) setting of the Magnificat.One of the biblical canticles, sung with an antiphon at the end of Vespers. The text as it appears in St Luke’s Gospel (i.46–55: ‘My soul doth magnify the Lord …’) evidently derives from an earlier Jewish or Jewish-Christian hymn. The use of the Magnificat at the end of Vespers, where it replaced Psalm cxl (Vulgate numbering) – a common practice at this Office in Oriental rites, was first prescribed in the Rule of St Benedict (c535).
RUTH STEINER/KEITH FALCONER (1), WINFRIED KIRSCH (2), ROGER BULLIVANT/R (3)
The Magnificat is chanted to a canticle tone, a formula somewhat more elaborate than a psalm tone, the mode and ending (differentia) of which are determined by the antiphon. In some manuscripts, including several of the oldest antiphoners, special series of antiphons for the Magnificat are provided. These quote or paraphrase the Magnificat text, and usually appear in an order corresponding to that of the phrases on which they are based (see CAO, i, 1963, no.142, Compiègne; ii, 1965, no.142, Hartker). Antiphons from this series are sometimes incorporated in the ferial Office (op. cit., i, nos.37–43, Ivrea). Some of these texts are short, and the musical settings are quite plain. It has been proposed that these are the original Magnificat antiphons.
In another group of antiphons, intended for both the Magnificat and the Benedictus (the canticle of Lauds), the texts are based on the Gospel lesson of the Mass of the day. This sometimes results in the juxtaposing of markedly dissimilar ideas and literary themes. Some of these texts are long, though their musical setting is usually simple. In earlier manuscripts (11th century) a choice is often permitted from among these for a particular day, but in later manuscripts only two are provided, one for each of the New Testament canticles. In some instances these antiphons (in evangelio) are the only Proper chants in the Office for a particular day.
The tone to which the canticle is chanted seems not to have been fixed until a relatively late date; manuscripts differ a good deal in details. Peter Wagner published two versions of the canticle tone (Einführung in die gregorianischen Melodien, iii, Leipzig, 1921/R, pp.98–9, 102–3); others were published by P. Ferretti (Estetica gregoriana, i, Rome 1934/R; Fr. trans., enlarged, 1938, pp.303–6) and W.H. Frere (The Use of Sarum, ii, Cambridge, 1901, pp.lxvii–lxxi). A late date for the codifying of these tones is also suggested by the fact that antiphons for the Magnificat and Benedictus are usually not differentiated in tonaries from other antiphons.
Apart from the Ordinary of the Mass, the Magnificat was the liturgical text most often set polyphonically from the mid-15th century to the beginning of the 17th. The wide dissemination of the polyphonic Magnificat is doubtless linked with liturgical practice: established as the textual climax of daily Vespers, the Latin Magnificat was sung in both Catholic and early Protestant churches, usually in polyphony, on Sundays and feast days; and the musical-liturgical authorities were continually demanding the preparation of Magnificat settings in different modes (to match those of the framing antiphons). Thus there are relatively few composers of sacred music during the 15th and 16th centuries who did not set the Magnificat at some time. A fairly large number of settings were written by composers such as Du Fay and Stoltzer (who wrote five), with later composers writing increasing numbers of settings – Appenzeller wrote 12, Victoria 18, Palestrina more than 30 and Lassus about 100. In the 16th century the settings by Morales were the most widespread, while the settings of Gombert and Gaffurius, for example, have survived in only one source each. In the 15th century most settings were for three parts, whereas in the 16th (until about 1560) most were for four parts.
The manuscript and printed sources containing polyphonic Latin Magnificat settings are spread throughout the centres for sacred music during the 15th and 16th centuries, even though in the 15th century there was a predominance of Italian and afterwards of German sources – the latter not least because of the large number of editions designed for use in Protestant services. The earliest example of a polyphonic Magnificat dates from the 14th century (GB-Cu Kk.1.6.) and is an anonymous fragment. The real tradition began in the first half of the 15th century (Du Fay, Binchois) with the transmission of individual pieces in manuscripts containing a mixed sacred repertory by several composers, and was followed by a considerable increase in sources from the 16th century. From about 1520 there are manuscripts, and after 1534 prints, which contain either exclusively or predominantly Magnificat settings (e.g. D-Ju Cod.20; I-Rvat C.G.xv.29, xv.36, xvi.12, viii.39; RISM 15347, 15348, Attaingnant; 15444, Rhau; 15533, Du Chemin; 15578, Le Roy & Ballard).
