The theme “The Reformation and Our Musical Heritage” has important implications for church music today. Just as the faith of the Evangelical church was hammered out in the Reformation era in the writings and preaching of Luther and defined in the Lutheran Confessions, so (but less formally) the principles undergirding Evangelical worship and the role of music in worship were forged in Reformation times. These principles of “Rites and Usages” in the church still obtain in the 20th century and are regulative for our worship practices and for the usage of music and the arts in worship.

The principles or ideals of practice for the music in the church of the Reformation stemmed directly from the attitudes of Luther himself and his immediate compatriots. They were never set down formally as were the confessional writings, but they nevertheless existed and were tacitly understood within the Reformation church. These same principles or ideals have been determinant factors in shaping the musical heritage which is ours as Evangelical Christians in the 20th century.

What, then, were the principles or ideals of the Reformation which have undergirded the development of the Lutheran musical heritage? To discover them, it is necessary to consider the musical culture of Reformation times and particularly the cultural outlook of Luther himself, for his own attitudes toward music and its use in the church were of decisive significance.

The music of the Lutheran Church was formed within the musical culture, or milieu, of the early 16th century. We are mistaken if we think that the music of the Reformation church was something completely new and unique—that it suddenly sprang into being, like Athene springing from the head of Zeus. The music of the Reformation was nothing new, but rather, Luther and his colleagues took the musical culture as it existed in their time and applied it, oriented it, to serve the needs of Evangelical faith. Every musical type which was utilized in Lutheran worship—the chorale, the motet, the settings of the Mass—was already in existence before 1517. The new factor was that of emphasis and cultivation. All were made to be bearers of Evangelical truth. As Reese has said, “. . . during the years of Luther’s revolutionary activity, and for a whole generation after his death, his radical alterations in the liturgy and in the kind of music used in it produced little that may be regarded as constituting a specifically Protestant musical style. That was still to come.”[1] A proper understanding of the musical perspective of the Lutheran Reformation and of the subsequent development of the Lutheran musical heritage must begin with the consideration of Luther’s appreciation of the musical culture of his time, and of his use of the fruits of that culture for the worship of the Evangelical church.

Luther’s comprehension and appreciation of the musical culture in which he lived is expressed most clearly in his comments and attitudes toward the composers of his day and the merits of their music. These evaluative judgments express his ideal of church music; they also tell us much about the Reformer himself.

Luther and Josquin des Prés

Luther spoke admiringly in his writings, and especially in his Table Talk, of a number of composers of the time. Among these were Josquin des Prés, Ludwig Senfl, Pierre de la Rue, and Heinrich Rinck. His close association with Johann Walther and Conrad Rupsch is well known. But among these, Luther’s favorites were Josquin and Senfl. That he would have expressed a preference for these two composers is indeed remarkable!

In his book Patterns of Protestant Music, Robert M. Stevenson comments as follows: “Because Luther’s knowledge of music composition exceeded that of a mere dilettante, he was able to make his own musical judgments with remarkable prescience . . . He showed admirable discrimination in his own evaluation of contemporary composers and thus set a standard of correct musical judgment . . . He was an ardent advocate of the music of Josquin des Prés, whom he correctly evaluated as the greatest composer of the epoch.”[2]

It is clear that Luther understood the techniques of polyphony and was able to render intelligent and discriminant judgments as to the value of the work of contemporary composers. An evidence of this may be seen in the account of Luther’s evaluation of a composition by Lukas Edemberger:

When, on one occasion, the composer Lukas Edemberger had brought along some songs written largely in canonic style (plenas fugarum), Luther remarked that these were not pleasing and enjoyable because the composer was more interested in writing counterpoint than in writing interesting music. His words were: Artis sat habet, sed caret suavitate (“He has enough art and skill, but he lacks warmth”).[3]

Luther’s appreciation of the genius of Josquin is documented in two famous excerpts from the Table Talk:

Josquin is a master of the notes, which must express what he desires; on the other hand, other . . . composers must do what the notes demand.[4]

God has his Gospel preached also through the language of music; this may be seen from the compositions of Josquin, all of whose works are cheerful, gentle, mild, and lovely; they flow and move along and are neither forced nor coerced and bound by rigid and stringent rules but, on the contrary, are like the song of the finch.[5]

Moser and others have commented on the depth of musical understanding revealed in these simple statements.[6]

Josquin was indeed the imaginative, expressive genius of Renaissance music. Only within the present century has his greatness been fully realized. We now recognize that much of the glory formerly ascribed to Palestrina should more properly be accorded to Josquin. Ambros states, “In Josquin we have the first musician who impresses us as having genius.”[7] Willi Apel refers to Josquin as “the Raphael of Renaissance music”—an apt and descriptive analogy.

