The collaboration of choir and congregation in the performance of the music of Michael Praetorius

PDF

Download

Open document

Transcript (if available)

Content THE COLLABORATION OF CHOIR AND CONGREGATION
IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE MUSIC OF MICHAEL PRAETORIUS

by

Leonora Kathleen Wagner

________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(HISTORICAL MUSICOLOGY)

December 2012

Copyright 2012 Leonora Kathleen Wagner
ii

Dedication

To

Marlin E. Owen and Giulio M. Ongaro,

whose exceptional teaching and valuable guidance
have profoundly impacted me

iii

Acknowledgements

I owe many individuals and institutions a considerable debt of gratitude for their
assistance in my graduate work in general, and the completion of this dissertation in
particular. The University of Southern California provided financial support during my
graduate studies. The USC music faculty’s instruction was extremely helpful and the
teaching opportunities they offered me were greatly beneficial in preparing me for
whatever lies ahead. The musicology faculty, along with my fellow graduate students,
created a department combining an inviting atmosphere with an intellectually challenging
and stimulating environment. I greatly appreciate the assistance of the USC music library
and USC interlibrary loan department in acquiring research materials.
The Schmalz family deserve my deepest thanks for their kindness in opening their
home to me while I studied at the Goethe-Institut. Frederick Gable, professor emeritus at
the University of California, Riverside, graciously offered helpful suggestions and
answered various inquiries. Prof. Brian Mann of Vassar College, Prof. Arne Spohr of
Bowling Green State University, and Jeffery Kite-Powell, professor emeritus at Florida
State University, also kindly answered questions for me. Dallas Willard, professor in the
USC department of philosophy, provided thoughtful input, support, and encouragement.
The counsel, insightful input and motivation I received from the wonderful
members of my committee—Bruce Alan Brown, Giulio Ongaro and Joanna Demers—
were indispensable. Additionally, Prof. Brown provided invaluable assistance with
German translations, with editing, and with numerous other assorted matters. I am
iv
immeasurably grateful for Giulio Ongaro’s assistance with translating Latin, his judicious
advice, and his help in formulating ideas and communicating them effectively.
The successful completion of this project would not have been possible without
the support of my friends and family members. I am grateful to all of them. I am
especially thankful to Marlin and Jerri Lee Owen for their hospitality, encouragement and
friendship. Finally, the unwavering love and support of my family—including my mom
and dad; brothers Ted, Stephen, Dave, Jon and Ben; sister Joanna; sisters-in-law Brandy,
Rebeccah and Jodi; nephews Silas and Peter; and nieces Sadie, Eden, Elsie, Nora and
Eva—were essential. Both the continual encouragement and the brief, timely diversions
they offered allowed me to persevere to the end. Thank you for helping me to keep this
project in the proper perspective.

v
Table of Contents

Dedication........................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ iii

List of Tables .................................................................................................... vii

List of Musical Examples ................................................................................. xiv

Abstract.......................................................................................................... xviii

Introduction......................................................................................................... 1
Lutheran worship services in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries............................................................................................. 1
Congregational singing in the Lutheran church ........................................ 7
Overview of research on Michael Praetorius ......................................... 17
Chapter 1: Michael Praetorius’ Philosophy of Worship and Music.............. 25
Philosophy of worship and music in the first 150 years
of Lutheran thought.......................................................................... 25
Praetorius’ philosophy of worship, music and
congregational singing .................................................................... 40

Chapter 2: The Performance of Cantional Settings....................................... 84
Chorales and their functions................................................................... 84
The development of the cantional setting ............................................... 93
General advice for encouraging congregational singing ........................104
Praetorius’ methods for singing cantional settings.................................109
Musae Sioniae, volume 5......................................................................132
Assessing the scope of settings intended to accompany
congregational singing ...................................................................144

Chapter 3: Characteristics of Michael Praetorius’ Cantional Settings..........166
Range of voices and voice crossing.......................................................167
Texture .................................................................................................173
Harmony in Praetorius’ settings ............................................................205
Discussion and critique of Ruhnke’s article, and further analysis ..........226
Melodic accompanying voices, balance, motivic unity
and text painting..............................................................................246
Conclusion............................................................................................263

vi
Chapter 4: Groups of Settings of the Same Chorale Tune ...........................268
Regional variation of chorale melodies .................................................268
Figure 4.1. Map of central Europe...................................................270
Texture, harmony and voice leading within groups ...............................297
Conclusion............................................................................................313

Chapter 5: Troped Magnificats ...................................................................314
Latin, Vespers and the Magnificat in the Lutheran church.....................314
Background to Megalynodia .................................................................328
The Magnificat verses...........................................................................336
The printed tropes.................................................................................350
Alternate tropes ....................................................................................362
Compiling troped Magnificats...............................................................378
Conclusion............................................................................................385

Chapter 6: Urania and Kleine und Grosse Litaney......................................386
Polychoral cantional settings.................................................................386
Litanies.................................................................................................419

Chapter 7: Polyhymnia and the Concerted Motet ........................................425
Conclusion............................................................................................459

Conclusion .......................................................................................................466

Bibliography ....................................................................................................474

Appendix..........................................................................................................487

vii
List of Tables

Table 0.1: Comparison of the Roman Catholic Mass with Luther’s
Formula missae and Deutsche Messe 3

Table 2.1: Performing a chorale: first verse choraliter and the other
verses figuraliter 112

Table 2.2: Performing a chorale: begin with the first line
choraliter, option 2 113

Table 2.3: Performing a chorale: begin with the first line
choraliter, option 1 113

Table 2.4: Performing a chorale: begin with the first line
choraliter, option 3 114

Table 2.5: Performing a chorale: alternating choraliter and
figuraliter, with organ introduction 117

Table 2.6: Performing a chorale: a combination of imitative
counterpoint, unison singing and cantional style 121

Table 2.7: Performing a chorale: a combination of imitative
counterpoint, unison singing and cantional style,
with organ introduction 123

Table 2.8: Performing a chorale: alternating one soloist with
full choir and instruments 129

Table 2.9: Performing a chorale: alternating four soloists with
full choir and instruments 129

Table 2.10: The settings of Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ
in Musae Sioniae, volume 5 134

Table 2.11: Structure of MSV: 135 (Erstanden ist der heilige Christ) 163

Table 3.1: Size of vocal ranges within Praetorius’ cantional settings 168

Table 3.2: Vocal ranges in Praetorius’ cantional settings 168

viii
Table 3.3: Number of instances of voice crossing per setting 169

Table 3.4: Types of voice crossing, by percent 171

Table 3.5: Approximate number of notes in syncopation with
the melody, by voice 175

Table 3.6: Types of suspensions in Praetorius’ cantional settings 176

Table 3.7: Frequency of rhythmic suspensions, by voice 177

Table 3.8: Frequency of rhythmic anticipations, by voice 177

Table 3.9: Approximate number of added notes, by voice 181

Table 3.10: Frequency of neighbor tones, by voice 183

Table 3.11: Frequency of other extra tones, by voice 184

Table 3.12: Comparison of occurrence frequency of types
of decoration notes 184

Table 3.13: Frequency of passing tones, by voice 185

Table 3.14: Basic types of textures within Praetorius’ cantional settings 187

Table 3.15: Breakdown of Group 1 Settings 188

Table 3.16: Breakdown of Group 2 Settings 189

Table 3.17: Breakdown of Group 3 Settings 191

Table 3.18: Comparison of textures in Michael Praetorius’ Cantional
and Cantionale composed by his contemporaries 193

Table 3.19: Types of settings in Eccard’s Cantional, volume 1 195

Table 3.20: Number of distinct triads per setting in Michael Praetorius’
cantional settings 206

Table 3.21: Most common 4-pitch chords in Michael Praetorius’
cantional settings 207

ix
Table 3.22: Frequency of inversions in Michael Praetorius’
cantional settings 208

Table 3.23: Types of inversions in Michael Praetorius’
cantional settings 209

Table 3.24: Use of diatonic and non-diatonic triads in Michael
Praetorius’ cantional settings of chorales in
untransposed modes 210

Table 3.25: Use of diatonic and non-diatonic triads in settings
of chorales in untransposed modes in the
Melodeyen Gesangbuch 212

Table 3.26: Use of diatonic and non-diatonic chords and chords
inside and outside the Guidonian Hand in Michael
Praetorius’ cantional settings of chorales in untransposed
and transposed modes 213

Table 3.27: Use of iv and bVI triads in settings of chorales in aeolian
mode in Michael Praetorius’ Cantional 214

Table 3.28: Comparison of the frequency of chords built on the
fifth scale degree in four settings of Allein Gott in der
Höh sei Ehr 215

Table 3.29: Comparison of the frequency of chords built on the
fifth scale degree in four settings of In dich hab ich
gehoffet, Herr 216

Table 3.30: Frequency of minor triads built on the third scale degree
in four settings of In dich hab ich gehoffet, Herr 217

Table 3.31: Use of diatonic and non-diatonic chords and chords
inside and outside the Guidonian Hand in settings of
chorales in untransposed and transposed modes in the
Melodeyen Gesangbuch 217

Table 3.32: Interior cadences in Michael Praetorius’ Cantional 220

Table 3.33: Comparison of the prevalence of ii, iii and vi
triads in Michael Praetorius’ Cantional and the
Melodeyen Gesangbuch 233

x
Table 3.34: Comparison of cadence types in Michael Praetorius’
Cantional and the Melodeyen Gesangbuch 234

Table 3.35: Stepwise motion in the bass at cadences in Michael
Praetorius’ Cantional and in the Melodeyen Gesangbuch 235

Table 3.36: Correlation of texture to number of inversions in
Michael Praetorius’ cantional settings 236

Table 3.37: Comparison between the frequency of inversions in
Michael Praetorius’ Cantional, Mareschall’s Cantional
and the Melodeyen Gesangbuch 237

Table 3.38: Correlation between the texture of a setting in Praetorius’
Cantional and the percent of the successions of bass line
notes comprised of unisons, seconds and thirds 237

Table 3.39: Comparison of the percent of successions of bass line
notes comprised of unisons, seconds and thirds in various
settings of Ein feste Burg 238

Table 3.40: Comparison of bass line contours in the Cantionale of
Michael Praetorius, Hans Leo Hassler, Lucas Osiander,
and the Melodeyen Gesangbuch 239

Table 3.41a: Change in chords and voice leading from phrase 2 to
phrase 7 in cantional settings of Ein feste Burg 242

Table 3.41b: Change in chords and voice leading in a representative
subset of Michael Praetorius’ Cantional and four full
Cantionale of his contemporaries 242

Table 3.42: Structure of Geborn ist der Emanuel (MSVI: 45) 258

Table 4.1: Number of settings for specific regions compared for
this study 274

Table 4.2: Percent of congruence in pitch and rhythm in chorale
melodies for different regions in Michael Praetorius’
Cantional 274

Table 4.3: Comparison of three versions of the melody for
Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ 282

xi
Table 4.4: Comparison of three versions of the melody for
Nun lob, mein Seel, den Herren 284

Table 4.5: Comparison of melodies for Schwaben/Francken,
Seestädt, and Preußen with those melodies in H, MG
and E, respectively 285

Table 4.6: Percent of melody remaining stable across four or
more regions 290

Table 4.7: Comparison of five versions of the melody for
Da Jesus an dem Kreuze Stund 292

Table 4.8: Comparison of four versions of the melody for In dulci jubilo 293

Table 4.9: Relative amount of congruence for all versions of a melody:
rhythm vs. pitch 295

Table 4.10: Relative amount of congruence between any two settings of
the same melody: rhythm vs. pitch 295

Table 4.11a: Number of settings compared for harmony 300

Table 4.11b: Number of settings compared for voice leading 300

Table 4.12: Relative similarities between melody notes, harmony and
voice leading between two settings of the same chorale 302

Table 4.13: Discrepancy in voice leading and in chords between
settings of identical chorale melodies 304

Table 4.14: Comparison of two settings of In dulci jubilo 305

Table 4.15: Comparison of three settings of Ach Gott, von Himmel 306

Table 4.16: Comparison of three settings of Christ Lag in Todesbanden 307

Table 4.17: Comparison of three settings of Puer natus in Bethlehem 308

Table 4.18: Comparison of the six harmonizations of the recurring
phrase in Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland from MSVI: 8-10 310

xii
Table 4.19: Comparison of the ten harmonizations of the recurring
phrase in the melody for Nun freut euch, lieben Christen
gmein from MSVII: 119-123 310

Table 5.1: Motet models for the verses in Praetorius’ troped
Magnificats 336

Table 5.2: Degree of reliance on model motets in the verses in
Praetorius’ troped Magnificats 337

Table 5.3: Magnificat tropes in textbook cantional style 355

Table 5.4: Magnificat tropes diverging from textbook cantional style
in at least one area 356

Table 5.5: Tropes in cantional style diverging from textbook
cantional style in at least one area 357

Table 5.6: Tropes in Magnificat 2 incorporating styles other than
cantional style 360

Table 5.7: Cantional settings suitable for alternate tropes in
Magnificat 1 365

Table 5.8: Cantional settings suitable for alternate tropes in
Magnificat 2 366

Table 5.9: Suggested alternate tropes for Magnificat 2 369

Table 5.10: Compiled troped Magnificat, version 1 380

Table 5.11: Compiled troped Magnificat, possible realization of
version 2 381

Table 5.12: Suggested chorale settings to use when compiling
troped Magnificats 384

Table 6.1: Suggested composition of choirs for two-choir and
three-choir performances of cantional settings 388

Table 6.2: Performing a cantional setting with three choirs, with
some verses sung choraliter 389

xiii
Table 6.3: Suggested composition of choirs for four-choir
performances of cantional settings 390

Table 6.4: Minimal number of singers and instrumentalists needed to
execute each option of performing a cantional setting with
four choirs, as described in the preface to Urania 392

Table 6.5: Amount of variety in harmony between iterations of
the Allein Gott in der Höh sei Ehr melody within pieces
in Urania 404

Table 6.6: Motivic development in Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ (U3) 412

Table 6.7: Congruence between harmonizations of the melody for
Allein Gott in der Höh sei Ehr in Urania 415

Table 6.8: Comparison of harmonizations of chorale melodies in
Praetorius’ Cantional with harmonizations of these
melodies in Urania 417

Table 7.1: Michael Praetorius’ preferred method of performing
Quem pastores laudavere and Nunc angelorum gloria 429

Table 7.2: Scope of the pieces in the three published volumes of
Polyhymnia conducive to including congregational singing 458

xiv
List of Musical Examples

Example 2.1: Melody of Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ 134

Example 2.2: MSV: 60, mm. 5-8 136

Example 2.3: MSV: 60, mm. 1-5 137

Example 2.4: MSV: 62, mm. 32-36 138

Example 2.5: MSV: 63 143

Example 2.6: MSVIII: 119 148

Example 2.7a: MSVII: 212, phrase 1 151

Example 2.7b: MSVII: 211, phrase 1 151

Example 2.8: MSV: 8, mm. 1-7 157

Example 3.1: MSVI: 76, phrase 1 169

Example 3.2: MSVII: 2, end 170

Example 3.3: MSVI: 67, phrases 1-4 173

Example 3.4: MSVIII: 176, phrase 5 177

Example 3.5: Rhythmic anticipations and suspensions used for
avoiding parallel perfect intervals 178

Example 3.6: Parallel perfect intervals 179

Example 3.7: MSVII: 13, phrase 2 (excerpt) 179

Example 3.8: MSVIII: 125, phrase 2 180

Example 3.9: Intermediate notes used for avoiding parallel
perfect intervals 181

Example 3.10: Additional functions of neighbor tones and passing tones 182

xv
Example 3.11: MSVIII: 158, phrase 1 183

Example 3.12: MSVII: 95, phrase 2 186

Example 3.13: MSVIII: 180 190

Example 3.14: MSVIII: 100 192

Example 3.15: Eccard’s cantional setting of Von Himmel hoch 196

Example 3.16: Eccard’s cantional setting of Christum wir sollen
loben schon, phrases 1-2 197

Example 3.17: Cadences in settings of melodies in phrygian mode 219

Example 3.18: MSVI: 133, end 219

Example 3.19: Excerpts incorporating standard Renaissance
cadential motion 221

Example 3.20: Cadences without standard Renaissance cadential motion 221

Example 3.21: Cadences in the ii-I and II-I families 222

Example 3.22: Cadences with leading tones a perfect fifth or perfect
fourth apart 223

Example 3.23: MSVI: 2 225

Example 3.24: Repeated phrases of the melody in MSVI: 115 243

Example 3.25: Repeated phrases of the melody in MSV: 42 245

Example 3.26: MSVI: 50, phrases 2-3 248

Example 3.27: MSVI: 62 250

Example 3.28: MSVI: 33, phrase 4 251

Example 3.29: Some recurring motives 252

Example 3.30: Two presentations of a motive in two voices
simultaneously, at different speeds 253

xvi
Example 3.31: MSVIII: 44, phrases 1 and 3 253

Example 3.32: MSVIII: 256, final two phrases 254

Example 3.33: Motivic manipulation and imitation in settings of
Christ der du bist der helle Tag 255

Example 3.34: MSVI: 65 257

Example 3.35: MSVIII: 168 262

Example 4.1: Comparison of three versions of the melody for
Ach Gott, von Himmel sieh darein 276

Example 4.2: Comparison of two versions of the melody for
Christus der uns selig macht 277

Example 4.3: Comparison of two versions of the melody for
O Lamm Gottes unschuldig 278

Example 4.4: Comparison of three versions of the melody for
Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ 282

Example 4.5: Comparison of five versions of the melody for
Da Jesus an dem Kreuze stund 291

Example 4.6: Comparison of four versions of the melody for
In dulci jubilo 294

Example 4.7: Comparison of four versions of the melody for
O Herre Gott, dein göttlich Wort 296

