August 1, 2016

~ Dissecting the Rhetoric of Prolixity ~

Alexander Agricolas Salve Regina I as a Defense of
Polystylism During the Late 15th Century

A Research Proposal Presented

by

Jordan Alexander Key

111 NW 15th Terrace, Apt A1
Gainesville, Florida 32603
(540) 588-2409
jordanalexanderkey@gmail.com

to

Dr. Jennifer Thomas

Associate Professor of Musicology

For

PhD Composition Degree

University of Florida School of Music
Gainesville, Florida
Summer 2016
 Key | 1

Jordan Alexander Key

Paper Presented: December, 2015

Title: Dissecting the Rhetoric of Prolixity: Alexander Agricola's Salve Regina I as a Defense of
Polystylism During the Late 15th Century.

Featured Pieces:
Alexander Agricola: Salve Regina I

Select Bibliography:

Agricola, Alexander, and Edward R. Lerner. Alexander Agricola: Opera Omnia. Vol. 4.
Rome: American Inst. of Musicology, 1966.
Atwell, Scott David. Cadence, Linear Procedures, and Pitch Structure in the Works of
Johannes Ockeghem. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Michigan State University, 2001.
Fitch, Fabrice. "Agricola and the Rhizome: An Aesthetic of the Late Cantus Firmus
Mass." Revue Belge De Musicologie / Belgisch Tijdschrift Voor
Muziekwetenschap 59 (2005): 65-92.
Lerner, Edward R. The Sacred Music of Alexander Agricola. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
University Microfilms, 1965.
Ultan, Lloyd. "Middle and Late Fifteenth Century - Johannes Ockeghem." In Music
Theory: Problems and Practices in the Middle Ages and Renaissance.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1977.
Wegman, Rob C. "Agricola, Bordon and Obrecht at Ghent: Discoveries and Revisions."
Revue Belge De Musicologie / Belgisch Tijdschrift Voor Muziekwetenschap 51
(1997): 23-62.

Abstract: Despite the frequently critiqued prolixity in much of his oeuvre, Alexander Agricola
(1445/46-1506) crafted music comprehensible enough to elicit great praise from numerous
contemporaries. What is then inherently praiseworthy in this abstruse music? In his Salve Regina
I, Agricola crafts a musical argument for his garrulity, the thesis of which aims to clarify and justify
the virtue of his style. While Agricola employed cantus firmus conventions to provide formal
scaffolding, he also imbues discursiveness with comprehensibility through rhetorical techniques,
such as inflection of cadence, clearness of imitation, phraseology of text, and varied
implementation of cantus firmus. Articulating the micro-structure and of his music, these
components are then couched in the discourse of the classical argument: an introduction,
confirmation, and refutation of a thesis. In Agricolas Salve Regina I, motet becomes a medium
for the exhibition and logical justification of his musical thesis of abstract polystylism.







 Key | 2

Musicologist, Edward Lerner, once expressed his concern for a balanced examination of
Alexander Agricolas (1445/46 1506) works,i problematizing the bias given to Agricolas Masses
and instrumental works in current scholarly research.ii iii iv Agricola lived between the generations
of Johannes Ockeghem and Josquin DesPrez, a time marked by notable changes in the relative
importance between Mass and motet. While most early- to mid-15th century composers
preferred the Mass, the early 16th century witnessed the motet achieve an equal to if not greater
importance than the Mass, as is evidenced by the below tables.v

Mass and Motet in the Repertoire of Ockeghem Mass and Motet in the Repertoire of Agricola
vi vii
and his Contemporaries and his Contemporaries
Composer Mass & Mass Movement Motets Composer Mass & Mass Movement Motets
Ockeghem 16 10 Agricola 11 18
Caron 5 0 Obrecht 25 18
Faugues 4 0 Weerbeke 10 52
Barbireau 4 1 Brumel 17 35
Basiron 2 2 Compere 9 26
Busnois 2 7 La Rue 38 30
Regis 3 8 Fevin 12 30
Mouton 15 110-117
Des Prez 19 c. 100

Agricolas Salve Regina motets are two of his most distinctive and remarkable pieces. By
examining his motet output in Figure 1, it is clear his Salve Reginas are extraordinarily ambitious.
Agricolas motet form in these two pieces stretches typical parameters, perhaps even rivaling the
Mass.viii Given the motets rising popularity during Agricolas life and the extent to which his Salve
Regina motets distinguish themselves, evidence indicates that Agricolas motets demand as
much study as his Masses and secular works.ix The role of the motet in Agricolas work is not yet
clear, and the magnitude of his Salve Reginas provokes closer inspection, particularly in their
effectiveness as large forms within a genre usually reserved for relatively smaller settings.x
Due to the expansiveness of his Masses, Magnificats, and Salve Reginas, many
interpreters classify Agricolas music as fragmented and prolix.xi Undoubtedly, the long-standing
preference in analytical research for clear musical forms has contributed to this evaluation.xii
While there is a plethora of contemporary sources on Josquin as compared to Agricola, and while
there is more known music by Josquinxiii, Agricolas renown in the 16th century is almost
equivalent to Josquins.xiv xv xvi xvii The high respect afforded to Agricola by his contemporaries
does not align with the current dearth of scholarly research and performancexviii of Agricolas
music.
Despite his musics perceived garrulity, praise from contemporaries should indicate some
truth to the musics comprehensible logic, beyond that of mere moment-to-moment
counterpoint. If counterpoint forms the letters and grammar of the dialogue, there must be a
syntax that gives order to these words and a rhetoric that places them into a dialectic. Agricola
uses four musical devices to impart syntactical coherence to his music: inflection of cadence,
clearness of imitation, phraseology of text, and style of cantus firmus setting. These components
articulate the micro- and macro-structural syntax of his musical rhetoric.
 Key | 3