The form and style of the polyphonic Magnificat was determined by three factors. First, the general vocal and polyphonic style that happened to be in vogue at a given time and in a given place exerted much influence. Thus, for example, simple discant settings were most common in the 15th century, while from the beginning of the 16th century settings with melodic through-imitation prevailed, and in Germany pure cantus firmus adaptations were preferred for a long time. Second, the conditions of musico-liturgical practice determined the relative complexity of style in which composers could indulge, so that from the 16th century we find simple fauxbourdon or falsobordone pieces alongside highly artificial motet-like settings. Third, and most important of all, was the cantus prius factus, almost inevitably the canticle tone, which formed the basis for virtually all polyphonic Magnificat settings until the 17th century. Together with the formal structure of the canticle text, the omnipresence of the tone gave the polyphonic Magnificat a distinct character and allowed it to become a largely independent species of motet. The only exceptions to the use of the tone as a cantus prius factus were made by the English composers (John Browne, William Cornysh (ii), Fayrfax, Horwood, Tallis), and in the parody Magnificat settings written since the last third of the 16th century which were based on motets, secular compositions and non-psalmodic cantus firmi (Lassus, Hoyoul, Johannes de Fossa, Demantius, Michael Praetorius). Early parody Magnificat settings include Fayrfax’s ‘O bone Jesu’ and ‘Regali’ and Ludford’s ‘Benedicta et venerabilis’.
The specifically liturgical function of the polyphonic Magnificat is apparent in the formal arrangement of the settings. Until the beginning of the 17th century Magnificat settings were arranged almost exclusively in sections, verse by verse; the large bipartite or tripartite motet form of the 16th century, which combines several verses of text at once, occurs in only a very few examples (e.g. by Gasparo Alberti, Valentin Rab, Jheronimus Vinders). The verse-by-verse setting facilitated the responsorial or alternatim performance of the Magnificat (a method also usual for polyphonic hymns, psalms and sequences). Thus the vast majority of polyphonic Magnificat settings use only half of the ten (with the doxology, 12) verses of the canticle, usually only the even-numbered verses beginning with ‘Et exultavit’. Compositions comprising only the odd-numbered verses usually begin with ‘Anima mea’, and the introductory word ‘Magnificat’ is intoned in plainchant. Only an insignificant few polyphonic settings begin directly with the word ‘Magnificat’ (e.g. by Alexander Agricola, Gasparo Alberti, Johannes de Lymburgia, Valentin Rab, Jheronimus Vinders). Because the basic plainchant sounded the same in all verses of a Magnificat, it occasionally became desirable, in order to economize on effort, to use a single section of music for several verses of text, as in Du Fay’s Magnificat tertii et quarti toni, with the form abcdebcdecd (this technique, like alternatim, was also common in polyphonic hymn settings). Most such strophic settings date from the 15th century and are found in Italian and German manuscripts.
Verses not set in polyphony were normally sung monophonically on the canticle tone or replaced by instrumental music. Of special note are intabulations of vocal pieces, and free paraphrases of the canticle tone. To the former group belong, for instance, an instrumental version of Josquin’s Magnificat quarti toni in a St Gallen manuscript (CH-SGs 530), and the intabulation of various separate movements by Morales in Fuenllana's Libro de musica para vihuela (155432), as well as several pieces in Venegas de Henestrosa’s Libro de cifra nueva (1557) and in Valderrábano’s Libro de musica de vihuela (154725). The second group includes, among others, the explicitly didactic organ versets in the Buxheimer Orgelbuch and Paumann’s Fundamentum organisandi of the 15th century. The earliest, and also the sole surviving Magnificat cycle (all eight tones) for organ is in a print by Attaingnant (RISM 15308).
Within the continental Magnificat repertory the liturgical practice of the time and place determined the choice of antiphons for the Magnificat and thus the number of settings that would be required in a particular mode. The most frequently set tones were the eighth, sixth and first, the least frequently set the seventh, third and fifth. Some composers used several tones simultaneously in a single setting (including Du Fay, Brumel, Le Brung, Martini, Johann Walter (i), Clemens non Papa and Gombert). Local liturgical preferences also led to new arrangements of existing settings, evidence of which can be seen in variations among the surviving sources of a composition. The Magnificat settings by Costanzo Festa, for example, survive as continuously polyphonic settings of all 12 verses in manuscripts written for the papal choir (I-Rvat C.S.18 and C.G.XII.5), which seldom used alternatim performance. Four of the same works survive in a choirbook at S Maria Maggiore in Rome arranged for alternatim, setting only the even-numbered verses in polyphony. Similar variety is found among the sources of Morales’s Magnificat settings: in editions printed by Scotto (1542) and Rhau (1544) they appear as eight continuously polyphonic settings, one on each tone, while in Gardano’s edition of 1545 (on which Anglès based his edition in MME, xvii, 1956) they are arranged as 16 settings, an odd- and an even-numbered group for each tone. The influence of locale even extended to choice of style; for example, many written for the papal choir (e.g. by Festa, Morales, Palestrina and Victoria) increase the number of parts for the concluding doxology, and often introduce canons and other contrapuntal artifices.
