26. Taverner ‘O Wilhelme, pastor bone’

(For Unit 6: Further Musical Understanding)

Introduction and Performance circumstances John Taverner (c.1495–1545) was one of the last English composers to write church music exclusively for the Latin services of the pre-Reformation church, and a major musical figure in the middle years of Henry VIII’s reign. His surviving work consists mainly of masses, settings of the Magnificat, and votive antiphons. Votive antiphons were settings of Latin texts addressed to Jesus Christ, to the Virgin Mary or another saint, and were performed as acts of devotion after an important church service. Almost certainly born in Lincolnshire, Taverner was associated with the collegiate church at Tattershall before becoming the first master of the choristers at Cardinal Thomas Wolsey’s magnificent Cardinal College, Oxford (now Christ Church) from 1526 to 1530. In the 1530s he returned to Lincolnshire, and was active at Boston Parish Church under whose soaring tower – known as the ‘stump’! – he lies buried. In the last ten years or so of his life he appears more or less to have abandoned his career in church music, and to have become increasingly involved in the business and civic life of Boston. The story of O Wilhelme, pastor bone (‘O [St] William, good shepherd’) is a curious one. No piece of that name exists in any 16th-century source. There is, however, a votive antiphon entitled O Christe Jesu, pastor bone in one source and Christe Jesu, pastor

bone in another: a prayer to Jesus Christ is followed in the former by a prayer for Henry VIII and in the latter by a prayer for Elizabeth I. There are good grounds for supposing that O Christe Jesu is an adaptation of an earlier text connected with Cardinal College which contained prayers to St William of York (one of Wolsey’s predecessors as Archbishop of York) and for the cardinal himself. O Wilhelme as printed in the Anthology combines a reconstruction of this text with the music that survives from (O) Christe Jesu. The tenor part of the latter was lost long ago: the corresponding part in the Anthology is editorial – an attempt to supply something that fits the surviving four parts and is as close as possible to Taverner’s own style. When originally composed, O Wilhelme would have been sung as a votive antiphon in the course of a special act of devotion that was required to take place each day after one of the evening services at Cardinal College.

Performing Forces and their Handling

O Wilhelme is for a five-part choir (five-part writing was as common in early 16th-century England as four-part writing became later): x Treble (the highest part) – originally sung by boys (‘trebles’ – not girls or women

sopranos). x Mean (the second highest part) – apparently also sung originally by boys.

x Countertenor (translation of Latin ‘contratenor’, and highest of three parts for men). Assuming that the music was sung at printed pitch,* this is what we should now call a tenor part: it is too low for a male alto or countertenor part.

x Tenor (the reconstructed part) – of baritone range. x Bass. *Some authorities have suggested that much early Tudor music was sung a minor 3rd higher than present concert pitch, but this view, which would result in O Wilhelme

sounding in A flat major with a surprisingly high treble part, is problematic. In bars 43–47 trebles divide into two parts, the second actually starting higher than the first. This kind of part-division, not uncommon in early Tudor church music, was known as gymel or gimel(l), a term related to the Latin word for twins. Voice ranges are modest by some later standards: x Treble: a 9th – E–F. x Mean: an 11th – G (below middle C) to C. x Countertenor: a 9th – E to F, an octave below the treble. x Tenor (as reconstructed): a 9th – (tenor) C to D. x Bass: a 10th – low F to A.

Texture

The most striking feature texturally is the contrasting of different numbers of voices. x All five voice-parts are used together to provide a full, sonorous effect after passages

with fewer voice-parts. See bars 10–16, bars 29–32 (at the end of the first main section), and bars 48–67 (to end the piece, although with brief reductions from bar 56).

x ‘Reduced’ passages tend to come together in pairs, one with the two boys’ parts, the other with the three men’s parts: see the opening, and ‘Fundatorem…’ (bars 33ff). The men precede the boys at ‘Confer opem…’ (bar 16).

x Such contrasting of groups is antiphony. Each passage of an antiphonal pair has the same text, and musical ideas are repeated – but the change from two parts to three (or the reverse) means that the repeat must be a varied one.

