Leseprobe_DTÖ 164

DENKMÄLER DER TONKUNST 

IN ÖSTERREICH 

BAND 164 

CHRISTIAAN HOLLANDER 

LAMENTATIONES JEREMIAE 

Herausgegeben von 

ROBERT L. KENDRICK

DTÖ 164

PUBLIKATIONEN DER GESELLSCHAFT 

ZUR HERAUSGABE DER 



begründet von 

GUIDO ADLER 

unter Leitung von 

MARTIN EYBL 

und 

BIRGIT LODES 










Herausgegeben von 

ROBERT L. KENDRICK 


Bei Aufführungen der in diesem Band veröffentlichten Werke sind 

die Denkmäler der Tonkunst in Österreich als Quelle auf Programmen, in Ansagen usw. zu nennen. 

Mit freundlicher Unterstützung der University of Chicago 

Alle Rechte vorbehalten. 

Vervielfältigung jeder Art, auch durch elektronische Medien, 

nur mit Erlaubnis des Verlages. 

Satz: Gabriel Fischer 

Notensatz: Alexander Rausch 

Redaktionelle Mitarbeit: Sonja Tröster 

Hergestellt in der EU 

© 2022 by HOLLITZER Verlag, Wien 

ISBN 978-3-99094-073-0 

ISMN 979-0-50270-024-9

CONTENTS | INHALT 

INTRODUCTION | 

EINLEITUNG ....................................... VII 

ILLUSTRATIONS | 

ABBILDUNGEN.................................... XV 

SCORE | 

PARTITUR ........................................... 1 

CRITICAL REPORT | 

KRITISCHER BERICHT........................ 55 

APPENDICES | 

ANHANG............................................... 57 


VII 

INTRODUCTION 

1. BACKGROUND 

The precise occasion, the reason for its unusual textual 

selection, and the original destination of Christiaan Hollander’s 

cycle of nine Lamentations Lessons, to be sung in 

five voices during the liturgical service of Matins of Holy 

Week’s last three Days (“Tenebrae”), are still unclear. The 

singer and composer, evidently trained in Low Countries 

choir schools, is first traceable as the chapelmaster in the 

rich Brabant town of Oudenaarde, at the collegiate church 

of Sint-Walburga, where his duties had been detailed in a 

contract of 1549.1 Thus he might have been born around 

1510. Probably in 1559, he was recruited to sing in the musical 

chapel of Emperor Ferdinand I in Vienna. After his employer’s 

death in summer 1564, he seems to have been assigned 

to the newly-formed musical ensemble of Archduke 

Ferdinand II of Tyrol, who was the Statthalter in Prague 

and resident there since 1547, but without a personal chapel 

until 1564. 

Ferdinand II then moved to Innsbruck as Archduke of 

Tyrol. The Archduke’s singers anticipated him by journeying 

there in autumn 1566, while he would not arrive until 

January 1567. Hollander continued to serve the court, in 

failing health, until his death in 1568/69. The composer’s 

journeys from Vienna to Prague to Innsbruck would have 

been part of the larger and difficult Erbteilung of the Austrian 

lands in the Emperor’s heritage.2 

1 Edmond van der Straeten, La musique aux Pays-Bas avant le XIXe 

siècle, ii (Brussels, 1867), 54–56; Eric Jas’ entry on the composer, 

in Ludwig Finscher, ed., Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 

2nd, newly revised edition, Personenteil, ix (Kassel, 2003), cols. 

218–21; Josef Hirn, Erzherzog Ferdinand II. von Tirol: Geschichte 

seiner Regierung und seiner Länder, 2 vols (Innsbruck, 1885–1888), 

i, 35–37 (court life), 41–53 (Erbteilung), 64–67 (entry to Innsbruck), 

and 393–97 (musicians). My thanks to Barbara 

Haggh-Huglo, Sarah Long, Jessie Ann Owens, Erika Honisch, 

Demmy Verbeke, Kenneth Rothwell, Jakub Kubieniec, Lucia 

Marchi, Jens Bruning, Thomas Fröschl, Eric Jas, John Pepper, 

and especially Birgit Lodes, Sonja Tröster, Martin Eybl, and 

Alexander Rausch for their comments; all errors are mine. 

2 The standard study of Hollander’s time in Prague and Innsbruck 

remains that of Walter Senn, Musik und Theater am Hof zu Innsbruck 

(Innsbruck, 1954); for the composition of Ferdinand II’s 

chapel, 1564–1575, see 65–74 and for Hollander’s time in the 

group, see 113–14. There are helpful additions in Peter Tschmuck, 

Die höfische Musikpflege in Tirol im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert: Eine 

sozioökonomische Untersuchung (Innsbruck/Lucca, 2001), esp. on 

Hollander’s 1566 request (denied) for a pay raise based on his 

compositions (p. 66) and his compositional production (165–67). 

Post-1570 Holy Week musical practice in Innsbruck and Hall in 

Tyrol is noted in ibid., 79–82, including the liturgical occasions 

for polyphony. The archival situation is not favorable to further 

tracing of Hollander’s career, as many documents in Oudenaarde 

were destroyed after the iconoclast wave of 1566, and the death 

records of the parish of St. Jakob — today the cathedral — in 

Previous to his time in Innsbruck, Hollander’s motets and 

chansons had circulated in some print anthologies and also 

in the Leiden Choirbooks (the former range from Susato’s 

Unziéme Livre of 1549 to the Berg/Neuber miscellany RISM 

c.155023, while the Leiden sources are NL-L MS. 1438–1443). 

Just before his death, other motets appeared in the massive 

Habsburg court collection titled Novus ac catholicus thesaurus 

musicus (Venice: Gardano, 1568), compiled by Pietro 

Giovanelli (this print also included nine Lamentations Lessons 

by Stephan Mahu, these latter probably written around 

1530). Volumes of Hollander’s German secular songs and of 

his sacred tricinia were printed posthumously (1570 and 

1573), prepared by his fellow singer in Innsbruck, Johann 

Joachim Pühler. 

Still, Hollander’s Lamentations come to us only in a 

single manuscript in Vienna, A-Wn, Cod. 11772 (now held 

in the Sammlung von Handschriften und alten Drucken, 

after previously being in the Musiksammlung); the composer’s 

name is given on the opening folio 1 v as “Christianus 

Hollandus”. The Latin poem that prefaces the musical text 

shows that the codex was a gift to Rudolph II of Habsburg 

as Emperor (thus datable to after October 1576) and “King 

of Hungary”; it was signed (and possibly authored) by the 

Saxon court singer Michael Echamer (variously spelled 

“Aichhammer” or “Eichamer”).3 These laudatory verses 

gratefully address Rudolph as patron of music (Appendix 1); 

the court at this point (up to 1583) was still in Vienna. 

Innsbruck survive only from 1580 onwards. For the most recent 

work on Ferdinand’s Innsbruck court, see now Sabine Haag and 

Veronika Sandbichler, eds., Ferdinand II: 450 Years Sovereign Ruler 

of Tyrol Jubilee Exhibition (I cite from the English edition, n.p., 

2017), esp. Franz Gratl, ‘Music at the Court of Ferdinand II’, 

61–65, and the entries on music, 319–35; most recently there is an 

Innsbruck provenance suggested for the anonymous hymn cycle 

A-Wn Mus. Hs. 16197: Lilian P. Pruett, ed., The Hymn Cycle of 

Vienna 16197 (Middleton WI, 2018; ‘Recent Researches in Music 

of the Renaissance’, 169). On Prague before 1564, see Jan Bat’a, 

‘Ferdinand of Tyrol and the Music Culture in Renaissance 

Prague’, Wissenschaftliches Jahrbuch der Tiroler Landesmuseen, 5 

(2012), 17–23, and on Ferdinand I’s musical chapel that Hollander 

joined in the 1550s, Markus Grassl, ‘Die Musiker Ferdinands 

I.: Addenda und Corrigenda zur Kapelle’, ibid., 25–48. 

3 The original poem is reprinted in Robert Lindell, ‘Music and 

Patronage at the Court of Rudolf II’, in John Kmetz, ed., Music 

in the German Renaissance: Sources, Styles, and Context (Cambridge, 

1994), at 257; I have corrected the Latin text as best possible. 

