Talk:Gaude gloriosa Dei Mater (Thomas Tallis)

From ChoralWiki
Revision as of 17:12, 28 October 2014 by Tim Symons (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

There are two principal sources for this work.

A Oxford, Christ Church, Mus. 979 –83, no 119; Tenor missing

B Oxford, Bodleian Library, Tenbury MSS 807–11; Triplex missing

It is worth noting some minor variants in the verbal text. In the first invocation, all parts except the medius give choros for caelos. While both are acceptable, choros, which must refer to the choirs of angels above which Mary was elevated at her Assumption, is perhaps to be preferred.

In the sixth invocation, the editors of Tudor Church Music (TCM) substituted provecta es for the original proveharis. While provecta es matches the indicative mood of the other subordinate clauses, proveharis fits the music rather better, as the musical emphasis naturally falls on the third syllable, although the use of the subjunctive is certainly curious.

In the eighth invocation, source A reads prece for B’s prole. Again, both readings are possible, but in the context of a Marian votive antiphon, prece is perhaps more likely.

Finally, in the last invocation, A’s reading of juvamine is perhaps to be preferred to B’s in nomine as making better sense and possibly better theology.

As it stands in both the sources, the text ends with the genitive celorum and it therefore seems probable that a word has been lost in the piece’s transmission. Most editors follow TCM by adding the word regnum at the end of the text.

The various and numerous word repetitions (particularly of the word Amen) found in most editions of this piece have no source authority and go against the very melismatic nature of the music.

In the Triplex part at bar 373, all the editions I have seen and recordings I have heard give G as the second note. The source (A) actually gives F. The G appears to be a perpetuation of a typographical error, mistranscription or unrecorded emendation first seen in the original TCM edition. Imitatively, F makes rather better sense, for whatever the first interval of that motif, be it an ascending third, fourth or fifth, the second interval is always a descending second, not the third occasioned by changing the F to a G.

Tim Symons 23:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)