In the sources from about 1500 onwards Magnificat settings are arranged ever more frequently according to the tones: the original names ‘Primi toni’, ‘Secundi toni’ and so on, are already to be found in the 15th century. The earliest complete Magnificat cycles (eight settings, one for each tone) that can be regarded as the original work of one composer are by Sixt Dietrich (1535) and Senfl (1537). Some Magnificat cycles of this sort, not at all ambitious from a compositional point of view, were clearly didactic examples showing how to set the eight canticle tones in polyphony (e.g. the settings by Martin Agricola in Rhau’s Ein kurtz deudsche Musica of 1528 or the anonymous settings in the Berg edition Kirchengesanng teutsch und lateinisch of 1557, also in manuscripts at D-Ju Cod.34, E-Bc 682 and GB-Lbl Add.4911). These show direct expression of the compositional principle that determines every polyphonic Magnificat – ‘variatio’. This is the task of arranging the constant plainchant in a different polyphonic way from verse to verse. The constraint of presenting the unalterable given plainchant in several different forms in a comparatively small space and with limited stylistic resources meant that many Magnificat settings (especially those of the minor masters) have a cramped, unnatural style showing an unbalanced relationship between ‘elaboratio’ and ‘inventio’.
In the 15th and 16th centuries the melodic and harmonic relationship of Magnificat settings to the plainchant model could be highly varied. Simple adaptations of the canticle tone, usually in the top part, with chordal accompaniment were the rule during most of the 15th century (see the settings of Du Fay and Binchois); at the turn of the 16th century the tone often appeared as a cantus firmus in long notes and varying degrees of melodic ornamentation could be added by way of paraphrasing the tone in the ‘free’ parts (techniques combined in Josquin’s Magnificat tertii toni); after 1520 it became the rule for the initio and terminatio of the canticle tone to be included in the polyphonic texture, often as points of imitation (see the settings of Gombert and Palestrina), while the repeated notes wholly disappeared. The presence of at least the outlines of the tone formed the stereotype element of all Magnificat settings, the style of which often hovered between melody and psalmodic recitation, depending on the model used.
Above
all, in the course of the 16th century the polyphonic Magnificat became
an increasingly hybrid genre, standing between strict liturgical music and
extended motet form, and contributing equally to the development of both. This
character is visible in works that contributed to the development of polychoral
writing, particularly in northern Italy in the first half of the 16th century
(such as the polychoral Magnificat by Gasparo Alberti, antiphonally set
from verse to verse, in choirbooks of about 1545 now at Bergamo, I-BGc
1207–9). It is also evident in a small group of 16th-century Magnificat
settings that have Latin and German Christmas carols interpolated between the
verses, rather like textual and musical tropes; these are a special instance of
folk tradition, clearly confined to Reformation Germany. Nevertheless, traces
of it are still apparent in Bach’s first (E) setting of the Magnificat.
The Magnificat settings by Palestrina and Lassus represent a consolidation of all the 16th-century currents in the genre, serving as a guide for the stile antico settings of the 17th century. Those of Lassus, numbering over 100, must be given pride of place. About 40 of them are not based on the normal plainchant, but on other cantus firmi, on unrelated motets or on secular pieces. Indeed, it seems that Lassus devised this special class of parody Magnificat (the first edition of them appeared in 1573). Examples by other composers are all somewhat later, including those by Balduin Hoyoul (1577), Christoph Demantius (1602), Michael Praetorius (1611) and Johann Stadlmayr (1614).