Luther observes that “Josquin is a master of the notes . . . they flow and move along and are neither forced nor coerced and bound by rigid and stringent rules.” The handling of rhythmic mensuration of contrapuntal parts was very much a problem in musical composition in Josquin’s time. He may well be regarded as the first composer to achieve artfulness in the use of rhythm. Likewise the music of many of the Renaissance composers (e.g., Josquin’s Flemish predecessors, Ockeghem and Obrecht) reveals an almost mechanical obsession with contrapuntal devices, resulting in a pedestrian quality in the music. But Josquin employed counterpoint with cleverness and brilliance to achieve expressive ends.

In describing the quality of Josquin’s music, Luther uses such adjectives as “cheerful, gentle, mild, and lovely.” Luther appreciated the expressive quality in Josquin. The craftsmanship of the Netherlanders was wedded to the melody of sunny Italy in the music of Josquin. He anticipated by a hundred years the techniques of Figurenlehre and Affektenlehre, which were to become the specialty of the Baroque musical ideal. His celebrated motet-chanson, the “Deploration of the Death of Jean Ockeghem,” is as poignant and expressive a lament as any ever written.

The music of Josquin was courtly music. It was known and appreciated only in the refined circles of the nobility and intelligentsia. Luther’s perceptive appreciation and evident familiarity with the art of Josquin reveals him to have been a man of culture and refinement, in marked contrast to the image of the earthly peasant which is so naively accepted as the true Luther in the popular imagination.

Where and how did Luther become familiar with the music of Josquin? Perhaps he heard it in Rome in 1510 during his sojourn there as an Augustinian monk; however, he could not have met the composer personally while in Rome, as Moser suggests, for in 1510 Josquin was serving at the court of Louis XII in France.[8] It is possible that Luther passed through Innsbruck on his journey to Rome, where the music of Josquin was the rage of the court of Emperor Maximilian. Perhaps it was at Augsburg in 1518 or at Torgau or even at Erfurt as a student in the university that Luther came to know and admire the music of Josquin. He obviously knew it well and had undoubtedly sung the works of Josquin.

Josquin des Prés (literally, “Joey from the Meadows”) was born c. 1450 in northern France, near Condé. He was probably schooled as a choir boy at St. Quentin and may have been a pupil of Ockeghem. Like many of the Netherlanders, he migrated in his youth to Italy. From 1459 to 1472 he served in Milan, first as a singer in the cathedral choir, then as a member of the chapel of the Sforza family. From 1486 to 1494 he was attached to the papal choir in Rome, then to the courts of the wealthy nobility in Florence and Ferrara. After a period of service to the court of Louis XII, he returned to his native Burgundy. He died at Condé in 1521.

Josquin was regarded by his contemporaries as the greatest composer of the time. He was eagerly sought after by princes and noble families. He was independent by nature and frequently changed employers. A rarity among composers, he died a wealthy man! Most of his works were published during his lifetime, although the printing of music in that day was costly and difficult. He was the first composer to be so honored.

Josquin was a prolific composer. His 20 masses are all masterpieces of contrapuntal technique. Perhaps the most famous is the Missa Pange lingua, which Reese describes as “a fantasy on the plainsong” rather than the usual cantus firmus setting.[9] All of the works of Josquin are filled with ingenious musical devices, such as in the Missa Hercules Dux Ferrariae, in which the melody is derived from the vowels of the syllables of the duke’s name (a practice known as sogetto cavato).

The chief characteristic of Josquin’s style was that of variety, the artful use of differing compositional techniques within a constantly changing musical fabric: paired imitation of voice parts, male voices singing in antiphony with treble voices, sections of homophonic writing interspersed amidst polyphony, etc. Josquin had a preference for the Phrygian mode, which gives much of his music a plaintive, mystical quality. He was the first composer to fully indulge in what was later termed “word painting,” in which the mood or emotional impact of the text determined the “sound” of the music.