 Key | 4

Tunefulness is rare in Agricolas sacred music, rather favoring continuous heterogeneous

melodies. However, Lerner clarifies Agricola Is uninterested in an intrinsically long line, rather
designing melodic arcs made up of short melodic fragments linked together by frequent
cadences.xix Furthermore, Agricola uses degrees of weaker and stronger cadences together to
diversely punctuate his music, reserving the strongest cadences for significant junctures.
Figure 2 summaries Agricolas use of cadences in Salve Regina I. Those with great sectional
significance are listed at the top as Formal cadences, while those with phraseological
significance are listed lower as Intermediate. The last category demonstrates cadential
evasion, which is applied to most cadential forms.xx Through degrees of cadential strength,
Agricola varies phraseological emphasis within larger melodic arcs, punctuating his melismatic
prolixity.xxi Agricolas music is composed of myriad clauses forming large sentence complexes.
Agricolas need for cadential demarcation is reinforced by his rhythmic complexity.xxii His
effect of continuous rhythmic momentum is clarified by cadential repose. These musical
punctuations aid in following multilayered rhetoric, clarifying phraseology and highlighting the
emergence of new polyphonic frameworks, such as imitation and cantus firmus. (Example 1)
Agricolas treatment of imitation is dualistic: loose and obscure as much as it is exposed
and systematic.xxiii Moments of obscured imitation occur between two or three voices and are
initiated within an already active contrapuntal complex. Agricolas choice of imitation style
correlates to his choice of cadential inflection and structural demarcation, as we will see.
Agricolas organization also corresponds to text phrasing. However, Agricolas use of text
is often obscured by expansive musical lines.xxiv Despite vague text setting, new words and text
phrases tend to appear at sectional confluences (e.g. strong cadences, point-of-imitations, cantus
firmus expositions), evidencing a strong coloration between musical and textual organization.
The last organizational tool Agricola employs is cantus firmus,xxv his most macro-structural
syntactical device. According to Lerner, Agricolas work generally reveals two cantus firmus
techniques.xxvi The first technique juxtaposes an invented serpentine melody and a contrasting
cantus firmus of regularly pulsed longer tones.xxvii The second technique reinterprets the cantus
firmus as a floridly embellished line, used to create a single imitative texture. Throughout Salve
Regina I, Agricola uses differing strategies to set his cantus firmus, considering each chant
phrases micro-potential before it is set. Through varying techniques, Agricola maximizes the
diversity of his cantus firmus treatment, allowing for a broadly expressive syntactical toolbox.
Due to the cantus firmus macro-organizational potential, Agricola licenses himself to be
abstract while still providing a regular structural cue.xxviii As Lerner observes, Agricola looked to
the cantus firmus as a source of structural unity and contrast, and as a fount of melodic ideas for
imitation, or for elaboration in passages of free composition.xxix Through cantus firmus, Agricola
articulates his arguments macro-structure, weaving a comprehensive whole serving one thesis.
Thus, Agricola utilizes four musical devices inflection of cadence, clearness of imitation,
phraseology of text, and implementation of cantus firmus to articulate his musics syntax.
However, Agricola goes further in his Salve Regina I, not merely defining his musical grammar
and syntax, but using them to justify his prolix style and exhibit its exceptional potential for
diversity. To do this, Agricola designs his Salve Regina I as a logical rhetoric in the form of a
classical argument with introduction, narration, confirmation, refutation, and conclusion.xxx
 Key | 5

 Key | 6

Example 1 (excerpted from Agricolas Salve Regina I): Agricolas use of cadential demarcations to distinguish
phraseology and differing polyphonic frameworks. Notice the progressing sections of strict imitation, followed
by imitative cantus firmus against free counterpoint, followed by strict imitation, all divided by various
cadences. Dark lines indicate points-of-imitation and carrots indicate notes of the cantus firmus.

~ Salve Regina: Prima pars, Introduction & Narration ~
At the onset of his first Salve Regina motet, Agricola evades expectation. Agricolas motet
begins with the text Salve Regina, however the music makes no clear reference of the original
chant, as would be expected.xxxi Furthermore, there is no explicit indication for a preceding incipit
accounting for the missing chant reference. In this regard, Agricolas Salve Regina begins rather
unusually as compared to contemporaries like Josquin and La Rue. However, Agricolas motet
also begins with predictable idioms. Regulated structure is evidenced by three well-balanced
musical phrases demarcated by four semi-strong D-cadences during the opening two duets.

 Key | 7

The first duet (mm. 1-8) encompasses two small sub-phrasesxxxii totaling 13.5 breves and
a cadential prolongation of 3 breves before the entrance of the second duet. The second duet
(mm. 9-15), is strikingly different from the previous. First, it differs by employing point-of-
imitation on the second phrase of the cantus firmus. Furthermore, the second duet is one
continuous phrase, lacking clear balance like the first. Oddly but not coincidently, the duets share
a striking formal feature: both are 13.5 breves long. Thus, balance and diversity co-exist at the
onset of this motet (refer to Example 2).

Example 2: Introduction duets from Agricolas Salve Regina I.

Figure 4 outlines some of these phrases characteristics. Notice their degree of difference
despite their phraseological balance. Each duet contains Apollonian and Dionysian elements, yet
there is underlying logic evidenced by equal phrasing. The nature of these initia; duets and their
juxtaposition foreshadows the ensuing dialogue. This stylistic exposition coalesces into Agricolas
thesis of polystylism: synthesizing the styles of Ockeghems generation (florid and winding lines
without much imitation) with Agricolas contemporaries (more regulated lines with stricter
imitation) into a rhetorically sound complex. Such a synthesis of styles forms the premise for his
ensuing argument.