Much of the music is homophonic (rather than contrapuntal as in a great deal of 16th-century church music). This was probably intended to aid clarity of text projection: words will be heard most readily if all parts have more or less the same text at the same time. x Some homophony is of the chordal or homorhythmic kind where all parts move

together in exactly the same rhythm: see for example bars 20–23 and several parts of the second main section (from ‘Fundatorem’). It may have been expedient to ensure that the cardinal’s name was clearly heard!

x Sometimes the homophony is less ‘strict’, as in the opening duet, or where a homorhythmic passage includes some freer moments (e.g. at ‘Serva’ in bar 35 and ‘Tue-(are)’ in bar 45).

x The expression ‘melody-dominated homophony’ could be used of some passages, where one part (usually the highest) has the most clearly-defined melodic content.

See in particular the opening antiphonal exchange where the top part remains constant while the other part(s) are different, and ‘Fundatorem…custos horum’ in the second main section where the cantus firmus is passed between treble, bass, first treble and countertenor.

Only the closing bars are genuinely contrapuntal. x There are imitative entries in all voices for the words ‘aeternae vitae premium’. x Imitation is not always exact. x It is not ‘pervasive’ in the manner of some Renaissance polyphony. Especially as the

final cadence approaches, a part that has been involved in imitation tends to run on with free material; indeed the most prominent melodic element in the closing bars is not the imitative point but the independent phrase in the treble at bar 63.

Structure

There are two main sections, one for each of the two six-line stanzas of the text. (Text and translation are printed in the Anthology, page 538.) x Bars 1–32 are a setting of the first stanza (addressed to St William). x Bars 33–67 are a setting of the second stanza (with the prayer for Cardinal Wolsey). The two main sections are of similar length – a satisfying form of structural balance not uncommon in the work of Taverner and his contemporaries. Section 1 is itself divided equally: x Bars 1–16 are a setting of lines 1–3. The texture is reduced (two voices, three

voices) then full. x Bars 16–32 are a setting of lines 4–6. They have similar textural contrasts. Section 2 has two important sub-sections, but the balance is different and may be interpreted in two different ways: First way: x Bars 33–52 (20 bars) have four statements of the (five-bar) cantus firmus. These

bars treat lines 1–4 from stanza 2: statements 1 and 2 are settings of lines 1–2, while statements 3 and 4 are settings of lines 3–4.

x Bars 52 (last crotchet)–67 (15 bars) treat lines 5–6 more expansively than any of the preceding text. This emphasises the final petition for the ‘reward of life eternal’, although it was customary in Taverner’s day (as very often since) to give musical as well as textual weight to a concluding passage by relatively extended text treatment.

Second way: x Bars 33–47 (15 bars) are in two parts or three (reduced texture). x Bars 48–67 (20 bars) employ all five parts (full texture), despite a few rests of

medium length to lighten the texture in the middle.

The second interpretation, with its 15 + 20 bars, is numerically a reversal of the 20 + 15 bars of the first. Perhaps the two interpretations are deliberately complementary: other hidden numerical relationships exist in pieces by Taverner, and presumably reflect late medieval theories of the interdependence of number and music.

Tonality

The system of major and minor keys dependent on functional tonic-dominant-subdominant harmony had not evolved by Taverner’s time. Music was then governed by modes and six-note scales known as hexachords, but how all this worked in theory and in practice is beyond the scope of A-level studies. A ‘presentist’ approach, with reference to familiar major and minor keys is convenient and appropriate for our purposes, provided that we remember that Taverner himself would have seen and heard things differently. O Wilhelme is partly in F major and partly in G minor: x It begins and ends in F major (or Ionian mode on F). x Almost half of it is in (modal) G minor: bars 22 (last crotchet) –52. x This tonal structure may seem odd and unfamiliar – but only if it is viewed in the

light of the ‘conventional’ schemes of later functional tonality (e.g. the tonic (major)–dominant– minor key(s)–tonic of many sonata-form movements).

x Taverner’s tonal scheme is a ‘one-off’ rather than an early 16th-century standard scheme.

x It is not possible to account for it in terms of later norms of text treatment (major = bright, minor = dark). For although the music turns minor at the phrase ‘vitae sordes’ (‘the sins of this life’) it stays so when (for example) the text refers to ‘the joy of a heavenly crown’.

Note: When studying tonality and harmony, be aware that: x The two 16th-century copies of (O) Christe Jesu do not always provide the same

accidentals. This explains some apparent discrepancies between different editions and recordings.

x Sixteenth-century singers sometimes apparently inserted accidentals that were not notated, especially raised leading notes in minor-key cadences. Thus the mean’s F in bar 52 might have been sung sometimes as F sharp, as in a modern G minor cadence. (If the F natural in the reconstructed tenor matches what Taverner wrote, then there would have been a false relation between the F natural and the ‘improvised’ F sharp, but such an effect is more characteristic of Tallis than Taverner.)