The manuscript has not been digitized by the ÖNB at the 

moment of writing; it is catalogued as ‘Fragmenta Threnorum 

Ieremiae prophetae modulis musicis quattuor vocum inclusa’ 

(Tabulae codicum manu scriptorum praeter graecos et orientales in 

Bibliotheca Palatina Vindobonensi asservatorum, vol. 7, [Vienna, 

1875], 40), even though it is clearly for five voices throughout. 

This has now been corrected in the online catalogue of the 

Handschriftensammlung. 


VIII 

The manuscript’s watermarks seem to be late sixteenth-century 

Saxon.4 Since there seem to be no surviving examples 

of musical codices written in Dresden in the 1570s, its musical 

scribe is not identifiable; possibly it also was Echamer 

himself. It was prepared expansively and with some care; 

still, its musical text features at least two cross-outs, a few 

pitch mistakes (some with correction indications, some 

not), and several rhythmic errors; there are also odd spellings 

or lexical deviations in the verbal text, discussed below. 

It features a sixteenth-century binding without an ownership 

mark. 

We can presume that the settings were in the possession 

of Echamer before 1576. The Saxon singer (originally from 

the Vogtland, as his dedication notes) had been hired into 

Emperor Ferdinand I’s chapel with Hollander (probably in 

1559), then also serving Archduke Ferdinand II from Prague 

to Innsbruck in the 1560s. Probably the aging Netherlandish 

composer, troubled by illness and low pay in his final years, 

had simply given the music — evidently not suited for the 

print market, unlike Hollander’s secular works or motets 

— to his younger colleague. As the pieces, designed for 

the Triduum in the Catholic Divine Office, would have not 

had a place in Dresden’s Lutheran services, Echamer might 

have thought them more appropriate for the Habsburg 

court chapel and thus gifted them back after a copying process 

of whichever materials he had taken with him from 

Innsbruck.5 Most of Hollander’s music after c. 1560 originated 

in Habsburg circles, and so its presumable copying in 

Saxony to be “returned” to Vienna is striking. 

Echamer’s own role has seemed mysterious in the scant 

scholarly literature.6 As a boy, he likely went to a Lateinschule 

in one of the centers of the Vogtland: possibly Plauen, 

Reichenbach, Gera, Hof, or Cheb/Eger. Since both the 

schools and the Reformation came to these cities at different 

moments, his early formation is unclear. Although later evidence 

suggests that he would have considered himself on 

the “Lutheran” side in the still-fluid spectrum of individual 

belief around 1570, he had functioned perfectly well in the 

Habsburg chapels. 

That he was also a figure of some learning, probably 

capable of composing the Latin poetic dedication himself, is 

evident from his ownership of a copy of Hesiod’s collected 

works in Greek (Basel, 1544), marked on its flyleaf as having 

been acquired by him in Prague in 1565, and then sold to his 

fellow singer — and later court librarian and historian — in 

4 No exact match of the watermark could be found in the available 

databases, but the combination of letters and crescent is the same 

as BR 9848 (Dresden 1577; https:// briquet-online.at/9848); given 

the lack of surviving choirbooks from the 1570s in Dresden, it is 

difficult to compare those of Cod. 11772 with any from the Saxon 

court. 

5 The only Lutheran liturgy post-1560 which seems to have employed 

Lamentations was that of Zittau; see Robert L. Kendrick, 

Singing Jeremiah: Music and Meaning in Holy Week (Bloomington, 

2014), 22. 

6 Robert Eitner, Biographisch-Bibliographisches Quellen-Lexikon 

der Musiker und Musikgelehrten der christlichen Zeitrechnung bis 

zur Mitte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts, vol. 3 (Leipzig, 1900), 323 

(as “Eichhammer”). 

Innsbruck, G(h)erard de Roo, upon the occasion of Echamer’s 

departure for Dresden in 1569.7 The level of culture 

among some archducal musicians was quite high. Echamer 

seems to have stayed in Dresden and to have lived into the 

seventeenth century; he published a now-lost book of Latin 

prayers on the Seven Last Words in Dresden (1597), and 

court payments to him are recorded up through 1602. 

For unknown reasons, the codex has been considered to 

date from 1579.8 Even before the Imperial transition of 1576 

(Maximilian to Rudolph), and as part of Elector August’s 

post-1573 anti-Calvinist turn, Saxon relations with the Imperial 

Court had improved markedly, with one visit to 

Dresden from the Viennese (including Maximilian II and 

Rudolph) after Easter 1575. Another stay followed in the autumn 

of that year, as Maximilian’s health worsened. Echamer 

could have met Rudolph on either visit, perhaps recalling 

his previous service to Ferdinand I (since that monarch 

is also mentioned in his dedicatory poem). Later on, in autumn 

1581, August and some of his court finally came to 

meet Rudolph in person (in Prague), yet another possible 

occasion for the actual presentation of our codex. Although 

Echamer’s inscription might also have been a job application 

for the singer himself at Rudolph’s court, this seems 

not to have worked out. Thus any desire that he might have 

had to rejoin a Habsburg ensemble seems not to have been 

fulfilled, and hence perhaps one purpose of the gift was in 

vain. 

The dedicatory poem presents problems with its hermetic 

neo-Latin. Appendix 1 gives an attempt at a translation; 

in any case, its praise of the Habsburgs as music patrons 

is clear. It is cast in elegiac couplets, as befits a 

humanist product, and points to the prophetic quality of 

Jeremiah’s texts. Equally striking is the lack of any explicit 

reference to Passion recollection or to penance, the nominal 

devotional functions of the Lamentations readings during 

Holy Week liturgy. 

This still leaves open the question of the Lessons’ original 

destination and use in liturgy. They are laid out so as to 

cover a complete cycle of nine readings over the Triduum, 

each ending with the refrain “Jerusalem, convertere ad 

Dominum Deum tuum” (not taken from Lamentations), 

and thus intended for use in the Divine Office. Lessons 1–3 

were for Holy Thursday’s Matins (“Feria V”, anticipated in 

performance to Wednesday afternoon/evening; here abbreviated 

as “F5”); 4–6 for liturgical Good Friday (“Feria VI”, 

sung Thursday; = “F6”); and 7–9 for liturgical Holy Saturday 

(sung late Friday; = “SS”). Hollander’s 1549 contract for 

7 This copy is now in the library of the Civico Museo Sartorio of 

Trieste; see https://www.biblioest.it/SebinaOpac/resource/hesiodi-ascrei-opera-quae-quidem-extant-ommnia-graece-cum-interpretatione-latina-e-regione-ut-confer/TSA2837263?tabDoc=tabloca 

(accessed 7 October 2022). De Roo’s most famous work was his 

Habsburg chronicle, the Annales rerum belli domique… (Innsbruck, 

1592), published posthumously. Still, his nineteen-page 

Latin poem in praise of singers and music, Convivium cantorum 

(Munich, 1585), should be noted, not least because every single 

word in its dedication and poetic text begins with the letter “c”. 

8 For the idea of the 1579 date, see Lindell, ‘Music and Patronage at 

the Court of Rudolf II’. 


IX 

Oudenaarde had said nothing about polyphony at the 

church during Passiontide, and thus more likely origins for 

these works include: Vienna before summer 1564 (for the 

chapel of Ferdinand I), Prague 1565–66, or Innsbruck 1567– 

68 (for Ferdinand II of Tyrol). 

Certainly the Imperial court had a tradition of singing 

Lamentations for Holy Week; Mahu’s Lessons, printed in 

Giovanelli’s 1568 anthology, must represent practice earlier 

in Ferdinand I’s chapel, to which this edition was a monument.9 

There is some chance that Mahu’s cycle, misattributed 

to Pierre de la Rue in one heavily edited and shortened 

German print of 1549, had originally stemmed from the political 

aftermath of Hungary’s 1526 defeat by the Ottomans 

and the ensuing problems of the succession to King Ludvik 

Jagiellon. These earlier Lessons carried two generations’ 

worth of authority by the 1560s, and it seems unlikely that 

Hollander’s cycle was meant to replace them in Ferdinand 

I’s Vienna.10 All things considered, then, it was probably 

meant for Ferdinand II’s court chapel, whether in 

Prague or Innsbruck. In this case, its original composition 

must have been relatively quick, and datable to between 

Lent 1565 and 1568. The master of the Prague-Innsbruck ensemble, 

Guillaume Bruneau, was not known as a composer, 

and thus it seems logical to have assigned the task of creating 

an archducal Holy Week repertory to the most experienced 

figure, Hollander. 