 Key | 8

Figure 3:

Introduction Duets First Duet Second Duet
Characteristics (Soprano/Tenor) (Alto/Bass)
Number of Phrases? 2 (balanced) 1 (discursive)
Phrase Lengths? Short (clear) Long (obscure)
Cadences? 3 (structured) 1 (discursive)
Points of Imitation? None (free) 1 (structured)
Cantus Firmus? No (free) Yes (derivative)
Rhythmic Complexity? Yes Yes
Length of Section? 13.5 breves 13.5 breves

Within a classical argument, the introduction has three functions: to capture interest,
establish style, and state the thesis.xxxiii By avoiding an initial cantus firmus statement and
substituting free material, Agricola fulfills the expectation of an introduction. First, he leaves his
audience wanting, immediately capturing their interest. Second, the free material establishes his
pervasive style: favoring rhythmic complexity, long musical phrases, and melismatic lines while
not favoring strict imitation. Third, he exposes his thesis, comingling balance and diversity.
Agricola synthesizes a medium that neither lacks predictability, nor is wholly based on it.
At measure 16, the duets end and a starkly different section emerges in full point-of-
imitation. Here, Agricola fulfills awaited expectations: vita, dulcedo (m. 16) heralds the
characteristic Salve Regina motive. If this motive had been revealed in the beginning, its natural
return on vita, dulcedo would be far less remarkable. Thus, its prior evasion imbues this
moment with inaugural significance that it would not have otherwise. By withholding the motive,
Agricola definitively relegates all prior material as precursory, demarcating an introduction from
its proceeding narration,xxxiv wherein Agricola will establish his arguments context.
While this section begins to fulfill expectations, Agricola disrupts the status quo after the
four-voice point-of-imitation (mm. 16-19) with a strong A-cadence (m. 20). Following this
cadence, he presents two obscured cantus firmus point-of-imitations.xxxv Throughout this phrase,
Agricola avoids any strong D-cadence, maintaining the tension produced by the modal shift to A.
In measure 29 after a weak D-cadence, the next section begins with a false cantus firmus entry
in the alto, which is disenfranchised in measure 31 by an evaded D-cadence and the true cantus
firmus entry in near canon between tenor and bass. This canonic section (mm. 31-39) highlights
Agricolas rhythmic complexity threefold. First, the canon is unusually syncopated. Second, the
bass/tenor rhythmic regularity and melodic simplicity highlights floridity in the upper voices.
Third, the lack of cadences in this section intensifies rhythmic propulsion and music tension.xxxvi
Ultimately, measures 16 through 39, expose the extremes of Agricolas polystylism: the
first half, the pervasively-imitative, balanced Apollonian style; the second half, the opposing
Dionysian approach of localized point-of-imitation obscured in dense rhythmic counterpoint
The evasive D-cadence at measure 39 necessitates further coda-like material to end the
pars. The coda (mm. 40-41) prolongs the cadence in measure 39, but resolves this time on the
strongest four-voice D-cadence, the first in the piece. Until now, Agricola avoided a four-voice D-
cadence intentionally, reserving it for the most significant structural point thus far: the end of the
rhetorical exposition. Here, Agricola signals the end of both his introduction and narrative.

 Key | 9

Agricolas narrative has accomplished its purpose: between measures 16 and 39, it
provided poignant examples and summarized Agricolas argument. He employed localized point-
of-imitation alongside canonic writing as three interpretations of cantus firmus implementation;
juxtaposed simple melodic and rhythmic lines with florid and rhythmically complex melodies;
engaged varying phrase structures; and demonstrated the full gambit of cadential degrees and
their syntactical uses. Agricola has exposed the listener to practical consequences of his
polystylism and given them tools judge the merit of the proceeding argument. In a short form,
the motets Prima Pars made whole Agricolas thesis of polystylism. The ensuing Confirmation in
the next four parts endeavors to prove the merits of this thesis through application.

~ Salve Regina: Seconda pars to Quinta pars, Confirmation ~
The confirmation of an argument justifies the thesis, logically supporting it by presenting
example from strongest to weakest (or most obvious to subtlest).xxxvii Here, Agricola will display
the methods available in his polystylism and prove their rhetorical virtue.
Agricolas confirmation begins in the Seconda Pars trio with the hallmarked structural
rhetoric of a full point-of-imitation. However, it quickly migrates, cantus firmus in the soprano
against free counterpoint (m. 46-58). Furthermore, the modal shift from D to A (m. 45) propels
the discourse, immediately deserting strict imitation and stable modality.
Throughout this pars, Agricola uses cantus firmus in the soprano against free counterpoint
below, each phrase (mm. 43-50, 50-55, 56-59) beginning with a brief, obscure point-of-imitation
and concluding with a cadence on either A and C.xxxviii The C-cadence in measure 59 marks the
seconda pars melodic apex and cantus firmus conclusion. All voices adopt free lines, and Agricola
employs his idiomatic pairing of outer voices in mostly parallel tenths, collapsing the section from
the high point on C to D an octave lower at the final cadence.xxxix (Example 3)
In the seconda pars, Agricola succeeded in demonstrating his poly-stylistic approach in
one manner: beginning with strict full-imitation and following with florid cantus firmus setting as
two separate but juxtaposed phraseological demarcations, one the antecedent and one the
consequent, related yet exclusive.

Example 3: Agricolas idiomatic pairing of outer voices in mostly parallel tenths.