The English tradition of the Latin Magnificat has always been somewhat distinct from that on the Continent, providing, for example, the earliest examples of the parody Magnificat, by Fayrfax and Ludford, in the early 16th century (see above). Settings by English composers of this time are unusual in other respects, too: in contrast to continental compositions, they are mostly five-part; in addition, the number of voices is changed frequently within a work, there are many fluent changes of register, and they are founded on small-scale structures, often with a caesura at the half-verse; but the most significant departure from the continental Magnificat lies in the fact that English composers did not usually adopt one of the eight canticle tones, but used instead in the tenor an improvised faburden, that is, the lowest voice (tenor) of a three-part movement, with the plainchant cantus firmus in the middle voice. The earliest surviving Magnificat (already noted) is this type of three-part faburden movement. Later examples are provided in the treatise of an anonymous Scottish theorist (Gb-Lbl Add.4911, c1560). However, the treatment of an independently devised faburden in the tenor voice is seen in most English 15th- and 16th-century composers. A most important source for English Magnificat style is an incomplete choirbook at Eton College (GB-WRec 178), which dates from the period 1490 to 1504, and once contained 24 Magnificat settings, of which ten survive. It contains further examples by English writers such as Nesbet, Kellyk, Walter Lambe, Stratford, Richard Davy, Robert Wilkinson and Sygar.
After 1600 settings of the Magnificat began to show the new Baroque style with its enormously increased resources of colour and potentialities of word-painting. The Magnificat text provides ample opportunity for the depiction of words, both emotional (‘exultavit’, ‘humilitatem’, ‘timentibus’, ‘dispersit’, ‘deposuit’ etc.) and purely illustrative (as when the full ensemble enters after a solo passage at ‘omnes generationes’ or a phrase is left incomplete at ‘dimisit inanes’). Stile antico settings are found from the early Baroque period, such as the three by Stefano Bernardi (DTÖ, lxix, Jg.xxxvi/1, 1929, pp.53–60) which start with an intonation of the plainchant and continue chorally, retaining the sectional construction and prevailing homophony of 16th-century settings and adding the occasional instance of word-painting (e.g. ‘dispersit’ in the third setting).
Unquestionably the greatest early Baroque Magnificat settings are the two with which Monteverdi concluded the Vespers of 1610. The first is a massive piece requiring considerable instrumental resources, the second an alternative, simpler version for smaller forces. As in the Vespers as a whole, Monteverdi achieved a remarkable coordination of styles, combining plainchant and vocal polyphony on the one hand with instrumental ritornellos, echo effects and other modern devices on the other. The concertato sectional construction of the early Baroque is evident, as is seen from the opening of the larger setting:..\Frames/F921218.htmlThe return of the opening material of the work at ‘Sicut erat in principio’ in the ‘Gloria’ occurs in both settings, and is an obvious illustrative device found in later Magnificat settings (although it can apply, of course, to any psalm setting and in fact appears in some of the other psalms of the Vespers). As with many devices of this kind, it performs a useful musical function in providing an element of recapitulation.
The great Magnificat by Schütz (swv468) is another notable monument of early Baroque sectional style, and shows the influence of the polychoral style of Giovanni Gabrieli. It is for two choirs, one coro favorito (select choir), trombones, strings and continuo, and is a fine example of Schütz’s use of concertato effects. At the outset the single favorito tenor alternates with the full ensemble: a substantial instrumental passage for the trombones with continuo then introduces ‘Et exultavit’ as a favorito soprano and tenor duet; ‘Quia respexit’ is for favorito bass with two violins and continuo. The ‘Sicut erat in principio’ recapitulatory device just mentioned is exemplified here also.
As the Baroque period progressed, such sectional construction gradually evolved into a sequence of more self-contained ‘numbers’ (arias, choruses etc.) as is the practice in the works of Bach and Handel. The Magnificat in D attributed to Buxtehude, for five-part chorus, five soloists, two violin parts and continuo, shows only minimal signs of this development, although the bass solo ‘Esurientes’ and the soprano duet ‘Suscepit Israel’ do point the way. A feature typical of Buxtehude is the instrumental ritornello heard at the opening, after ‘timentibus eum’, and again before the final ‘Gloria’, though in other respects the work seems to lack the hallmarks of his style. In the Magnificat of 1657 by J.R. Ahle (DDT, v, 1901/R) ‘Magnificat anima mea Dominum’ takes 20 bars and ‘Exultavit … salutari meo’ a further 26, and subsequent sections follow this pattern, each ending with a definite cadence usually in the tonic, A. Although there are still changes of time, speed and so on within each section (e.g. ‘Magnificat’, full, triple time; ‘anima mea Dominum’, tenor and continuo only, quadruple time), there is clearly a tendency here towards the use of separate numbers. The setting is for four-part choir and four-part instrumental ensemble (cornett and three trombones or violin, two violas and violone). No solo voices are indicated, but their use might be implied in suitable contexts. ‘Omnes generationes’ receives the illustrative treatment mentioned above and ‘dispersit’, ‘esurientes’ and ‘inanes’ are also suitably depicted.