Example 4.8: Two versions of phrase 3 of Christ lag in Todesbanden 307

Example 4.9: Three harmonizations of the recurring phrase in the
melody for Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland 309

Example 4.10: Two harmonizations of the recurring phrase in the
melody for Nun freut euch, lieben Christen gmein 311

Example 4.11: Two additional harmonizations of the recurring phrase
in the melody for Nun freut euch, lieben Christen gmein 312

Example 5.1a: Angelus ad Pastores, end of m. 46-m. 58 340
xvii
Example 5.1b: Magnificat 1, verse 12, end of m. 6-m. 18 341

Example 5.2a: Surrexit Pastor bonus, mm. 53-66 343

Example 5.2b: Magnificat 3, verse 12, mm. 7b-20 344

Example 5.3a: Source material for Magnificat 2, verse 2, mm. 6-11 346

Example 5.3b: Magnificat 2, verse 2, mm. 6-11 347

Example 5.4: Magnificat 3, trope 6, phrases 1-2, 5-6 351

Example 5.5: Magnificat 1, trope 3, phrases 4-7 359

Example 5.6: Magnificat 2, trope 3, verse 2 361

Example 6.1: U8, verse 2, phrase 3 401

Example 6.2: U3, verse 3 410

xviii
Abstract

Although congregational singing has been an important element of Lutheran
worship since the early years of the Reformation, as visitation reports show, the success
of its implementation in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries varied from place to
place and from congregation to congregation. Because of this, encouraging lay members
to sing at appropriate times during worship services and providing music for such singing
were relevant concerns for Lutherans during these years. Appropriately, then, at the
beginning of the seventeenth century, the influential music director and composer
Michael Praetorius addressed these concerns by providing philosophical support,
performance suggestions, and music for lay participation. This dissertation investigates
these contributions to the advancement of congregational singing in collaboration with
trained musicians in Lutheran worship services.
Through examination of Praetorius’ treatises and prefaces to publications, I
explore his philosophy of worship, especially as it pertains to the respective roles of
skilled musicians and the laity in the presentation of church music. Praetorius’ collection
of more than 750 cantional settings forms the backbone of his group of compositions
intended especially for congregational singing, and includes harmonizations of versions
of chorale tunes from various regions. I assess Praetorius’ accuracy in reproducing local
melodic variants, demonstrating his volumes to be reliable sources of singing practices
from different geographical areas. In order to clarify Praetorius’ compositional
tendencies, I analyze his settings with respect to the properties of individual voices,
xix
texture, harmony, incorporation of variety, motivic manipulation and text painting, and
compare them to settings by some of his contemporaries. As this analysis testifies, the
number, characteristics and quality of Praetorius’ cantional settings reflect his stated
beliefs about the importance of congregational singing.
Additionally, I consider the multiple options for incorporating congregational
singing in a service that Praetorius presents in his volumes. Exhibiting a wide range of
complexity, these options include performing cantional settings with four vocal parts
only, performing them with instruments and multiple choirs, and combining verses in a
simple style with ones from concerted polychoral motets or contrapuntal Latin
Magnificats. Not only are Praetorius’ methods practical, in terms of allowing and enticing
lay people to participate, but according to a Lutheran perspective, performances using
these methods foreshadow worship in heaven and promote, and illustrate, the proper
functioning of the church body.

1
Introduction

Lutheran worship services in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
While medieval Christians mainly understood the Mass and other liturgical
services as rituals performed to appease God, for Luther, who rejected any construct
offering human actions as a means to obtain salvation, the primary purpose of worship
services was to present the gospel to the people who would then respond appropriately
with prayer, praise and thanksgiving.
1
Thus, the sermon and reading of Scripture were
essential components of Lutheran services.
2
This focus on the proclamatory and didactic
aspects of services, however, did not negate the value of ritual. Luther knew that people
found structure and familiarity in worship services to be helpful. While removing
elements of services he found problematic and promoting accessibility to the
congregation, Luther also retained as much of tradition as accorded with his
understanding of doctrine so as not to alienate this same congregation that was used to

1
Christopher Boyd Brown, “Devotional Life in Hymns, Liturgy, Music, and Prayer,” in Lutheran
Ecclesiastical Culture, edited by Robert Kolb (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 220; Mary Jane Haemig and Robert
Kolb, “Preaching in Lutheran Pulpits,” in Lutheran Ecclesiastical Culture, 119-22.

2
E.g., Luther, Von ordenung gottis diensts ynn der gemeyne: “Nu diße mißbreuch abtzuthun, ist auffs erst
tzu wissen, das die Christlich gemeyne numer soll zu samen komen, es werde denn da selbs Gottis wort
gepredigt und gebett. . . . Darumb wo nicht gotts wort predigt wirt, ists besser das man widder singe noch
leße, noch zu samen kome.” In Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. 12 (Weimar: Böhlau, 1891),
35. (“Now in order to correct these abuses, know first of all that a Christian congregation should never
gather together without the preaching of God’s Word and prayer. . . . Therefore, when God’s Word is not
preached, one had better neither sing nor read, or even come together.”) Translated in Luther’s Works:
American Edition, vol. 53: Liturgy and Hymns (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965), 11. Luther, Deutsche
Messe: “Weyl alles Gottis diensts das grössist und furnempst stuck ist Gottis wort predigen und leren,
halten wyrs mit dem predigen und lesen also.” In Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. 19
(Weimar: Böhlau, 1897), 78. (“Since the preaching and teaching of God’s Word is the most important part
of divine service, we have arranged for sermons and lessons as follows.”) Translated in Luther’s Works,
53:68.

2
the Catholic liturgy, and also because of its theological worth.
3
As a result, the main
Lutheran worship services resembled closely their Catholic counterparts in type and in
structure.
The most significant alterations Luther made to the Mass pertained to those
elements accompanying the Eucharist—in particular, he eradicated the Offertory, Secret
and Canon—because their interpretation of communion as a sacrifice made to God on
behalf of the people was antithetical to his understanding of salvation.
4
Aside from this
portion of the service, Luther’s Latin Formula missae, published in 1523, follows quite
closely the Roman Catholic Mass.
5

3
E.g., Luther, Formula missae: “et sub cantu Benedictus elevetur panis et Calix, ritu hactenus servato, vel
propter infirmos, qui hac repentina huius insignioris in missa ritus [mutatione] forte offendentur praesertim
ubi per conciones vernaculas docti fuerint, quid ea petatur elevatione.” In Luthers Werke, 12:212-13.
(“And while the Benedictus is being sung, let the bread and cup be elevated according to the customary rite
for the benefit of the weak in faith who might be offended if such an obvious change in this rite of the mass
were suddenly made. This concession can be made especially where through sermons in the vernacular
they have been taught what the elevation means.”) Translated in Luther’s Works, 53:28. See also the
beginning of the Deutsche Messe (in Luthers Werke, 12:72-74; translated in Luther’s Works, 53:61-63).
Luther’s conservative approach was influenced by the reaction of the people of Wittenberg to the radical
reforms of Karlstadt. While Luther was in Wartburg, Karlstadt did such things as perform Mass in his street
clothes, upsetting and shocking many Wittenberg citizens. See Joseph Herl, Worship Wars in Early
Lutheranism: Choir, Congregation, and Three Centuries of Conflict (New York: Oxford University Press,
2004), 4.

4
E.g., Luther, Formula missae: “loquor autem de Canone illo lacero et abominabili, ex multorum lacunis
ceu sentina collecto: ibi cepit missa fieri sacrificium. . . . Et abhinc omnia fere sonant ac olent
oblationem. . . . Proinde omnibus illis repudiatis quae oblationem sonant, cum universo Canone,
retineamus, quae pura et sancta sunt, ac sic Missam nostram ordiamur.” In Luthers Werke, 12:207, 211.
(“What I am speaking of is the canon, that abominable concoction drawn from everyone’s sewer and
cesspool. The mass became a sacrifice. . . . From [the offertory] on everything smacks and savors of
sacrifice. . . . Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of sacrifice, together with the entire canon
and retain only that which is pure and holy, and so order our mass.”) Translated in Luther’s Works, 53:21,
26. For a discussion of Luther’s understanding of the nature and purpose of the Mass and the changes he
made to the portions of the Mass accompanying the Eucharist, see Robin A. Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical
Music: Principles and Implications (Grand Rapids: William. B. Eerdmans, 2007), 173-90.

5
See Luthers Werke, 12:205-20. For an English translation see Luther’s Works, 53:19-40.

3
Table 0.1. Comparison of the Roman Catholic Mass with Luther’s
Formula missae and Deutsche Messe*

4
Though presented in the vernacular, the Deutsche Messe, which appeared three years
later, also retains the structure and many of the elements of its predecessor.
6
Yet it also
provides opportunities for congregational singing of chorales, for instance during
communion (see Table 0.1, above).
7

Because Luther repudiated the traditional Catholic insistence on the importance of
the form and precise text of the Mass, although he retained most of the Roman Mass, he
also emphasized freedom in forms of worship.
8
Regarding the Deutsche Messe, he
clarified that it could be followed where it was useful, but urged Christians not to set it up
as a requirement for believers.
9
Church orders of Luther’s contemporaries and successors
usually resembled the form of Luther’s published Masses, but frequently did not follow
them precisely.
10
In cities and large towns with Latin schools Lutheran Masses often
featured a mix of Latin and German, with Latin emphasized more on festival days than

6
See Luthers Werke, 19:72-113. For an English translation, see Luther’s Works, 53:61-90.

7
Prior to the publication of the Deutsche Messe, Luther led a German Mass in Wittenberg during the
Advent season of 1525. That the Gloria traditionally is omitted during Advent, and thus was not sung at
this 1525 performance, explains the omission of this element in the Deutsche Messe. See Leaver, Luther’s
Liturgical Music, 183-87.

8
E.g., Luther, Formula missae (especially pp. 212-15 in Luthers Werke, vol. 12; pp. 26, 30-31 in Luther’s
Works, vol. 53); Luther, “A Christian Exhortation to the Livonians Concerning Public Worship and
Concord” (especially pp. 448-49 in Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. 18 [Weimar: Böhlau,
1908]; pp. 47-48 in Luther’s Works, vol. 53).

9
Luther, Deutsche Messe: “Vor allen dingen wil ich gar freundlich gebeten haben, auch umb Gottis willen,
alle die ienigen, so diese unser ordnunge ym Gottis dienst sehen odder nach folgen wollen, das sie ja keyn
nöttig gesetz draus machen noch nemands gewissen damit verstricken odder fahen, sondern der
Christlichen freyheyt nach yhres gefallens brauchen, wie, wu, wenn und wie lange es die sachen schicken
und foddern.” In Luthers Werke, 19:72. (“In the first place, I would kindly and for God’s sake request all
those who see this order of service or desire to follow it: Do not make it a rigid law to bind or entangle
anyone’s conscience, but use it in Christian liberty as long, when, where, and how you find it to be practical
and useful.”) Translated in Luther’s Works, 53:61.

10
Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music, 293 and 304.

5
on ordinary ones.
11
Duke Julius’ 1569 church order for Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel, the
order still in force in the early seventeenth century when Michael Praetorius worked at
the Wolfenbüttel court, is typical in its adoption of the overall structure of the Deutsche
Messe, the combination of Latin and German, and the flexibility to use either language
for some texts.
12

Lutheran Masses generally lasted approximately three hours, with the sermon and
its attending elements occupying the middle hour.
13
If no communicants were present,
however, most of the components following the sermon were removed. Mass was held
everywhere on Sundays and festival days and often additional services, either Masses or
preaching services, were held during the week.
14
In most places, a litany was sung during
or after at least one of the midweek services. In general, the larger the town or city, the
more midweek services were held. For instance, the 1569 Braunschweig order specified
that a preaching service be held every day in cities, while smaller towns and villages were
only expected to hold these two or three times a week. A litany was to be sung in all
places on Wednesday or Friday.
15

11
Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music, 192-93.

12
For salient excerpts from this order, see Michael Praetorius, Gesamtausgabe der musikalischen Werke,
vol. 21, edited by Friedrich Blume (Wolfenbüttel: Kallmeyer, 1960), 145-62.

13
The following discussion of the services held in Lutheran cities, towns and villages is indebted to Herl,
Worship Wars, 37-40 and Brown, “Devotional Life,” 270-73.

14
Lutherans retained many of the festivals of the Catholic church, in particular those pertaining to the life
of Christ. Cities often held abbreviated Mass services prior to the main service on Sunday for house
servants who could not attend the main service because of their domestic duties.

15
Praetorius, Gesamtausgabe der musikalischen Werke, 21:156.

6
Weekday Matins and Vespers also were held, especially in places with Latin
schools, and resembled abbreviated versions of their Catholic counterparts. The emphasis
on such services varied from place to place. Matins, which took place early in the
morning, lasted approximately an hour, and included scripture reading, a sermon, and
psalms, responsories and antiphons. Weekday Vespers, held in the evening and also
lasting about an hour, included reading, explanation, songs of praise, and prayer.
16

Saturday Vespers was followed by confession for those intending to take communion the
following day. A catechism service usually took place on Sunday afternoons, either
combined with a Vespers service, or replacing it.
Attendance at the main Sunday service was obligatory in many Lutheran
territories; people who flouted their religious responsibilities might receive disciplinary
measures such as jail time and fines, although degrees of enforcement differed from one
place to another. Most people did attend the main Sunday service, though sometimes only
for the middle hour. However, attendance at other services, including the Sunday
catechism service, tended to be extremely minimal. Frequently only schoolboys and
clergy attended weekday Vespers and Matins, and often there is no indication that lay
people even were expected to attend.
17

16
Herl, Worship Wars, 4-5.

17
Ibid., 65.

7
Congregational singing in the Lutheran church
Reinforced by the doctrine of the common priesthood, the use of at least some
German songs in Lutheran services created opportunities for lay people to participate
actively in musical worship. In addition to hymns sung during communion and inserted
between standard liturgical items, German chorales could serve as substitutes for these
items.
18
However, although the potential for a complete performance of the Lutheran
liturgy in the vernacular by congregation and priest did exist, during the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries such a performance usually only occurred in small villages. In
towns and cities, performance of the Lutheran liturgy of the Mass (and certainly the
offices, often attended by few if any lay people), though punctuated with a few items
appropriate for congregational singing, remained mostly the purview of the presiding
clergy and the choir.
19

Lutheran services incorporated a variety of styles of music, including chant,
monophonic chorales, polyphonic settings of chorales, and instrumental pieces. As in the
Catholic Church, at Lutheran services a clergyman chanted many of the texts, including
lections, the Epistle and the Gospel.
20
The choir sang some chorales polyphonically,
although during the first half of the sixteenth century this practice occurred mostly on

18
Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music, 301-3. Eventually, Kyrie, Gott Vater in ewigkeit; Allein Gott in der
Höh Sei Ehr; Wir glauben all an einen Gott; and Jesaja dem propheten das geschah commonly were
substituted for the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo and Sanctus, respectively. Christe, du Lamm gottes and O Lamm
Gottes, unschuldig both were common substitutes for the Agnus Dei.

19
This is the main thesis of Herl, Worship Wars.

20
Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music, 191-93. In the Deutsche Messe, appropriating a device used for
singing the Passion narratives during Holy Week, for the Gospel Luther pitched the words of Jesus lower
than the rest of the text, emphasizing them.

8
feast days. By the second half of the century, such figural singing of chorales became
increasingly common even on days not linked to a Lutheran feast, at least in cities.
21

Polyphonic chorales both decorated the service and reinforced the melodies and texts of
chorales for the congregation.
22
Thus, chant performed by clergymen and choral pieces
remained integral to worship in the Lutheran service, while at the same time
congregational singing also acquired, and then maintained, an essential role as well.
Some congregational singing did occur in Germany prior to the Reformation,
although its prevalence and frequency are difficult to determine.
23
Certainly Luther
instigated a significant increase in the practice by encouraging its use, and his colleagues
and successors upheld its importance. Judging from some hymnals published in the 1520s
and 1530s, Luther seems to have meant for the congregation to sing even on some of the
chants during the Mass. Robin Leaver considers it plausible that the congregation sang
along on the Introit, even when it consisted of a chant rather than a German song, because
in such cases it used a repetitive Psalm tone. Likewise, Leaver argues that the
congregation could have sung the Kyrie as a chant. Luther apparently expected choirs and
congregations (when they attended) to sing the German Magnificat antiphonally at
Vespers, and when performing his Litany, to do so in a similar manner.
24

21
Herl, Worship Wars, 14.

22
Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music, 205-8.

23
Herl, Worship Wars, 28, 33. See also Brown’s discussion in “Devotional Life,” 226-28.

24
Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music, 194-95.

9
Of course, because singing is an important manifestation of faith Luther thought it
extremely important that lay people participate in the singing of German hymns—as he
explained at the end of his Formula missae, expressed in a letter to Georg Spalatin,
25

confirmed by providing opportunities for such singing in the Deutsche Messe, and upheld
elsewhere.
26
He constructed his own chorales in a way that would aid the people in
singing. Appropriation of tunes from Latin hymns and German folk hymns, and the use
of bar form and other familiar musical features resulted in chorales that were accessible
to people of all walks of life.
27

Within the Mass, congregational singing of the German Creed, usually using
Luther’s adaptation Wir glauben all an einen Gott, was expected in most places, and
some orders included provisions for congregational singing in other standard liturgical
items. During communion (as suggested in the Deutsche Messe) and before and after the
sermon were also popular locations for congregational singing.
28
The 1569 Braunschweig
church order, for instance, specifies that congregational singing of a German song can
replace the Sequence, Alleluia or Tract following the Epistle, and also includes a German
hymn both before and after the sermon, to be sung with the congregation. Congregational
singing on songs accompanying communion, as well as on the Creed is implied.
However, the fact that Luther and his contemporaries and successors who authored

25
Leaver argues that Luther likely wrote similar letters to various friends, but that only Spalatin’s survives.

26
For instance, see Herl, Worship Wars, 14.

27
For instance, Luther created at least three chorale tunes from the melody for Veni redemptor gentium:
Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland, Verleih uns Frieden gnädiglich and Erhalt uns, Herr, bei deinem Wort.
For a comparison of these melodies, see Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music, 201.