One temporal possibility for the composition or completion 

of the cycle is the first Holy Week that Ferdinand II 

would have spent in Innsbruck, 2–9 April 1567. The Archduke 

had arrived from Prague with great pomp in January, 

and the pieces might have marked his first Lent as local 

sovereign, in a confessionally tense city.11 The seeming references 

in the textual selection of Bible verses to the 

Habsburgs’ struggles against the Ottomans (discussed below) 

would also have resonated with his time on the anti-Turkish 

campaign in summer 1566. 

Given Hollander’s frantic efforts in the 1560s to have his 

more marketable music published, and the evident lack of 

any music printer at that moment closer to Innsbruck than 

was Nuremberg, any attempt to circulate the pieces via 

print was probably precluded.12 Ultimately, we owe the sur- 

9 Giovanelli’s five-volume 1568 Novus ac catholicus thesaurus (Venice: 

Gardano) contained Mahu’s Lessons, which are available in 

a modern edition in Pierre de La Rue, Opera Omnia, viii, ed. 

Nigel St. John Davison, CMM, 97/8 (n.p., 1998), 77–145. 

10 Mahu’s Lessons are discussed in Kendrick, Singing Jeremiah, 

91–97. 

11 The difficult confessional situation in Innsbruck is discussed by 

Hirn, Erzherzog Ferdinand II. von Tirol, i, 64–67, who noted 

that, at the Archduke’s solemn entrance into the city in January 

1567, the clergy both had to be kept distant from the local anticlerical 

(i.e. Lutheran) population and were incapable of singing 

a psalm even in Gregorian chant. Upon its arrival in Innsbruck, 

the court must have thought that all Catholic ceremonial life 

would have to be reconstructed from scratch. 

12 Adam Berg’s (in Munich) first musical print was Lasso’s Neue 

teutsche Liedlein in 1567, but most of his shop’s production was 

non-musical until 1569. Augsburg was geographically just a bit 

further than the Bavarian capital, and the fate of Philipp Ulhard’s 

vival of the music to Echamer’s own loyalty to his deceased 

colleague, as well as to the Saxon alliance with the 

Habsburgs. 

To consider the codex as an object in a courtly gift 

economy is also to ask how it could have been valuable or 

useful at a later moment, for Rudolph’s Holy Week ritual. 

The presentation might have been an implicit suggestion to 

sing Lamentations settings other than those of Mahu. At 

least at the beginning of his reign, the Emperor’s liturgical 

piety took traditional forms.13 Thus the Tenebrae rites likely 

involved his attendance. The next set of Lamentations 

clearly associated with the Habsburg court would be those 

of Carl Luython, printed in 1604; these also are of unusual 

textual stamp compared to the new Roman liturgical 

books.14 

In terms of other Triduum polyphony, until the advent 

of the Styrian musical forces to Vienna with Emperor Ferdinand 

II in 1619, the main court seems not to have sung the 

Responsories following the Lessons in polyphony. Thus sixteenth-century 

Tenebrae in Vienna, Prague, or Innsbruck 

might have included improvised polyphony or chant for 

their psalms (including Psalm 50, “Miserere mei, Deus”) 

and their canticle (“Benedictus Dominus Deus Israel”), 

along with polyphonic Lamentations, and Responsories in 

chant. 

Some slightly later evidence from Innsbruck after Hollander’s 

death suggests that the Tyrolean satellite court, still 

under Archduke Ferdinand II, had indeed added polyphonic 

Responsories to this selection. By the 1580s, this seems to 

have been the usual practice, and was also found at the 

archducal female monastery of Hall in Tyrol.15 If Hollander’s 

Lessons were still in use in Innsbruck at this point, 

their status as a unique gift would seem somewhat compromusic 

press there, active until 1560, is unclear after that date. 

13 For Rudolph’s church-going in the 1570s, see ibid., 99. In terms 

of Rudolph’s own musical experiences, his youthful years at the 

Spanish court (1563–1571) meant that he would have participated 

in eight Holy Week ceremonies there. Notably, the 1602 inventory 

of Philip II’s music books is scarce on Triduum polyphony; the 

older, ‘archival’ section of the collection contains one general 

‘Holy Week book’, and two bound fascicles of various polyphonic 

Lamentations, while the more modern repertory possessed by 

the chapelmaster Géry de Ghersem included no settings at all. 

Nor did the three maestros running the chapel in Rudolph’s years 

leave any surviving Lessons. It seems that the Madrid chapel 

used chant and/or improvised polyphony for its Tenebrae. Thus 

Rudolph’s knowledge of Lamentations up to 1576 might have 

been only Mahu’s settings, and so Hollander’s pieces would have 

been a novelty for him. 

14 The standard article on Luython’s cycle is by Klaus W. Niemöller, 

‘Studien zu Carl Luythons Lamentationen (Prag 1604)’, in Heribert 

Klein and id., eds., Kirchenmusik in Geschichte und Gegenwart: 

Festschrift Hans Schmidt zum 65. Geburtstag (Cologne, 

1998), 185–96. The recently-rediscovered set by Philippe de Monte 

is found in a set of partbooks of uncertain Bohemian provenance 

around 1600, along with motets and vernacular pieces (Stanley 

Boorman, ‘A New Source, and New Compositions, for Philippe 

de Monte’, in Pieter Bergé, and Mark Delaere, eds., ‘Recevez ce 

mien petit labeur’: Studies in Renaissance Music in Honour of 

I gnace Bossuyt [Leuven, 2008], 35–48). 

15 Tschmuck, Die höfische Musikpflege, 80–81. 


X 

mised. Possibly the Tyrolean court had in the meantime 

adopted other settings whose texts were more in line with 

the increasingly standardized Holy Week readings, conceivably 

a now-lost set by Alexander Utendal.16 Later, probably 

after the reconstitution of the court chapel after 1602 and as 

witnessed by the 1665 court music inventory, the local music 

establishment also bought printed polyphonic Lamentations 

and Responsories.17 

In terms of performance practice in Innsbruck, the size 

of the ensemble in Tyrol can be estimated from the Prague 

ensemble of Ferdinand II, which had consisted of ten choirboys 

and about nineteen adult singers. A total of twenty 

persons made the autumn 1566 journey to Innsbruck. Our 

codex is physically large enough that multiple singers per 

voice-part under any circumstances would easily have been 

feasible, even beyond any possible memorization of the musical 

text. Polyphony during the Passion Triduum normally 

excluded the organ. 

Another question is that of the cycle’s creation and relationship 

to written transmission and mental counterpoint. 

As noted by Senn, Hollander needed Pühler’s help in correcting 

the proofs of his works later published in Nuremberg, 

as the latter had “written [out?]” the exempla for the 

print process, and was — unlike the composer — familiar 

with checking printers’ proof-copies.18 This implicitly suggests 

an intermediate stage on paper between the composer’s 

cartella and the preparation of the parts. Possibly the 

frequency of parallel thirds and tenths among voices hints 

at an originally sparser texture, filled out by such devices. 

Hollander’s practice thus seems to stand on the border between 

mental counterpoint and writing, with some suggestions 

of orally created polyphony. 

2. TEXTUAL CHOICES AND 

THEIR IMPLICATIONS 

Hollander’s Biblical selections are without precise parallel 

in the contemporary musical repertory, or even in the various 

local breviaries that lasted in parts of Catholic central 

16 A manuscript containing now-lost Lessons by the slightly later 

Innsbruck vice-chapelmaster Utendal was recorded at a Swabian 

Catholic court (Hechingen) in 1597. – On Cardinal Guglielmo 

Sirleto’s 1572 Holy Week Office printed in Rome and its effects 

on local liturgies, see Kendrick, Singing Jeremiah, 13. 