Like many of the artists of the Renaissance, Josquin also belonged to the literati. He is as celebrated a figure in French Renaissance poetry as in Renaissance music.

Such was the composer whom Luther named as first and foremost. In his preference for Josquin, Luther revealed his knowledge and appreciation of the best in the musical art of his time. It was music of this stature which Luther commended to the use of the Evangelical church. In contrast to the puritanical reformers of the 16th century, Luther championed the place of elaborate polyphonic music in the worship of the church, while at the same time advocating a simpler style for congregational singing (the chorale).

He (Luther) overrode the scruples of those who, following

St. Augustine’s example, feared elaborate church music on moral grounds . . . He spoke often and ardently in behalf of excellence in church music . . . While exalting the role of the congregation, he never minimized the role of the organist or of the choir in church music . . .

(Luther) lifted the art (of music) to a loftier level than it has attained anywhere else in Evangelical thinking. Both theoretically and practically he placed it on a pedestal. No advance we can make in church music will exceed his ideal of what it should be. A practical implementation of his ideals would be today “a consummation devoutly to be wished.[10]

Luther and Ludwig Senfl

The second of the two composers whom Luther held in highest esteem was the Swiss Ludwig Senfl. Like Josquin, Senfl was a Catholic and in the service of Catholic princes. Concerning Luther’s appreciation of Senfl, Hans Preuss comments as follows:

But for none of his musical contemporaries did Luther have greater admiration than for Ludwig Senfl. Once, after singing one of Senfl’s compositions, Luther cried out in wonderment: “I could never write such a motet, even if I tore myself to pieces!”[11]

In his famous letter to Senfl of October 1530, Luther extols the composer as ornatum et donatum a Deo (“the ornament and gift of God”).

It is not known if Luther knew Senfl personally, but he was quite familiar with his music from having heard and sung it. Senfl was the most popular composer of the sophisticated German humanists: the Cole Porter or Richard Rodgers of his day!

Unlike Bach, whose fame was bestowed posthumously, Senfl enjoyed the greatest popularity in German society during his lifetime. Early in life he was appointed to one of the highest positions to which a musician could then attain, that of Hofkomponist to the court of the Holy Roman emperor, Maximilian I. He was the foremost student of the great Flemish master, Heinrich Isaac, who was himself second in greatness only to Josquin. Like Josquin, Senfl saw most of his compositions published during his lifetime. He was highly acclaimed by the leading figures in German culture of the 16th century. In 1537, the humanist Sebaldus Heyden wrote of Senfl as “the leading musician now in all of Germany” (in musica totius Germaniae nunc principem).[12]

This opinion was reiterated by the theorists Glareanus (1547) and Zacconi (1596).

In spite of such adulation from his contemporaries, the name of Senfl fell into near oblivion after the close of the 16th century. Charles Canfield Brown remarks that “now that most of his music has been made available in scholarly editions, Senfl is seen as a composer of truly imposing stature who over the centuries has suffered undue neglect.”[13]

Senfl was born c. 1490 at Zürich, although a few authorities say Basel. Gerstenberg states that he was probably the son of one Bernhard Senfl (or Senfli), a singer in the court chapel of Maximilian I who migrated to Zürich from Freiburg im Breisgau, in south Germany.[14] According to court records, Senfl was admitted to the court chapel in 1496 as an altist. It was in 1496 that Maximilian enticed Heinrich Isaac away from the court of Lorenzo the Magnificent in Florence to become Kapellmeister of the imperial chapel. The boy Senfl, who must have been something of a prodigy, became a student of Isaac’s and under the great master’s instruction became thoroughly imbued with the flowing style of Flemish counterpoint. Indeed, his masses and motets are practically identical in style to those of Isaac. After the death of Isaac in 1517, Senfl received the appointment of Hofkomponist. At the time he must have been about 27 years old.

Emperor Maximilian maintained three or four residences, at Augsburg, Vienna, Constance, and especially Innsbruck, the court traveling with him from place to place. Senfl lived and worked mainly at Innsbruck, which was the emperor’s favorite abode.