28
See Herl, Worship Wars, 8-9.
10
church orders for the various regions of Lutheran Germany intended for the congregation
to participate on some elements of the service does not imply that they necessarily always
did so eagerly, or even at all.
Records of ecclesiastical visitations—official investigations by church authorities
of the activities and finances of churches, the teaching and conduct of pastors, and the
beliefs and behavior of the laity—and edicts resulting from them offer valuable insight
into the actual state of congregational singing, especially of chorales, within Lutheran
churches during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
29
However, it is important to use
caution when consulting such sources, as the nature of the information found there is
likely to be influenced significantly by the bias of the visitors and the nature of the
reports themselves.
30
Rather than producing complete, objective descriptions of the
totality of a church’s activities, reports focus more on negative aspects than positive ones,
at least partly because “the records of visitors frequently justify their activities by finding
fault.”
31
For instance, congregational singing is most likely to have been mentioned when
it was of poor quality; a visitor might not mention observations about the singing if it did

29
During a typical visitation, church authorities would meet with the pastor to discuss the execution of his
duties and the moral health of his congregation, and examine members of the congregation to assess their
knowledge of the catechism. Visitors also would attend services, listen to complaints and concerns, and
investigate the church’s financial records. Reports, consisting of notes and summaries, from many such
visitations survive in manuscript, although only a small minority have been transcribed and published. For
more on ecclesiastical visitations, see Herl, Worship Wars, 69-70 and Robert Christman, “The Pulpit and
the Pew: Shaping Popular Piety in the Late Reformation,” in Lutheran Ecclesiastical Culture, 290-92.

30
See Herl, Worship Wars, 83-86 for an evaluation of the reliability of visitation reports for determining
levels of congregational participation in singing.

31
Haemig and Kolb, “Preaching in Lutheran Pulpits,” 155. Haemig and Kolb’s discussion of visitation
reports is in the context of using these documents to determine how many people actually attended services.
Nevertheless, their observation is valid for the use of the reports in general.

11
not need to be improved, especially if music in general was not of particular interest to
him. Some visitors may not have asked about music, so the topic might not have arisen
during a visitation at all unless the pastor or congregation brought up specific concerns
about it.
32
Additionally, cities generally did not take well to visitations, and so most
visitation records pertain to villages and towns of a smaller size. Thus, it would be
illegitimate to try to establish the comparative quantities of excellent and poor
congregational singing based on the relative number of mentions of each in visitation
reports. Nevertheless, such reports can provide useful indications of when and where
problems did arise, and why these might have occurred.
Joseph Herl’s examination of visitation records reveals that the extent and quality
of congregational singing varied greatly from one place and time to another.
33
Because he
relies on those records that have been transcribed and published, the sampling of such
sources Herl consults in his investigation of congregational singing is by no means
exhaustive. Even so, he does employ sources from a number of areas covering a broad
span of time, namely much of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Therefore, though
not providing a complete picture, his findings are suggestive and offer some specific
insights into the state of congregational singing in Lutheran churches during the first 150
years of the Reformation era.

32
Herl, Worship Wars, 75.

33
The following discussion is based on visitation records from Electoral Saxony, 1529-1673 (translated
excerpts included in Herl, Worship Wars, 71-75), Grubenhagen, 1617 (discussed in Worship Wars, 81),
Hesse, 1628-1632 (discussed in Worship Wars, 81-82), and Hohenlohe, 1582 (edict following the visitation
translated in Worship Wars, 83).
12
Concerning this topic, some visitors do report favorably, for instance about the
churches in Seyda (1574), Apollensdorf (1598), Kunssdorf (1608) Blönsdorf, Danna and
Melmessdorf (1618), and Mügeln and Lindwerder (1618), all within electoral Saxony.
Similarly, ecclesiastical visitors record that the people in Goldlauter (within Henneberg,
1566), Catelenburg and Saltz der Helden (within Grubenhagen, 1617), and some
congregations in Hesse (1628-1632) sang well. Christopher Boyd Brown’s study of
Joachimsthal confirms that the people in that city participated eagerly in singing during
the service, and that they even gathered an hour beforehand on many Sundays and
festival days to sing German hymns.
34

However, there is ample indication that the participation of lay people was
inconsistent or meager in many places. Visitors to locations within Electoral Saxony
reported such things as weak, low or non-existent participation on hymns meant to be
sung by the entire congregation.
35
A 1573 edict resulting from visitations in Stettin
reports that the people failed to sing “fluently and together.”
36
Similarly, according to the
reports of visitations conducted between 1628 and 1632, while the congregations in some

34
Christopher Boyd Brown, “Singing the Gospel: Lutheran Hymns and the Success of the Reformation in
Joachimsthal” (PhD diss, Harvard University, 2001), 177-81. Such singing occurred especially during
warm weather. Additionally, a letter written in 1545 referring to church services in Strassburg reports that
both men and women sang in unison, producing a beautiful result. Further, this congregation sang from
hymnals, a rarity at the time. The theology and liturgical bent of Strassburg, however, were a mix of
Lutheranism and Calvinism (and even Zwinglian ideas), so that congregational singing was stressed there
even more than in other Protestant German cities influenced more purely by Luther. See Herl, Worship
Wars, 96-100.

35
The following locations received such a report: Clöden (1577), Ahsldorf, Herzberg, Wahrenbrück
(1598), Apollensdorf, Axien, Bergwitz, Elster, Herzberg (1602), Ahsldorf, Drasdo, Hohenleipisch,
Wildshütz (1608), Arzberg, Lönnewitz, (1618) and Schönewalde (1672). Interestingly, four years earlier (in
1598) Apollensdorf had received a favorable report regarding congregational singing.

36
Herl, Worship Wars, 83.
13
places in Hesse sang well, in those places with fewer schools apparently the people did
not sing much at all.
Although church leaders and ecclesiastical visitors often do not note the precise
reasons for spotty participation, sometimes they do indicate at least some aspects of the
nature of the problem. In certain cases, it seems some congregations simply were
unwilling to learn songs or sing. Early on this was a problem in Wittenberg, prompting
Luther, in a 1526 sermon, to describe his congregation as “blocks of wood” and to urge
them to learn German hymns and sing them in church.
37
An official visitor to Beyern in
1672 reported that “Hardly anyone sings, even though this is strongly advocated in the
sermons.”
38
During visitations in Hesse, the pastor in Wetter complained that his
congregation refused to sing at services, and had told him that they would go to a tavern
if they wanted to sing.
Congregations sometimes found things other than singing to occupy themselves
during church services. Some read their devotional books, not only during liturgical and
instrumental music when such use was encouraged, but while they were supposed to be
singing.
39
Those not receiving communion often left after the sermon, precluding them
from singing the customary hymns during this portion of the service.
40
In 1586, an
ecclesiastical visitor to Belgern reported that the people tended to linger outside the

37
Ibid., 14.

38
Ibid., 74.

39
Ibid., 52.

40
Ibid., 13.

14
church building during the service, including those portions during which they were
supposed to be singing.
Despite such examples of inattentive and stubborn congregations, examination of
visitation reports indicates that when the quantity and quality of congregational
participation fell short of the ideal often difficult or inappropriate repertoire, or even lack
of opportunities to sing, was to blame. Unfamiliar hymns or additions to hymns could
hamper the ability of even eager congregants to sing along.
41
Similarly, undoubtedly
because such practices hindered successful lay participation, members of two
congregations in the Hessen-Darmstadt region complained that the schoolmaster sang
tunes incorrectly, or used tunes they did not know.
42
Inappropriately speedy tempos could
cause confusion for a congregation trying to sing along, as lay people in Rötzsch reported
to an ecclesiastical visitor in 1598. Additionally, lack of attention to the linguistic
abilities of a congregation could affect its ability to participate. For instance, a visitor to
Andreasberg in 1617 reported that the singing there was “in disarray” because of the
frequent use of Latin songs that the people were not prepared to sing.
43
Sometimes
members of congregations expressed to visitors frustration at a lack of opportunities to
sing at all. The same people in Rötzsch who objected to inordinately fast tempos also
lamented the general dearth of performance of congregational hymns.
44
Responding to

41
These difficulties were reported by visitors to Schmiedeberg (1608) and Elsnig (1598), respectively.

42
These comments were part of the 1628-1632 Hesse visitation reports.

43
Herl, Worship Wars, 81.

44
The relevant visitation report was from 1598.

15
the people’s requests for a shorter service, the deacon in Leibenwerda had removed the
hymn previously sung before the sermon, but the people did not find this a satisfactory
solution and requested the hymn be reinstated.
45
Similarly, infrequent singing of the
German Creed led to complaints from members of the Wildschütz and Wahrenbrück
congregations.
46

An edict issued following a 1582 visitation in Hohenlohe not only reveals a lack
of congregational singing in the churches in almost all the parishes in the region, but also
decrees actions be taken both by church leaders and members of the congregation to
remedy the situation.
Because hymns contain much good teaching and many useful things, and
congregational singing is thus a worthy practice, the pastors are to exhort the
people in their sermons how useful it can be. In each house the parents should
send at least one child to school, and they should teach their children and
servants not only the catechism but also to sing psalms. The people should pay
attention to the schoolmaster and schoolboys when they sing and sing neither
too loudly nor too high, nor in a disorderly fashion, as when they are shouting
in the field. It is further ordered that in all parishes, especially in cities,
Sunday catechism is to be rung a quarter or half hour earlier and the extra time
used to practice psalm singing with the children. The pastors and
schoolmasters are to use the common, well-known, and simple psalms and
spiritual songs already known to the people until they become accustomed to
the new. The young people are to learn to sing under threat of punishment
(revoking permission for dances, etc.), and at social gatherings in the winter
they are to sing only psalms and spiritual songs. A fine will be imposed on
those violating this order.”
47

Judging solely from Herl’s sources, one might conclude that poor congregational
participation—whether resulting from an uninterested congregation, unsuitable music, or

45
The relevant visitation report was from 1608.

46
The relevant visitation reports were from 1602 and 1618, respectively.

47
Translated in Herl, Worship Wars, 83.
16
lack of opportunities—was far more prevalent during the period of investigation than
enthusiastic and sonorous singing by the laity. Indeed, Herl presents this as a possibility,
but acknowledges that visitors may have reported poor singing much more readily than
good singing for the reasons discussed above, skewing the picture. Looking at some of
the same data as Herl, in particular the reports of visitations in Electoral Saxony
conducted between 1529 and 1673 comprising seven total volumes, Christopher Brown
concludes that weak congregational singing, especially the type due to apathy or
stubbornness, actually was somewhat rare since there are relatively few mentions of such
attitudes in comparison to the vast number of overall reports. At the same time, he finds
quite suggestive the references to eager congregations thwarted in their endeavors to
participate by unsuitable hymns and lack of opportunities to sing. However, regardless of
which elements of the data in the available visitation reports one emphasizes, from the
contents of these records it is clear that active involvement of lay people in church music
was of interest to at least many members of congregations, pastors, and higher
ecclesiastical authorities during the first 150 years of the Reformation era. Yet the ideal
was not achieved in many congregations. Thus, combating this problem—as the
authorities in Hohenlohe strove to do, both by encouraging the people to participate, and
by providing appropriate material for them to sing, was a relevant concern for Lutheran
leaders, pastors, and musicians during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

17
Overview of research on Michael Praetorius
Both directly and indirectly in his treatises, prefaces to volumes of music and
instructions for the performance of specific pieces, Michael Praetorius addresses the topic
of congregational singing. His many comments on issues related to this essential aspect
of Lutheran worship services reveal his thoughts on the roles of the congregation and of
the choir in these services, his understanding of the tendencies of lay people in regard to
active participation and the characteristics of music that not only entice members of the
congregation to join the singing, but allow them to do so successfully. Hundreds of
compositions in his extensive collection are suitable for including congregational singing,
either during the entire piece or at least portions thereof. He produced such pieces not
only for the specific courts at which he was employed, but for vast portions of Lutheran
Germany. Working during a period when the newly introduced cantional style expedited
increased collaboration between choir and congregation, Praetorius promoted such
collaboration, both on simple settings of chorales as well as on pieces incorporating very
complex elements, including the most progressive ones of his time. From his philosophy
of worship inspired by his devout Lutheran beliefs, to the pieces he composed, to his
instructions for performing these pieces, Praetorius’ writings and music reveal a concern
for the common person as well as for the skilled musician. His words and actions
demonstrate his desire that appropriate music for worship services be available to all
Lutheran congregations, and ultimately that the activities of these congregations would
glorify the God of the Old and New Testaments.
18
Despite his importance during his lifetime, his impressive productivity, the caliber
of his compositions, and his value as a theorist, advisor and in disseminating through
Germany significant musical developments from Italy and elsewhere, Michael Praetorius
remains a relatively marginal figure in both scholarly and performing spheres.
48

Especially in light of the incongruity between the wealth of his accomplishments and the
comparably limited attention granted them, his music, writings and activities as a whole
are an eminently productive subject of inquiry. Of course, that the level of scholarly
attention paid to Praetorius is, arguably, less than he deserves by no means negates the
valuable research, encompassing both general and specific aspects of his life and works,
published in the past century.
Essential among such publications are modern editions and translations of
primary sources, fostering the accessibility of Praetorius’ music and writings. The precise
musical text of nearly all of Praetorius’ extant compositions is remarkably unambiguous,
because he supervised the publication of essentially the entirety of his output, at least the
portion that survives, and because original prints of all of these publications still can be
consulted.
49
The Praetorius critical edition based on these prints and edited by Friedrich
Blume appeared between 1928 and 1960. Additionally, Michael Fleming’s English
translation of part 1 of Syntagma musicum I, David Crookes’s translation of parts 1 and 2

48
Susanne Rode-Breymann and Arne Spohr, eds, Michael Praetorius: Vermittler europäischer
Musiktraditionene um 1600 (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2011), 7-11. In particular, this is the case with
respect to his work as a composer, though less so in regard to his work as a theorist.

49
See the concluding report to the Praetorius Gesamtausgabe (vol. 21, XLVII-LII). Praetorius’ works are
also remarkable in that few of them appeared in anthologies or as adaptations. There is some debate
regarding how much music beyond what survives today Praetorius may have completed before his death.

19
of Syntagma musicum II, and Jeffrey Kite-Powell’s translation of Syntagma musicum III,
along with facsimile reproductions of the originals, increase the availability of these
important sources.
50

Contributions to Praetorius’ biography and the understanding of his professional
life include Wilibald Gurlitt’s published dissertation focusing on Praetorius’ family and
his life up until his early years at the court of Wolfenbüttel, Kurt Gudewill’s discussion of
Praetorius’ personality in light of his life and music, Blume’s overview of Praetorius’ life
and compositions, and Arno Forchert’s many articles discussing, among other things, the
political aspects of Praetorius’ court positions.
51
Forchert’s research on Praetorius also
includes a study of the composer’s methods of text setting, styles of writing and use of

50
Michael David Fleming, “Michael Praetorius, Music Historian: An annotated Translation of ‘Syntagma
Musicum’ I, Part I” (PhD diss, Washington University, 1979); Michael Praetorius, Syntagma musicum. II,
De organographia: parts I and II, translated and edited by David Z. Crookes (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1986); Michael Praetorius, Syntagma musicum III, translated and edited by Jeffrey T. Kite-Powell (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2004); Michael Praetorius, Syntagma musicum (facsimile reprint), edited by
Willibald Gurlitt (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1954-60).

51
Willibald Gurlitt, Michael Praetorius (Creuzbergensis): sein Leben und seine Werke (Leipzig: Breitkopf
& Härtel, 1915; reprint, Hildesheim: G. Olms; Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1968); Kurt Gudewill,
“Michael Praetorius’ Lebenswerk als Spiegelbild der Persönlichkeit,” in Michael Praetorius
Creutzbergensis. 1571[?]-1621: Zwei Beiträge zu seinem und seiner Kapelle Jubiläumsjahr, 7-29
(Wolfenbüttel: Möseler, 1971); Friedrich Blume “Das Werk des Michael Praetorius,” in Syntagma
Musicologicum: gesammelte Reden und Schriften, ed. Martin Ruhnke, 229-64 (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1963),
previously published in Zeitschrift für Musikwissenschaft 17 (1934-35): 321-31, 482-502; Arno Forchert,
“Michael Praetorius—Werk und Wirkung,” Sagittarius 4 (1973): 98-110; Arno Forchert, “Michael
Praetorius und die Musik am Hof von Wolfenbüttel,” in Höfische Festkultur in Braunschweig-
Wolfenbüttel, 1590-1666: Vorträge eines Arbeitsgespräches der Herzog August Bibliothek Woflenbüttel
anlässlich des 400. Geburtstages von Herzog August von Braunschweig und Lüneburg, ed. Jörg Jochen
Berns, 625-42 (Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi, 1982); Arno Forchert, “Musik zwischen Religion und Politik:
Bemerkungen zur Biographie des Michael Praetorius,” in Festschrift Martin Ruhnke zum 65. Geburtstag,
ed. members of the Institut für Musikwissenschaft of the Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 106-25
(Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hänssler, 1986); Arno Forchert, “Musik als Auftragskunst: Bermerkungen zum
Schaffen des Michael Praetorius,” Schütz-Jahrbuch 27 (2005): 37-51.