17 The 1665 inventory of the court’s holdings in Franz Waldner, 

‘Zwei Inventarien aus dem XVI. und XVII. Jahrhundert über 

hinterlassene Musikinstrumente und Musikalien am Innsbrucker 

Hofe’, Studien zur Musikwissenschaft, 4 (1916), 128–47, at 138, 

includes Lamentations by Vittorio Orfino (printed 1589), Fabrizio 

Dentice (1593), Paulo Magri (1597), G. D. Montella (1602), 

and Antonio Mogavero (this last with a Habsburg dedication, 

1623). These editions were probably acquired after the dissolution 

of Ferdinand’s chapel in 1595 (i.e. after the arrival of Maximilian 

the Deutschmeister in 1602). Some such sets might represent the 

Tyrolean Tenebrae repertory after 1575. 

18 Senn, Musik und Theater, 114, noted Hollander’s request to travel 

to Nuremberg accompanied by his wife and by Pühler. 

Europe until around 1600.19 Although they are not as radically 

eclectic as those of Mahu, whose verses skip back and 

forth among the five chapters of Jeremiah’s book in their 

limning of catastrophe, still Hollander’s verses do include 

two cases of “reverse” order (in which a verse from earlier in 

the book is sung after later ones). Like the 1554 printed Lamentations 

of Petit Jan de Lattre (probably stemming from 

the court of the Habsburg prince-bishop George of Liège), 

they eschew, remarkably, any selections from Chapter 5, the 

closing “Oratio Jeremiae Prophetae” of Jeremiah’s book. 

Almost — but not entirely — universally in pre-1570 liturgical 

books, the “Oratio” was normally used, in whole or in 

part, for readings of the third Lesson for liturgical Holy Saturday. 

As such, its verses were normally set to music in polyphonic 

cycles. Mahu’s set of Lessons does indeed end with 

verses from the “Oratio”, although Hollander would have 

been familiar with Tenebrae readings that omitted the 

prophet’s final chapter. 

Appendix 2 (see p. 59) gives the verse choices for Matins 

Lessons that Hollander could have known: the Utrecht 

breviary used widely in Holland; the Tournai breviary employed 

in Oudenaarde; the Passau breviary current in Vienna; 

two differing editions of the Prague breviary; and the 

Brixen/Bressanone breviary appropriate to Innsbruck, a 

part of this diocese. The lack of correspondence suggests 

that someone in Prague or Innsbruck — perhaps de Roo, or 

one of Ferdinand II’s chaplains — came up with the exact 

textual content of Hollander’s cycle. Although the Conventual 

Franciscans had been entrusted with the care of Innsbruck’s 

Hofkirche in 1563, their breviary followed that of 

Rome, in our case almost precisely the familiar modern 

verse selections.20 

Since Hollander had been assigned to Ferdinand II’s 

chapel upon Ferdinand I’s death in July 1564, he would have 

been in Prague for the next two years. This local breviary in 

its versions of 1502 and 1517 also needs to be considered, especially 

if the archducal forces performed in St. Vitus Cathedral.21 

Certain aspects of Hollander’s verse selection are 

also paralleled by those of the Brixen/Bressanone breviary 

of 1516, used in Innsbruck. But given its idiosyncrasies, Hollander’s 

literary text seems to have been personally crafted 

for some specific purpose or patron.22 

19 Northern European Lesson verses are tabulated in Kendrick, 

Singing Jeremiah, 257. 

20 For instance, the Breviarium Romanum (Venice, 1487, ed. Philippus 

de Rotingo, fol. 175ff.) following Franciscan use included 

only slightly more verses for the third reading than today’s practice 

(e.g. Good Friday/Lesson 3 = III:1–12); it can be viewed at 

https://digital.dombibliothek-koeln.de/ddbkhd/content/pageview/60749 

(accessed 7 October 2022). 

21 The Utrecht breviary and the Tournai breviary, as noted in Appendix 

2, differ from Hollander’s verses, although the absence of 

the Oratio in the latter is noteworthy. As can be seen, there are 

minor differences between the Prague breviaries of 1502 and 1517. 

22 The Breviarium diocesis Brixinensis, pars hiemalis (Venice, 1516) 

includes some of Hollander’s verse choices, including the uncommon 

1:19, although as can be seen in Appendix 2, the exact 

Day/Lesson assignment varies from that of Hollander’s texts. 


XI 

Thus the verses deserve closer scrutiny (Appendix 3), given 

that the textual manipulations in Mahu’s Lessons suggest 

meanings beyond the purely allegorical understandings of 

Jeremiah.23 In a long exegetical tradition, Lamentations 

had symbolically referred both to the desolation of the sinful 

human condition, as well as to the upheaval of creation 

at the moment of Christ’s Passion. If, in the course of transmission, 

there was no misplacement of given verses between 

adjacent Lessons, Hollander’s items for Holy Thursday (F5) 

suggest some original grouping of three verses per Lesson, 

with the last verse in each reading left to be sung in chant 

(e.g. three Lessons consisting of Lam., chapter I: verses 1–3, 

4–6, 7–9 [= I:1–3, 4–6, 7–9]).24 But even here this plan is 

disrupted in the third Lesson by the omission of most of the 

second verse (I:8a in polyphony, but not 8bc; I indicate the 

“sub-verses”, i.e. the constituent verbal phrases of each 

Lamentations verse, by lower-case letters). 

Matters become more complex in the Good Friday Lessons 

(F6), beginning with a backward jump in the textual 

selection to a partial verse (I:6ab) which would seem to have 

belonged to Lesson 2 of the previous Day. This is followed 

by a forward skip (I:9) in this Lesson, then two non-adjacent 

verse-groupings (I:12–13 and I:17, 19) used for Lessons 2 

and 3, respectively. In addition, this Day’s items remain taken 

from Lam. Ch. I, a rare occurrence in contemporary 

breviaries, which normally move to verses from Lam. Chs. 

II and/or III for the Friday readings. Finally, Hollander’s 

Holy Saturday texts start with the beginning of Jeremiah’s 

Lam. Ch. III (verses 1, 2, 4), and continue with another 

“backwards” verse choice (III:5 and III:3), while the last Lesson 

of the entire cycle ends with two verses from the opening 

of Lam. Ch. IV. 

To the degree that a constructed narrative can be made 

out of the verse choices in Hollander’s texts, voice and topics 

differ: the first trio of Lessons are all in third person, 

describing Jerusalem’s ruin; the second three then move 

from third-person description to first-person plural, with a 

change in I:9 from the Vulgate’s “afflictionem meam” to 

“nostram” in the Cantus part only; and the final set begins 

in first person, and ends with another third-person description 

of the city’s ruin from Jeremiah’s Ch. IV. In addition, 

the employment of Lam. I:19 to finish the Friday (F6) Lessons 

(“I called my friends, but they deceived me; my priests 

and elders died in the city, for they sought food to refresh 

their soul”), rare in polyphonic Lamentations across Europe, 

refers to Jerusalem’s betrayal by its allies and its starvation. 

The other textual issue is that of the final Lesson. Lattre’s 

polyphonic cycle of 1554, as noted the only other one to 

omit verses from chapter V’s “Oratio”, had concluded with 

three that verses emphasized Jerusalem’s misery (Lam. IV:7, 

23 On ‘backwards’ and other verse selections in Mahu’s Lessons, see 

Kendrick, Singing Jeremiah, 93–97. 

24 As noted here, the idea of adding a verse using the chant recitation-tone 

works best for the first two Lessons of Holy Thursday, 

but is much more problematic in the other, textually diverse, 

Lessons, and thus has been eschewed here. 

9, 10). Hollander’s two verses are similar, but end with the 

striking image of the city “quasi struthio in deserto/like the 

ostrich in the wilderness”. In one commentary possessed by 

the Vienna court, this verse was taken allegorically to refer 

to the ruin of the Church because of its sins.25 Thus Hollander’s 

overall selection emphasizes the description of a ruined 

city at beginning and end, contrasting with the individual 

suffering of the prophet in the middle. 

Perhaps the selection, possibly as in Mahu’s cycle, refers 

to the ongoing Ottoman wars. Ferdinand I, with Ferdinand 

II of Tyrol in his forces, had combatted Istanbul and its 

Hungarian ally Johann Sigismund Zápolya throughout the 

1550s, with a truce between 1556 and 1563.26 The Ottomans 

then took advantage of the Emperor’s death to mobilize 

again, leading to new conflicts in 1564–67 which Maximilian 

II had to manage. Hence the textual references to Jerusalem’s 

destruction might be to Habsburg losses in Hungary, 

while the “betrayal” verses might have had to do with 

the Catholic Zápolya family’s pact with the Turkish enemy. 

