Fancies and Ayres John Jenkins Helen Joy Sleeper

Arnold Hartmann,
1951 Journal of the American Musicological Society  
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY made clear. For one thing, the new volume contains only the first book of motets (published in I539 and again, in an enlarged edition, in I545), while the old edition includes both the first and the second books. Furthermore, a welcome change has been made in that the music is transcribed now in modern clefs; the old clefs are indicated at the beginning. On the other hand, the critical commentary of the old edition has been omitted and set aside for
more » ... d and set aside for a separate publication at a later date. Whether it was wise to follow this procedure is perhaps debatable. In the present case, the critical notes would have increased the volume by only eight pages, which is certainly not too heavy a price to pay for the convenience of having music and critical apparatus together in the same volume. Aside from the modernization of clefs, the editor has adopted also the reduction of the notes to one half (and, in proportio tripla, to one quarter) of the original value. The changes will certainly aid in making the music more readily accessible to both layman and scholar. Hardly anything need be added about the reliability of the edition. The readings offered are scrupulously accurate and practically free of misprints. Only the English introduction to the volume is marred by occasional slips and grammatical errors which, though not serious, are wholly unnecessary blemishes. The high scholarly quality of the edition is matched by the handsome external appearance of the book, the generous layout of the page, and the excellent engraving, customary with that series. It may be added that the old critical commentary fails to consider a littleknown early source of motets by Willaert which Einstein discovered in the Newberry Library in Chicago. The manuscript dates from ca. 1535 and should be included in the revision of the critical notes if and when it is made. It goes without saying that the new information concerning Willaert in the recent studies of Lowinsky and Rubsamen (see Journal III, no. 3, and Notes VIII, no. i respectively) must also be considered. Let us hope that the sudden death of the editor will not unduly delay or interrupt the progress of the edi-tion which has been so auspiciously begun.
doi:10.2307/829626 fatcat:d5pyeh75b5fghpnytp5kaubyxu