20
instruments, especially in his late works.
52
Among additional substantial studies of
specific aspects of Praetorius’ output are an investigation of his style of vocal writing, a
study of text setting in his motets, his use of basso continuo and a study of Syntagma
musicum I taking into account the purpose of the treatise and the ideas against which it
means to argue.
53
Some investigations of broad topics—such as Blume’s work on
monody in Lutheran church music, Larry Cook’s dissertation on troped Magnificats,
James Brauer’s dissertation on the use of instruments in sacred music at Braunschweig-
Wolfenbüttel, and Barbara Wiermann’s study of German compositions up to the middle
of the seventeenth century combining voices and instruments—incorporate substantive
discussions of Praetorius’ works.
54

In his various publications examining Praetorius’ professional activities,
especially following the death of Heinrich Julius in 1613, Siegfried Vogelsänger
discusses the composition history of Praetorius’ works based on his comments and the
events at which he led music. He considers which pieces among those Praetorius is

52
Arno Forchert, Das Spätwerk des Michael Praetorius: italienische und deutsche Stilbegegnung (Berlin:
Merseburger, 1959).

53
Robert Vernon Fay, “The Vocal Style of Michael Praetorius” (PhD diss., University of Rochester, 1946);
Werner Krützfeldt, “Satztechnische Untersuchungen am Vokalwerk des Michael Praetorius auf der Basis
der Musik-theorie seiner Zeit und unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Wert-Ton-Verhältnisses in den
motettischen Sätzen” (PhD diss., Universität Hamburg, 1959); Lars Ulrich Abraham, Der Generalbass im
Schaffen des Michael Praetorius und seine harmonischen Voraussetzungen (Berlin: Merseburger, 1961);
Dietlind Möller-Weiser, Untersuchungen zum I. Band des Syntagma musicum von Michael Praetorius
(Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1993).

54
Friedrich Blume, Das monodische Prinzip in der protestantischen Kirchenmusik, mit einem
Notenanhang (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1925); Larry Cook, “The German Troped Polyphonic
Magnificat (PhD diss., University of Iowa, 1976); James Leonard Brauer, “Instruments in Sacred Vocal
Music at Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel: A Study of Changing Tastes in the Seventeenth Century” (PhD diss.,
City University of New York, 1983); Barbara Wiermann, Die Entwicklung Vokal-instrumentalen
Komponierens im protestantischen Deutschland bis zur Mitte des 17. Jahrhunderts (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005).

21
known to have published, as well as those he intended to compose and publish for which
no publication record exists, might have been performed at these events, ultimately
arguing that Praetorius completed many compositions that are no longer extant.
55
Most
recently, the papers presented at a 2008 conference on Praetorius at the Herzog August
Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel have been published in a volume edited by Susanne Rode-
Breymann and Arne Spohr.
56
Focusing especially on Praetorius’ role in championing,
adapting for Germany, and spreading foreign musical styles and traditions, the essays in
this volume include discussions of Praetorius’ interaction with the Italian basso continuo
and other Italian compositional practices, French dances, the English consort and the
Danish court, along with studies on the reception of Praetorius in the seventeenth and into
the eighteenth century, and additional topics including Praetorius’ musical education and
the original woodcuts used for the title pages of some of his volumes of music.
Praetorius’ simple chorale settings meant to accompany congregational singing,
when mentioned, usually garner praise for their beauty and quality.
57
Analyses of select
settings do arise periodically, most notably in Martin Ruhnke’s 1971 article comparing

55
Siegfried Vogelsänger, Michael Praetorius beim Wort genommen: zur Entstehungsgeschichte seiner
Werke (Aachen: Edition Herodot, Rader-Verlag, 1987); “Michael Praetorius: Festmusiken zu zwei
Ereignissen des Jahres 1617; zum Kaiserbesuch in Dresden und zur Jahrhundertfeier der Reformation,” Die
Musikforschung 40, no. 2 (1987): 97-109; Michael Praetorius, “Diener vieler Herren”: Daten und
Deutungen (Aachen: Alano, Edition Herodot, 1991); “Michael Praetorius: ‘Capellmeister von Haus aus und
Director der Musik’ am Kurfurstlichen Hof zu Dresden (1614-1621),” Schütz-Jahrbuch 22 (2000): 101-28;
“Michael Praetorius: Hoffkapellmeister zwischen Renaissance und Barock. I,” Concerto: Das Magazin für
Alte Musik 18, no. 168 (Nov 2001): 24-28; “Michael Praetorius: Hoffkapellmeister zwischen Renaissance
und Barock. II,” Concerto: Das Magazin für Alte Musik 18, no. 169 (Dec 2001-Jan 2002): 36-38.

56
Rode-Breymann and Spohr, eds., Michael Praetorius: Vermittler europäischer Musiktraditionen um
1600.

57
See, for instance, the critical report for volume 8 of the Praetorius Gesamtausgabe (p. XIV).

22
Praetorius’ three settings of Ein feste Burg in cantional style to those of other
composers.
58
Not infrequently Praetorius’ promotion of congregational singing does
receive acknowledgement within the relevant literature, both in discussions focusing on
the composer, as well as those examining Lutheran worship more generally. For instance,
in Worship Wars, Herl not only identifies this aspect of prefaces to Praetorius’ works, but
also incorporates a portion of the germane contents of one of these prefaces as an
example of the composer’s attempt to blend congregational and choral singing.
59

To date, perhaps the most significant discussion of the importance of
congregational singing in relation to Praetorius’ writing and composition appears in
Robert Unger’s 1940 Die mehrchörige Aufführungspraxis bei Michael Praetorius und die
Feiergestaltung der Gegenwart, which examines the composer’s polychoral works.
60

Unger compares these works to pieces composed in subsequent centuries by the likes of
Mozart and Beethoven, and compares their performance to the use of music in the
activities of organizations within the Third Reich, including the Hitler-Jugend and the
Deutsche Arbeitsfront. Despite some questionable emphases, and the problematic
influence of Unger’s political bias on his findings, his book does make a number of
legitimate observations. Specifically, within his discussion Unger recognizes

58
Martin Ruhnke, “Michael Praetorius,” Musik und Kirche 41, no. 5 (Sept-Oct 1971): 229-42.

59
Herl, Worship Wars, 115-16. Herl includes a summary of a list from Urania of eight ways to perform
cantional settings.

60
Robert Unger, Die mehrchörige Aufführungspraxis bei Michael Praetorius und die Feiergestaltung der
Gegenwart (Wolfenbüttel: G. Kalmeyer, 1941). More recently, Yumiko Azumaya has published in
Japanese sources discussions of Praetorius’ Urania, which contains music appropriate for accompanying
congregational singing using elements of the Venetian polychoral style. For instance, “Fukugassh! y!shiki
ni okeru kaish" no kash! sanka: Mihyaeru Puret!riusu no "Urania" (1613) o megutte” [Congregational
Singing in the Polychoral Style: Michael Praetorius’ Urania (1613)], Ongakugaku 46, no. 2 (Mar 2001):
89-102.
23
congregational participation as an important aspect of Praetorius’ works, and
characterizes such participation as one of six main traits of Praetorius’ polychoral style.
He devotes one chapter to this feature of Praetorius’ compositions, including many
pertinent quotations from his volumes, references to important concepts related to a
discussion of congregational singing—such as the methods Praetorius suggests be used
for singing cantional settings—and references to relevant music.
However, notwithstanding the relative emphasis Unger gives to the topic, and
despite some shorter discussions of the general subject as well as analyses of some
relevant pieces, no exhaustive study of congregational singing in relation to Michael
Praetorius has appeared to date. This dissertation is intended to function as a first step to
filling the resulting void. Relying on Praetorius’ prefaces and treatises, Chapter 1
investigates Praetorius’ concepts and philosophy of worship—especially as these relate to
the role of the congregation—and places them within the context of the first 150 years of
Lutheran thought. The remaining chapters examine Praetorius’ performance indications
for compositions suitable for combining choral and congregational singing, and analyze
those compositions in ways appropriate to their respective genres. Specifically, Chapters
2, 3 and 4 are dedicated to Praetorius’ massive collection of chorales set in cantional style
and discuss suggestions he provides for performing them, analyze their compositional
characteristics and compare Praetorius’ collection to similar collections of his
contemporaries. The final three chapters widen the scope of inquiry beyond pieces set
entirely in cantional style for four or five voices. Chapter 5 discusses troped Magnificats
alternating polyphonic verses in Latin with settings of German chorales. Cantional
24
settings placed in a polychoral context comprise the topic of Chapter 6. Finally, Chapter 7
explores Praetorius’ suggestions to incorporate within his concerted motets verses
suitable for congregational singing.
This investigation will demonstrate that, while desiring to decorate the worship
service to as great a degree as possible, Praetorius seems to have had a particular
fondness for the humble cantional setting, promoted its widespread use, and did, indeed,
foster artistry within its necessary simplicity. Additionally, Praetorius not only
emphasized both congregational singing and highly decorative music—traditionally both
important elements of a Lutheran service—but discussed, and created music suitable for,
combining both of these seemingly disparate types of music in the same performance—
and in ways suitable for churches in various regions, of various sizes, and across every
existing spectrum of resources and musical skill. Ultimately, scrutinizing the writings and
music of Praetorius through the lens of the collaboration between choir and congregation
will clarify his approach to composition and his vision for the musical life of the church,
and thereby sharpen our understanding of congregational singing in the Lutheran church
at the turn of the seventeenth century.
25
Chapter 1: Michael Praetorius’ Philosophy of Worship and Music

Philosophy of worship and music in the first 150 years of Lutheran thought
Luther strove for balance between freedom and the necessity for order in the
worship service. A similar tension between freedom and necessity is inherent in his views
about music. Luther taught that, because true worship consists in faith in God, and
faithfulness to him, God is much more interested in a person’s attitude of obedience,
submission and love of God, than he is concerned about specific forms of worship.
1

Luther also contended, however, that a person cannot profess sincerely to have such an
attitude or possess true faith if he demonstrates no desire to act on it by proclaiming his
faith and praising God with music.
2
Thus, while maintaining that musical praise of God,

1
See Luther, Von den guten Werken, 1520, in Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. 6 (Weimar:
Böhlau, 1888), especially pp. 209-12; translated in Luther’s Works, vol. 44 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966),
30-32. For a discussion of general Lutheran doctrine on the tension between freedom and form, see
Friederich Kalb, Theology of Worship in 17th-century Lutheranism, trans. Henry P. A. Hamann (Saint
Louis: Concordia, 1965), 65-137.

2
E.g., Luther, “Preface to the Babst Hymnal,” (1545): “Denn Gott hat unser Hertz und mut frölich
gemacht, durch seinen lieben Son, welchen er für uns gegeben hat zur erlösung von sunden, tod und
Teuffel. Wer solchs mit erst gleubet, der kans nicht lassen, er mus frölich und mit lust davon singen und
sagen, das es andere auch hören und herzu komen. Wer aber nicht davon singen und sagen wil, das ist ein
zeichen, das ers nicht gleubet und nicht ins new fröliche Testament...gehöret.” In Luthers Werke: Kritische
Gesamtausgabe, vol. 35 (Weimar: Böhlau, 1923), 477. (“For God has cheered our hearts and minds
through his dear Son, whom he gave for us to redeem us from sin, death, and the devil. He who believes
this earnestly cannot be quiet about it. But he must gladly and willingly sing and speak about it so that
others also may come and hear it. And whoever does not want to sing and speak of it shows that he does
not believe and that he does not belong under the new and joyful testament.”) Translated in Luther’s Works,
53:333. See also the preface to Geystliches gesangk buchleyn (1524), and “Preface to the Burial Hymns”
(1542), in Luthers Werke, 35:474-75 and 478-83, respectively. Translated in Luther’s Works, 53:315-16
and 325-31, respectively. See also the preface to Symphoniae jucundae (text and translations of Luther’s
Latin and German versions provided in Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music, 314-24; translation of the Latin
is from Luther’s Works, 53:321-24). For a discussion of Luther’s theological understanding of music, see
Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music, 65-103, especially pp. 86-88.
While Luther taught that all Christians should sing praise to God and proclaim their faith with
song, he also recognized the legitimacy of local traditions in the specific melodies used to do this. See
“Preface to the Burial Hymns,” in which he writes, “Doch ist nicht dis unser meinung, das diese Noten so
26
like any other human action, is not a requirement for salvation, he also stressed the value
and importance of music for the Christian.
That Luther was extremely fond of music and accorded it great value is very well
known.
3
He appreciated polyphonic music and instrumental music as well as monophonic
chant, and advocated for their use.
4
Among the positive properties of music Luther

eben müsten in allen Kirchen gesungen werden. Ein igliche Kirche halte jre Noten nach jrem Buch und
Brauch. Denn ichs selbs auch nicht gerne höre, wo in einem Responsorio oder Gesang die Noten verruckt
anders gesungen werden bey uns, weder ich der in meiner Jungent gewonet bin.” In Luthers Werke, 35:480.
(“But we do not hold that notes need to be sung the same in all the churches. Let every church follow the
music according to their own book and custom. For I myself do not like to hear the notes in a responsory or
other song changed from what I was accustomed to in my youth.”) Translated in Luther’s Works, 53:328.

3
E.g., Luther, “Preface to Symphoniae jucundae”: “Vellem certe ex animo laudatum, et omnibus
commendatum esse donum illud divinum et excellentissiumum Musicum. . . . Hoc unum possumus nunc
afferre, quod experientia testis est. Musicam esse unam, quae post verbum Dei merito celebrari debeat.”
Transcribed in Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music, 320 and 322. (“I would certainly like to praise music
with all my heart as the excellent gift of God which it is and to commend it to everyone. . . . We can
mention only one point [which experience confirms], namely, that next to the Word of God, music deserves
the highest praise.”) Translated in Luther’s Works, 53:321, 323. See also Vorrhede auff alle gute Gesang-
bücher (1538), in Luthers Werke, 35:483-84. Translated in Luther’s Works, 53:319-20.

4
E.g., “Sic Deus praedicavit evangelium etiam per musicam, ut videtur in Iosquin, des alles composition
frolich, willig, milde heraus fleust, ist nitt zwungen und gnedigt per regulas, sicut des fincken gesang.”
In Luthers Werke, Tischreden 2. Band (Weimar, Böhlau, 1913), no. 1258, pp. 11-12. (“God has preached
the gospel through music, too, as may be seen in Josquin, all of whose compositions flow freely, gently,
and cheerfully, are not forced or cramped by rules, and are like the song of the finch.”) Table Talk, no.
1258, translated in Luther’s Works: American Edition, vol. 54: Table Talk (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967),
129-30. Referring to Tenorlieder, Luther wrote, “in quo genere hoc excellit, quod una et eadem voce
canitur suo tenore pergente, pluribus interim vocibus circum circa mirabiliter ludentibus, exulantibus et
iuncundissimis gestibus laudem ornantibus, et velut iuxta eam divinam quandam choream ducentibus, ut
iis, qui saltem modico afficiunter, nihil mirabilius hoc saeculo exstare videatur. Qui vero non afficiuntur, ne
illi vere amusi et digni sunt, qui aliquem Merdipoetam interim audiant vel porcorum Musicam.” “Preface to
Symphoniae jucundae,” transcribed in Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music, 323-24. (“Here it is most
remarkable that one single voice continues to sing the tenor, while at the same time many other voices play
around it, exulting and adorning it in exuberant strains and, as it were, leading it forth in a divine roundelay,
so that those who are the least bit moved know nothing more amazing in this world. But any who remain
unaffected are unmusical indeed and deserve to hear a certain filth poet or the music of the pigs.”)
Translated in Luther’s Works, 53:324. For a discussion of Luther’s promotion of instrumental music, see
Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music, 91-92. Among the passages Leaver cites is the following from a
dedication in a Bible presented to Wolff Heinz: “Solch new Lied sollen auch des folgenden psalms
Seitenspiel helffen singen. Und Wolff Heintz auch beide mit seiner Orgeln, Symphonien, Virginal, Regal,
und was der lieben Musica mehr ist, Davon (als seer newer kunst und Gottes gaben) weder David noch
Salomon, noch Persia, Grecia noch Roma ichts gewust, sein singen und spielen mit freuden gehen lassen,
zu lob dem Vater aller gnaden.” In Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. 48 (Weimar: Böhlau,
1927), 85-86. (“The stringed instruments of the . . . Psalms are to help in the singing of this new song; and
27
discusses in his writings is its power over emotions. For instance, in the preface he wrote
for Georg Rhau’s Symphoniae jucundae (1538), often cited to demonstrate Luther’s
favorable perception of music, he refers to David’s calming of Saul to illustrate how
music can drive away the devil.
5
Later in the century, Lutheran writers such as Johann
Walter and Wolfang Figulus maintained this theme.
6
Similarly, in his 1571 commentary
on the Psalms, Nicolaus Selneccer wrote:
For a good melody and beautiful text refreshes [sic] body and soul and is an
organ or instrument which the Holy Spirit uses to refresh and comfort hearts,
to instruct youth and bring them up in the teaching of God, and to keep the
simple people in fresh remembrance of the good deeds of Christ.
7

Sixteenth-century Lutheran writers periodically characterized earthly music as a
foretaste of heavenly worship, a topic that would be accorded substantial emphasis in the

Wolff Heinz and all pious, Christian musicians should let their singing and playing to the praise of the
Father of all grace sound forth with joy from their organs, symphonias, virginals, regals, and whatever
other beloved instruments there are [recently invented and given by God], of which neither David nor
Solomon, neither Persia, Greece, nor Rome, knew anything.”) Translation from Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical
Music, 91; slightly altered from What Luther Says: An Anthology, trans. and ed. Ewald M. Plass (St. Louis:
Concordia, 1959), No. 3100. For a discussion of Luther as a musician, including his knowledge and
understanding of monophonic chant, polyphonic vocal music and instrumental music, see Leaver, Luther’s
Liturgical Music, 21-64.