The Magnificat
by Dionigi Erba for double choir and strings is chiefly known for Handel’s use
of much of its material in Israel in Egypt. Its date is not known, but
the late Baroque style is clearly evident in the use of separate numbers and in
a stylized use of chromaticism, often used to prepare a cadence or other
important event: thus ‘humilitatem’ produces digressions to B minor, A major and F minor from a local tonic of F
major (main tonic A minor). The solo pieces now have ritornellos. The duet for
two basses at ‘Quia fecit … timentibus eum’ became ‘The Lord is a man of war’
in Israel in Egypt, and the dissonance expressing ‘misericordia’ was
used by Handel for ‘[His chosen captains] also are drowned’.
In Vivaldi’s Magnificat for four-part choir, soloists and strings the familiar late Baroque design is fully established. There are nine numbers, six choral and three solo (assuming the three voice-parts of ‘Sicut locutus’ to be solo). ‘Et exultavit’, for soprano, contralto and tenor soloists in turn, contains two choral interjections for the inevitable ‘omnes generationes’. ‘Et misericordia’ is typically mournful and makes much of ‘timentibus’, the strongest chromaticism being significantly left for the end, where it also functions as preparation for the final cadence. ‘Deposuit’ is notable as being a chorus entirely in octaves, including the instruments. In an alternative version the solo pieces are replaced by more brilliant arias intended for pupils at the Ospedale della Pietà, three separate numbers now replacing the above-mentioned ‘Et exultavit’ (thus making 11 numbers in all), exemplifying even more strongly the late Baroque tendency towards the maximum number of separate pieces.
J.S.
Bach wrote his Magnificat for his first Christmas at Leipzig, 1723. It
is a festive setting in E, including trumpets and drums. Effectively there are
now 12 numbers, ‘omnes generationes’ being virtually a chorus in its own right,
though still inextricably connected to the preceding ‘Quia respexit’ soprano
aria. The solo numbers are, however, remarkable for their brevity as compared
to the average length of Bach’s normal cantata arias. They show considerable
variety of instrumental colour. ‘Timentibus’ produces striking chromaticism at
its final appearance (preparatory to the final ritornello) and ‘inanes’ is
depicted not only by a preparatory chromatic chord but also by the cutting off
of the two obbligato recorders just before they reach the final chord. In the
‘Suscepit’ the German Magnificat plainchant is played by the trumpet
against the counterpoint of the three upper voices, the lower parts being
silent, an ethereal effect. There is the conventional recapitulation at ‘Sicut
erat’. The autograph score also includes four Christmas pieces, interpolations
into the Magnificat text proper: Vom Himmel hoch (a short working
of the chorale), Freut euch und jubiliert, Gloria in excelsis Deo
and Virga Jesse. They would have been inserted into the work at
appropriate points in conformity with Lutheran practice. Bach later rearranged
the work in D (more normal for trumpets and drums), making a number of changes
in detail and removing the special Christmas interpolations. It is in this form
that it was performed in Leipzig in 1728–31 and is generally known today.
Bach probably represents the extreme of the extended treatment of the text in separate numbers. As the Classical period approached the tendency (as in the mass) was towards a more concise setting, but with a vital difference of approach. In Baroque settings each set of words was allocated its own music, often with definite word-painting; Classical composers, however, tended rather to design a complete movement in a definite form – often a rather free sonata form – and then to fit the words to this as best they could (such methods of construction are sometimes called ‘symphonic’). Thus in Classical settings the music originally designed for one phrase of the words may be repeated to a quite different one (and even repeated again, thus bearing three sets of words in all).
These
developments are already evident in the Magnificat for four-part choir,
four soloists (presumably) and strings attributed to Pergolesi. The number of
separate movements is now reduced to six. The first chorus takes the words as
far as ‘sanctum nomen ejus’ (no.5 in Bach’s setting). It is a ternary movement
in B using the same
plainchant as Monteverdi did (as it happens with the same notes, although
Monteverdi’s settings are really in G minor). ‘Magnificat … salutari meo’ forms
the A section, ending in the dominant, and ‘Quia respexit … omnes generationes’
(no depiction of these words) the B section, mainly in the mediant minor
and ending with a firm cadence in that key. For the first time there is an
artificial repeat of the initial words ‘Magnificat anima mea’ to the original
opening plainchant: it appears in D minor in the B section and is used,
at its original pitch, to mark the return of the A, before the text
proper is resumed from ‘quia fecit’ onwards. It continues to appear against
‘sanctum nomen ejus’. The cadence theme originally set to ‘in Deo salutari’
appears at the end to ‘sanctum nomen ejus’, now diverted to end in the tonic.
