in measures 8–9. The brilliant rewriting of therepeated final line of Nanino’s much reprinted “Morir non puo il mio core”(from Gardano 1571) is a fine example of Nanino’s bass-driven harmoniccontrol. Or see his “Questa sı Bianca neve,” measures 35–45 (from Gardano1581).22 These examples could easily be multiplied.

To fill out such largely formulaic pieces, one need only juxtapose thelively motivic fragments cited above with occasional chordal sections ofslower motion, often with mild suspension dissonances and even somechromatic cross-relations. The point here is that none of the composersof the high style admired by Einstein (and me)—the style of Rore,Luzzasco Luzzaschi, Wert, Gesualdo, even Monte and Palestrina—would have embraced such an emphasis on literal repetition of oftensimple formulas.23


22 For “Morir non puo” see Nanino, Complete Madrigals, Part 1, 61–62. For “Questa sıBianca neve” see Nanino, Complete Madrigals, Part 2, 23.

23 A fine example of almost all of these stylistic traits in one piece is “Rivi fontane efiumi,” Marenzio’s already cited contribution to Le gioie, the explicitly Roman anthology of1589 (Amadino 1589). See the motivic decoration of a simple harmonic pattern in theopening, slower-moving chordal style with mild suspensions (“Frenate i vostri corsi”) andthird-related progressions with chromatic cross-relations for a bit of contrast and titillation(“piu cortese ti mostri”), scalar sequence guided by the slower-moving lowest voice (“Amatolauro con tue verdi chiome”), and motivic decoration over a slower-moving lowest voice forthe concluding line.

newcomb

179

In order to assess the reception of this school and its style in the 1580sand 1590s by the madrigal-buying public of the time, I have counted thenumber of pieces by each of the most represented individual composers

example 2. Nanino, “Non son le vostre mani,” mm. 5–9, showinga textual fragment subject to motivic repetition (the fullpoetic line is “Son rose matutine”)


180

reprinted in miscellanies, which I define as collections drawn togetherfrom pieces that had already been printed. These miscellanies appear tohave been put before the buying public by printer/publishers as purelycommercial issues. They presumably contain pieces that the compiler orpublisher judged would find ready acceptance, perhaps principally amonga professional class that we might today call upper middle class. I alsowanted to compare the contents of the five Northern miscellanies printed

example 3. Nanino, “Donna gentil,” mm. 35–42, showing sequentialrepetition of a verbal-musical fragment

newcomb

181

by the Antwerp printer/publishers Pierre Phalese and Jean Bellere—Phalese and Bellere 1583a, Phalese and Bellere 1583b, Phalese and Bellere1585, Phalese and Bellere 1591, and Phalese 1596, mostly for a variety ofnumbers of voices—with those of the three Italian miscellanies from thesame years: Scotto 1584, Gardano 1592, and Vincenti 1593, all for five voicessave for Vincenti, which is for four and five voices.24 I wanted to see if therewere differences between the tastes of the two regional markets.25

I see no marked differences between the markets north and south ofthe Alps. The most represented composer in the Italian miscellanies (tenof eighty-eight pieces in total) is Nanino, followed by Claudio Meruloand Monte with seven pieces each, then Lasso, Marenzio, Palestrina, andRore with five pieces each. Of these seven most represented composers,three are Romans.


24 For the possibility that the miscellany Phalese and Bellere 1583b (VE 1583/2) isa reprint of an earlier edition of 1582, see Franco Piperno, “Il madrigale italiano in Europa:compilazioni antologiche allestite e pubblicate oltrape,” in Il madrigale oltre il madrigale, ed.Alberto Colzani, Andrea Luppi, and Maurizio Padoan (Como: A.M.I.S, 1994), 26n35.

25 Since I consider the madrigal for six and more voices to be a separate genre, I havenot included such pieces from the Phalese anthologies in my numbers. I have figures forthe six-voice pieces in the first four Phalese anthologies of 1582–91 available as well. (ThePhalese anthology of 1596 is for five voices only.) Especially in the two earliest Phaleseanthologies of 1582/1583, Macque and Monte dominate in the six-voice sections (nine oftwenty pieces in the first; six of eighteen in the second). Nanino would be at a disadvantagehere, since he wrote almost exclusively five-voice madrigals. There are only three survivingsix-voice madrigals of a total of sixty-five.