Maximilian was one of the most picturesque of the Habsburgs. A high liver, he was always short of cash. Politically he was a flop, in spite of his fortuitous marriage to Mary of Burgundy. At one time he actually entertained the notion of becoming pope when Julius II fell ill, uniting the empire and the papacy in one potentate; but, alas, Julius recovered. In spite of his ineptitudes, “Good Kaiser Max” was dearly loved by the masses and was at least a benevolent monarch.

The emperor welcomed the new culture of Humanism. “He was the darling of the scholar and the poet.”[15] Among the artists supported by the imperial largesse were such notables as Albrecht Dürer, Hans Burgkmair, and Leonhard Beck. By imperial authority the upholders of medieval Scholasticism were removed from the faculty of the University of Vienna, and the school was restructured under the leadership of the most celebrated German humanist, Conrad Celtes. In his perennial opposition to France, Italy, and Rome, the emperor identified himself completely with the struggling ideals of the new German nationalism, as did Luther and Senfl also.

In his biography of Maximilian, Seton-Watson states that “the emperor’s passionate love of music led to a distinct revival in that noble science.”[16] In addition to Isaac and Senfl, the imperial court also included among its musical luminaries the composer Heinrich Finck and the celebrated organist Paul Hofhaimer.

Maximilian died in 1519, and the court chapel was disbanded the year following. Following its dissolution, Senfl removed to Augsburg, where he was the recipient of a gift of 50 gulden from the new emperor, Charles V, but he was not taken into the emperor’s service. While at Augsburg, Senfl in 1520 edited the first publication of German motets by the Franco-Flemish masters (the Lieber selectarum cantionum), including works by Obrecht, Josquin, and Isaac and his own compositions. About the same time he completed and edited Isaac’s monumental Choralis Constantinus.

Senfl’s next appointment was to the court of Duke Ernst at Passau. During his brief residence at Passau, he married the daughter of the wealthy salt merchant, A. Neuberger. In 1523 Senfl received an appointment to the court of Duke Wilhelm IV of Bavaria at Munich, where he apparently remained for the rest of his life. At Munich he was given the titles of Musicus intonator and Musicus primarius.

There is some uncertainty as to the date and circumstances of Senfl’s death. Gerstenberg fixes 1543 as the year of his death.[17] This is on the basis of the fact that the composer’s name is indicated in the household records of the court at Munich in the entry of Dec. 2, 1542, but it does not appear in the next entry of Aug. 2, 1543. Other authorities indicate c. 1555 as the date of Senfl’s death. In Forster’s collection of Liedlein, published in 1556, there appears the ascription “Ludwig Senfl seliger” (“deceased”). Orlando di Lasso assumed the leadership of the Munich chapel in 1557.

While Senfl spent his entire life in the service of Catholic princes, there is good reason to believe that he was a “silent Protestant.” He was an ardent humanist and a German nationalist—both of which attitudes would incline him favorably toward the ideals of the Protestant Reformation. In commenting on Senfl’s last years, Nettl states that “(Senfl) was ultimately suspected of heresy because of his correspondence with Luther. He probably lost his position (at Munich), for after 1540 nothing more is heard of him. Like so many others, Senfl had probably become a martyr to his convictions.”[18] It is entirely possible that Senfl became persona non grata at Munich because of his apparently Lutheran sympathies, but Nettl affirms his alleged “martyrdom” too strongly. During the years 1536–38, Senfl corresponded with the Protestant Duke Albert of Prussia in Königsberg, perhaps seeking a position at the duke’s court because of disfavor at Munich.

On Oct. 4, 1530, Luther wrote his celebrated letter to Senfl. Luther was at the Coburg at the time, impatiently waiting out the proceedings of the Diet of Augsburg. In melancholy mood, Luther requested Senfl to compose for him a polyphonic setting of the antiphon text In pace in id ipsum (“In peace I will both lie down and sleep”—Ps. 4:8). Senfl complied by sending Luther a setting of a text from Ps. 118: Non moriar sect vivam (“I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the Lord”).[19] This motet, edited by J. Müler-Blattau, was published in complete form in Vol. VI of the Zeitschrift für Musikwissenschaft (1923–24). Unfortunately it is a rather stilted and pompous “homage motet” and not representative of Senfl at his creative best.