Harmony General observations: x The harmony is not functional in the manner of (e.g.) Classical-period music. x In bars 33–52 choice of chords is governed by what will fit with the cantus firmus. x Elsewhere the harmony is to some extent a by-product of the simultaneous

movements of the various parts. This does not mean that it is random or accidental – there is a sense of harmonic progression, but it is not useful to try to describe this in terms of later functional harmony.

x Some cadences can be compared with types that students learn to write in SATB or chorale work for units 6MU03 and 6MU05. Thus:

o The final cadence is plagal in F major. o There are perfect cadences in G minor in bars 26–27, 47 and 52 and in F

major in bars 55–56. o The cadence in bar 28 is imperfect.

x Otherwise cadences tend to avoid familiar patterns. Harmony in terms of texture: x In the full five-part textures the harmony is based on triads, mostly in root position

but sometimes in first inversion. Root-position chords (assuming that the reconstructed tenor part is ‘correct’) tend to have three roots, one third and one fifth.

x In most three-part writing the tenor is editorial and therefore observations about Taverner’s approach to doubling are risky.

x Baroque and post-Baroque two-part writing always has clear harmonic implications. With Taverner too, there is some sense that full chords are implied by the harmonic intervals chosen (notably F major chords in the F major sections), but essentially the music is generated by two melodic parts whose complementary demands result in a succession of consonant harmonic intervals.

Dissonance treatment: x Dissonance is largely avoided in this highly consonant style. x There are a few brief passing-note dissonances (chiefly from bar 50 onwards – e.g.

the quavers B flat and G in bars 61–62, treble part). x The dissonant quaver C in the treble of bar 52 is a nota cambiata (a dissonance

approached by step from a consonance above and then quitted by a leap of a third down to another consonance, The following note, a second higher, is the resolution of the dissonance).

x There are no 4–3, 7–6 or 9–8 suspensions in our edition. (Possibly Taverner’s lost tenor part included some, but that is just speculation.)

6–5 movement in an upper part above the bass: x Such 6–5 movement (as for example in bars 15–16, treble part: E flat to D and D to C)

can be viewed as a kind of substitute for the suspension and appoggiatura dissonances of later music, providing some mild tension in otherwise consonant harmony.

x In other words, the interval of the 6th above the bass is regarded as a kind of mild dissonance that requires resolution to a 5th rather as a (more dissonant) 7th above the bass requires resolution to a 6th.

x This feeling that the interval of a 6th is somehow incomplete or in need of resolution may help to account for Taverner’s sparing use of ordinary or free-standing 6/3 (first inversion) chords.

x Occasionally, a 6th above the bass falls to a 5th above the bass rather in the manner of a suspension, having been ‘prepared’. See for example the treatment of the treble’s D in bars 15–16, the treble’s D in bar 35, and the second treble’s G in bar 45.

x More commonly a 6th moves to a 5th without this kind of ‘preparation’. x On the third crotchet of bar 15, for example, the treble’s E flat (6th above bass G,

and preceded by an F) falls to D. The effect can be compared with that of an appoggiatura rather as a prepared 6–5 can be compared with a suspension.

x A 6–5 ‘appoggiatura’ may be approached by the rising leap of a 3rd (rather than by step from above as in bar 15): see for example, the C–E–D movement in bars 31–32 (mean) or the C–E flat –D in the treble of bars 35–36.

Accidentals. Melodic considerations govern these to some extent, but it is convenient to include all the following points here under ‘Harmony’. Some Es – both in F major and G minor passages – are natural and some are flat. E flats are used: x Where a B flat is sung in a lower part, thus avoiding an harmonic interval of the

augmented 4th (B flat–E natural). See bars 15 and 60 (but contrast the latter with bar 59 where the countertenor’s E is natural). Note that the augmented 4th has been tolerated in bar 62 where the notes F–E–F in the treble imply a cadence in F.

x In the pattern C–E flat–D (e.g. bars 35–36). There was some contemporary preference for making what we should term the submediant in a minor key flat when it followed and/or preceded the dominant. For this reason, some editors and performers prefer E flat to E natural in bars 25 and 41 (countertenor).

G minor phrases end with tierce de Picardie (B natural) in bars 32, 42 and 52. The F sharps in some G minor cadences are in modern parlance sharpened (or raised) leading notes (e.g. bar 26).