182

The Phalese anthologies are more numerous, have considerablymore pieces (186 pieces for four and five voices), and range more widely,both chronologically and geographically. But the relative figures are

example 4. Nanino, “Scopriro l’ardor mio,” mm. 59–65, showing theconcluding repetition of a simple progression of twochords related by fourth/fifth and decorated by scalarupper voices

newcomb

183

similar: The leader is again Nanino with fifteen pieces, then Marenziowith thirteen, Monte with nine, followed by Giovan Ferretti, Palestrina,and Macque with six pieces each, Wert and Girolamo Conversi with fivepieces each, Lasso with four, and Moscaglia with three. Of the first sixcomposers, four are Romans. The canzonetta composers Conversi andFerretti show up in the earlier Northern prints (Phalese and Bellere1583–85); they do not appear in the later Northern prints (Phalese andBellere 1591 and Phalese and Bellere 1596) or in the three Italian mis-cellanies at all.

Striking in both groups of miscellanies is the dominance not only ofthe new Romans plus Palestrina, but of Nanino among them. This evi-dence of the importance of Nanino in the madrigal culture of his time isparalleled by his dominant presence in anthologies presenting newlycomposed and presumably specially commissioned pieces from 1574through 1601.26

A similar conclusion can be drawn from what might be termed thehits of the end of the century, as evidenced by the individual madrigalsreprinted repeatedly in the various miscellanies and collections of


26 See my introduction to Nanino, Complete Madrigals, Parts 1 (xiv–xv) and 2 (xvi–xvii), where I discuss this point. Marenzio becomes increasingly dominant in the reprintmiscellanies of southern German-speaking areas at the end of the 1580s, such as Gerlach1588 and Lindner 1589.


184

contrafacts of the time. Table 5 lists the madrigals by Nanino appearingmore than once in such sources, either as unchanged reprints or asmodels for contrafacts (mostly madrigali spirituali). Thirteen differentmadrigals by Nanino dating originally from the early 1570s through1590 are found more than twice in these later sources, with some indi-vidual pieces in as many as five different sources. If one compiled sucha list for Palestrina, it would contain three madrigals, but the totalnumber of reprints or contrafacts of his pieces is dominated by just onepiece: “Vestiva i colli,” originally appearing in 1566 and reappearing infour later sources. (“Io son ferito” and “Morı quasi il mio core” appearin two later sources each). Such a list of madrigals by Alessandro Striggiowould also contain three madrigals, “Invidioso amor” and “Nasce la penamia” of 1559 and 1560, respectively, and “Non rumor di tamburi” of 1571.

TABLE 3.Number of pieces by individual composers in Italian miscellanies,

1584–93 (of 88 total pieces)

No. pieces Composer

10 G. M. Nanino7 Merulo, Monte5 Lasso, Marenzio, Palestrina, Rore4 Giovannelli, Striggio3 Wert2 A. Gabrieli, Ingegneri, Porta, B. Spontone, Vecchi

TABLE 4.Number of pieces by individual composers in northern

miscellanies, 1582/3–1596 (of 186 total pieces)

No. pieces Composer

15 G. M. Nanino13 Marenzio9 Monte6 Ferretti, Macque, Palestrina5 Wert4 Conversi, Ingegneri, Lasso3 Moscaglia2 Giovannelli1 Rore, Striggio

newcomb

185

TABLE 5.Individual madrigals by Nanino reprinted in miscellanies

of the 1580s and 1590s and identifiable contrafactsof the early seventeenth century