All this shows the new subservience of the words to purely musical
considerations: form has begun to have priority over word-setting. ‘Et
misericordia’ starts as a soprano and contralto duet, but leads directly to a
chorus for ‘Fecit potentiam’. ‘Deposuit’ is a fugue, but the fugue subject
later takes the words ‘et divites dimisit’ – a change that would have been
quite unthinkable in the Baroque period. The latter part of the work is less
far removed from the older methods, and the time-honoured ‘Sicut erat’
recapitulation is used, the return being made to the opening B plainchant with these new words. It
leads to a fugal conclusion and a further triumphant statement of the
plainchant to ‘et in saecula saeculorum, Amen’. The plainchant is thus used
more sparingly but structurally more significantly than in Monteverdi.
C.P.E.
Bach’s Magnificat (1749), which has become popular in recent years,
harks back to Baroque methods in the number of separate movements employed,
though not in the musical style generally. The key is the same (D) as the
well-known setting of J.S. Bach and by coincidence the opening bar sounds as if
it might be the beginning of the older composer’s work. The listener soon
realizes that the busy semiquavers, which in the father’s work were an
essential part of the contrapuntal web, are in the son’s simply decorative
material over a harmonic background. Many of the movements now have substantial
ritornellos, and the solo pieces especially tend towards a sonata-form
structure, thus showing much in common with the contemporary concerto. The
soprano aria no.2 ‘Quia respexit’ is notable for its patch of harmonic colour
at bars 5 and 7 of the ritornello, later used to depict ‘humilitatem’: the use
of a concord of a remote key (A
minor), although explicable as a double sharpened appoggiatura
decorating an ordinary chord, nevertheless looks forward to Romantic harmonic
technique. The ‘solo exposition’ (to use concerto terms) makes a very firm path
from B minor to the relative major, the modulation being prolonged by an
interrupted cadence in G minor (preparatory chromaticism in a typical Classical
usage). ‘Ecce enim’ is used as a kind of second subject (bar 23, recapitulated
65). Choral depiction of ‘omnes generationes’ is now a thing of the past: it
would disrupt the clear sonata-form structure. Similar second subjects, but to
the same words as the opening, can be found in the tenor aria no.3 ‘Quia fecit’
(bar 50, recapitulated, oddly at the same position initially, at 104) and in
the chorus no.4 ‘Et misericordia’ (bar 14, recapitulated 57). The latter piece
makes much of ‘timentibus’, the composer perhaps remembering his father’s
memorable final setting of the word. The bass aria no.5 ‘Fecit potentiam’ has a
second subject brilliantly depicting ‘dispersit superbos’ (bars 48, 122). No.6
consists of two alto and tenor duets, the first, ‘Deposuit’, in A minor and the
second, ‘Esurientes’, in F (the linking of what are really separate numbers by
a modulatory passage is found also in the composer’s piano sonatas). The final
aria, no.7 ‘Suscepit’, in D minor, makes an effective preparation for the D
major recapitulation of the opening of the work, not at ‘Sicut erat’ but more
logically at ‘Gloria Patri’, ‘Sicut erat’ being set to a long fugue which,
typically of a period in which fugue was ceasing to be a natural mode of
expression, makes great play with academic devices. In all, C.P.E. Bach’s Magnificat
is a kind of equivalent to the ‘cantata mass’ (as exemplified by Mozart’s Mass
in C minor k437): it employs the old separate numbers
technique, but within each number the methods are strictly those of the
Classical period, the words being subordinated to the musical design, their
expression being general rather than specific.