Melody

Each part is very singable, largely because: x There is plenty of conjunct movement. x Leaps of a 3rd, which are usually easy to sing, are common. x Leaps of a perfect 4th and perfect 5th are also found, 5ths coming mainly in the bass

part when the harmony changes from one root-position chord to another a 5th higher or lower.

x Leaps of a 6th and 7th, much harder to pitch reliably, are avoided. x The largest leaps (exceptional) are between adjoining phrases or sections – the bass

leaps up an octave in bar 16 and the mean jumps a 10th between bar 47 and bar 48. x Ascending and descending movement is carefully balanced, notably with a leap in one

direction balanced by stepwise movement in the other in ‘classic’ 16th-century fashion. x But outlines are occasionally a little more adventurous. In particular see the three

successive descents (two of them leaps) in the mean at bar 31 (after all, this is to some extent a ‘filling-in’ part here rather than genuinely melodic). There are successive jumps of a perfect 5th and minor 3rd (outlining a minor seventh D–A–C1) in the mean of bar 64 – but here the D is the end of one phrase while the A is the start of the next.

Regarding text-setting: x Upward movements , especially leaps, often serve to emphasise accented syllables –

e.g. the ‘-hel-‘ of ‘Wilhelme’ in the treble, ‘pa-(ter)’ and ‘(pa)-tro-(ne)’ in bars 8–9 of the treble.

x The text is set syllabically most of the time, but there is a little melismatic writing towards the end, as the style becomes more expansive.

x As a rule in the music of Taverner and his English predecessors each voice-part had the text once only, without the repetition of any words or phrases. However here, especially towards the end, there is some verbal repetition (notably with the treble’s threefold ‘Aeternae vitae premium’).

x Such repetitions are a sign of increasing attention to text from about 1525–30 onwards. There are subtle connections between all this and contemporary incipient Reformation pressures.

x There are no signs of word-painting or expressive response to the text (apart possibly from the switch to minor at ‘vitae sordes’).

The first part of the second main section (bars 33–52) is based on four statements of the melody sung by the trebles at bar 33. x This melody appears in the bass at bar 38, first treble at bar 43 and countertenor at

bar 48. x It acts as a cantus firmus. A cantus firmus is a ‘fixed or ‘given’ melody above, around

or under which other parts are constructed. x Cantus firmi were often used in early 16th-century music. Most frequently they were

borrowed from plainchant, but they could be secular in origin or artificially constructed. The cantus firmus here is of unknown origin, but appears not to be based on plainchant.

Rhythm and Metre

The Anthology edition of O Wilhelme has modernised the notation of rhythm and metre found in the 16th-century manuscript sources of (O) Christe Jesu: x The original note values have been quartered to avoid any suggestion that the music

must be sung very slowly – and to make the music look more familiar generally x Barlines have been added: the manuscripts do not have any. (Singers would have

needed to count very carefully!) x There is a 4/4 time signature (with a single bar of 3/2 at bar 31) whereas the

manuscripts have throughout a version of what we now call a ‘cut common’ signature.

Taverner keeps mostly to just two note lengths (crotchets and minims/tied crotchet pairs) in the first main section. This is unusual, but some other pieces in his day were similarly limited – presumably for ease of reading and performance. From the beginning of the second main section there is some gradual blossoming – at first with dotted crotchet and quaver pairs, later with a few short quaver patterns and some longer notes. There is a good deal of syncopation – although at times it is more natural to hear a particular part as working in triple rather than quadruple metre. x The beginning of the treble part has three minim-crotchet pairs which give this part a

triple-time feeling while the mean part is more clearly in quadruple time.

x Such rhythmic and metrical freedom and diversity is very typical of Taverner’s music. In fact, O Wilhelme, with its homorhythmic passages, is rhythmically quite straightforward by his standards.

Further reading

The items on the following list, though of considerable interest, are not to be regarded as essential reading.

For those who wish to pursue their studies beyond the demands of A2 level, see H. Benham, John Taverner: his Life and Music (Ashgate, 2003). Some of this book can be viewed at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_fZoVDYiifYC&source=gbs_book_other_versions: for information on O Wilhelme (under the title O Christe Jesu pastor bone), click on the chapter beginning at page 115. Christe Jesu was published in the 1920s in Tudor Church Music, volume 3 (OUP, 1924). O Christe Jesu appeared in Early English Church Music, volume 25 (Stainer and Bell, 1981.