In this sense, Echamer’s later reference to Rudolph as “King 

of Hungary” (omitting the Crown of Bohemia) in the dedication 

could also have resonated with the ongoing wars for 

control of that territory. 

Alternately, the idea of the “ruin of Jerusalem” might 

have been a gesture to the confessional conflicts in the Empire, 

even after the 1555 Peace of Augsburg. In this sense, 

“Jerusalem” would refer to the state of the Church as a 

whole. As noted, though, the interconfessional trajectory of 

the settings’ transmission probably excludes this understanding. 

Given the emphasis on the city’s sufferings, particularly 

in the Saturday Lessons, the tropological interpretation 

of Jeremiah’s text as referring to individual sin and 

penance also remains a possibility. 

The other striking feature of Hollander’s texts is the 

mistakes among the acrostic Hebrew letters that begin each 

verse in Jerome’s Vulgate. Our source adds three incorrect 

“DALETHS”, two “ALEPHS”, and one extra “CAPH”, 

“HE”, and “AIN” each. This represents eight out of the total 

eighteen letters, and thus is likely neither a mnemonic error 

nor a copying from those local breviaries which do occasionally 

have the “wrong” acrostics.27 Furthermore, the 

placement of these changes is telling: at the beginning of 

the Lessons for Friday and Saturday, “ALEPH” is followed 

by “DALETH” (the usual sequence is “ALEPH–BETH”, 

25 The classic commentary of Paschasius Radbertus (Commentaria 

in Lamentationibus Jeremiae Prophetae) was probably available to 

the court, as a copy of the 1503 Basel edition is now in the Austrian 

National Library. Paschasius’ understanding of this line (in 

this ed., fol. lxv), emphasized the Church’s sins as worthy only of 

animals such as the ostrich: ‘Quia enim filia populi, nisi Ecclesia 

non plangitur? . . . crudelis quasi struthio in deserto efficitur, 

nihil nisi praesentia cogitans, nihil in spe agens, etiam opera et 

actus quae admittit, sine calore charitatis jacere praetermittit…’. 

Despite the Habsburgs’ allegiance to Rome, it is possible to read 

this exegesis as a criticism of both sides of the divided Church. 

26 On the Ottoman wars between 1563–1567, see Paula S. Fichtner, 

Maximilian II (New Haven, 2001), 119–34. 

27 For instance, ‘wrong’ letters appear in Friday’s Lesson 3 of the 

1509 Breviarium Constantinense (Paris, 1509), from Konstanz. 


XII 

something normative even for anyone compiling the text 

from memory).28 

This density of “wrong” letters begs for an explanation 

of the internal hermeneutics of the selection. The meaning 

of the Hebrew letters in traditional Catholic understanding 

and in Renaissance symbolic alphabets takes on importance, 

dating as it does back to St. Jerome. In his Epistola 

XXX ad Paulam, the Church Doctor had given equivalents 

for the Hebrew letters as employed in the Hebrew acrostic 

Psalm 118, and the Vienna court library seems to have possessed 

both print and manuscript copies of the saint’s epistolae.29 

Hollander’s emphasis on “ALEPH–DALETH”, 

added or set up at the beginning of the readings for liturgical 

Days, then suggests a reading of their symbolic meanings. 

Combining Jerome’s understanding of these two letters 

as “doctrina–tabularum”, or “the teaching of the 

[prophetic] tablets”, we might infer the letter sequence as 

referring to the status of the text that follows, a paratext for 

the Lamentations verses generated by the proper (and hermetic) 

understanding of the acrostic. The more random addition 

of “CAPH” at the end of the Thursday Lessons, 

“AIN” and “ZAIN” in the next Day’s set, and “HE” followed 

by “CAPH” again for the Saturday pieces, is less 

clear. These Hebrew letters are equivalent to “hand”, “there”, 

and “fountain/eye”, respectively, in the saint’s interpretation. 

The pieces for Good Friday (F6) display the largest 

number of “wrong” acrostics, four of six: after the “ALEPH– 

DALETH” opening, they continue with “LAMECH– 

AIN–ZAIN–DALETH”. Interwoven with the verses that 

they preface, this suggests some symbolic combinations of 

allegorical letter meanings according to Jerome: “[LAM- 

ECH=] Of teaching/the heart” followed by the verse “O vos 

omnes, qui transitis per viam”; “Fountain/Eye — De caelo 

misit ignem”; “There — Expandit manus suas”; and “Of the 

tablets — Vocavi amicos meos”, a puzzling heuristic progression. 

However, using Jerome’s combinatorial meanings for 

Hebrew letters, as the saint had applied them in the same 

letter to Paula, so as to come up with complete clauses, we 

can add these enigmatic letters to their following Scriptural 

verses as presented in Hollander’s music: (1) “hands of 

teaching/the heart — O vos omnes”; (2) “fountain/eye of the 

mouth of justice — De caelo”; (3) “there is life — Expandit 

28 A check of the two Vulgate editions used here, along with the 

1520 Biblia cum concordantiis (Nuremberg: Johannes Marion for 

Antonius Koberger), underlines the stability of the Hebrew letters 

in Latin Bibles (as noted, not always the case for breviaries). 

29 Jerome’s explication of the acrostic is in the Epistola XXX, with 

an opening exposition of the letters and then their combinations 

into complete clauses (paragraphs 3–12; I cite from the New 

York, 1970 edition [rpt. from the 1910 ed.]: Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi 

Epistulae, ed. Isidor Hilberg). Today’s Austrian National 

Library contains some thirty-eight pre-1570 editions of the saint’s 

letters, the most recent for present purposes being the 1565 Dillingen 

issue. An alternative reading of Lam. II:21–22 in Echamer’s 

dedicatory poem, suggested in the notes below, might contain 

a subtle reference to Jerome’s letter and its approach to the 

Hebrew acrostics. 

[Sion] manus”; and (4) “the doctrine of the house is the fullness 

of the tablets therein — Vocavi amicos meos”. In Hollander’s 

combination of allegorical letters followed by Lamentations 

verses, the following possible meanings result: (1) 

the prophet’s cry, equivalent to that of the suffering Christ, 

“O vos omnes, qui transitis per viam”, is opened by his/His 

hands and heart (perhaps a reference to the Five Wounds 

devotion); (2) “Divine Justice” precedes Jeremiah’s “from 

heaven above He sent His fire”, a clear reference to God’s 

just punishment; (3) Jerusalem’s fruitless pleas for mercy are 

introduced by “life”; and (4) the final letter substitution 

seems to reiterate the completeness of the prophetic text, 

while emphasizing both the betrayal by Jersualem’s (=? the 

Habsburgs’ or Christianity’s) supposed friends, and the 

death of her priests. In a political sense, this might again 

refer to Ottoman gains against the Empire, perhaps in the 

1564–67 hostilities. This kind of hermeticism was, of course, 

common at Rudolph’s court, one reason why Echamer 

might have thought the settings to be suitable. 

Another issue of the literary text, beyond breviary 

sources, is its variants compared to the various Catholic 

Vulgates circulating in Hollander’s world. Since there was 

no textual uniformity for the Roman Church until the 1592 

Sixto-Clementine text, and mid-century “Catholic” editions 

are rare in the surviving holdings of the Imperial 

Library (A-Wn), I have used a Cologne print of 1529 and the 

humanistically-inspired Vulgata Lovaniensis of 1547 for 

comparison (see Appendix 3 on p. 60; these two sources do 

not always agree between themselves). 