 Key | 10

The Tertia pars begins with four-part imitation,xl ending with a weak A-cadence.xli As done
in the Seconda pars, once the introductory imitation passes, Agricola begins setting the cantus
firmus. However, in this instance cantus firmus is used in imitative fragments between tenor and
bass, while upper voices engage in mostly free counterpoint.xlii Each cantus firmus fragment
exposition is linked into a macro-phrase by a weak cadence.
The first strong cadential arrival appears at rehearsal marker G (m. 80). The section of
strict imitation preceding this arrival (mm. 77-79) is formally intriguing because strict imitation
has not yet been positioned at the close of a large phrase in this piece. Here, Agricola bookends
his first phrase (mm. 65-79) with strict imitation, rather than just beginning with it. Furthermore,
through the use of a few weak cadences, Agricola has parsed this large phrase into three small
clauses of equal length (refer to page 7 of appended analysis). By varying cadential strength and
bookending his large phrase with differing contrapuntal styles than the interior, Agricola creates
a self-contained musical complex amidst what otherwise seems to be overly capricious writing.
After the strong formal cadence on B-flat (m. 80), Agricola begins a new phrase using
three-part imitation against a florid alto line. This phrase (mm. 80-85) mediates the two outer
phrases (mm. 65-79 & 86-97) of the Tertia pars. Concluding this intermediate phrase (m. 86),
Agricola uses a semi-formal C-cadence, transitioning to the second outer phrase. At measure 86,
he begins with four-part imitation and migrates to pervasive free counterpoint. There appears to
be no clear use of cantus firmus here. However, Agricola coheres this highly florid section through
well-balanced sub-phrases (mm. 86-97) demarcated by evaded D-cadences and a Phrygian A-
cadence. The section ends with its only strong formal D-cadence, again demonstrating Agricolas
careful use of cadence to provide structural hierarchy.
Interplay between strict or obscure imitation and cantus firmus setting is less apparent in
this section. Furthermore, the fragmented cantus firmus is difficult to follow and less coherent.
Thus, more important in this confirmation section is Agricolas clarification of his idiomatic
fragmentation and obscuration of cantus firmus through syntactical demarcation via stylistic
juxtaposition and balanced, delineated phraseology.
The Quarta parsxliii features cantus firmus as both a strict canon in the lower voices and
free imitation in the upper. The nature of the canon and upper lines suggests this section was not
composed simultaneously but rather successivelyxliv, an antiquated method by the beginning of
the 16th century. Successive composition, erudite canon, and florid counterpoint strongly
suggests older styles. However, frequent points-of-imitation, motivic repetition, and cadential
punctuation bespeak modern contextualization.
A soprano-alto imitative cantus firmus duet begins the pars. The duet cadences on C (m.
103), entering an intermediate phrase of cantus firmus point-of-imitation, which cadences
strongly on D (m. 105), bisecting this pars. Beginning the second phrase (mm. 106 122), the
lower voices, in a cantus firmus mirror canon, accompany the now free upper voices (Figure 6).
The canon is continuous and unembellished while the upper lines are non-imitative, delineated
by small cadences, and employ motivic repetition, which has been altogether absent in this piece
thus far. The section expectedly ends on a strong D-cadence.
This pars confirms Agricolas interplay and juxtaposition of style: first, free point-of-
imitation in a modern style; second, erudite canonic writing against successively written florid
counterpoint, reinterpreting an old style with a modern inflection.

 Key | 11

Figure 4: Reduction of canon on benedictum (mm. 106-119)

The Quinta pars completes Agricolas confirmation. Thus, we expect a final confirmation
of his poly-stylistic thesis and some recapitulation. The section begins with full cantus firmus
point-of-imitation, and as expected the point-of-imitation ends in measure 127 with a relatively
weak cadence. Measures 127-128 act as a bridge from the full imitation to Agricolas idiomatic
imitative pairing against free counterpoint in measure 129. In measure 130 Agricola idiomatically
evades expectation by giving us a strong cadence in C.xlv
Beginning in measure 131, Agricola builds tension, slowly ascending to D5 in measure 133.
At this point, Agricola has completed the cantus firmus for the sections text, so all voices engage
in free counterpoint. However, he regulates freedom by employing his tightest sequence of
cadences. Starting in measure 133 at the sections apex, Agricola begins a long sequential descent
of cadential figures on all tones of the mode expect E. Furthermore, all cadences share a similar
motivic pattern. (Example 4) By measure 138, Agricola has sequenced down to F4, at which point
he begins a prolonged strong cadence on F. After two measures, it resolves and ultimately
concludes on the most extended D-cadence of the motet.
Recall the introduction featured an elaborate octave descent in the alto and soprano from
D5 to D4. In this conclusion, Agricola takes that same idea and greatly expands its proportion
from three measures (mm 1-3) to nine (mm. 133-142). This nicely recapitulates material from the
introduction, concisely re-elaborating Agricolas archetypical use of myriad cadences, rhythmic
and melodic complexity, phraseology, and cantus firmus material in a varied imitative style.

Example 5: motivic repetition and sequenced cadences from mm. 133-138

 Key | 12

While this concludes Agricolas confirmation, it does not conclude the argument; a
refutation and summation are still required. This non-finalized conclusion is mirrored by the
somewhat evasive resolution at the end of the Quinta pars. While the cadence resolutely arrives
on D, the florid addition in the alto and bass cadence two measures later on G create a dual-
cadence on D and G (Example 5). The finality of D is clearly subverted by the harmonic ambiguity.
While the structural significance of this moment is unquestionable, the pieces momentum is not
wholly halted.