Text Incipit Original Source Reprinted SourceContrafactSources

Amor, dehdimmi

Gardano 1581b Phalese 1583aGardano 1592

Tini andLomazzo 1604Castello 1616

Amor mi famorire

Gardano 1586b Haestens 1605 Kauffman 1609

A(v)venturosopiu

Gardano 1581b Phalese 1596Haestens 1605

Nenninger 1606

Dolcefiammella

Gardano 1581b Phalese andBellere 1591East 1597

Donna gentil Gardano 1574a Phalese 1596Haestens 1605

Castello 1616

E con Amintavai

Amadino 1586 Gardano 1592Haestens 1605

Erano i capeid’or (2 pts)

Gardano 1571 Phalese 1583bGardano 1592

Tini andLomazzo 1604Berg 1609

Lasso, ch’ogniaugelletto

Gardano 1581b Phalese andBellere 1585Haestens 1605

Lego questomio core

Rampazetto 1582 Phalese andBellere 1591Vincenti 1593

Mentre ti fui sigrato

Scotto 1582 Scotto 1584Phalese 1585Haestens 1605

Morir non puo Gardano 1571 Phalese 1583bEast 1590

Tini andLomazzo 1604Berg 1609

Poiche il tuonodo, Amore

Gardano 1571 Phalese 1596Vincenti 1598Haestens 1605

Scoprirol’ardor

Gardano 1576 Phalese 1583bKaufmann 1597

Nenninger 1606


186

Each of these appears in two later miscellanies. Monte is an instancedifferent from both Palestrina and Striggio. I count fifteen individualmadrigals by Monte either reprinted in miscellanies or identified as mod-els in collections of contrafacts, but only one of these madrigals, “Ahi chimi rompe il sonno” of 1570 (or before), appears in more than one suchlater source. No particular madrigals by Marenzio appear repeatedly in thereprint miscellanies of the early and mid-1580s. (“Che fa oggi il mio sole”from the First Book [Gardano 1580] is the only piece that appears morethan once in the miscellanies and collections of contrafacts that we haveconsidered. It appears three times, plus one identified contrafact.) Thissituation changes markedly with the anthologies from German-speakinglands and from England from the late 1580s and 1590s, in which Maren-zio’s pieces come increasingly to dominate.27

Until this point, Nanino’s madrigals are not only by far the mostnumerous to appear in such sources, but these works are also the youn-gest, so to speak—the most newly arrived on the market. Three of theearliest of his pieces, “Morir non puo,” “Donna gentil,” and “Scoprirol’ardor mio,” are not only among those repeatedly appearing in laterreprint sources; they are also those pieces exhibiting instances of whatI list above as distinctive characteristics of the new Roman style.

An additional bit of evidence of the dominance by the 1580s for theNorthern madrigal public of the new Roman style of Marenzio and Na-nino is Phalese and Bellere 1588, a print of pieces by Jean de Castro thatrework for three voices well-known and recent five-voice madrigals. DeCastro chooses six pieces by Marenzio, five by Nanino, and two each byFerretti and Conversi. Six other composers, including Macque, are re-presented by one piece each.28

In yet one further stylistic direction the Roman madrigalists of the1570s and early 1580s seem to be pioneers. Evidence derived from thechoice of clefs in a number of publications of the time suggests thatthe concentration on higher-voice textures may also have been some-thing of a Roman characteristic of the 1570s and 1580s, rather thana Ferrarese one, as has been often suggested (as an outgrowth of thefamous concerto delle dame in Ferrara in the years around 1580). TheRoman influence here is still to be investigated thoroughly in the fullrange of Roman madrigals of the 1570s and early 1580s. One can at leaststart testing Roman madrigals against the general international normaround 1575 by comparing the clefs in the Roman anthology Il quarto libro

27 I have not so far been able to identify the unspecified models for the contrafacts inVE 1606/2a, VE 1609/A, and 1609/B, although the three-part piece in 1606/2a is likely tobe “Tirsi morir volea” of 1580.