Senfl composed seven masses, all practically identical in style to the masses of Isaac. Perhaps the best known is the Missa Paschalis for five voices. Brown observes that “if Isaac displays more freedom and fantasy in the moving parts, Senfl’s textures are thicker and tighter, and he perhaps builds with greater expressive intensity.”[20] He composed in all the musical forms existing at the time: magnificats on the eight tones, motets and motet-style works, Trauer-Motetten, liturgical motets (polyphonic settings of hymns and sequences), compositions with German texts (both Geistliche Lieder and Weltliche Lieder), polyphonic settings of the Odes of Horace (a humanist exercise), canons, theoretical works, instrumental pieces, etc.

Senfl was the musical child, through Isaac, of the Flemish school; but he is not to be narrowly identified with the Netherlanders. He was, rather, a shining representative of the first generation of new, German national composers who were the pupils of the wandering Flemish masters. Taking the best from the Flemish art, Senfl injected another spirit which was completely German. Grout describes this as “an earthy, serious quality.”[21]

The uniquely Senflian spirit is most evident in his devotion to the new musical type, the German polyphonic Lied. Senfl devoted by far the greater part of his creativity to the composition of polyphonic Lieder. According to Moser, Senfl composed about 240 weltliche deutsche Liedersätze, about 166 Hofweisen, and about 54 Volksweisen. Moser further states that “in versatility, inventiveness, and experimentation . . . (Senfl) is above all the masters of the German polyphonic Lied.”[22]

The spirit of the polyphonic Lied stems from the Minnesingers: a warm, flowing melody; great breadth and regularity of phrasing; a preference for strong, unadorned melodic lines; skipwise (diatonic) rather than stepwise melodic lines; “Bar-form” (AAB), etc. The finest example of the polyphonic Lied—and also the most famous—is Isaac’s Innsbruck, ich muss dich lassen.

Luther delighted in the polyphonic Lieder and regarded them as truly German in style and spirit. The polyphonic Lied, as typified by the compositions of Senfl, established the style of the Lutheran chorale and (especially) the Lutheran chorale motet. Luther saw in the polyphonic Lieder of Senfl—which were thoroughly German and “popular” in nature, yet had artistic integrity—the model for the new music of the Evangelical church. This was a type of music which had already been taken to the heart of the German people. Luther welcomed it as a convenient medium for the communication of the Gospel to the masses.

Because of Senfl’s stature as the leading composer of the polyphonic Lied, Luther regarded him with high esteem.

The Musical “Ideal” of the Reformation

We have maintained that the acceptability and usage of music in the church of the Reformation era was directed by certain commonly understood, though unwritten principles which established the “ideal” of Evangelical church music and that this ideal is most evident in Luther’s personal evaluation of the musical culture of the time and in his preference for the music of Josquin des Prés and Ludwig Senfl. In summary, we would describe this “ideal” in terms of the following principles:

1. Insistence on the highest quality in the music of the church. Luther established a tradition for the insistence on the best of musical art for use in the church. It was with intelligent purpose that he chose Josquin and rejected Lukas Edemberger. In his preference for the art of Josquin and Senfl, he wisely distinguished between that which was great in the music of his day and that which was trivial. The unfolding years have vindicated Luther’s musical judgment. The musical ideal of the Reformation established the criterion of artistic excellence and integrity.

2. Desirability of fullness and expressive freedom in the music of the church. Luther defended the place of elaborate polyphonic music in the church. He found himself in opposition to those who feared such music on moral or other grounds. He insisted that artistic freedom be allowed so that the music of the church might be interesting and expressive. Above all, the music of both Josquin and Senfl was expressive. In commenting on the purpose and value of providing musical settings for Biblical texts (recorded in the Table Talk), Luther said, Die Noten machen den Text lebendig! (“The notes make the words come alive!”).[23] For Luther a type of music which was unexpressive, which failed to “make the words come alive,” would have been unthinkable. The music of the church must be full and free!

3. Receptivity to the contemporary spirit and close contact with developments in “secular” art. In his time Josquin was regarded as an avant-gardist. Senfl’s polyphonic Lieder were the songs of the day. Luther could have adopted a principle of traditionalism, rejecting all that was contemporary and admitting only plainsong as the ideal musical type. This was the principle adopted by the Council of Trent, with the music of Palestrina (or was it Kerle?) as the “sacred” archetype. The result was the ossification of musical development in Roman Catholicism. But (Deo gratia!) Luther was no traditionalist. He openly embraced that which was best in contemporary musical art. Regrettably it is at this point that we have parted company with Luther and the Reformation musical ideal. Contemporary art in all forms finds rough going in the Evangelical church today.