Example 6: dual-cadence on D and G at the end of the Fifth Part

~ Salve Regina: Sexte and Septima pars, Refutation ~
The refutation addresses opposing viewpoints to the thesis. In the case of Agricolas poly-
stylistic thesis, we anticipate exclusive examples of formally coherent strict imitation and
structurally ambiguous florid counterpoint.xlvi
The Sexte pars is short and consists of one four-parted cantus firmus point-of-imitation,
followed by mostly controlled counterpoint, lacking Agricolas typical floridity. The section is
starkly simple, straightforward, and unimaginative as compared to those that precede it. Without
any rhetorical consideration, this section would seem at odds with this motets style. The phrase
structure is vague, the use of cantus firmus is not inventive, and the melodic writing is uninspired.
This is Agricolas response to exclusive use of strict imitation.
The Septima pars is more formally interesting due to its use of mirror cantus firmus in the
lower voices along with this motets first use of triple meter. Here, style is reminiscent of earlier
florid writing in a number of ways. First, the only uses of imitation are embedded and just briefly
between two voices. Second, the long tones of the cantus firmus are reminiscent of early 15th
century cantus firmus treatments. Third, there is no use of strong cadence in all of the Septima
pars. This section also seems somewhat idiosyncratic given the content of the confirmation.
Considering the two extremes encapsulated in Agricolas polystylistic thesis, these two
sections function as the rhetorical refutation of that thesis. These are the alternatives to that
espoused in the confirmation. Inconsistent with the five preceding parts, the refutation is the
motets most anomalous section. If not consciously rhetorical, one must question why such
undistinguished writing contiguously exists with individualized erudite composition.
Both refutations distinguish themselves by their exceptionally inconclusive resolutions.
While all other pars conclude on some D-cadence, both refutations end on A-cadences: the first,
 Key | 13

a formal A-cadence, and the second, a weaker Phrygian A-cadence. Due to this progressive
weakening of the refutations sectional cadences, each passing refutation aurally weakens the
strength of the counter-argument. The strength of the original modal final is lost as the truth of
the original thesis is lost in the refutation. Thus, the power of the thesis when it returns in the
summation with the modal final D is strengthened by the prior aural weakening of the refutation.

~ Salve Regina: Octava pars, Summation ~
The summation amplifies and reaffirms the strength of the thesis through recapitulation
without any sense of momentum.xlvii Essentially, the momentous closure has already transpired
at the end of the confirmation, and so the conclusion lacks any sense of climax.
The beginning of the Octava pars is clearly retrospective: divorced from the Sexte and
Septima pars, and stylistically inline with the confirmation. Congruent with expectations
developed in the confirmation, this pars appropriately begins with a strict point-of-imitation
derived from the cantus firmus. The cantus firmus point-of-imitation is so reminiscent of the
original Salve Regina motive from the introduction that the recapitulation is without question.
The point-of-imitation concludes stereotypically with a weak cadence (m. 179), here on
D, further reinforcing finality by avoiding modal departure. Following the cadence, the bass and
tenor sing the cantus firmus in canon against the upper voices (mm. 180-184), which are in florid
counterpoint delineated through various weak cadences. Once the cantus firmus ends in
measure 184, all voices begin a free frenzy of counterpoint until the rather anticlimactic
conclusion on a strong D-cadence (m. 188).xlviii
As demanded, Agricolas summation simply restates the basic tenets of his thesis without
possessing any sense of momentum. Arguably, the music has lacked momentum since the end of
the Quinta pars. The Octava pars adds nothing new or remarkable; it evades no expectations. It
is an unequivocal declaration of the truth Agricola believes his thesis possesses.

~ Conclusion ~
Agricolas style is not easily accessible. Fabric Fitch encapsulated Agricolas style,
characterizing it as a capricious combination of the systematic and the whimsical.xlix This is true.
Agricolas style is an outgrowth of old and new trends during the late 15th century. While cantus
firmus setting and obscured imitation were declining in popularity, Agricola did not sacrifice the
old style for the new trend of pervasive imitation and paraphrase cantus firmus. Rather, Agricola
sought a combinatorial style, creating a unique formal discourse framed by his own eccentricities.
In his Salve Regina I, Agricola proves that there is more rational in his capricious music
than was perhaps previously perceived by modern musicology. Agricolas contemporary encomia
stands in contrast to the dearth of modern scholarly literature or performance of Agricolas
music. It is posited that Agricolas work has been largely avoided because it evades classification,
being neither like Josquin nor like Ockeghem, not clearly 15th nor 16th century.
Fitch proposes that Josquin and Agricola are polar opposites, representing a duality that
pervades every aspect of musical syntax from the time. He makes these dualistic comparisons:
Josquin, economical, Agricola, prolix; Josquin, Apollonian, Agricola, Dionysian; Josquin, linear,
Agricola, tangential.l While not wholly incorrect, Agricola penetrates Josquins language too
frequently to say they represent polar opposites. Agricola is writing in a rhetoric that is
informed by and attempting to synthesize Josquins style with the style of prior generations.
 Key | 14

Rather than the opposition to the Apollonian, he bridges the Apollonian and Dionysian. While the
Dionysian pervades the surface of Agricolas music, a systematic and carefully crafted Apollonian
approach encompasses the broader and deeper structure.
To fully understand this master, one must see Agricola not merely in a post-dialectic
framework, as Fabrice Fitch proposes, where opposites co-exist without the need for
comfortable synthesis.li Agricola is intrinsically interested in dialectics. His writing is not just a
collage of musical artifacts indiscriminately thrown together without concern for coherence. The
synthesis is erudite and assuredly dialectic. Agricolas Salve Regina I is staggering and a testament
to his genius at the beginning of the 16th century. It is not only a masterpiece of polyphony but a
tour de force of compositional rhetoric, demonstrating to the highest degree Agricolas mastery
of technique, proficiency in formal design, flare for inventiveness, capacity for cleverness, and
desire to push his craft to its limits.