28 See the appendix.

newcomb

187

delle muse (Gardano 1574) with that in the geographically more broadlybased Musica di XIII autori (Gardano 1576). Of the twenty-three pieces inGardano 1574, thirteen are in high clefs, with the Canto in G2 clef; ten arein low clefs, with the Canto in C1 clef. Three of the thirteen pieces in highclefs accentuate the high textures by doubling the C2 clef of the Alto in theQuinto, instead of the customary doubling by the Quinto of the Tenor inC3 clef. In one of these thirteen high-clef pieces the Quinto doubles theCanto in G2 clef; in one of the ten low-clef pieces the Quinto doubles theCanto in C1 clef.29

Thus in Gardano 1574 the high clefs clearly dominate. In Gardano1576 the previously customary lower clefs clearly dominate. Of itstwenty-one pieces, seven are in high clefs while fourteen are in low clefsof various combinations. One of the pieces in low clefs is the onlymadrigal in the anthology for two sopranos—that is, where the Quintodoubles the clef of the Canto instead of that of the Tenor. That piece isby Nanino. Of the two pieces by Palestrina, the only other Romancomposer in the anthology, one is for high clefs with the Tenor dou-bled by the Quinto, and one is for low clefs with the Alto doubled bythe Quinto.

A similar result comes from a comparison of the clefs in the Romananthology Dolci affetti (Scotto 1582) with those in the geographicallymore broadly based but largely Ferrarese anthology Il lauro secco (Baldini1582). In Scotto 1582, fifteen of the seventeen pieces are in high clefs, ofwhich five are for two sopranos and one for two altos. (The six-madrigalcycle that opens the anthology counts as only one of the two-sopranopieces.) Only two pieces here are for low clefs. In Baldini 1582, seventeenof the thirty pieces (excluding the concluding piece for ten voices) arefor high clefs, of which eight are for two sopranos and one for two altos;thirteen pieces are for low clefs, including one for two sopranos. Again,high clefs dominate in the Roman anthology, while much less so in thegeographically more broadly based anthology.

If one compares the clefs in the Ferrarese Luzzaschi’s two single-author books Gardano 1576 and Gardano 1582 with those in Nanino’stwo books Gardano 1571 and Gardano 1581 (the latter with Stabile), theresults are similar. In Nanino’s First Book of 1571, ten pieces are in highclefs, of which two are for two sopranos and two for two altos; five are forlow clefs, of which one is for two sopranos. In his Second Book of 1581(including the pieces by his Roman colleague Stabile), twelve are for

29 These numbers omit the two six-voice pieces at the end of the first edition of Ilquarto libro, pieces that were not retained in the reprint of 1582. One must also leave openthe possibility that high clefs denote transpositions (a fourth or fifth lower).


188

high clefs, of which six are for two sopranos; five are for low clefs. InLuzzaschi’s Second Book of 1576, eleven pieces are in high clefs, ofwhich one is for two altos; twelve pieces are in low clefs, of which oneis for two sopranos. In his Third Book of 1582, nine are for high clefs andnine are for low clefs, of which one is for two sopranos. Again, high clefsdominate in Nanino’s books, much less so in Luzzaschi’s.

In many respects, both in terms of style and breadth of reception,one might say that the new Roman style of the last quarter of the centurywas in fact the Nuova musica for its time and even into the next century.Its harmonic, textural, and motivic style lasted well beyond that ofGesualdo or Giulio Caccini, with important contributions made byRuggiero Giovannelli (ca. 1560–1625) and Felice Anerio (ca. 1560–1614). It was a powerful influence on the early madrigals of Monteverdi.The great pioneers in bringing the production of this school to our atten-tion were DeFord and Chater in the 1970s and 1980s.30 We now haveavailable three rediscovered or newly filled out books by Macque that werenot transcribed in William Shindle’s dissertation on Macque’s madrigals.31

Two of these books, the First for Four Voices (Vincenti 1586) and theSecond for Five Voices (Vincenti 1587), are from the end of Macque’sRoman years. Perhaps it is time for a new look at the Roman School of thelast decades of the century and beyond.32

ABSTRACT

As a composer of secular music, Giovanni Maria Nanino seems tohave published only three books of madrigals and one of canzonettas, yethe contributed numerous pieces to anthologies, and his madrigals wereoften reprinted. Scarcely an important anthology appeared in these yearswithout a contribution by him. Indeed in the fifteen years before thedeath of Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina in 1594, Nanino rivaled him asthe most esteemed of Roman composers; in the decade after Palestrina’s