Luther evidenced a marked interest in the “secular” musical culture of his day. Likewise, the Reformation church was receptive to that which was good in contemporary secular music. This had a salutary effect on the musical development of the church. The words of J. R. Milne are apropos: “Church music, apt to become dryly conventional, has always benefited from some influence from the better secular music of the day, and as in the earlier part of the 16th century there was the influence of the simple grace of the French chanson, so later on, the influence of the higher refinement of the Italian madrigal.”[24] This principle is pregnant with implications for the church today as it views (somewhat bewilderingly) the development of “church pop” music (e.g., the compositions of Malcolm Williamson, et al.). Even in their outlook on musical art, the Reformation fathers understood that the church was in the world and must be attentive to the world—a truth which we are only now discovering!

4. Catholicity. Neither Josquin nor Senfl “officially” espoused the Lutheran cause, yet their art exerted great influence on Luther personally and on the development of music in the Reformation church. This is not unimportant. Dickinson states that “throughout the 16th century eminent musicians of both confessions (Catholic and Protestant) contributed to the musical services of their opponents. Protestants composed masses and motets for the Catholic churches, and Catholics arranged chorale melodies for the Protestants. This friendly interchange of good offices was heartily encouraged by Luther.”[25] The musical culture of the Reformation church did not hold itself in sectarian isolation. This principle is of greatest significance to Lutherans today. There is the danger of a myopic concern and narrow appreciation for our own Lutheran musical heritage, which may be viewed as largely Germanic, to the exclusion of a greater catholicity of musical interest which was the Reformation ideal.

The musical ideal of the Reformation church, as represented particularly by Luther in his own stance on matters musical, laid the foundation and provided the guiding principles for a great musical tradition of which we are now the inheritors. It is an ideal which still obtains and which will direct the church into fruitful paths of musical development in the future. May we keep that ideal firmly before us!

Cited References and Note

1. Gustave Reese, Music in the Renaissance (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1959), p.673.
2. Robert M. Stevenson, Patterns of Protestant Music (Durham: Duke University Press, 1953), p. 5.
3. Walter E. Buszin, “Luther on Music” (St. Paul: Reprint from Musical Quarterly, Jan. 1946, by Lutheran Society for Worship, Music and the Arts, 1958), p. 12.
4. Buszin, p. 13.
5. Ibid.
6. Hans Joachim Moser, Die evangelische Kirchenmusik in Deutschland (Berlin: Merseburger, 1953), p. 16.
7. Grove’s Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 3d ed., ed. H. C. Colles (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1945), II, 794.
8. Moser, p. 16.
9. Reese, p. 244.
10. Stevenson, pp. 9, 12.
11. Hans Preuss, Martin Luther der Künstler (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1931), p. 94.
12. Riemann Musik Lexikon, Willibald Gurlitt, ed. (Mainz: B. Schotts Söhne, 1961), II, 671–72. Article by Walter Gerstenberg.
13. Ludwig Senfl—Composer to the Court and Chapel of Emperor Maximilian I. Decca Record DL 9420. Jacket commentary by Charles Canfield Brown.
14. Riemann Musik Lexikon, ibid.
15. R. W. Seton-Watson, Maximilian I—Holy Roman Emperor (Westminster: Archibald Constable & Co., Ltd., 1902).
16. Ibid.
17. Riemann Musik Lexikon, ibid.
18. Paul Nettl, Luther and Music (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1948), p. 23.
19. For a detailed account, cf. Ulrich S. Leupold, ed., Luther’s Works, Vol. 53, Liturgy and Hymns (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965), pp. 337ff.
20. Charles Canfield Brown, Decca record DL 9420.
21. Donald Jay Grout, A History of Western Music (New York: W. W. Norton Co., 1960), p. 192.
22. Hans Joachim Moser, “Instrumentalismen bei Ludwig Senfl,” in Festchrift J. Wolf. (Berlin, 1929).
23. Preuss, p. 126.
24. Grove’s Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ibid.
25. Edward Dickinson, Music in the History of the Western Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1950), p. 264.

From The Musical Heritage of the Church, Volume VII (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1970). Copyright Concordia Publishing House. Printed by permission. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Concordia Publishing House.