5
Joyce Irwin notes that Lutheran writers in the sixteenth century gave various interpretations of this
passage. Among these are the following: music calmed Saul’s mind, demonstrating its ability to reduce
psychological pain; music did not really solve the problem but only reduced the symptoms; David’s faith
and devotion drove the devil away; Scripture, prayer and repentance drive away the devil. See Joyce L.
Irwin, Neither Voice nor Heart Alone: German Lutheran Theology of Music in the Age of the Baroque
(New York: Peter Lang, 1993), 30-31. In this portion of his essay, Luther also mentions Elisha, referring to
an incident in 2 Kings in which the playing of a minstrel enables Elisha to prophesy through God’s power.
For a full translation of the preface to Symphoniae jucundae, see Luther’s Works, 53:321-24. For a
discussion of this preface, including a comparison of Luther’s Latin and German versions, see Leaver,
Luther’s Liturgical Music, 76-80 and 313-24.

6
See Thomas Schlage, “Die Entwicklung im Musikverständnis lutherisch geprägter Komponisten bis zur
ersten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts,” Musik und Kirche 66, no. 6 (Nov-Dec 1996): 372.

7
Nicolaus Selneccer, “Auslegung des 73. Psalm Davids,” in Der Ander Teil des Psalters vom funffzigsten
Psalm an bis zu dem 101. (Leipzig, 1571), fol. 115. Translated in Irwin, Neither Voice nor Heart Alone, 29-
30.

28
seventeenth century. At the end of his poem Lob und Preis der löblichen Kunst Musica,
Johann Walter describes musical understanding on earth as a husk of corn, with the
kernel finally being revealed in heaven.
Music remains with God eternally
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In heaven after the Day of Judgment
it will finally be in proper balance.
Now we have only the husks,
there the kernel will be opened up.
There all will be cantors;
they will need no other skills.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
God help us all thereto
that we with one mind in God’s presence
and like all the elect
sing with joy in God’s kingdom
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
So let us also now begin
and praise God the Lord
and his name with great resounding.
8

In this passage, Walter encourages Christians to sing praise to God here on earth in
preparation for singing that will occur in heaven. As we will see, Praetorius explicitly
uses this theme in advancing congregational singing.
In addition to consistently advocating music as a means to praise God, Luther also
affirmed the value of secular music, particularly dance music for wholesome gatherings

8
Johann Walter, Lob und Preis der löblichen Kunst Musica (Wittenberg: Rhau, 1538), ciii-civ: “Die Music
mit Gott ewig bleibt. . . . Im Himel nach dem Jüngsten tag / Wird sie erst gehn jnn rechter wag / Itzt hat
man hülsen nür darvon / Dort wird der kern recht auffgethan / Do werdens all Cantores sein / Gebrauchen
dieser kunst allein. . . . Gott helff uns allen auch dorin / Das wir bey Gott jnn einem sin / Und allen
auserwehlten gleich / Singen mit freud jnn Gottes reich. . . . Drumb last uns auch nu heben an / Und Gott
den herrn mit grossem schall / Und seinen namen loben all.” Quoted and translated in Irwin, Neither Voice
nor Heart Alone, 45 and 164, note 158.

29
such as weddings.
9
Nevertheless, he also warned of the dangers of secular music when it
is used to spread spiritually destructive ideas and encourage corrupt behavior.
10

Throughout the course of the sixteenth century, Lutheran writers repeated Luther’s
understanding on this topic.
11

Luther’s principally positive view of music, manifested in his overwhelming
praise for music with some warnings about possible abuses, contrasts with Calvin’s more
cautious acceptance of music. This tension set the stage for heated debates just before the
turn of the seventeenth century between the followers of these two reformers. Such
debates shaped the Lutheran conception of music into the 1600s.
The concept of “adiaphora” was important in these debates. Adiaphora are matters
that are optional or indifferent. The time and place for baptism and communion, as well
as the time one holds the church service and the posture one assumes when praying are

9
e.g., Luther, Predigten über das 1. Buch Mose, 1527: “Darümb weil tantzen auch der welt brauch ist, des
jungen volcks, das zur ehe greifft, so es auch züchtig on schandpare weise, worten odder geperde nur zur
freude geschicht, ists nicht zu verdammen.” In Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. 24 (Weimar:
Böhlau, 1900), 419. (“Therefore because dancing is also the custom of the world and of the young people
who enter into marriage, it is not to be condemned as long as it occurs only for joy, decently, without
shameful ways, words or gestures.”) Translated in Irwin, Neither Voice nor Heart Alone, 36.

10
Luther: “Preface to Geystliches Gesangk Buchleyn,” 1524: “Und sind dazu auch ynn vier Stymme bracht,
nicht aus anderer ursach, denn das ich gerne wollte, die iugent, die doch sonst soll und mus ynn der Musica
und andern rechten künsten erzogen werden, ettwas hette, damit sie der bul lieder und fleyschlichen
gesenge los werde und an derselben stat ettwas heylsames lernete, und also das guete mit lust, wie den
iungen gepürt, eyngienge.” In Luthers Werke, 35:474-75. (“And these songs were arranged in four parts to
give the youth—who should at any rate be trained in music and other fine arts—something to wean them
away from love ballads and carnal songs and to teach them something of value in their place, thus
combining the good with the pleasing, as is proper for youth.”) Translated in Luther’s Works, 53:316. For
more on Luther’s understanding of the benefits and dangers of secular music, see Irwin, Neither Voice nor
Heart Alone, 35-37.

11
See Irwin, Neither Voice nor Heart Alone 38-42.

30
examples of adiaphora.
12
At mid-century, Matthias Flacius Illyricus insisted that when an
authority figure forbids or commands something that should be considered an optional
matter, that figure moves the matter out of the realm of the adiaphora. In opposition to
this illicit action by the authority, Flacius argued, the orthodox Lutheran should resist the
command. For example, if the prince of a certain area forbids the use of the organ in
worship services, he declares that organ music is no longer an option, thereby defying
Lutheran teaching about adiaphora. To protest this, and to demonstrate that they believe
organ music is allowed, Lutherans should insist on using organ music; thus, a matter that
was indifferent now becomes a litmus test of orthodoxy. The authors of the Formula of
Concord (1580) adopted this position in Article 10 of the document.
13
Therefore,
although musical matters would usually fall under the category of adiaphora, Lutherans
of the late sixteenth century often treated such things as the use of organ and figural
music in church services as if they constituted essentials, or at least characterized them as
extremely profitable. They took this stance partially to resist what they thought was the
position of the Reformed church on the matter of music.
14

12
Kalb, Theology of Worship in 17th-century Lutheranism, 104-51 discusses the adiaphora at length.

13
Irwin, Neither Voice Nor Heart Alone, 12-13. Drafted by a small committee, with input from ministers
throughout Germany, the Formula of Concord was the result of efforts to settle various theological disputes
that had developed within Lutheranism, especially following Luther’s death. For a discussion of these
disputes, see Irene Dingel, “The Culture of Conflict in the Controversies Leading to the Formula of
Concord (1548-1580),” in Lutheran Ecclesiastical Culture, 15-64.

14
Irwin makes this argument in the first section of Neither Voice Nor Heart Alone.

31
A revealing debate between Lutherans and Calvinists took place in 1586 at the
Colloquy of Montbéliard (Mümpelgard).
15
The discussions at this colloquy involved a
variety of matters; the conversation about music was particularly influential on
subsequent generations of Lutheran authors on the subject. The exchange about church
music took place on March 27, and the Lutheran Jacob Andreae was prepared to
characterize music as adiaphora. Partly as a result of the reports of the destruction of
organs in Reformed churches, Andreae anticipated the Calvinist speaker would argue
against much of the music that Lutherans considered valuable.
But the Calvinist Theodor Beza affirmed music as adiaphora, saying that it is
neither commanded nor forbidden. He also condemned the destruction of organs. In
response, instead of merely agreeing with Beza and also affirming music as adiaphora as
he had planned, Andreae presented music as necessary. Because the Christian should use
every means at his disposal to praise God, and because music is as an effective tool
toward this end, Christians should cultivate music in the church.
So indeed, it is apparent to everyone, also on the basis of your confession, that
they [adiaphora] are neither commanded nor forbidden by God and thus in
themselves are not only permitted but also a gracious ornament of the church
if only they are used for the praise and glory of the name of God. In this
manner they are not only not forbidden but rather expressly commanded in
order that one praise God therewith, as is written in Psalm 150.
16

15
The following discussion of the Colloquy of Montbéliard is drawn mostly from Irwin, Neither Voice Nor
Heart Alone, 13-15, as well as Helmut Lauterwasser, “Quellen zur lutherischen Musikauffassung im frühen
17. Jahrhundert,” in Die Quellen Johann Sebastian Bachs, Bachs Musik im Gottesdienst: Bericht über das
Symposium 4.-8. Oktober 1995 in der Internationalen Bachakademie Stuttgart, ed. Renate Steiger
(Heidelberg: Manutius, 1998), 167.

16
Colloquium Mompelgartense. Gespräch in Gegenwart des Durchleuchtigen Hochgebornen Fürsten unnd
Herrn, Herrn Friderichen, Graven zu Würtemberg und Mümpelgart (Tübingen, 1587), 735. Translated in
Irwin, Neither Voice Nor Heart Alone, 14.

32
Over the course of the debate with Beza, Andreae especially emphasized the importance
and necessity of singing. Although he ultimately agreed that instrumental music is
optional, he nevertheless characterized it as beneficial. He maintained that instrumental
music pleases God. Additionally, he referred to the effect that such music can produce on
one’s emotions, arguing that it moves the heart and prepares the Christian to listen
intently to the sermon.
A 1596 publication by Reformed theologians in Zerbst-Anhalt prompted another
debate between Lutherans and Calvinists on the status of music in the church. These
Reformed theologians insisted on the centrality of the text, condemning anything that
might obscure it. They rejected organ music and Latin singing. In response, Lutheran
theologians from Wittenberg published the Notwendige Antwort, affirming the value of
these types of music. While Lutherans generally agreed that the text should be clear and
understandable, they also saw instrumental music as valuable as long as the congregation
knows that its intent is to glorify God and encourage devotion.
17
As a result of such
discussions and debates, Lutheran theologians at the turn of the seventeenth century
tended to stress the benefits of music more than freedom in using it.
In the first decades of the seventeenth century, Lutheran theologians continued to
maintain the importance of music in the worship service. Like their immediate
predecessors, they affirmed that music is a great gift and treasure from God that men
should use to worship him. Influenced by the recent controversies with Calvinists,
Lutherans of this generation continued to stress the value of instrumental and figural

17
Irwin, Neither Voice Nor Heart Alone, 15-17.

33
music. In a sermon presenting the merits and value of the organ, Conrad Dieterich
explained the power of instrumental music to mold both minds and hearts: “For the
example of David shows that music in general and thus also organs and instrumental
music in particular not only titillate and please the ears but also through them the Holy
Spirit moves people’s minds”
18
Similarly, Matthais Hoe von Hoenegg wrote:
For even if the words are not understood by all, nevertheless just as soldiers
are enlivened by the sound of a trumpet, so in the meetings of the church and
in the spiritual army the very variety of voices and the harmony of the organs
excites devout minds greatly to earnest prayers and works of grace.
19

These ideas were balanced by the insistence that church music be appropriate to the
purpose it is meant to serve. Organists should not play dances or passamezzos. Organists
themselves should act in a virtuous and serious manner. Music should not be so complex
as to confuse most of the congregation.
20
While they always affirmed the value of
instrumental music, Lutherans never abandoned the idea that music with clear text setting
is also of fundamental importance.
Also during the first decades of the seventeenth century, Lutherans stressed the
importance of the attitude of the worshipper, as well as the necessity for the worshipper
to express that attitude with actions. In 1628, Friedrich Balduin stated:
God requires the outward form of worship as well as the inward, since we are
to love Him with all our strength; hence all our words, gestures, and deeds are

18
Conrad Dieterich, Ulmische Orgel Predigt (Ulm, 1624), 32. Translated in Irwin, Neither Voice Nor Heart
Alone, 31.

19
Matthias Hoe von Hoenegg, Commentaria in Beati Apostoli et Evangelistae Johannis Apocalypsim II
(Leipzig, 1611). Translated in Irwin, Neither Voice Nor Heart Alone, 20.

20
Irwin, Neither Voice Nor Heart Alone, 38-40.

34
to testify to our faith and love toward Him. And as Christ is the Redeemer of
our soul and our body, both must be directed toward God.
21

Ludwig Dunte explained that true worship is a matter of the soul, but that bodily actions
express this inward state. Refusing to show submission to God physically betrays a lack
of spiritual submission.
It behooves us to render honor to our Savior with soul and body, thoughts and
gestures, words and deeds, and thus to give evidence of our reverence and
gratitude toward Him. . . . We do not doubt that it is a sign of a profane spirit
if someone stubbornly refuses to uncover his head or to bend his knees in
honor of Christ. It is certain that, as living faith shows itself by good works, so
true piety manifests itself by outward gestures. While such baring of the head
or genuflexion is not in and by itself worship of God, it is a ceremony
pertaining to worship whereby we attest our humility and reverence.
22

Specifically referring to prayer, Dunte taught that using words to express the
worship that takes place inside one’s heart and mind is essential.
Is it enough to pray with the heart and the mind? . . . It is enough as regards
the essence of prayer. . . . God well knows the internal act even if expressed
by no external sign. . . . [But in addition], God is to be glorified and worshiped
by us not only with the soul but also with the body and hence with the voice.
. . . [Furthermore], the voice, proceeding from the heart, is heard again and
received back into it, so that it becomes a means of stimulating, continuing,
and increasing the pious impulse from which it emanates. . . . [Also], we must
often pray together with others, who are edified by our voice as they endeavor
to take part in the same petition.
23

The idea that the whole person, soul as well as body, should be involved in
worship informed not only Lutheran theology of prayer, but singing as well. Christoph

21
Friedrich Balduin, Tractatus luculentus . . . de . . . casibus . . . conscientiae (Wittenberg, 1628), 174.
Translated in Kalb, Theology of Worship in 17th-century Lutheranism, 69, note 7.

22
Ludwig Dunte, Decisiones mille et sex casuum conscientiae (1628), 143. Translated in Kalb, Theology of
Worship in 17th-century Lutheranism, 68, note 3. Dunte’s statement that “living faith shows itself by good
works” recalls James’s explanation of the relationship between faith and works in James 2:14-26.

23
Dunte, Decisiones, 893. Translated in Kalb, Theology of Worship in 17th-century Lutheranism, 68, note
4.

35
Frick encouraged people to develop their voices because these voices were created to
praise God.
For the heart of a person should be God’s dwelling; placed by God not far
from the heart are the lungs, arteries, windpipe, mouth and tongue which
make the voice and song. Thus when a person considers himself, he
remembers that he should use all the members around his heart so that God,
who wants to dwell in the temple of our heart, will be praised and addressed in
song out of true thankfulness.
24

Frick applied these ideas to congregational singing, declaring that those who
refuse to participate in singing in church betray their contempt for God.
Whoever is not stimulated by this and does not at all like to sing in the
congregation but rather stands or sits there like a log, as if his mouth had been
frozen shut, has—even apart from psalm and hymn singing—no desire or love
for God the Lord, however much he may present himself as godly. He is not
such a good Christian as he makes out, for the saying is, “I believe, therefore I
speak.” And Christ’s words, “When the heart is full, the mouth overflows,”
also cannot deceive us.
25

The role of music in eschatology was another area that received particular
attention in the first decades of the seventeenth century. Lutheran theology places great
emphasis on resurrection and eternal life. These topics acquire added significance for
societies in the throes of suffering and death, and so they no doubt gained increased
meaning for believers in the first decades of the seventeenth century as the effects of the
Thirty Years’ War and other devastations ravaged the German lands. Thus, it is not

24
Christoph Frick, Musica Christiana (Leipzig, 1615), 56. Translated in Irwin, Neither Voice Nor Heart
Alone, 50.

25
Frick, Musica Christiana, 57. Translated in Irwin, Neither Voice Nor Heart Alone, 50-51. As we will see,
Praetorius stresses the same idea in his writings. Frick, in his Music-Büchlein from 1631, goes further than
Praetorius, however, when he writes that people who do not care about singing to God, or who would rather
sing carnal music, are preparing themselves for hell (see Irwin, Neither Voice Nor Heart Alone, 51). The
point both Praetorius and Frick make is that one’s actions show the state of one’s heart, and the type of
person who eschews participation in congregational singing shows no love for or submission to God.

36
surprising that Lutheran theologians and composers increasingly described music in
relation to eschatology during this time. Inspired by Lutheran beliefs about bodily
resurrection and eternal life, they stressed the future joys of heaven, especially the
singing of praises to God in concert with the angels.
Philipp Nicolai referred to singing alongside the angels in the third verse of his
famous hymn Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme:
Glory be sung to you
With tongues of men and angels,
With harps and beautiful cymbals:
Of twelve pearls are the gates
At your place / we are consorts
Of the angels high around your throne.
No eye has ever perceived,
No ear has ever heard
Such joy.
Of this we are glad / yo / yo /
Forever in sweet jubilation.
26

Nicolai included this hymn at the end of Frewdenspiegel des ewigen Lebens, a volume
that appeared two years after a severe plague annihilated almost half of the population of
his home town of Unna.
27

26
“Gloria sey dir gesungen / Mit Menschen und Englischen Zungen / Mit Harpffen und mit Cymbaln
schön: / Von zwölff Perlen sind die Pforten / An deiner Statt / wir sind Consorten / Der Engeln hoch umb
deinen Thron / Kein Aug hat je gespürt / Kein Ohr hat mehr gehört / Solche Frewde / Deß sind wir fro / jo /
jo / Ewig in dulci jubilo.” Quoted and translated in Irwin, Neither Voice Nor Heart Alone, 44 and 163-64,
note 155.