End Notes

i
Lerner, Edward R. The Sacred Music of Alexander Agricola. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1965. 378
Lerner believes that any study of Agricolas sacred music must ultimately examine the relative importance of the
categories of his work.
ii
Fitch, Fabrice. "Agricola and the Rhizome: An Aesthetic of the Late Cantus Firmus Mass." Revue Belge De
Musicologie / Belgisch Tijdschrift Voor Muziekwetenschap 59 (2005): 65-92. Fabrice Fitch in this article proposes a
new way of understanding the widely understudied music of Alexander Agricola, particularly his Masses, a repertoire
of music that has been considered somewhat unusual by both modern scholars and contemporaries.
iii
Edwards, Warwick. "Alexander Agricola and Intuitive Syllable Deployment." Early Music 34, no. 3 (2006): 409-26.
th
Warwicks article explores modern and contemporary concepts of text setting in polyphony of the 15 century,
particularly in the highly melismatic music of Alexander Agricola.
iv
Wegman, Rob C. "Agricola, Bordon and Obrecht at Ghent: Discoveries and Revisions." Revue Belge De Musicologie
/ Belgisch Tijdschrift Voor Muziekwetenschap 51 (1997): 23-62. This article is a follow-up to the work done by Lerner
on uncovering the mostly vague biography of Agricola. This article argues for a new, slightly earlier placement of
Agricolas career, removing him as a direct contemporary of the Josquin generation and rather placing him in the
generation between Ockeghem and Josquin, along with contemporaries like La Rue and Obrecht.
v
Lerner, Edward R. The Sacred Music of Alexander Agricola. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1965. 117
vi
Ibid., (116)
vii
Ibid., (118)
viii
Ibid., (200) Lerner makes this intriguing comparison of compositional design while also equating Salve Regina II to
polyphonic settings of the Magnificat and points out Agricolas interesting, though not artistically original, use of
two cantus firmi in this setting: Salve Regina in the soprano, alto, and bass and a melody from Walter Fryes motet,
Ave Regina Coelorum. According to Lerner, in no other motet does Agricola incorporate a foreign melody as a
second cantus firmus. (200) In doing this, Agricola is expanding the discursive dimensions of his Salve Reginas,
elevating the motets to an artistic level akin to the Mass.
ix
Famous Salve Reginas by contemporaries and predecessors include Josquin DesPrezs, Pierre de la Rues, Guillaume
DuFays, and Johannes Ockeghems, each of which have approximately 180, 100, 225, and 240 breves respectively.
Agricolas first setting has approximately 360 breves, outstripping the longest listed here by over 100 breves
x
While the Salve Regina is a modern liturgical artifact, prior to the Council of Trent (1545 1563) the Salve Regina
was used in extra-liturgical settings. Thus, we cannot assume a liturgical text ever guaranteed liturgical use. As a
th
consequence of its private devotional use, a Salve Regina motet in the 15 century did not have to be as functional
as a Mass. Furthermore, the ambiguity of the motet as a genre grants it a degree of freedom in pace and form. Thus,
it is reasonable to expect the most adventurous writing of a composer in this genre, which perhaps partly explains
its rise in popularity. In essence, the motet was an outlet for compositional virtuosity, individualism, and
 Key | 15

experimentalism that would have not been permissible in a strict, functional, and widely consumed form like the
Mass. If a perhaps problematic and anachronistic comparison can be made, the Mass, typically performed in a large
th
pubic forum for a functional purpose, is like the symphony of the 19 century. Conversely, the motet, frequently
th
without a specific liturgical function and for private services, fulfilled a role similar to the string quartet in the 19
century. While compositional mastery is required in symphonic writing, the writing in such a genre typically made
appeal to wide audiences. Consequentially, the symphony was less experimental and introspective than its
counterpart, the String Quartet. Similarly, the Mass had to be musically appealing and formally understandable to
larger and somewhat less musically educated audiences; as such, the Mass, while not without its cleverness and
experimentation, perhaps tended to be less extreme and diverse than its less functional counterpart, the Motet.
xi
Fitch, Fabrice. Agricola and the Rhizome: An Aesthetic of the Late Cantus Firmus Mass. Revue Belge De
Musicologie / Belgisch Tijdschrift Voor Muziekwetenschap 59 (2005). (88) citing A.W. Ambros, Geschichte der Musik,
rd
5 vol., 3 edn, rev. O. Kade (Leipzig, 1887-1911; reprinted: Hildesheim, 1968), III. P. 247. A. W. Ambros critiques
Agricolas music, calling it mrrischen, bellaunigen, finsteren Contrapunct (surly, ill-tempered, dark
counterpoint), which Fitch notes was clearly not meant as a compliment. However, Ambros spoke from an
Apollonian bias, seeking systematic structures and archetypal rules, which was typified more aptly by Josquins
style and his aesthetic peers. Agricola defies most clear archetypes and systems, making him difficult to classify and
thus undesirable as a model of study.
xii
For example, the wealth of modern writing available on Josquin is staggering as compared to many of his
predecessors and contemporaries, particularly those of more musically antiquated and aloof dispositions (i.e.
Ockeghem, La Rue, and Agricola).
xiii
Josquin did have the advantage of living almost 20 years longer than Agricola.
xiv
Lerner, Edward R. The Sacred Music of Alexander Agricola. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1965. 35.
According to Lerner, Jacobus Meterus (1531) names Agricola as one of the greatest Franco-Flemish musicians.
xv
Ibid., 36. The poet Jean Lemaire de Belges (c. 1473 c. 1525) described Agricola as one-hundred times brighter
than quicksilver.
xvi
Ibid., 37. Among the respected music theorists of the day, Aron and Gafori mention Agricola, citing his works as
model examples of modal usage and implementation of parallel tenths between outer voices.
xvii
Fitch, Fabrice. Agricola and the Rhizone: An Aesthetic of the Late Cantus Firmus Mass. Revue Belge De
Musicologie / Belgisch Tijdschrift Voor Muziekwetenschap 59 (2005). 65. The frequency of Agricolas name and works
in the prints of Petrucci is second only to Josquins in secular works.
xviii
Young, C. "Reassessing Agricola: Alexander Agricola (d. 1506): Between Vocal and Instrumental Music, VI.
Trossinger Symposium Zur Renaissancemusikforschung, Hochschule Fur Alte Musik, Trossingen, 28 April 2006." Early
Music 34, no. 4 (2006). 717. The famous singer/composer/string-player[?] from Ghent, who, in his own day, could
apparently command a significantly higher salary in Italy than his colleague Josquin des Prez, has continued to
receive less air-time than Josquin, Ockeghem and Obrecht in terms of concert performances and recordings.
xix
Lerner, Edward R. The Sacred Music of Alexander Agricola. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1965. 373.
Agricola essentially fashioned the older melismatic style to the newer phraseological style akin to Josquin, who used
frequent contrapuntal, melodic, and harmonic cadences to demarcate smaller units of larger musical sections.
xx
Note that these are paradigms and that many of Agricolas actual cadences incorporate numerous embellishments
and come in a variety of forms, particularly in the weaker and deceptive classifications of each type.
xxi
One could think of Josquins music as composed of mostly simple sentences (i.e. basic syntax with few or no
clauses). However simple, they are concisely well-written. Conversely, Agricolas music is composed of mostly
complex sentences (i.e. many simple sentences joined with a variety of conjunctions and containing various clauses).
Such a syntax can express the same information as a series of simple sentences. However, a complex sentence is
more nuanced and linguistically denser, demanding a higher level of comprehension and attention from the reader.
Neither is better than the other; both are merely stylistic preferences. However, people naturally tend to prefer
clarity in rhetorical prose, and thus tend to favor composers like Josquin more than Agricola. Simply, Josquin favors
periods while Agricola favors commas, semicolons, colons, hyphens, parenthesis, and periods in equal measure.
xxii
The intricacy of which is so novel that Lerner observed that if the music is halted at any single point, the voices
are usually revealed to be holding different note values. Lerner, Edward R. The Sacred Music of Alexander Agricola.
Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1965. 374.
 Key | 16

