YEARBOOK OF THE ALAMIRE FOUNDATION

114 THOMAS HOLME HANSEN
and in its second part applies “a direct approach to free composition”. 14 Despite the
fact that a growing number of textbooks have rejected the old species method, it is
notable, though, that in some it has maintained its status, for example, in the most
recent book by Peter Schubert (1999). 15 In any case, as the century wears on there is
a clear tendency to soften the arguments as well as the boundaries between the two
pedagogical approaches, and in many cases a more or less pronounced amalgamation
can be detected. 16
Regarding the question of style, all the works aim at the same objective, namely
an insight into the so-called common practice of the sixteenth century. But judging
by their titles and the authors’ pronounced intentions, the great majority of the books
not only aim at teaching vocal polyphony or modal counterpoint in general, but explicitly
narrow the stylistic frame to that of Palestrina. 17 In that respect it is interesting
to note the differences in methodological approach that show up behind the use of
the word ‘Palestrina style’. The following three examples will give an impression.
In Otto Fiebach’s book of 1921, the word Palestrinastil is found on the title page
as a parenthetical addition to the title, Die Lehre vom strengen Kontrapunkt. But nowhere
else in the book, though, is there any mentioning of Palestrina, let alone citations
from his works or, for that matter, from those of other Renaissance composers.
In Jeppesen’s textbook of 1930, the rules have their solid foundation and documentation
in the dissertation, and although the title Kontrapunkt (Vokalpolyfoni) 18 does
not indicate so, the book no doubt primarily teaches the contrapuntal laws of the style
of Palestrina. However, despite the fact that these rules are widely accepted as the
most comprehensive and accurate, several researchers have raised questions regarding
how big a part of Palestrina’s works actually falls within their limits, at the same
time pointing to groups of works that to some degree might fall without, such as, for
example, his polychoral motets. 19 Finally, in Christoph Hohlfeld’s work of 1994,
Schule musikalischen Denkens. Der Cantus-firmus-Satz bei Palestrina, 20 yet another
angle to the issue is presented. According to Hohlfeld, the magnificats by Palestrina
14 H. GILBERT TRYTHALL (1994), p. xii.
15 PETER SCHUBERT (1999), pp. v, 20, et passim.
16 Cf. the statement by Owen Swindale that “… we can have the best of both worlds – the species and the true
sixteenth-century style”, in OWEN SWINDALE (1962), p. ii.
17 In ten of the books, ‘Palestrina’ is literally part of their title. Second in place comes Orlando di Lasso, whose
style is placed next to Palestrina’s in a handful of the books, most notable in LESLIE BASSETT (1967),
CHARLOTTE SMITH (1989), and THOMAS DANIEL (1997).
18 Cf. footnote 6.
19 L. LOCKWOOD, N. O’REGAN and J.A. OWENS, art. Palestrina, Giovanni Pierluigi da, (par. 8), in S.
SADIE and J. TYRRELL eds., The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd ed., London, 2001,
18, pp. 946-947. Cf. Dahlhaus’ statement, that “the apparently indispensable didactic considerations cannot
always be wholly reconciled with historical endeavours to give a precise description of Palestrina’s style:
even Jeppesen’s textbook (1930), a paragon of pedagogic exposition by a historian, results from an (unacknowledged)
compromise”, in DAHLHAUS, Counterpoint, p. 564.
20 According to the colophon of the work only the Aufgabenteil is written by Reinhard Bahr; see CHRISTOPH
HOHLFELD and REINHARD BAHR (1994), p. [4].