27
Nicolai’s theme in this hymn verse is similar to that found in Walter’s poem cited earlier as well as the
writings of many Lutherans in the seventeenth century. However, while Walter and many seventeenth-
century Lutherans described praise alongside the angels that will occur in the future after the bodily
resurrections of believers, in his writings Nicolai usually referred to the disembodied state in which the soul
enters a non-physical heaven directly after death (see Irwin, Neither Voice Nor Heart Alone, 26).
Nevertheless, Nicolai’s hymn clearly depicts worship in heaven with the angels as a joyous activity. For a
discussion of the importance of the physical aspect of the Lutheran eschatological view of music, see Kalb,
Theology of Worship in 17th-century Lutheranism, 78-79.

37
In the fifth volume of Loci Theologici, Johann Gerhard describes the activity of
Christian believers in heaven: “thus after this life the whole multitude of the elect will be
assembled in heaven to praise God with eternal acclaim and to enjoy Him in perpetual
bliss.”
28
In the ninth volume, Gerhard includes the angels in his depiction of this same
scene: “It is certain from Scripture that the angels exclaim incessantly, ‘Holy, holy, holy’
(Is. 6:3). With them the blessed will form one chorus and will with united voices praise
God unceasingly and endlessly.”
29

Seventeenth-century Lutherans not only looked forward to worship in heaven
with great anticipation, they also saw this celestial worship as a model for worship on
earth. This idea appears in prefaces to music publications, beginning around 1600.
Thomas Schlage’s suggestive, though admittedly incomplete, survey of sixteenth- and
seventeenth-century sacred music prints investigates Lutheran theology of music during
the first two centuries of the Reformation by inspecting the concepts arising in prefaces to
music publications. He traces to the first decade of the seventeenth century the
development of the idea that music on earth somehow parallels music in heaven or

28
Johann Gerhard, Loci Theologici, 5:260. Translated in Kalb, Theology of Worship in 17th-century
Lutheranism, 35, note 107. Johann Gerhard (1582-1637) was one of the foremost Lutheran theologians of
the seventeenth century. His Loci Theologici was the most important comprehensive theological treatise
written during the first decades of the century. Its nine volumes were published between 1610 and 1622.
See Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. "Johann Gerhard," accessed February 5, 2012, http://www.
britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/230532/Johann-Gerhard.

29
Gerhard, Loci Theologici, 9:354. Translated in Kalb, Theology of Worship in 17th-century Lutheranism,
141, note 6.

38
prepares Christians for eternity. According to Schlage’s study, Praetorius is among the
first to place a major emphasis on this idea.
30

Polycarpus Leyser, preacher at the Thomaskirche in Leipzig, presented the
concept in the preface to Johann Hermann Schein’s 1627 Cantional.
For this we were created and saved, and will finally be awakened from death
to everlasting life, that we praise God next to the holy angels in the heavenly
choir. . . . What more delightful thing could we perform in this world than that
which will be our daily performance in heaven? . . . I have no doubt, that it
will be dear to Christian hearts to use this song book daily, with one voice and
as long as they are mortal, until we reach the choir of the holy angels in
heaven and can praise God our Lord and his many, great works of grace
perfectly with clean hands and tongues.
31

Lutheran writers sometimes suggested that the Christian should actively prepare
for the musical duty he will perform in heaven. Valentinus Trotzendorff even implied that
people who neglect to prepare now might be barred from singing with the angelic choir:
“Learn to sing, dear sons, learn to sing, so that when you get to heaven the holy angels
will let you come into their choir.”
32

30
Schlage, “Die Entwicklung im Musikverständnis lutherisch geprägter Komponisten.” Praetorius’
development of this subject will be discussed in depth below.

31
Reproduced in Johann Hermann Schein, Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher Werke, vol. 2, part 2, ed. Adam Adrio
(Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1967), VII-VIII; quoted in Schlage, “Die Entwicklung im Musikverständnis lutherisch
geprägter Komponisten,” 373-74: “Denn darzu sind wir erschaffen und erlöset / und werden endlich vom
Tod zum ewigen Leben erwecket werden / daß wir neben den H. Engelein im höhern Chor Gott loben und
preisen. . . . Was können wir aber köstlichers in dieser Welt verrichten / als welches auch im Himmel
unsere tägliche Verrichtung seyn wird. . . . Ich mache mir auch gar keinen Zweiffel / es werden Christliche
Hertzen jhnen dieses Gesangbüchlein lieb seyn lassen / täglich es gebrauchen / und so lang sie in dieser
Sterbligkeit zu wallen haben / mit einstimmen / biß wir ein mal gar in Himmel zu dem Chor der H. Engel
gelangen / und Gott unsern HErrn / und seine viel und grosse Gnadenwerck / vollkömlich mit reinem
Hertzen und Zungen ehren / rühmen und preisen mögen.”

32
Trotzendorff was quoted in Valerius Herberger, Hertz Postilla (Leipzig, 1613), 481. Translated in Irwin,
Neither Voice Nor Heart Alone, 48.

39
The focus on heavenly music persisted throughout the seventeenth century. In his
Systema locorum theologicorum, Abraham Calov wrote:
We shall see God as He is, love Him intimately, and praise Him eternally,
chanting without end the Thrice Holy of the Seraphim and of the four living
creatures with the utmost joy (Rev. 4; 5; 7; 12; 14; 15; 19). For we shall then
be joined to the harmonious universal angelic choir and shall sing perpetually:
Holy, holy, holy is Jehovah Sabaoth, the Lord God of hosts. Holy, holy, holy
is the Lord God omnipotent, who is, who was, and who is to come.
33

In 1667 Theophil Grossgebauer, referring to psalm singing, repeated the conviction that
music on earth is but a foretaste of music in heaven: “No more beautiful harmony can be
found than this; it is nothing less than a type and foretaste of the eternal gathering in
heaven.”
34

Thus, various threads of ideas about music—the value of figural and instrumental
music, the power of music over emotions, the centrality of the attitude of the heart in
worship—persisted throughout the first 150 years of Lutheranism. Periodically, nuances
were added to certain threads and some threads grew in importance, prompted by
political and cultural factors. When Praetorius was composing and writing prefaces and
treatises, Lutherans were stressing that Christians should use every means possible to
praise God. They looked expectantly towards the future when they would praise God
eternally, and some advocated practicing for that future. Praetorius wholeheartedly
accepted and earnestly advocated these ideas, often relating them to the practice of
congregational singing.

33
Abraham Calov, Systema locorum theologicorum (Wittenberg, 1655-57), 12:357. Translated in Kalb,
Theology of Worship in 17th-century Lutheranism, 141, note 5.

34
Theophil Grossgebauer, Wächerstimme aus dem verwüsteten Zion (Drei Geistreiche Schriften) (1667),
194. Translated in Kalb, Theology of Worship in 17th-century Lutheranism, 79.
40
Praetorius’ philosophy of worship, music and congregational singing
Michael Praetorius was raised in a strict Lutheran home. His father was a
Lutheran minister who doggedly adhered to Protestant doctrine. A friend of Johann
Walter, after the Augsburg Interim Praetorius’ father continued to affirm strict Lutheran
doctrine and ideals, and because of this was stripped of his pastoral duties more than
once.
35
As a boy, Praetorius attended the Lateinschule in Torgau. His brother studied
theology at the University of Frankfurt an der Oder and Praetorius also continued his
studies in Lutheran theology into his teens.
Praetorius always maintained his own desire to become a pastor, although life
circumstances required him to earn a living before he could complete his theological
studies, leading him to his profession of music. Therefore, it is not surprising that his
beliefs would fall squarely in line with orthodox Lutheranism and that he would defend
Lutheranism and Lutheran views of music against any attacks, real and perceived.
Praetorius’ beliefs about worship, music and congregational participation in church
services permeate his extant prose writings, comprised of his three surviving major
treatises and the prefaces and notes to his twenty published volumes of music.
In the dedicatory epistle to the first volume of Syntagma musicum, Praetorius
argues for the importance, value, and rightness of worshipping God.
Surely the ultimate and highest end of man, which he has in common with the
blessed angels, appoints and dedicates him to the natural exercise of divine
worship. For if we examine the case, the end of man is clearly twofold: to
seek and recognize the truth, and to choose virtue. But since the highest truth

35
For a discussion of Michael Praetorius’ father, Michael Schulteis, see Gurlitt, Michael Praetorius
(Creuzbergensis), 7-63. For a discussion of the Augsburg Interim and its aftermath, see Dingel, “The
Culture of Conflict,” 15-64.

41
is the knowledge of God, and the highest virtue, the praise of God, it follows
that the end of man is to know God and to worship him. The former is
received and given most of all by sacred speech, the latter by songs in
church.
36

Various motifs in this passage—that glorifying God is man’s most important activity, the
importance of knowledge and virtue, the dual pillars of speech and song as fundamental
to Christian worship, that man worships God along with the angels—occur again and
again in Praetorius’ writings. They will be encountered continually in the following
survey and study of Praetorius’ beliefs about worship, music and congregational
participation.

Defense of Lutheran liturgical practices
With the increase of Calvinist influence in northern Germany at the turn of the
seventeenth century, upholding the elements of Lutheran worship repudiated by
Calvinists, or at least not wholeheartedly embraced by them, was a relevant concern for
Praetorius, as it was for the attendees of the Colloquy of Montbéliard and the authors of
the Notwendige Antwort. Accordingly, in the first volume of Syntagma musicum
Praetorius presents a defense for the use of the texts of the traditional Lutheran liturgy, as

36
Michael Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, dedicatory epistle: “Et certè genuinae divini cultus
exercitationi destinat ac devovet hominem ultimus & summus finis, quem ipse cum beatis Angelis habet
communem. Si enim actionem spectamus, duplex est finis Hominis: nempe Veritatis inquisitio agnitioq; &
Virtutis electio. At cùm summa Veritas sit Noticia Dei, & summa Virtus sit Deum vero cultu celebrare:
Sequitur, quod finis Hominis sit Agnitio Dei & ejusdem celebratio, quarum illa potissimum per sacras
Conciones; haec per Cantiones in Ecclesia accipitur & redditur.” Translated in Fleming, “Michael
Praetorius,” 4-5.

42
well as their performance by choirs and instruments.
37
Citing Scripture and early church
fathers, sources respected by Lutherans, Praetorius argues that the liturgy, the support of
trained musicians, and the use of instruments all are deeply rooted in God’s Word and
correct doctrine.
Praetorius cites both the Old and New Testaments in promoting the importance of
the liturgy. Equating the liturgy with the ceremonial aspects of Israel’s religious life
during the reigns of its early kings, Praetorius writes: “The zeal of David, Solomon, and
others in the Old Testament for carrying out the liturgy at feasts and solemnities is well
known.”
38
He uses Paul’s admonition to worship God with Psalms, hymns and spiritual
songs as a defense for the liturgy.
39
Such respected early Christian fathers as Augustine,
Ambrose, and Gregory championed the liturgy.
40
Praetorius also points to early Christian
leaders who supported the liturgy.
Theodosius, Constantine, Pepin, Charlemagne, Louis, etc. obtained an
immortal name in [their] cultivation of the liturgy [because] they took time for
the liturgies in honor of the divine Majesty, and joined the choirs of psalm-
singers with inner devotion.
41

37
Möller-Weiser, Untersuchungen zum I. Band des Syntagma musicum von Michael Praetorius, e.g., pages
51, 136-38. See also Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” xii-xviii.

38
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, dedicatory epistle: “In Veteris Testamenti festis & solennitatibus
celebre est Davidis, Salomonis aliorumque studium, ad exercendam Leiturgiam.” Translated in Fleming,
“Michael Praetorius,” 12. This point is reiterated on page 1-2 of the treatise. Indeed, references to David
and Solomon and their promotion of grandiose ceremonial worship occur frequently throughout Praetorius’
writings.

39
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, dedicatory epistle. See also Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 12. In
particular, Praetorius cites Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3.

40
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, dedicatory epistle. See also Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 13ff.

41
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, dedicatory epistle: “Leiturgiae cultu nomen obtinuerunt immortale
Theodosius, Constantinus, Pipinus, Carolus Magnus, Ludovicus &c. qui Leiturgijs in honorem Majestatis
divinae vacantes, sese choris psallentium junxerunt cum devotione intima.” Translated in Fleming,
“Michael Praetorius,” 12.
43
Praetorius mentions many benefits of the traditional liturgy. For instance, when
trained musicians perform the liturgy, those in attendance participate silently by
worshipping with their hearts. This pertains even to Latin performances of the liturgy,
prompting Praetorius to compose Latin mass and motet settings for use in Lutheran
churches.
42
Additionally, the liturgy seeks the goodness of God. Texts of the liturgy can
be adjusted to be appropriate for times of peace and times of war. Liturgical speech and
song defend minds and hearts against heresy and help the church defeat its enemies.
43
In
particular, the Lutheran liturgy is orthodox and promotes true worship.
And everyone who considers carefully will admit that the liturgy of preaching
and singing received in our churches is of pure and uncontaminated doctrine,
uniquely established in the glory of the most holy Trinity and on the praise of
his works and merits. . . . The music adopted by our churches from the
primitive churches in psalms, responsories, hymns, antiphons, etc., sings only
of that which is consonant with the preaching of the Prophets and the
Apostles, in proportion to the rule of faith, exactly in agreement with Holy
Scripture, and varying [but] little from it.
44

Lutheran liturgy grew out of the earliest practices of the church, and because of its
orthodoxy, should be promoted.
The reformed churches, therefore, retain and use in a decent and orderly
manner the liturgy of speech and song, the heritage of primitive piety, with

42
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, dedicatory epistle. See also Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 19-20.

43
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, dedicatory epistle. See also Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 7-9.

44
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, dedicatory epistle: “Atqui omnis, qui aequo animo attendet, fatebitur, ut
Concionum, sic Cantionum, in nostris Ecclesijs receptarum, Leiturgiam esse purae & incontaminatae
Confessionis, unicè in Sacrosanctae Trinitatis gloriam, ejusque operum ac meritorum laudes
conditam...Quae nostris à primitiva recepta est Ecclesijs Cantio in psalmodijs Responsorijs, Hymnis
Antiphonis &c. nihil sonat, nisi quod concionum Propheticarum & Apostolicarum veritati consonat, quod
fidei canoni analogum est, quod cum sacra Scriptura ad amussim congruit, quodque ab ea minimè
discrepat.” Translated in Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 18.

44
both voices and instruments, in order to rouse fittingly the festive rejoicing of
the holy congregation, and to celebrate religiously the solemnity of the year.
45

Praetorius distances the pure and uncontaminated liturgy out of which the
Lutheran service arose from the Roman Catholic liturgy he views as corrupt. Firstly, he
argues, much of the liturgy originated prior to the development of traditions within the
Catholic church that he believes to be idolatrous.
Although there are some to be found who strive to diminish or to remove
altogether the offices of the liturgy, being of the opinion that the yearly
lections and songs for Sundays originated with the Papacy, ecclesiastical
history attests that they were accepted according to ancient custom, certainly
long before the times of Popish abuse.
46

Additionally, in his view, some aspects of Roman Catholic worship services reflect
correct doctrine and are beneficial. Praetorius explains that things of value can be found
in tainted and corrupt places. Christians should embrace these things, whatever their
origin or relationship to problematic practices. Believers should be discerning and able to
separate what is beneficial and honoring to God from what is heretical or contaminated.
What then? Granted that the liturgical readings and songs were chosen,
collected and first used under the Papacy. But who in his right mind would
think that on this account they should necessarily be despised and rejected? I
am certainly not one to defend the position of the Papists, but I believe that the
best [people] will readily agree with me to accept what Augustine rightly

45
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, dedicatory epistle: “Illam itaque cùm concionis, tum cantionis
leiturgiam primaevae pietatis propagine derivatam Ecclesiae repurgatae in templis & choris !!"#$"%&,$'(
!!)*+µ,-%& retinent ac frequentant cùm voce, tùm organo, festiva congregationis sacrae gaudia ritè
suscitandi, & anniversariam solennitatem religiosè celebrandi gratiâ.” Translated in Fleming, “Michael
Praetorius,” 19.

46
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, dedicatory epistle: “Atqui reperiuntur, qui Leiturgiae officia infringere
& tolere summè elaborant, cùm eorum ferat opinio, anniversarias Dominicarum Lectiones & cantiones ex
Papatu originem duxisse primam; quas tamen vetustissima consuetudine, & quidem longo ante Pontificios
abusus tempore, receptas attestatur Ecclesiae historia.” Translated in Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 14. A
number of examples follow this section of text.
45
affirms (On Christian Doctrine 2.18): “He who is a good and true Christian
will know that the truth, wherever he finds it, is the Lord’s.”
47

Praetorius bolsters his argument with a number of further quotations of Augustine. For
instance:
Those things which are neither contrary to faith, nor to good morals, and
which in some way exhort a better life, should not only not be condemned, but
praised and imitated wherever we see them being established, or recognize
that they have been established.
48

Praetorius lists many specific elements, practices or ideas of the Roman Catholic
service that he considers corrupt and thinks should not be adopted by true Christians. In
his view, the Roman Catholic liturgy is often a “theatrical performance [ludicrum &
scenicum actum],” suggesting that it is a showy display without substance. It ignores the
purpose of worship—to glorify God—and instead entertains and glorifies man. He
contends that within Roman Catholic spheres liturgical melody often serves as an
“incantation” rather than as praise directed towards God. With it, monks “bewitch their
souls with foul corruptions and gross errors,” convincing themselves that their faulty
theology is true.
49
He decries the Catholic theology of the Mass, calling their Mass

47
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, dedicatory epistle: “Quid verò? concesso etiam, in Papatu Leiturgicas
lectiones & cantiones fuisse conquisitas, congestas & usurpari coeptas: an hoc nomine eas necessariò
contemnendas & abrogandas esse sanus quis putet? Equidem non is ero, qui partes Pontificiorum
defendam; sed mecum optimos quosq; arbitror in Augustini sententiam facilè descensuros, qui lib. 2. de
Doctr. Christ. cap. 18. rectè affirmat: Quisquis bonus verusque Christianus est, Domini sui esse intelligat,
ubicunque inveniat veritatem.” Translated in Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 16.