xxiii
The first is akin to proceeding generations style of imitation, where all voices participate in a regular and clearly
prepared point-of-imitation. The second style is reminiscent of Ockeghems style, where embedded point-of-
imitation arises out of freely contrapuntal lines and are not clearly prepared or fully participated in by all voices.
xxiv
In the manuscripts, his text setting and placement of syllables is generally vague, and the repetition of text, which
frequently seems necessary, is rarely specified.
xxv
Lerner, Edward R. The Sacred Music of Alexander Agricola. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1965.
(201-205) Lerner gives a prolonged discussion regarding the possible origin of Agricolas exact version of the cantus
firmus. While it is clear Agricola was using a stylized version of the standard Salve Regina, there are some slight
variations. While this is an interesting question, since the cantus firmus is clearly enough Salve Regina, this debate
is needless in the present discussion, as one might assume such slight variations were the work of Agricola himself.
xxvi
Ibid., 375
xxvii
Ibid.
xxviii
Agricolas particularly longwinded treatment of cantus firmus pieces can be appreciated when compared to his
pieces that lack such devices, such as his Lamentations. Within such pieces, the lines are greatly simplified, perhaps
due to the lack of an obvious macro-structural device and the consequent need for more formal clarity.
xxix
Ibid.
xxx nd
Beale, Walter H. Real Writing: Argumentation, Reflection, Information. 2 ed. Glenview, III.: Scott, Foresman,
1986. In this text, Beale outlines the five elements of the classical argument, one of the oldest organizing devices in
rhetoric. The five parts of a discourse are considered necessary for persuasion and were often prescribed in the
above order because such a scheme compelled the argument to take account of the most important elements of
rhetorical composition. Beale summarizes the above elements of effective composition as beginning in an
interesting way, providing background or context that was relevant to their specific audience, stating their claims
and evidence clearly and emphatically, taking account of opposing viewpoints and anticipating objections, and
concluding in a satisfying and effective way.
xxxi
As mentioned earlier, Lerner suggests that the many incongruences between the familiar Salve Regina chant and
Agricolas cantus firmus are perhaps due to Agricola using a version of the chant from a lesser known source. While
this is an interesting proposition, there is no evidence to give it credence. Given the wide popularity of the familiar
version of the chant, it is likely that Agricola would have known it. Furthermore, it also seems unlikely that Agricola
would have chosen an obscure version that few would have known. Given that all his contemporaries listen above,
along with most of his predecessors, including his own teacher, used the traditional Salve Regina in their own pieces,
it is likely that Agricola would desire do the same. Thus, while there are minor incongruences, the simpler and more
logical scenario is that Agricola provided slight variation as he felt was necessary. Thus, the introduction to his motet
is free material and is probably not making reference to the beginning of some unknown version of Salve Regina.
xxxii
The two sub-phrases form an antecedent and consequent relationship, the second a motivic inversion of the first
over the same melodic contour.
xxxiii nd
Beale, Walter H. Real Writing: Argumentation, Reflection, Information. 2 ed. Glenview, III.: Scott, Foresman,
1986. IN
xxxiv
Ibid. The narration should establish a context for ones argument. By its end, the audience should understand
the purpose in making and developing the argument. At this point, the rhetoric begins to greatly complicate itself.
Having already presented basic ideas and theses in the introduction, the narration begins developing the defense.
xxxv
This is one example of Agricola exposing his fluid treatment of cantus firmus material. The quick interchange here
between where the cantus firmus is in the texture and the order in which it is introduced (first Bass to Soprano and
then Soprano to Tenor), foreshadows more unconventional cantus firmus treatment to come.
xxxvi
Interestingly, Agricola has provided an organic form of melodic cadence in the upper parts, which gives definition
to the smaller units of the line. These melodic cadences are simply rests. However mundane it may seem, the use of
rest here is quite functional. It is likely the singers would have needed a moment to breath. Furthermore, the long
lines need definition, which is provided by these breaths.
xxxvii nd
Beale, Walter H. Real Writing: Argumentation, Reflection, Information. 2 ed. Glenview, ill.: Scott, Foresman,
1986. IN
xxxviii
By avoiding resolutions on D and continually shortening each phrase, Agricola has consciously constructed
devices to propel his discourse.
xxxix
Interestingly, the close of the Seconda pars uses a weak formal cadence. Perhaps this weaker cadence interprets
the forlorn nature of its text (mourning and weeping in this valley of tears). Furthermore, such a text also begs
 Key | 17

