DICTIONARY OF MUSIC - El Atril

LITANY LITANY r53
The Eev. J. Jebb has carefully reproduced
this interesting composition in his ' Choral
Responses and Litanies,' together with another
Litany by Byi'd (given on the authority of a
MS. preserved in the Library of Ely Cathedral),
and several otliers of scarcely inferior merit.
The only parts of Byrd's Litany now remaining
are, the Cantus and Bassus : in the following
example, tlierefore, the Altus and Tenor (containing
the Plain - song) are restored , in
accordance with tlie obvious intention of the
passage, in small notes :
$ ^^ E35
1=
=S5==
God the Fa - ther, of Heaven,
I I
ii www-
on us, mi - ser
-r
=q=
have mer cv up-
I I I I I
f r r
a
-^-
r
- ble sm - ners.
(J)
-^ i
1 J-
-^
T
etc.
All these Litanies, however, and many others
of which only a few fragments now remain to
U3, were destineil soon to give place to the still
iiner setting by Thomas Tallis. Without entering
into tlie controversy to which this work
has given rise, we may assume it as proved,
beyond all possibility of doubt, that tlie words
were originally set by Tallis in four parts,
with the Plain -song in the Tenor. In this
form, both the Litany and Preces are still
extant in the 'Clifford MS.' (dated 1570), on
the authority of which they are inserted in the
valuable collection of ' Choral Responses ' to
which allusion has already been made ; and,
however much we may be puzzled by the
' consecutive fifths in the Response, And mercifully
hear us when we call upon Thee,' and the
chord of the + in ' We beseech Thee to hear us.
Good Lord,' we cannot but believe that the
venerable transcrijjtion is, on the whole, trustworthy.
Tallis's first Invocation, which we
subjoin from the 'Clifford MS.,' is, alone,
-•—*—.^—
I 7=^r f 1
God the Fa-ther. of Heaven, liave mer-cy up - on
VOL. II
-r-r
i^#^^^PIl
sufficient to show the grandeur of the composer's
concepjtion.
More than one modern writer has condemned
the celebrated five-part Litany printed by Dr.
Boyce as an impudent corruption of this four-
part text. Dean Aldrich goes so far as to assure
Dr. Fell, in a letter still extant, that ' Barnard
was the first who despoilt it.' The assertion is
a rash one. It is too late, now, to ascertain,
with any approach to probability, the source
whence Barnard's version, printed in 1641,
was, in the first i^istancc, derived. There are,
in truth, gi'ave difficulties in the way of forming
any decided opinion upon the subject.
Were the weakness of an unpractised hand
anywhere discernible in the counterpoint of the
later composition, one might well reject it as
an ' arrangement ' ; but it would be absurd to
suppose that any musician capable of deducing
the five-part Response, ' Good Lord, deliver us,'
from that in four parts, would have condescended
to build his work upon another man's foundation.
J^'rom tlie 4-part Litany. Froi^ the 5-part Litany.
Good Lord, de-ll-ver t
Egrj.gEiz=grs=: |l
'V
Good Lord, de - 11 - ver
-r
The next Response, ' We beseech Thee to hear
us. Good Lord,' presents a still more serious enix.
The Canto fernio of this differs so widely from
any known version of the Plain-song melody
that we are compelled to regard the entire
Response as an original composition. Now, so
far as the Cantus and Bassus are concerned, the
two Litanies correspond, at this point, exactly ;
but, setting all prejudices aside, and admitting
the third chord in the 'Clifford MS.' to be a
manifest lapsus calami, we have no choice but to
confess, that, w'ith respect to the mean voices, the
advantage lies entirely on the side of the five-part
harmony. Surely, the writer of this could—and
would—have composed a Treble and Bass for
himself
From the 'ClifTordMS.'
j_
f=F=r
From the Five-part Litany.