48
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, dedicatory epistle: “Quae enim non sunt contra fidem, neq contra bonos
mores, & habent aliquid ad exbortationem vitae melioris, ubicunq, institui videmus, vel instituta
cognoscimus, non solum non improbemus, sed etiam laudando & imitando sectemur.” This is a quotation
from Augustine: Epistle 55.18. Translated in Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 16-17.

49
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, dedicatory epistle: “. . . tetris corruptelis & crassis erroribus . . .
fascinent . . .” Translated in Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 17.

46
“abominable [abominabilis]” and labeling it as blasphemous.
50
He condemns the practice
of invoking the saints and Mary. For instance, Praetorius calls the original use of the
famous hymn Ut queant laxis—namely, calling to John the Baptist for help—
idolatrous.
51
To denounce the practice of praying to Mary, Praetorius refers to Scripture
and to Mary’s character.
In Papist countries there is a special ringing of the bells morning, noon, and
evening, to admonish the people to invoke the Virgin Mary. But the people
should be instructed that the most highly praised Virgin Mary does not want
to have the honor due to God alone, and [that this] is also contrary to God’s
Word.
52

Nevertheless, according to Praetorius, in spite of these concrete problems with the
Roman Catholic liturgy, in the Lutheran church the corrupt liturgy has been redeemed to
become a truly God-honoring and theologically correct tool of worship. Praetorius
compares this process of redemption to Israel’s building the tabernacle.
[N]evertheless, it is agreed that the songs were freed from a superstitious and
vain worship by God’s grace, and properly converted to the true and religious
worship of God in the reformed liturgies, just as the Israelites learned to put to
a more true use in the Sanctuary the spoils which the Egyptians had abused.
53

50
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, dedicatory epistle. See also Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 17.

51
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 71. According to Praetorius, John the Baptist was regarded as the patron
of the clear voice.

52
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 131-32: “Man helt im Bapstumb Morgens/ Mittags und Abends einen
sonderlichen Glockenschlag / dadurch das Volck vermahnet sol werden / die Jungfraw Mariam anzuruffen.
Weil aber die hochgelobte Jungfraw Maria solche Ehre / die Gott allein gebüret / nich haben wil / und auch
wieder Gottes Wort ist / sol davon das Volck unterrichtet werden.” Translated in Fleming, “Michael
Praetorius,” 274. Although he wrote nearly the entirety of Syntagma musicum I in Latin, Praetorius wrote
this passage in German because it pertains to church orders in villages where the use of Latin was not
advantageous.

53
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, dedicatory epistle: “tamen constat à superstitioso vanoq; cultu per Dei
gratiam vindicatos cantus, & in leiturgijs reformatis ad Dei venerationem religiosam & veram rectissimè
translatos esse; non aliter ac spolia AEgyptiorum, quibus illi fuerant abusi.” Translated in Fleming,
“Michael Praetorius,” 17.

47
To bolster his point, Praetorius recounts an incident from church history in which music
written to spread false doctrine was redeemed for God-honoring use through the
replacement of heretical words with orthodox texts.
So we read that Harmonius Syrus, the disciple of the illustrious Ephrem,
arranged to have his father’s lyrics, set to legitimate modes and musical
meters, sung in rotating order, to spread his father’s heresies by means of
lyrical melodies. By this means many Syrians, lulled by the beauty of the
words and the meter of the music, gradually came to accept the opinions
received from [Harmonius’] father Bardesanes. Saint Ephrem, when he
recognized this, took over Harmonius’ tunes, [and] adapted to songs of this
type words in keeping with the church’s teaching, and gave them to the
Syrians to sing. From that time until the present, whenever the Syrians sing in
praise of God, they do not use the poems themselves [which were] produced
by Harmonius, but the melodies he composed.
54

Thus, because the liturgy is orthodox and useful in Lutheran worship, Praetorius
warns against those who would abolish it altogether and calls for the spread of liturgical
practices. At the end of the dedication of Syntagma musicum I, he calls on the
dedicatees—the church leaders in various regions including Saxony, Brandenburg and
Braunschweig—to:
[pursue] the goal before you with untiring zeal, unbroken constancy, and
unconquerable piety, [to] defend the dignity of liturgical practice, extend its

54
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, dedicatory epistle: “Ad quem modum legitur Harmonius Syrus, magni
illius Ephraimi discipulus, patrias voces, legitimis modis, Musisq; numeris inclusas, ordine circulari cani
instituisse, ut paternam haeresin lyricis modulis aspergeret: quibus multi ex Syris, propter verborum
venustatem, & sonorum numeros demulsi, paulatim opinionibus Bardesanae Patris recipiendis sunt
assuefacti. Qua re cognita, D. Ephraim Harmonij numeros moderatus est, atque ejusmodi modulis
carminibus Ecclesiasticae Sententiae consonis adjectis, Syris canenda dedit. A quo tempore huc usque Syri
psallentes, non quidem carminibus ipsis, sicuti sunt ab Harmonio prodita, sed sonis tantum eorum, utuntur,
quoties Deum inprimis celebrant.” Translated in Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 17-18. Praetorius also uses
this story in the dedication of Missodia Sionia, a volume of Latin mass movements, to defend the use of the
liturgy. Praetorius performed similar textual surgery on some pieces by Gabriele Fattorini (see Syntagma
musicum III, 188). A number of other aspects of this story are in accord with points Praetorius makes
elsewhere. The story implies that music is powerful and able to induce people to adopt faulty theology, but
also capable of encouraging them to accept right doctrine. This anecdote also reinforces the importance of
the intellect in worship. Because music is powerful, one needs the mind to act as a filter. Otherwise, one
can be swayed by music to abandon orthodoxy.

48
use, and, as is fitting, that you may vigorously build the zeal of the church for
its exercise . . . against those who foolishly complain or roar with hypocritical
throats, and against the despoilers and destroyers of organs and choirs.
55

The importance of glorifying God
Praetorius maintains that the greatest thing man can do towards God is to praise
him:
Since, after all, we can do nothing in this life for God the Lord, who as he
demonstrates and evidences himself to us is good for all, so good as praising,
glorifying, and exalting Him for [his goodness] and offering up the “fruit of
our lips.” Hosea 14: [2].
56

Praising God is a charge for the church, in particular: “Firstly, that his holy church
proclaim his grace and truth with cheerful and joyful spirits and mouths, and praise and
glorify him, which is a wonderful thing. Ps. 92.”
57
Christians should praise God publicly,
when they are with other believers:

55
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, dedicatory epistle: “indefesso studio, infracta constantia, & invicta
pietate spacium vobis propositum decurrentes, Leiturgicae sanctionis dignitatem propugnetis, intentionis
utilitatem propagetis, functionis sedulitatem Ecclesiae per manus tradatis, atq; conjunctas Leiturgicas cùm
Concionis adversùs Psallianos, Prodicianos Messalianos, tùm Cantionis adversùs ineptè murmurantes, vel
hypocritico gutture boantes, & contra Organorum & Chororum vastarores & distructores, qua decet, officij
fide, strenuè astruatis.” Translated in Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 28-29. The complainers and
destroyers of organs to whom Praetorius is referring are the Calvinists.

56
Michael Praetorius, Polyhymnia caduceatrix et panegyrica, IX: “Denn wir ja auch in diesem leben GOtt
dem HErren für alle das Gutt / so er uns täglich an Leib und Seel erzeigt und beweiset / anders nichts
wiederumb zu gut thun können / alß daß wir Ihn darfür Loben / Rühmen und Preisen / und die Farren
unserer Lippen Opffern. Hos. 14.” Translated in Margaret Anne Boudreaux, “Michael Praetorius’s
‘Polyhymnia caduceatrix et panegyrica’ (1619): An Annotated Translation” (DMA diss., University of
Colorado at Boulder, 1989), 51.

57
Michael Praetorius, Urania, VI: “Erstlich das seine heilige Kirche / mit desto frölicherm und frewdigerm
Geiste und Munde seine Gnade und Warheit verkündigete / und ihn lobete und ehrete. Welches ein köstlich
Ding ist / Psal. 92.” Of the Scripture Praetorius quotes or cites throughout his works, Psalms are,
unsurprisingly, the most common. He also frequently mentions Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3, as well as 2
Chronicles 5. However, Praetorius’ knowledge of Scripture extends far beyond these passages commonly
quoted by Lutherans in defense of music. His biblical citations also include passages from Genesis,
49
Such is also confessed in the Psalm of David 116: [12-14]: ‘What shall I
render to the Lord for all his bounty to me? I will lift up the cup of salvation
and call on the name of the Lord, I will pay my vows to the Lord in the
presence of all his people.’
58

Praetorius notes that, in praising God, the church obeys his just commands:
so true confession of the praise due to God is surely suitable to song,
depending in the perfection of the faith on nothing other than God, who, for
the sake of justice, giving to each what is his, obtains for his very own and
demands of the church the glory of praise and Thanksgiving.
59

In Praetorius’ view, it is just for God to demand praise because of the very nature of who
he is. Christians, indebted to God because of his saving grace, especially should be
motivated to praise God: “Certainly, it is fitting that we be obligated—for the obtaining
of such a propitious blessing—to the repaying of that beloved blessing, as in this
Eucharistic eulogy: We bless the Lord, we give thanks to the Lord.”
60

Thus all Christians, according to Praetorius, regardless of background and
position in society, should be eager to praise and thank God, “for it is fitting that God

Exodus, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, Proverbs, Isaiah, Daniel, Hosea, Matthew, Luke,
Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, Titus and Revelation.

58
Praetorius, Polyhymnia panegyrica, IX: “Inmassen auch David im 116. Ps. bekennet: Wie sol ich doch
dem HErrn vergelten alle seine Wolthat die er mir thut? Ich wil den heilsamen Kelch nemen / uñ des
HErren Namen Predigen / Ich wil meine Gelübde bezahlen / für alle seinem Volck.” Translated in
Boudreaux, “Michael Praetorius’s ‘Polyhymnia caduceatrix et panegyrica,’” 53.

59
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I: “Ita convenit certè Cantioni verissima Deo debitae laudis confessio, in
fidei perfectionem non alij, nisi Deo, innixae, qui pro ratione justitiae, suum cuique tribuentis, sibi soli
propriam vendicat, & ab Ecclesia exigit Invocationis & Gratiarum actionis gloriam.” Translated in
Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 6.

60
Michael Praetorius, Eulogodia, VII-VIII: “Certè pro tàm almae Benedictionis impetratione ad gratae
Benedictionis remunerationem nos vicissim devinctos decet, ut EULOGODIA istâ Eucharisticâ Benedicamus
DOMINO, & DEO dicamus gratias.”

50
should be praised by all people, of both sexes, and of every rank (Psalm 148:10, 13).”
61

Clearly, Praetorius intends his statement to apply to all believers—lay people as well as
clergy and trained musicians. Indeed, in Praetorius’ view, those people who possess no
motivation to glorify God are likely not true Christians. This is because, by neglecting to
praise God, they ignore his commands, ignore Scripture, and their hearts do not exhibit
the proper response to God’s character and gracious actions. Praetorius’ description of
this type of person is entirely unflattering.
[T]o to pay attention to anything else one must have stubbornness and
nastiness. Could such a person have [even] a small Christian vein or drop of
blood in his body? For David teaches in Psalm 81 that godly singing and
rejoicing are a custom in Israel and a right from the God of Jacob. Such
[singing and rejoicing] will also be demanded by the entire Church of God
and by all devout and faithful people. Indeed this is not because of council,
but rather commandment: as in Psalm 50:14 [-15]: “Offer to God a sacrifice of
thanksgiving, and pay your vows to the Most High; and call upon me in the
day of trouble; I will deliver you and you shall glorify me.”
62

In other words, worship is the outward expression of the state of the Christian’s heart and
mind. If no outward expression of praise is forthcoming, the inward state is in question.
For Praetorius, singing is the primary and most prominent means of outwardly
praising God.

61
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 73: “Par enim est ab omnibus, cujuscunque sexus & conditionis,
celebrari DEum, Psal. 148. v. 10, &13.” Translated in Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 170.

62
Praetorius, Polyhymnia panegyrica, IX: “er solte einen wiederwillen und verdrus / von andern solches zu
hören / haben können: Und könte ein solcher Mensch ja nicht ein Christlich Aderlein oder Blutßtropffen in
seinem Leibe haben. Denn GOTte frölich Singen und Jauchtzen / ist eine weise in Israel uñ ein Recht des
Gottes Jacob; lehret David im 81. Ps. Und wird auch solches von der gantzen Kirchen GOttes / von allen
frommen unnd gleubigen Menschen erfordert; und zwar nicht Rahts- sondern Gebots weise: ‘Als im 50. Ps.
v. 14. Opffere GOtt danck uñ bezahle dem höchsten deine Gelübde: Und rufe mich an in der Noth / so wil
ich dich erretten / so soltu mich Preisen.'” Translation adapted slightly from Boudreaux, “Michael
Praetorius’s ‘Polyhymnia caduceatrix et panegyrica,’” 51.

51
One may see that the wonderful works of God are never sufficiently praised
and remembered by us . . . and therefore, so that [these things] . . . are
declared and pronounced with thankful heart, with eloquent speech, with
bright sound, with open voice, and with the unanimous faith of many, the
harmony of music has been divinely invented and incited, for the due praises
and thanks to God for his works, not to be repaid except out of a pure and
sincere piety, with the recollection of good deeds and merits, and with
continual celebration.
63

Indeed, praising God is the greatest use of music. An essay written by Basilius
Sadler, the Wolfenbüttel court preacher, and printed in the preface to Musae Sioniae V
expresses this point: “That is also the right use of music, the wonderful gift of God: Thus
God is praised through it and the Christian congregation is edified and improved. To this
end we men should point everything.”
64
Here, Sadler not only declares praising God to be
the proper function for music, but also teaches that music is a gift of God. Praetorius
makes these same points in the dedication of Musae Sioniae V:
Because the art of music is one of the noblest and most costly gifts, from
which the wisdom and goodness of God shines, it should be used by everyone
to whom he has conferred a small measure of knowledge, to his praise, honor
and service and to the edification of his people.
65

63
Michael Praetorius, Missodia Sionia, VI: “Nunquam videlicet satis laudari & commemorari à nobis opera
DEI mirabilia . . . Ideòque . . . ut corde grato, ore diserto, sono claro, voce aperta, & plurium unanimi fide
expromerentur & exprimerentur, Musices concentum divinitùs esse inventum & excitatum, in debitas
laudes & gratias DEO opifici, non nisi ex pura & syncera pietate, cum benefactorum ac meritorum
recordatione, & celebratione perenni persolvendas.”

64
In Michael Praetorius, Musae Sioniae V, p. VII: “Das ist auch der rechte Gebrauch der herrlichen und
fürtrefflichen Gaben Gottes der Musica: Also wird Gott dadurch gelobet / und die Christliche Gemein
erbawet und gebessert / Dahin wir Menschen alles richten sollen.”

65
Praetorius, Musae Sioniae V, p. VI: “Wie die Kunst der Music ein edle tewre Gabe deß höchsten ist /
Darinn seine Göttliche Weißheit und Güte scheinet und leuchtet / Also sol sie ja von allen / denen er ein
pfündtlein Scientiae darinnen verliehen / auch zu seinem Lob / Ehren / Dienst und Erbawung seiner
Gemeine angewendet werden.”

52
Even in discussions of practical musical questions, such as vocal ranges, Praetorius
ascribes the ability to sing as a gift from God.
Still, in the matter of the human voice, no firm conclusions can be drawn, and
no strict limits imposed. There is so much variety about God’s gifts, and one
man will always be able to go higher or lower than another.
66

That Praetorius refers to God and his gifts in a discussion about a seemingly non-
religious matter demonstrates the degree to which his worldview, or at least the
worldview he presents in his published writings, was permeated by the reality and
importance of God.
In the Lutheran view, because overtly praising God is of utmost importance, and
because music is the ideal means to accomplish this, music is critical to a Christian
society. Therefore, a good ruler of a Christian land should possess an appreciation and
understanding of music, and should encourage and support the cultivation and spread of
music. Those rulers who do not are dangerous and destructive.
God’s great good is for that reason to be praised highly, so that [we can be
protected] against powerful [leaders], ignorant or hateful of music, that have
in these recent times raised the devil’s strong courts and churches in the forms
of flattering, wretched, and surly spirits and enemies of joy, by our prince and
duke. . . . In short, in these new times, a devout, Christian, high and mighty
ruler must hearken to this praising proverb of music. . . . They [the Christian
rulers] believe that a ruler who has no understanding of music [cannot] govern
his land and people rightly and well or otherwise find any fruitful profit in his
land and be self-sufficient.
67

66
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum II, 18: “Wiewol hierin nichts gewisses zu schliessen oder in gewisse
terminos zu bringen / denn die gaben Gottes seynd mancherley / und kan allzeit einer Höher und Tieffer
kommen als der ander.” Translation from Syntagma musicum. II, trans. and ed. Crookes, 33.