continuation to something more promising, justifying the use of a weak cadence rather than a strong final cadence.
xl
The alto voice, though the first to enter, is a rhythmically corrupted version of the following points of imitation.
xli
This modal migration from final to reciting tone will continue to be a rhetorical device Agricola employs.
xlii
What is remarkable in the upper counterpoint is that at each imitative cantus firmus exposition one of the upper
voices comments by faux-imitation of its corresponding cantus firmus fragment.
xliii
Not essential to his rhetorical confirmation, but significant in demonstrating premeditation of composition, is the
micro-part on et Jesum set before the Quarta pars. This text set to four chords is near the geographical center of
the piece (approximately 194 breves prior to and 164 following it), evidencing Agricolas intrinsic concern with
balance and form. Furthermore, the fact that this text is set so simply, shows Agricolas awareness of his own
prolixity, which might demand clarity when the text is primary. This text concerning Jesus (theological center of
Christianity), demands geographical and aural centering. By giving it structural significance and setting it in a starkly
contrasting style, Agricola places the centrality and eminence of Christ above his own rhetoric. This moment is
dislocating amid the surrounding dialogue, but the reason is clear.
xliv
Blackburn, Bonnie J. "On Compositional Process in the Fifteenth Century." Journal of the American Musicological
Society 40, no. 2, 210-84. 213. In this article, Blackburn confirms the phenomenon called simultaneous conception
th
arose early in the fifteenth century and that it existed side by side with successive composition throughout the 15
th
and 16 centuries.
xlv
However, this coincides with the text phrases end, which Agricola tends to diligently serve in his music.
xlvi nd
Beale, Walter H. Real Writing: Argumentation, Reflection, Information. 2 ed. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman,
1986. IN
xlvii
Ibid.
xlviii
Significantly, this is the first strong D-cadence since the conclusion of the Third Part before the enunciation of Et
Jesum in measures 98 and 99. By withholding the strong D-resolution since Et Jesum, Agricola further highlights
the centrality of Christ in his music and evidences the premeditated formal, phraseological, and harmonic/cadential
coherence of his motet.
xlix
Fitch, Fabrice. Agricola and the Rhizome: An Aesthetic of the Late Cantus Firmus Mass. Revue Belge De
Musicologie / Belgisch Tijdschrify Voor Muziekwetenschap 59 (2005). 72
l
Ibid., 91
li
Ibid., 89


 Key | 18

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Brussels, Bibliothque Royale MS 9126 fol. 138v-143r, Agrico

Secondary Sources:

Agricola, Alexander, and Edward R. Lerner. Alexander Agricola: Opera Omnia. Vol. 4. Rome:
American Inst. of Musicology, 1966.
Atwell, Scott David. Cadence, Linear Procedures, and Pitch Structure in the Works of Johannes
Ockeghem. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Michigan State University, 2001.
Blackburn, Bonnie J. "On Compositional Process in the Fifteenth Century." Journal of the
American Musicological Society 40, no. 2, 210-84.
Edwards, Warwick. "Alexander Agricola and Intuitive Syllable Deployment." Early Music 34,
no. 3 (2006): 409-26.
Fitch, Fabrice. "Agricola and the Rhizome: An Aesthetic of the Late Cantus Firmus Mass."
Revue Belge De Musicologie / Belgisch Tijdschrift Voor Muziekwetenschap 59 (2005):
65-92.
Lerner, Edward R. The Sacred Music of Alexander Agricola. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University
Microfilms, 1965.
Ross, Ronald D. "Toward a Theory of Tonal Coherence: The Motets of Jacob Obrecht." Musical
Quarterly The Musical Quarterly 67, no. 2 (1981): 143-64.
Ultan, Lloyd. "Middle and Late Fifteenth Century - Johannes Ockeghem." In Music Theory:
Problems and Practices in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1977.
Wegman, Rob C. "Agricola, Bordon and Obrecht at Ghent: Discoveries and Revisions." Revue
Belge De Musicologie / Belgisch Tijdschrift Voor Muziekwetenschap 51 (1997): 23-62.
Young, C. "Reassessing Agricola: Alexander Agricola (d. 1506)--Between Vocal and
Instrumental Music, VI. Trossinger Symposium Zur Renaissancemusikforschung,
Hochschule Fur Alte Musik, Trossingen, 28 April 2006." Early Music 34, no. 4 (2006):
717-18.

Tertiary Sources:

Wegman, Rob C. "Agricola, Alexander." Grove Music Online. Oxford Music

Online. Oxford University Press, accessed November 26, 2015,
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/52210.