Several phrases in the Latin are ungrammatical enough 

to cast doubt on the origin of Hollander’s texts in any given 

Vulgate or breviary edition. The most striking of these is 

Lam. I:6 in the first Friday Lesson, “Et egressus eius a filia…” 

instead of “est”; this may be an involuntary memory 

of Micah V:2 (“et egressus eius ab initio”, a prophecy of the 

Savior; a similar slip in F5/L2 puts “subsequentis” from 

Lam. I:6c in the place of “tribulantis”, the standard reading 

of Lam. I:5c). Other “mistakes” have few semantic implications 

(e.g. “sicut arietes” for “velut arietes” in the next verse 

or the reversal of “non habens consolatorem” in the same 

Lesson), but some might point at personalized meaning 

(“quoniam erectus est [added in Hollander’s music: ‘mihi’] 

inimicus” at the end of this Lesson). Other variants from 

the Vulgate’s text are not lexically meaningful, and might 

stem from memory lapses, perhaps in the absence of printed 

liturgical texts (e.g. on the chapel’s journey from Prague to 

Innsbruck?).30 

One musical passage in the Second Lesson of Good Friday 

(F6/L2: Lam. I:12b) suggests that these readings date 

back to Hollander’s settings, as “quoniam venundavit me 

sicut locutus est Dominus” (recte “vindemiavit me”) lacks 

one syllable compared to all Vulgate readings. The syllabic 

setting in the music here leaves no room for doubt that this 

wording was intended by the composer, and analogous underlay 

elsewhere in the cycle seems to show that Hollander’s 

original literary text contained the variant spellings and 

30 E.g. in SS/L3, Hollander’s ‘mammas suas’ for the Vulgate’s 

‘mammam suam’. 


XIII 

phrases. If not an error of memory, the reading of this verse 

(F6/L2) also implies that Jerusalem (=? Hungary) had been 

sold out by a single person as God had foretold (and not 

“put through the wine-press” as in the Vulgate). This may 

be a reference to Isidore of Seville’s use of the verb in 

connection with Judas’ selling of Christ.31 I have thus not 

corrected any of these variants back to the contemporary 

Vulgates. 

3. MODALITY, RECITATION TONES, 

TEXTURE 

In terms of pitch structure, the overall modal pattern of the 

Lessons seems at least legible, if not cyclical. Assuming an 

eight-mode system, typical for all Low Countries composers 

up through Orlando di Lasso, the combination of finalis 

and ambitus of the tenor line suggests the following assignments 

for the nine Lessons sequentially: the F5 Lessons 

would be in Modes 1, 5, 5; the F6 Lessons in Modes 3, 5, 3 

(the E-mode first and third items could be considered in 

Mode 4); and the SS Lessons in Modes 1 (transposed up a 

fourth, also as indicated by the high cleffing), 5, 3. Thus the 

pitch centers/finales are D, F, F; E, F, E; G, F, E. In the 

“tonal type” categorization introduced by Siegfried Hermelink 

and further developed by Harold Powers, these are 

represented as follows (system/top clef/final): Lesson 1= b / 

c1/D; 2= /c1/F; 3= b /c1/F; 4= /c1/E; 5= b /c1/F; 6= /c1/E; 7= b / 

g2/G; 8= b /c1/F; 9= /c1/E. 

One important point for these works, as for most sixteenth-century 

Lamentations, is their relation to the wide 

variety across Europe of chant reciting-tones for the verses. 

In this cycle, the choice of Mode 1 seems appropriate for the 

opening Lesson, and may include a hitherto unidentified 

Lamentations chant formula with an opening upward fifth 

(with a ligature) at the beginning; this recalls a recitation 

tone on this pitch for this Thursday Lesson present in a fifteenth-century 

manuscript from Tegernsee.32 Similarly, the 

repetition of semibreve As and Ds in this piece might also 

refer to such a tone. 

31 Isidore, Liber numerorum qui in Sanctis Scripturis occurrunt, ed. 

Jacques-Paul Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 83 (Paris, 1850), col. 

197. 

32 For Central European Lamentation tones (the Iberian and Polish 

sources have been surveyed more recently), see Bruno Stäblein, 

‘Lamentatio’, Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Friedrich 

Blume, viii (Kassel, 1960), cols. 137–41. Peter Wagner, Einführung 

in die gregorianischen Melodien, iii (Leipzig, 1921), 241 

gives the example of a Tone-1 formula for F5/L1 which opens with 

an upward fifth, like the gesture in Hollander’s setting of the 

same text, from Tegernsee (D-Mbs, Clm 19558). Other cases in 

this Lesson occur at the beginning of verse 1 (mm. 8–13) and 

verse 2 (mm. 47–50). Wagner also provides Tone-6 formulae 

which have two different reciting tones, while E-mode Lamentation 

tones reciting on A are found all over Europe. For variants 

of a Spanish tone which begins on A, recites on D in its first two 

sub-verses on D, and then on A in its last sub-verse, with a close 

on D, see Jane Morlet Hardie, The Lamentations of Jeremiah: Ten 

Sixteenth-Century Prints (Ottawa, 2003). 

In all four Lessons pitched on F, a triadic recitation formula 

(F-A-C, reciting on C) is present as an imitative motive, 

also in diminution (see F5/L3, mm. 6–9, 42–45, 56–59; F6/ 

L2, mm. 6–9; and SS/L2, mm. 8–10). This tone appears in 

many Central European sources, although normally its cadences 

at verse endings are more florid than simple scalar 

motion.33 In Hollander’s Lessons, its use results in prolonged 

sonorities around the three constituent pitches, with 

voice-exchange and slightly rhythmicized declamation that 

again hint at oral polyphonic tradition, a feature found in 

most of the Lessons independent of pitch center (F5/L2, 

mm. 81–83; F5/L3, mm. 18–20; F6/L1, mm. 24–26; SS/L2, 

mm. 35–38; SS/L3, mm. 53–55, and so on). Many phrases are 

in this essentially simultaneous style, with only slightly 

staggered declamation. The settings are thus marked by a 

kind of local stasis unusual for mid-sixteenth-century polyphony. 

Finally, the E-mode Lessons paraphrase one or another 

widespread Lamentations formula on this pitch, sometimes 

reciting on A (e.g. F6/L3, mm. 7–10 and 48–50). These Lessons 

use a prominent E-F-E motive (F6/L1, Bassus, mm. 40 

and 42; F6/L3, Bassus m. 10 and Tenor 2 mm. 45–47), but 

they also employ a major-third rise (F-A) to recitation pitch, 

reminiscent of the standard F-G-A recitation tone familiar 

from modern chant books, on different pitch levels (F6/L1, 

mm. 7 and 47; F6/L3, Tenor 1, mm. 62–67; SS/L3, mm. 13, 

35, 43). Overall, the mixture of E- and F-based tonalities/ 

formula citations recalls Mahu’s cycle; it is not clear if this 

is also a gesture to different Lamentations tones familiar to 

the geographically heterogenous singers in Ferdinand’s 

chapel, in a parallel to the different national styles among 

the singers of the early sixteenth-century Sistine Chapel.34 

An incomplete list of clearly audible recitation tones in the 

polyphony is given below in this Introduction. There are at 

least three formulae scattered among the Lessons, only one 

of which resembles today’s Tone-6 recitation. 

The works thus seem aimed at sonority and gravity, 

but — as would be the case in later sixteenth-century cycles 

— neither immediate dramatic expression nor a reflection 

of the text’s graphic imagery. Most audible are the cadenze 

in mi on sharp sonorities, along with some close 

cross-relations (even at the very beginning of the first Lesson). 

How these might relate to the immediate affect of a 

given verse, however, is a more complicated question. The 

dense texture and monumentality of the counterpoint, 

without obvious points of imitation or dramatic pauses, are 

reflective of other repertory from Habsburg chapels. 

33 My thanks to Jakob Kubieniec for his unrivaled knowledge of 

these tones and for pointing out such triadic formulae in F-based 

Lamentation tones such as in A-Gu, Cod. 29, fol. 182 v ff., a fourteenth-century 

antiphoner from St. Lambrecht (Styria), or in 

PL-Kj 58, fifteenth century, fol. 72. 

34 E.g. as in Richard Sherr, ‘Ceremonies for Holy Week, Papal 

Commissions, and Madness (?) in Early Sixteenth-Century 

Rome’, in Jessie Ann Owens/Anthony M. Cummings (eds.), 

Music in Renaissance Cities and Courts: Studies in Honor of Lewis 

Lockwood (Warren, Mich., 1997), 391–403. 