30 DeFord, “Ruggiero Giovannelli”; and Chater, Luca Marenzio.31 Shindle, “The Madrigals of Giovanni de Macque.”32 Modern editions appear in Giovanni de Macque, Il secondo libro de’ madrigali a cinque

voci (1587), ed. Catherine Deutsch (Rome: Istituto Italiano per la Storia della Musica,2015), xxx, xl, 48–52; and Giovanni de Macque, Il primo libro de madrigali a quattro voci, ed.Giuseppina Lo Coco (Lucca: LIM, 2017). The Third Book for Five Voices, printed in thelate 1590s together with Gesualdo’s first four books by the Ferrarese court printer Baldini(Baldini 1597) but lacking the Alto partbook, has been completed by Catherine Deutschand is forthcoming under her editorship.

newcomb

189

death, Nanino was the undisputed head of the large and importantRoman school. By certain measures Nanino was the most often repre-sented composer in anthologies printed between 1570 and 1620. In thisarea he surpasses not only Palestrina, but also Luca Marenzio, Philippe deMonte, and Alessandro Striggio.

Despite Nanino’s immense prestige among his contemporaries, inmodern histories his secular music is scarcely discussed, with just a pass-ing mention in Alfred Einstein’s voluminous The Italian Madrigal. Thisarticle establishes Nanino’s leadership in defining the new Roman styleof madrigal in the late sixteenth century, outlines its musical character-istics, and suggests paths for future research into this as yet little studiedschool.


190

Appendix 1: Sigla of Prints Referenced

Reference Works

NV Emil Vogel, Alfred Einstein, Francois Lesure, and ClaudioSartori, Bibliografia della musica italiana vocale profanapubblicata dal 1500 al 1700, 3 vols. (Pomezia: Stadini-Minkoff, 1977).

RISM A/I Repertoire International des Sources Musicales, Einzeldruckevor 1800, 9 vols. (Kassel: Barenreiter, 1971–2012).

VE Emil Vogel, Bibliothek der gedruckten weltlichen VocalmusikItaliens aus den Jahren 1500–1700, 2 vols. (reprint withsupplement by Alfred Einsten, Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1962).

Single Author Sources

Siglum Source NV/RISM A/I1

Gardano 1571 [Giovanni Maria Nanino, Il primo librode madrigali (Venice: Gardano,1571)]

[Lost]

Scotto 1572 Girolamo Conversi, Il primo libro decanzoni alla napolitana a cinque voci(Venice: Scotto, 1572)

C3545

Gardano 1576a Luzzasco Luzzaschi, Secondo libro demadrigali a cinque voci (Venice:Gardano, 1576)

L3123

Gardano 1580 Luca Marenzio, Il primo libro demadrigali a cinque voci (Venice:Gardano, 1580)

M530

Gardano 1581a Luca Marenzio, Il secondo libro demadrigali a cinque voci (Venice:Gardano, 1581)

M539

Gardano 1581b Giovanni Maria Nanino and AnnibaleStabile, Madrigali a cinque voci(Venice: Gardano, 1581)

N29

Gardano 1582a Luca Marenzio, Il terzo libro de madrigalia cinque voci (Venice: Gardano, 1582)

M586

Gardano 1582c Luzzasco Luzzaschi, Terzo libro demadrigali a cinque voci (Venice:Gardano, 1582)

L3124

(continued)

newcomb

191

Appendix 1. (continued)

Siglum Source NV/RISM A/I1

Rampazetto1582

Giovanni Battista Moscaglia, Il secondolibro di madrigali a cinque voci (Venice:Rampazetto, 1582)

M3784

Gardano 1586 Giovanni Maria Nanino, Il terzo libro demadrigali a cinque voci (Venice:Gardano, 1586)

N31

Vincenti 1586 Giovanni Macque, Il primo libro demadrigali a quattro voci (Venice:Vincenti, 1586)

NV 1534

Vincenti 1587 Giovanni Macque, Il secondo libro demadrigali a cinque voci (Venice:Vincenti, 1587)

M89

Phalese andBellere 1588

Jean de Castro, Madrigali di Giovan deCastro . . . A tre voci (Antwerp: Phaleseand Bellere, 1588)

NV 509

Baldini 1597 Giovanni Macque, Il terzo libro demadrigali a cinque voci (Ferrara:Baldini, 1597)

M92

1When possible RISM A/I numbers are given. Titles without RISMnumbers are listed by their NV numbers instead.