The Magnificat
of G.A. Fioroni (GB-Lbl Add.31310), for two choirs and double orchestra,
is interesting as an example of an early Classical setting in that although
there are separate numbers they are not entirely self-contained. The main tonic
is F major, and the opening F–G–A–G–F motif is probably a reference to the above-mentioned
plainchant. The first solo ‘Et misericordia’ for tenor begins in B but ends in F, to be
followed by a ‘Fecit potentiam’ chorus in F. ‘Deposuit’, a bass solo, begins in
A minor but ends in C, leading to ‘Esurientes’. Unity of key begins to be
established towards the end: ‘Suscepit’, opening in D minor, works its way
round to the dominant of F with F minor preparatory harmonies and a long
melisma on ‘saecula’ over a dominant pedal. By a clever stroke the ‘Gloria’
opens not in the expected tonic but in A minor (soprano solo), thus keeping the
listener waiting for an important event. The return to the opening key and
material is reserved until ‘Sicut erat’, the composer thus happily combining a
modern device with an old tradition. As in C.P.E. Bach’s setting, an alla
breve fugue to ‘et in saecula saeculorum’ completes the work.
The symphonic style of Magnificat setting is carried to its logical conclusion in the final movement of Mozart’s Vesperae solennes de Confessore k339 (1780). Here the words have become almost completely subservient to the form. The Magnificat (one of six pieces forming the complete Vespers) is set as a single sonata-form allegro with an adagio introduction. The key is the main tonic, C major, and trumpets and drums are used, as in the first number of the work. The allocation of words is as follows:..\Frames/F921219.htmlThe only possible concessions to the words are the use of a solo quartet after the full chorus at ‘et misericordia’, a sudden piano at ‘humiles’, the use of soprano solo, with a diminished 7th drop, at ‘esurientes’ and another piano at ‘dimisit inanes’. Any of these devices could have occurred anyway (there is, for instance, another sudden piano at ‘saeculorum’ in the ‘Gloria’): their use is incidental rather than integral, and Mozart’s setting thus stands at the opposite pole from those of the Baroque period.
After a dearth of Magnificat settings in the Romantic period, modern composers have returned to the text with new inspiration. In 1958 the American composer Alan Hovhaness produced an essentially popular Magnificat employing modern orchestral effects such as low string tremolos, senza misura, and neo-organum and modal harmonic techniques. Despite this, the words are still set in separate choral and solo numbers, the first being an orchestral introduction entitled ‘celestial fanfare’, and there is even a separate chorus (sopranos and altos) for ‘omnes generationes’. A notable ‘traditional modern’ setting is that of Lennox Berkeley (1968) for chorus and orchestra without soloists. With obvious profound differences this nevertheless looks back in some ways to the early Baroque sectional construction with its due regard for the words. Near the opening a triadic motif in the orchestra is taken up by unaccompanied sopranos entering with the single word ‘Magnificat’, using a diminished triad – almost a kind of B-mode plainchant. The end of a first main section is marked by the unaccompanied chorus singing ‘sanctum nomen ejus’, followed by an orchestral postlude. The idea of ‘sanctum’ – not a word usually chosen for depiction at this point – inspires solemn, largely diatonic progressions. ‘Et misericordia’ is in eight parts, entirely unaccompanied in a free use of the E-mode. A turbulent orchestral prelude, possibly inspired by similar events in Janáček’s Glagolitic Mass, ushers in ‘Fecit potentiam’, and ‘dispersit’ is traditionally set. Quite original, however, is the little ternary section at ‘Esurientes’; filling the hungry with good things is depicted in an almost diatonic G major (Lento, 3/4), while ‘et divites’ is gigue-like and more chromatic, dying away to an almost longing repeat of ‘inanes’ that seems to suggest some sympathy with the rich, before the G major section returns with its own words. Another sectional break occurs at ‘misericordiae suae’, again an E-mode ending; the orchestra introduces an unaccompanied ‘Sicut locutus’. The ‘Gloria’ admirably links the old and the new, the rhapsodic melismas, possibly suggested by Stravinsky’s mass with wind instruments, giving place to the traditional return to the opening triadic motif in the orchestra, introducing ‘sicut erat’.
Penderecki’s Magnificat (1974) is a setting for soloists, chorus and orchestra in the composer’s typical manner of bizarre solo writing, massed choral effects and strange orchestral sonorities. It is in several sections, but the tone is almost constantly dark and heavy, bringing the piece closer to Penderecki’s earlier works on Passion and Requiem texts than to any other setting of this young girl’s song of praise. Arvo Pärt’s Magnificat (1989), on the other hand, is a setting of great delicacy and intimacy. Scored for unaccompanied mixed choir, and written in Pärt’s characteristic tintinnabuli style, it alternates between a two-part ‘verse’ texture (solo soprano coupled with other single vocal lines) and a three-part ‘choral’ texture (with occasional doubling at the octave to create six parts).