XIV 

A comparison of these Lamentations with such a piece as 

Hollander’s motet “Saulus cum iter faceret” (from Giovanelli’s 

1568 anthology), composed probably as part of a 

collective effort in the Vienna court chapel during Ferdinand 

I’s later years to outfit lesser feasts with large-scale motets, 

shows some of the differences.35 The motet, based on a 

cantus firmus litany tag (“Sancte Paule, ora pro nobis”; liturgically, 

it is for the Conversion of St. Paul, 25 January), 

employs strict canon as well as extensive opening imitation 

(also at the beginning of the secunda pars), and direct representation 

of textual moments (octave leaps downwards 

for “cadens in terram”). Still, some of these directly mimetic 

gestures do find parallels in the Lamentations.36 

Given the rarity of the genre in the northern European 

print market, it is no surprise that the settings remained in 

manuscript; another contributing factor might have been 

their scoring for five voices, unusual in northern Europe 

until Lasso’s second cycle, first printed in 1585.37 In their use 

of at least three different Lamentations reciting-tones, they 

also suggest the cosmopolitan nature of the court musicians 

and of the Empire itself. 

For all the specificity of their verse choices, Hollander’s 

Lessons were thus culturally rare commodities. Polyphony 

for Tenebrae seems better documented for Italy and Spain 

than elsewhere. Even Lasso’s first set of Lamentations for 

Munich took its text from the newly changed selection in 

the 1568 Roman Breviary and thus must date to some point 

no earlier than 1569. If Hollander’s were created for Ferdinand 

II’s court, to emulate the practice of earlier Habsburgs, 

they would have represented an unusual marking of Holy 

Week liturgy in Catholic central Europe. 

Possible recitation tones in the Lessons 

(not an exhaustive list): 

F5/L1: D-A-A-(C-D): mm. 12 and 47 

F5/L2: C-D-F-F-F: m. 15; F-A-C-C: mm. 37–38 

F5/L3: F-A-C-C-D: mm. 6 and 42 

F6/L1: C-D-E-E-E (or G-A-B-B-C): m. 9 

F6/L2: F-A-C-C-C: m. 6 

F6/L3: E-F-E-D-E-E (or pitched on B): m. 7 

SS/L1: B b -C-D-D-D-E b (= the familiar Tone-6 

formula transposed from F): m. 9 

SS/L2: F-A-C-C-C: m. 8 

SS/L3: G-A-B-B-C: mm. 12 and 43 

35 This piece also was copied later into the Grimma partbooks 

(D-Dl, Mus. Grimma 49); a modern edition of the motet is available 

online (accessed February 2022) at https://www2.cpdl.org/ 

wiki/images/0/0c/Hollander_Saulus_cum_iter.pdf. 

36 For instance, the rhythmic displacement in the Lamentations at 

“dispersi sunt lapides” (SS/L3, mm. 20ff.) is paralleled by the motet’s 

repetitive pitches at “persequeris me” (“Saulus”, mm. 82ff.), 

while, even more clearly, the motet’s octave leaps at “cadens in 

terram” (mm. 34ff.) recall the passage at “ut caderet” in F5/L3 

(m. 28). Also noteworthy is the declamatory slowdown at “convertit 

me retrorsum” (F6/L2, mm. 60ff.), as is the necessary 

melodic augmented second at “me minavit, et adduxit” (SS/L1, 

m. 29, Bassus). 

37 On Lasso’s two cycles, see Kendrick, Singing Jeremiah, 111–19. 


XV 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

Plate 1. Michael Echamer, dedicatory poem, A-Wn, Cod. 11772, fol. 1 v 


XVI 

Plates 2–3. Christiaan Hollander, “Incipit Lamentatio”, A-Wn, Cod. 11772, fol. 2 v –3 r 


DTÖ 164 

XVII

1 

1 

C 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In - - ci - pit la - men - ta - ti - o, in - - ci - pit la - - men - ta - - 

A 

T1 

T2 

B 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In - - ci - pit la - - men - ta - ti - o, in - ci - pit la - men - ta - 

 

 

 

 

In - - - ci - pit la - - men - ta - - - ti - o, la - men - ta - 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In - - - ci - pit la - men - ta - - - - 

 

 

 

 

In - - - ci - pit la - - men - 

$ 

6 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- - ti - o Hie - re - mi - ae pro - phe - tae, pro - phe - - tae. 

 

 

 

 

- ti - o Hie - re - mi - ae pro - - - - - phe - - - tae. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- - ti - o Hie - re - mi - ae pro - phe - tae, pro - phe - - tae. 

- ti - - o Hie - re - mi - ae pro - phe - tae, pro - - phe - - tae. 

 

 

 

 

 

-ta - ti - o Hie - re - mi - - ae pro - - - phe - - - - - tae. 

 

[Feria 5] Prima lectio 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A - LEPH, A - leph, A - leph, A - leph, A - leph. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A - LEPH, A - leph, A - leph. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A - LEPH, A - leph, A - leph. 

 

 

 

 

A - LEPH, A - leph. 

 

 

@ 

 

 

A - LEPH, A - leph. 


2 

2 

8 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quo - mo - - - do se - - det so - la, 

 

 

Quo - mo - do se - det so - - - - - la, quo - - - 

 

 

 

 

Quo - - mo - - - - do se - det so - - - - la, quo - mo - - 

 

 

Quo - mo - - 

 

Quo - 

13 

 

 

 

 

quo - mo - do se - det so - la ci - vi - tas ple - na po - 

$ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- mo - do se - det so - - - la ci - - - - - vi - tas ple - 

- do se - det so - - - la ci - - - vi - tas ple - 

 

 

 

- - do se - det, se - det so - - - la ci - - vi - tas 

 

 

 

 

- mo - - - do se - - det so - - la ci - - - vi - tas 

 

 

 

18 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- pu - lo. Fa - - cta est, fa - - cta est qua - si 

 

- na po - - - - - pu - lo. Fa - cta est, fa - - cta est qua - si 

@ # 

 

- na po - pu - lo. Fa - cta est qua - si vi - du - a, vi - 

 

 

 

 


 

 

ple - na po - - pu - - lo. Fa - - cta est qua - - si 

 

ple - na po - pu - lo. Fa - cta est, fa - - cta est qua - si 

 

$

23 

 

 

 

 

 

vi - du - a, vi - du - a do - mi - na gen - ti - um; 

3 

3 

 

 

 

 

vi - du - a do - mi - na gen - ti - um, gen - - ti - um; prin - ceps pro - 

 

 

 

 

 

- du - a do - - mi - na gen - - - ti - um; prin - ceps pro - 

 

 

 

 

vi - - du - - a do - - - mi - - na gen - - ti - um; prin - ceps 

 

 

 

 

vi - du - a do - mi - na gen - ti - um; prin - - - 

28 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

prin - - - ceps, prin - - ceps pro - vin - ci - a - rum, pro - vin - ci - 

 

 

 

- vin - ci - a - - rum, prin - ceps pro - vin - - - - - - ci - a - rum 

 

 

 

- vin - ci - a - - rum, prin - ceps pro - vin - ci - - a - rum 

 

pro - - vin - ci - a - - rum fa - cta est sub tri - bu - 

 

 

- ceps pro - vin - ci - a - - rum fa - - cta 

33 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- a - rum fa - cta est sub tri - bu - to, fa - cta 

# 

 

fa - - - - cta est sub tri - bu - to, sub tri - bu - - - to. 

@ 

 

fa - cta est sub tri - bu - - to, sub tri - bu - - - to, 

 

- to, fa - cta est sub tri - bu - - to, tri - bu - 

 

 

 

 

est sub tri - bu - - to, fa - cta est sub tri - bu - 


@ 

@

4 

4 

38 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

est sub tri - bu - to. BETH, Beth, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sub tri - bu - to. BETH, Beth, 

- to, sub tri - bu - - - - to. BETH, 

 

 

- to, sub tri - bu - to. 

BETH, 

 

 

 

43 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BETH, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beth. Plo - rans plo - 

 

 

 

 

Beth, Beth. Plo - rans 

Beth. 

Beth. 