Anthologies2

Siglum Source VE siglum

Gardano 1574 Il quarto libro delle muse a cinque voci (Venice:Gardano, 1574)

15741

Gardano 1576b Musica di XIII autori (Venice: Gardano, 1576) 15761

Baldini 1582 Il lauro secco, libro primo di madrigali a cinquevoci (Ferrara: Baldini, 1582)

15821

Gardano 1582b Il quarto libro delle muse a cinque voci (Venice:Gardano, 1582)

15823

Scotto 1582 Dolci affetti madrigali a cinque voci (Venice:Scotto, 1582)

15822

Phalese andBellere 1583a

Harmonia celeste (Antwerp: Phalese andBellere, 1583)

15831

(continued)


192



Phalese andBellere 1583b

Musica divina (Antwerp: Phalese andBellere, 1583)

15832

Scotto 1584 Spoglia Amorosa, madrigali a cinque voci didiversi eccellentissimi musici (Venice: Scotto,1584)

15841a


Symphonia angelica (Antwerp: Phalese andBellere 1585)

15851

Amadino 1586 De floridi virtuosi d’italia, il terzo libro demadrigali a cinque voci (Venice: Amadino,1586)

15863

Gerlach 1588 Gemma musicalis . . . liber primus(Nuremburg: Gerlach, 1588)

15882

Amadino 1589 Le gioie. Madrigali a cinque voci (Venice:Amadino, 1589)

15895

Lindner 1589 Liber secundus gemmae musicalis(Nuremburg: Lindner, 1589)

15892

East 1590 Thomas Watson, The first sett of ItalianMadrigalls Englished (London: East, 1590)

15904


Melodia olympica (Antwerp: Phalese andBellere, 1591)

15911

Gardano 1592 Spoglia amorosa madrigali a cinque voci(Venice: Gardano, 1592)

15926

Vincenti 1593 Nuova spoglia amorosa (Venice: Vincenti,1593)

15934

Phalese 1596 Paradiso musicale di madrigali et canzonia cinque voci di diversi eccellentissimi autori(Antwerp: Phalese, 1596)

15963

Kaufmann 1597 Fiori del giardino di diversi eccellentissimi autori(Nuremburg: Kaufmann, 1597)

15972

East 1597 Musica Transalpina (London: East, 1597) 15973

Vincenti 1598 Le risa avicenda vaghi e dilettevoli madrigalia cinque voci (Venice: Vincenti, 1598)

15981

Tini andLomazzo 1604

Scielta de madrigali a cinque voci (Milan: Tiniand Lomazzo, 1604)

16043

Haestens 1605 Nervi d’orfeo (Leiden: Haestens, 1605) 16052

Nenninger1606

Hortus Musicalis (Passau, Nenninger, 1606) 16062a

(continued)

newcomb

193



Berg 1609 Hortus Musicalis . . . liber tertius (Munich:Berg, 1609)

1609B

Castello 1616 Madrigali de diversi auttori (Loano: Castello,1616)

16162

2Not included in this list is the lost anthology of music by Romancomposers cited by G. O. Pitoni in “Notizia de’ Contrapuntisti e Compositoridi Musica,” Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Cappella Giulia MS 1.1(2):Fioretti amorosi di diversi musici di Roma a quattro voci (Venice: Vincenti, 1587). SeeDeFord, “Ruggiero Giovannelli,” 1:17.


194

Documents

The New Roman Style and Giovanni Maria NaninoThe New Roman Style and Giovanni Maria Nanino ANTHONY NEWCOMB T he last three decades of the sixteenth century saw the ﬂowering of an