MGG2(K. Schlager, W. Kirsch)
J. Udovich: ‘The Magnificat Antiphons for the Ferial Office’, JPMMS, iii (1980), 1–25
MGG2(K. Schlager, W. Kirsch)
C.-H. Illing: Zur Technik der Magnificat-Komposition des 16. Jahrhunderts (Wolfenbüttel and Berlin, 1936)
P. Giuliana: History and Development of Magnificat Settings in the 15th and 16th Centuries (diss., New York, 1950)
J. Meinholz: Untersuchungen zur Magnificat-Komposition des 15. Jahrhunderts (diss., U. of Cologne, 1956)
G. Reese: ‘The Polyphonic Magnificat of the Renaissance as a Design in Tonal Centers’, JAMS, xiii (1960), 68–78
H. Albrecht: ‘Ein quodlibetartiges Magnificat aus der Zwickauer Ratsschulbibliothek’, Festschrift Heinrich Besseler, ed. E. Klemm (Leipzig, 1961), 215–20
W. Kirsch: ‘Die Verbindung von Magnificat und Weihnachtsliedern im 16. Jahrhundert’, Festschrift Helmut Osthoff zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. L. Hoffmann-Erbrecht and H. Hucke (Tutzing, 1961), 61–74
G. Bork: ‘Die mehrstimmigen lateinischen Magnificat-Kompositionen in der Kirchenordnung von Pfalz-Zweibrücken (Neuburg) aus dem Jahre 1570 (1557)’, Beiträge zur Rheinischen Musikgeschichte, lii (1962), 39–54
P. Doe: Preface to Early Tudor Magnificats I, EECM, iv (1964)
G. Gruber: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Kompositionstechnik des Parodiemagnificat in der 2. Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts (diss, U. of Graz, 1964)
E.R. Lerner: ‘The Polyphonic Magnificat in 15th-Century Italy’, MQ, l (1964), 44–58
W. Kirsch: Die Quellen der mehrstimmigen Magnificat- und Te Deum-Vertonungen bis zur Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts (Tutzing, 1966)
D.E. Crawford: Vespers Polyphony at Modena’s Cathedral in the First Half of the Sixteenth Century (diss., U. of Illinois, 1967)
G. Gruber: ‘Magnificatkompositionen in Parodietechnik aus dem Umkreis der Hofkapellen der Herzöge Karl II. und Ferdinand von Innerösterrreich’, KJb, li (1967), 33–60
C.J. Maas: Geschiedenis van het meerstemmig Magnificat tot omstreeks 1525 (Groningen, 1967)
C. Hamm: ‘Musiche del quattrocento in S. Petronio’, RIM, iii (1968), 215–32
M.J. Smiley: The Renaissance Organ Magnificat (diss., U. of Illinois, 1970)
V. Ravizza: ‘Frühe Doppelchörigkeit in Bergamo’, Mf, xxv (1972), 127–42
L.D. Cook: The German Troped Polyphonic Magnificat (diss., U. of Iowa, 1976)
R.G. Luoma: ‘Aspects of Mode in Sixteenth-Century Magnificats’, MQ, lxii (1976), 395–408
C.J. Rutschmann: Magnificats in the Trent Codices: a Critical Analysis (diss., U. of Washington, 1979)
J.J. Lopez Carrera: ‘La música sacra española en el siglo XVIII: el libro de Magnificat de Luis Serra en la tradición de la composición del Magnificat’, Artigrama, i (1984), 369–72
R. Cammarota: The Repertoire of Magnificats in Leipzig at the Time of J.S. Bach: a Study of the Manuscript Sources (diss., New York U., 1986)
R.M. Cammarota: ‘The Magnificat Listings in the Various Bibliographic Editions of the Nonthematic Breitkopf Catalogues’, IMSCR XIV: Bologna 1987, 56–7
J.E. McCray: ‘A Survey of Published Magnificats for Treble Voices’, Choral Journal, xxviii (1988), 5–11
R.L. Marshall: ‘On the Origin of Bach's Magnificat: a Lutheran Composer’s Challenge’, Bach Studies, ed. D.O. Franklin (Cambridge, 1989), 3–17; repr. in R.L. Marshall: The Music of Johann Sebastian Bach: the Sources, the Style, the Significance (New York, 1989), 161–73
U. Wolf: ‘“Et nel fine tre variate armonie sopra il Magnificat”: Bemerkungen zur Vertonung des Magnificats in Italien im frühen 17. Jahrhundert’, Neues musikwissenschaftliches Jahrbuch, ii (1993), 39–54
For further bibliography see Canticle and Divine Office.