 

 

 

Beth. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

49 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- ra - - - - - - - - vit, plo - ra - - - - - vit in no - - 

 

 

 

 

 

# $ 

 

plo - ra - - - vit, plo - ra - - - - - - - - vit in no - - 

 

 

 

 

Plo - rans plo - - ra - - - - - - vit in no - - 

 

 

 

Plo - - - rans plo - ra - - 

 

 

 

Plo - - rans plo - - - ra - - vit in no - - 


54 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- cte, in no - cte, et la - cri - mae e - - ius 

 

 

- cte, in no - - cte, in no - - cte, et la - cri - mae e - ius, et 

 

 

 

 

 

- cte, in no - - cte, in no - cte, et la - cri - mae e - - - - ius 

$ 

 

- vit in no - - - - cte, et la - cri - mae e - ius in 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- cte, in no - cte, in no - - cte, et la - cri - mae e - - - ius in 

5 

5 

59 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in ma - - xil - lis e - - ius, et la - cri - mae e - ius in ma - xil - 

 

 

 

la - cri - mae e - - - - - - ius, et la - - cri - mae e - ius in ma - 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in ma - xil - lis e - ius, in ma - 

# 

 

 

 

 

ma - xil - lis e - ius, e - - - ius, et la - cri - mae e - ius in ma - 

 

 

 

 

ma - xil - lis e - ius, et la - cri - mae e - ius in ma - 

64 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- lis e - ius: non est qui con - so - le - tur e - am, non est qui con - so - 

 

- xil - lis e - ius: non est qui con - so - le - tur e - am, 

# 

 

- xil - lis e - ius: non est qui con - so - - le - - tur 

 

 

 

 

 

- xil - lis e - ius: non est qui con - so - le - tur e - am, non est qui 

@ 

 

- xil - lis e - - ius: non est qui con - so - le - tur e - am, non est qui con - so - 

 


6 

6 

69 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- le - tur e - - - - am, e - - am ex o - mni - bus ca - - - - ris e - 

$ 

 

qui con - so - le - tur e - am ex o - mni - bus ca - ris e - ius; 

 

e - - am ex o - - mni - bus ca - - - - - - - ris e - - 

 

con - so - le - - tur e - am ex o - mni - bus ca - ris e - ius; 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- le - tur e - - am ex o - mni - bus ca - ris e - ius; 

74 

 

 

- ius; o - - mnes a - - mi - ci 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o - mnes a - mi - ci e - - - - ius, o - mnes a - - - mi - 

- ius; o - mnes a - mi - ci e - - - - ius, o - mnes a - - - - 

o - - - - mnes a - - mi - ci e - - - ius, 

o - mnes a - mi - ci e - - - - ius 

 

 

 

79 

 

 

 

 

e - - ius, e - ius spre - ve - runt e - am, 

 

 

 

- - ci e - ius spre - ve - - runt e - am, spre - ve - runt 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- mi - - ci e - - - - ius spre - ve - - runt e - - 

# 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

e - - - - - - - - - ius spre - ve - runt e - am, e - - - 

 

 

spre - - ve - runt e - am, spre - ve - runt e - - 


84 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# 

et fa - - cti sunt e - - i i - - ni - mi - ci, i - 

e - am, et fa - cti sunt e - i i - ni - mi - ci, i - ni - - - mi - ci, i - 

- - am, et fa - cti sunt e - i i - ni - - mi - ci, i - ni - - 

@ 

 

 

- am, et fa - cti sunt e - i i - ni - mi - ci, et fa - - cti 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- am, et fa - cti sunt e - i i - ni - mi - ci, i - ni - mi - ci, et fa - 

7 

7 

 

89 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- - ni - mi - - ci, et fa - cti sunt e - i i - ni - mi - ci. 

- ni - mi - ci, i - ni - - - - mi - ci. 

 

 

 

 

- - - - mi - ci e - i, i - ni - mi - ci e - i, i - ni - mi - ci. 

 

 

 

sunt e - - i i - ni - mi - - - - ci. 

 

 

- cti sunt e - i i - ni - mi - ci, i - ni - - mi - - ci. 

 

95 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$ 

 

 

Je - ru - sa - lem, Je - ru - sa - lem, Je - ru - sa - - lem, Je - ru - sa - lem, Je - 

$ 

 

 

 

Je - - ru - sa - lem, Je - - ru - sa - lem, Je - - ru - sa - lem, Je - 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Je - - ru - sa - lem, Je - ru - sa - - lem, Je - - 

# 

 

 

 

 

Je - - ru - - sa - lem, Je - ru - sa - - - lem, 

 

 

Je - - ru - sa - lem, Je - - 

 

 


8 

8 

100 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- ru - sa - lem, Je - ru - sa - lem, Je - - ru - sa - lem, Je - - - - 

 

 

 

- ru - sa - lem, Je - ru - - sa - lem, Je - ru - - sa - 

- ru - sa - lem, Je - ru - sa - lem, Je - ru - - sa - lem, 

 

 

 

 

Je - ru - sa - lem, Je - ru - sa - lem, 

 

 

 

- ru - sa - lem, Je - ru - sa - lem, Je - - - 

104 

 

 

 

- ru - - - - sa - lem, con - ver - te - re ad Do - mi - num De - um tu - 

 

 

- lem, Je - ru - sa - lem, con - ver - te - re ad Do - mi - num De - um tu - 

 

 

 

 

Je - - - ru - sa - lem, con - ver - te - re ad Do - mi - num De - um tu - 

 

 

 

# 

 

 

 

con - ver - te - re ad Do - - mi - num De - um tu - - 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- ru - - sa - lem, con - - ver - te - re ad Do - mi - num De - um tu - 

108 

 

 

$ 

 

- um, con - ver - te - re, con - ver - te - re, con - ver - te - re 

 

 

- um, con - ver - te - re ad Do - mi - num De - um tu - 

 

 

 

 

- um, con - - ver - te - re ad Do - mi - num De - um tu - um, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- um, con - ver - te - re, con - ver - te - re, con - ver - - te - 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- um, De - - um tu - um, ad 

 

 

 


Coda 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

112 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- um, De - um tu - - - - - - - - - um. 

 

De - um tu - - - - - - um. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ad Do - mi - num De - um tu - um. 

# 

- re, con - ver - te - re ad Do - mi - num De - um tu - um. 

@ 

@ 

 

 

Do - mi - num De - um tu - um, De - um tu - um. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 

9 

C 

A 

T1 

T2 

B 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Feria 5] Secunda lectio 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DA - LETH, Da - - - - - leth, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DA LETH, Da leth, Da 

 

 

 

 

DA - LETH, Da - leth, 

 

 

 

DA LETH, Da 

- - - - - 

- - - 

 

 

5 

 

 

 

Da - leth. Vi - - ae Si - - - - - 

 

- - - - - leth, Da - leth. Vi - ae Si - - - - 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Da - leth, Da - leth. Vi - ae Si - on, vi - - ae 

 

 

 

 

- - leth, Da - - - - leth. Vi - ae Si - on 

 

 

 

 

DA - - LETH. Vi - - ae Si - - on, vi - ae 


10 

10 

10 

 

 

 

- - - on lu - - - - - - - gent, e - - - - - o 

 

 

 

 

- on lu - - - - - - - - - - - - gent, e - 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Si - - on lu - - - - - gent, lu - - - - - - gent, e - 

 

 

 

 

 

lu - - - - gent, lu - gent, lu - - gent, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Si - - on lu - - - gent, lu - gent, lu - - - - - gent, 

 

 

14 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

quod non sit qui ve - - - ni - at, qui ve - - - ni - 

 

 

 

- o quod non sit qui ve - - ni - at, qui ve - - - ni - at, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- o quod non sit, e - o quod non sit qui ve - - - ni - 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

e - o quod non sit, e - o quod non sit qui ve - - - - - ni - 

 

 

 

e - - - o quod non sit qui ve - ni - 

19 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- at ad so - le - mni - ta - - tem, ad so - le - - mni - 

 

 

 

qui ve - - - - - ni - at ad so - le - mni - ta - - - - tem, ad 

 

 

 

 

 

- at, qui ve - ni - - at ad so - le - mni - ta - tem, ad so - le - - mni - 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- at, qui ve - ni - at ad so - le - mni - ta - tem, ad so - - le - mni - 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- at, qui ve - - - - - ni - at ad so - le - mni - ta -

Leseprobe_DTÖ 164

Sie wollen auch ein ePaper? Erhöhen Sie die Reichweite Ihrer Titel.

Template löschen?

Als Template speichern?