67
Praetorius, Polyhymnia panegyrica, X: “Ist derowegen GOttes insonderbahren Güte hoch zu dancken /
daß wider die Mächtige Amusos und Misomusos, so der starcke Hoff- und Kirchen Teuffel / als ein
hoffertiger trawer- und sawer-Geist und Frewden Feind in diesen letzten zeiten erreget / durch den
stärckern Fürstlichen Geist / von unserm Fürsten und Hertzog. . . . Inmassen newlicher zeit ein löblicher /
Christlicher hoher und mechtiger Potentat / neben diesem angehengtem Lobspruch der Music / sich
vernehmen lassen. Sie hielten es dafür / daß kein Potentat sein Land unnd Leute recht und wol Regieren /
53
Rulers must vigilantly protect their territory from attacks against music. Such
assaults originate from the devil himself, who wants to excise music from Christian
communities.
But since the Devil saw that his power was being attacked and his kingdom
laid waste by the psalmody of the pious, he fought tooth and nail, with all his
might, to take away from schools and churches the time given to practice in
psalm-singing.
68

That Praetorius would assign the responsibility for assaults against music to the devil
underscores the power and importance he gives to it. Psalm–singing in particular is
spiritually potent, because it combines Scripture with music. Recalling the role that the
Apostle Paul gives to Scripture within his discussion of the armor of God, Praetorius
credits him with labeling Psalm-singing as “the sword of the Spirit.”
69

According to Praetorius, then, music is the ideal method of external worship.
However, true worship does not consist merely of an external act such as singing, but is
motivated by a heart submitted to and directed towards God: “[The] intentions of Justin
are just and clear: ‘It is and remains the word of God, that what is felt in the soul [should

oder auch ein ander in seinem Stande etwas Fruchtbahrliches proficiren und außrichten könne / der nicht
ein Musicum igenium hette.” Translated in Boudreaux, “Michael Praetorius’s ‘Polyhymnia caduceatrix et
panegyrica,’” 57, 59. This statement occurs in a dedication to three rulers, a logical place for Praetorius to
laud the value of music-loving leaders. Of course it certainly is possible that Praetorius merely wrote the
expected sentiments at this spot in the dedication, irrespective of his own beliefs. However, within the
context of Praetorius’ emphasis on the importance of music for everyone, this statement also can be taken
at face value.

68
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 19: “Quod cùm videret Diabolus, Psalmodius piorum suam sibi
potentiam infringi, regnumque devastari, idcirco quovis tempore psallendi exercitium è scholis & templis
removere manibus pedibusque (quod dicitur) obnixè dedit operam.” Translated in Fleming, “Michael
Praetorius,” 68.

69
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 8. Praetorius is referring to Ephesians 6:10-17 (specifically, verse 17).

54
be] sung with the voice and played and struck on instruments.’”
70
In Praetorius’ view,
God “is to be praised with hearts, instruments and [choirs].”
71

Praetorius contends that God does not accept worship if it is not motivated by a
contrite heart: “So God surely turns away from a liturgy put together without faith and
penitence, carried out in impiety and hypocrisy.”
72
In addition, worship should be a
passionate expression of faith, not a halfhearted one:
What is meant by the frequent repetition of the same exhortation to praise the
Lord, and the heaping up of so many instruments, joined together in so many
psalms, but that we should praise the majesty of Christ with hope and faith,
not slothfully and listlessly, but animatedly and ardently?
73

While music functions as an outward sign of inner devotion on the one hand, it
can also incite this inner devotion on the other. Instrumental music, especially when
played by an organ, is adept at stimulating worshipful zeal in the listener.
74

70
Praetorius, Polyhymnia panegyrica, VII: “recht und war ist des Iustini Meinung: !"µ! "## $$%&' ()$%
%& ''('µ$*µ)'$' +!( ),-µ)'$', +!( *'!+#$'-µ)'$'. Verbum Dei est, sive mente cogitetur, sive
canatur, sive pulsu edatur. ‘Es ist und bleibet Gottes Wort / auch das da im Gemüth gedacht / mit der
Stimme gesungen / auch auff Instrumenten geschlagen und gespielet wird.” Translated in Boudreaux,
“Michael Praetorius’s ‘Polyhymnia caduceatrix et panegyrica,’” 35. As Robin Leaver notes, the source
actually was “Pseudo-Justin” and the citation was affected by a transcription error. Many Lutheran writers
from the end of the sixteenth century and later also referred to this statement. See Leaver, Luther’s
Liturgical Music, 286-89.

71
Praetorius, Missodia Sionia, VIII: “. . . ut cordibus, chordis, Chorisq; Sionijs laudandus IEJOVAH.”

72
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, dedicatory epistle: “Sic certè nulla fide & poenitentia stipatam, sed
impietate & hypocrisi administratam leiturgiam Deus aversatur.” Translated in Fleming, “Michael
Praetorius,” 9-10.

73
Syntagma musicum I, 148: “Crebra certè repetitio ejusdem exhortationis ad laudandum Dominum, & tot
Instrumentorum conjunctorum coacervatio in tot Psalmis, quid aliud vult, quàm ne segniter & oscitanter,
sed alacriter, ardentererq; spe & fiduciâ Majestatem Christi celebremus?” Translated in Fleming, “Michael
Praetorius,” 302.

74
In Syntagma musicum III, Praetorius describes the purposes of organ introductions to polychoral works.
One of their purposes is to make the audience more attentive: “Zum beschluß aber mus ich alhier den
Organisten Freundtlich zu verstehen geben / wenn ein Concert mit etlichen Choren in der Kirchen oder
auch vor der Taffel angestellet wird / daß / gleich wie Fürtreffliche Oratores, wen sie wichtige Sachen
55
Although that polyphonic music is rejected by some as harsh, because it
distracts the bystander from hearing the words, and merely delights, titillates
the ears, and pleases with empty sounds, . . . nevertheless, it cannot be denied
that, just as soldiers are stirred to arms by the sound of the trumpet, so in the
congregation of the Church Militant here and in spiritual combat, that variety
of sounds and harmony of instruments powerfully stirs up pious minds to
serious prayer and thanksgiving,
75

Similarly, referring to some pieces from Italy by Gabriele Fattorini, Praetorius writes:
I have therefore collected them, corrected and purified the texts, and added a
second choir with ripieni, so that we here in Germany can also make use of
such a beautiful and glorious style in praise and honor of God in stimulating
devotion in His church.
76

Praetorius believed music to be especially capable of exciting devotion and
worship because of its powerful influence over emotions. In his writings, he refers to a
number of church leaders and other rulers in arguing for this point. Strongly aligning
himself with Martin Luther and his views on music, Praetorius includes in the preface to

tractiren und davon Ansehnlich peroriren wollen / sich gemeiniglich eines dienlichen wolfügenden Exordij,
ungeachtet es eigentlich zum Hauptwerck nicht gehörig, allein zu dem Ende / damit sie die Zuhörer
benevolos attentos & dociles machen / und umb so viel ermuntern mögen / befleissigen.” See Syntagma
musicum III, 151. (“In conclusion I must give organists some friendly advice here, that when presenting a
concerto for several choirs in church or at a banquet, generally to make a great effort to use a suitable, well-
arranged introduction—regardless of its relevance to the main work—with the sole purpose of making the
audience appreciative, attentive, and agreeable. This may enliven them all the more, just as outstanding
speakers do when they want to elaborate more extensively on important things.”) Translation from
Syntagma musicum III, trans. and ed. Kite-Powell, 155.

75
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 147: Quanquam enim quibusdam harmonica ea Musica reijicitur,
tranquam confragosa, qua ita detineantur astantes, ut verba percipere non queant; & quae saltem delectet,
aures titillet, & inanibus sonis mulceat . . . Negari ramen non potest, quòd veluti clangore Buccinae ad arma
animantur milites, ita in Ecclesiae hîc militantis congressu, & spirituali militia, ipsa vocum varietas, &
Organorum harmonia pias mentes vehementer exstimulet, ad serias preces & gratiarum actionem.”
Translated in Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 300.

76
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum III, 188: “So hab ich dieselben zusammen Colligiret, die Texte Corrigiret
unnd Purificiret, auch secundum Chorum mit den Ripieni darzu gesetzet / darmit wir alhier im Teutschland
/ solcher schönen herrlichen Art / dem lieben frommen GOtt zu Lob und Ehren / in seiner Kirchen / unser
Andacht dardurch zuerweckeu (recte: zuerwecken) / auch gebrauchen können.” Translation from Syntagma
musicum III, trans. and ed. Kite-Powell, 187.

56
Musae Sioniae I Luther’s essay originally published in Symphoniae jucundae.
77
In this
enthusiastic defense for the value and usefulness of music, Luther describes music as a
mighty queen ruling over the emotions of the human heart. He continues:
Because nothing on earth is stronger to make the sad happy and the happy sad,
the timid strong of heart, to break the haughty to humility, to still and temper
hate and excessive love, to reduce envy and hate—and who can recount all
movements of human hearts, which rule people, and further break or drive to
virtue or to vice—to hold in restraint and to reign these movements of the
heart, I say nothing is stronger than music. . . . Because of this, not in vain
have the holy fathers and the prophets brought the Word of God into many
songs [with] string instruments, so that music should remain in the church
always. Therefore, we have so many wonderful songs and Psalms, which,
both with words and with the song and sound, move the hearts of men.
78

Arguing from the lives of David and Elisha, Sadler’s essay in Musae Sioniae V makes
this same point.
79
Regarding the positive, calming effects of music, Praetorius also quotes
the prologue to Psalm 1 by the church father Basil:
For the psalmody and choral music of the church is joy, tranquility of soul, the
herald of peace, which can calm all the billows and storms of fearful

77
Luther’s essay, as published in Symphoniae jucundae in 1538 is in Latin. Johann Walter produced a
German translation of this essay. In 1575, Wolfgang Figulus published another German version which, as
Walter Blankenburg has revealed, was not an additional German translation of the Latin, but rather
Luther’s original draft of the essay, on which he based the published Latin. Praetorius’ version of the essay
in Musae Sioniae I relies mostly on Walter’s German translation, but also draws on the Figulus
reproduction of Luther’s German draft. See Walter Blankenburg, “Überlieferung und Textgeschichte von
Martin Luthers Encomion musices,” Luther Jahrbuch 39 (1972): 80-104. For a comparison of Luther’s
Latin and German versions, both in the original languages and in English translations, see Leaver, Luther’s
Liturgical Music, 313-24.

78
In Michael Praetorius, Musae Sioniae I, p. VIII: “Denn nichts auff Erden krefftiger ist / die traurigen
frölich / die frölichen traurig / die verzagten herzen-hafftig zu machen / die hoffertigen zur Demut zureitzen
/ die hitzige und ubermeßige Liebe zustillen und dempffen / den Neid und Haß zu mindern / und wer kan
alle Bewegung deß Menschlichen Hertzen / welche die Leute regieren / und entweder zu Tugent oder zu
Lafter reitzen und treiben / erzehlen / dieselbige Bewegung deß Gemüts / im Zaum zuhalten / und
zuregieren / sage ich / ist nichts krefftiger / denn die Musica. . . . Darumb haben die heiligen Väter / und die
Propheten nicht vergebens das Wort Gottes in mancherley Gesänge / Seitenspiel gebracht / darmit bey der
Kirchen die Musica alzeit bleiben solte / daher wir denn so mancherley köstliche Gesänge und Psalm haben
/ welche beyde mit Worten / und auch mit dem Gesang und Klang / die Hertzen der Menschen bewegen.”

79
In Praetorius, Musae Sioniae V, p. VII.

57
emotions; for it appeases anger, restrains lust, [it] is the conciliator of love,
composer of dissent, reconciler of enemies.
80

Praetorius indicates that certain characteristics are inherent to effective music, and
utilizing these characteristics can increase its ability to invigorate worshipful hearts
because then it will more accurately reflect God’s character and adhere to principles
ingrained in the nature of reality. One such characteristic is a steady beat within an
appropriately stately tempo.
A performance must not be rushed, for confusion will be created in the entire
ensemble—even the most enjoyable ones. However, when it is performed to a
slower beat, the harmony is made more gracious and is better perceived. Also,
the equality of the measurement [of the notes] must be observed, lest the
harmony be marred or disturbed. For to sing without law and measure is to
offend God himself, who arranged all things according to number, weight, and
measure, as Plato says.”
81

Another important characteristic of effective music is a good foundation, a role played by
the bass voice or, in polychoral compositions, by the lowest choir. Praetorius argues for
this point by alluding to the parable of the wise and foolish builders from Luke 6: “the
lowest choir, as the very foundation, has to be present first, and because of this should

80
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 16: “Psalmodia enim & Musica Choralis Ecclesiae est laetitia,
tranquillitas animarum, pacis caduceus, qui omnes fluctus & procellas timoris & affectuum sedare potest:
iram enim placat, lasciviam refrenat, amoris est conciliatrix, dissidentium compositrix, inimicorum
reconciliatrix.” Translated in Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 62.

81
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum III, 79: “Cantus non est praecipitandus: fit enim confusio totius
Symphoniae etiam jucundissimae. Ad Tactum autem productiorem harmonia fit: gratior, & meliùs
percipitur. Mensurae etiam servanda est aequalitas, ne harmonia deformetur vel turbetur: Nam sine lege &
mensura canere, est Deum ipsum offendere, qui omnia numero, pondere & mensura disposuit, ut Plato
inquit.” Translation from Syntagma musicum III, trans. and ed. Kite-Powell, 91. In footnote 53 on page 91,
Kite-Powell remarks that Praetorius’ source for the Plato quotation is not known, but that part of the
quotation corresponds to Wisdom of Solomon 11:21.

58
take preference. For unless someone has faithfully laid the foundation, whatever he builds
will fall down.”
82

In multiple places Praetorius declares or implies variety to be effective and
pleasant. For example, within a discussion of music in the Old Testament he remarks that
variety stirs emotions and pleases God, and therefore is beneficial in sacred music.
And it should be remarked that (because variety also is a valiant ornament of
music, the hearts of men are greatly moved, and especially God in heaven is
pleased) the singers in the house of the Lord, with their trumpets, cymbals,
psalters, harps and other string instruments, artfully varied [things]. A few
sang, and [some] sounded, so that everything went daintily and splendidly, to
praise and to thank the Lord, the Almighty God.
83

In discussing concertos, Praetorius explains that “the sweetness consists not so much in
artifice as in variety itself.”
84
He also commends secular songs that exhibit “taste and
variety.”
85

Praetorius offers numerous performance options for many of his pieces,
sometimes explicitly as a means to promote variety. For instance, referring to the
performance of a polychoral motet, he writes:

82
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum III, 88: “...der tieffste Chor / als das rechte Fundament zu allererst
vorhanden seyn muß / und derowegen billich den vorzug haben solte: Nam nisi quis fundamentum fideliter
jecerit, quicquid superstruxerit corruet.” Translation from Syntagma musicum III, trans. and ed. Kite-
Powell, 101.

83
Praetorius, Urania, VI: “Und zumercken ist / das (weil auch die Varietas als ein tapffer Ornament der
Music, die Hertzen der Menschen hefftig beweget / und sonderlich GOtt im Himmel wolgefellet) die
Cantores im Hause des HErrn / mit ihren Trommeten / Cymbeln / Psaltern / Harffen und andern
Seitenspielen / künstlich varijret, etliche darein gesungen und geklungen / und alles lassen zierlich und
prechtig hergehen / zu loben und zudancken / dem HERRN dem allerhöchsten GOtt.”

84
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum III, 4: “Suavitas enim non tàm in artificio, quàm in ipsa variatione
consistit.” Translation from Syntagma musicum III, trans. and ed. Kite-Powell, 18.

85
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum III, 221. See also Kite-Powell’s translation, 207.

59
Or one can leave out Denn er hat die Niedrigkeit in the first part; Und seine
Barmherzigkeit in the second part, or [leave out] the sinfonia with Er übet
Gewalt; Die Hungerigen in the third part; and Wie er geredt hat in the fourth
part, and sing those parts in unison in between the full sections, which at the
same time abbreviates and provides variety.
86

Praetorius also advocates using instruments in such a way as to foster variety, for
example within a discussion of concerted motets using trumpets and timpani:
As variety is desirable in all things, I have introduced several variations in the
German works, in which the trumpets and timpani do not always join in with
the full ensemble but may at times be used in the following ways.
87

Just as music should glorify God, reflect God’s character, and awaken hearts,
Praetorius indicates that the manner of the worship service should perform these
functions, as well. Great care and attention should be given to preparing the choir and to
proper adornments for the service.
88
The inexperienced should not acquire a lot of
responsibility because the importance of the worship service requires that those who lead
it are eminently capable.
89
Anyone who sings should do so with the solemnity appropriate

86
Praetorius, Polyhymnia panegyrica, 720: “Oder / man kann im 1. Teil / (Denn er hat die Niedrigkeit:) im
2. Teil / (Und seine Barmherzigkeit:) oder aber die Sinfonia mit dem (Er übet Gewalt:) im 3. Teil (Die
Hungerigen:) im 4. Teil / (Wie er geredt hat:) außenlassen / und dieselbige nur choraliter zwischen dem
figural singen: so gibts zugleich eine Variation und Abbreviation.” Translated in Boudreaux, “Michael
Praetorius’s ‘Polyhymnia caduceatrix et panegyrica,’” 251.

87
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum III, 170: Und dieweil in allen dingen / die Varietas anmühtig und
angenehm/ so hab ich in den Teutschen auch etliche Variationes mit eingebracht / daß die Trommeter und
Heerpaucker / nicht allzeit zusammen mit vollem Chor einfallen / sondern bißweiln.” Translation from
Syntagma musicum III, trans. and ed. Kite-Powell, 173. See also pages 182 and 216-17 of Syntagma
musicum III (182 and 204, respectively, of Kite-Powell’s translation).

88
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 87-88, 100ff. Praetorius also mentions that the musicians of the Old
Testament were well compensated for their work. This implies that choral music is valuable and worth its
monetary cost. It is also quite possible that Praetorius is intimating that his Kapelle deserves better pay.
Similarly, in the introduction to Syntagma musicum II (p. 12 of Crookes’s translation) Praetorius writes
that, because the service of the organist is valuable spiritually, it should be rewarded with at least a living
wage.

89
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 88-92.
60
to a service in honor of the almighty God. Music should be orderly and performing
should be done with modesty.
90

Praetorius expresses many of these points in his description of a situation in
which an organist transposes by the interval of a second or third when performing in
alternation with the choir. These intervals “change the nature of the mode, and its
peculiar effect on the feelings” and are awkward for the singers. Therefore, if an organist
were to transpose his phrases or verses by a second or third, the astute cantor would
ignore the organist’s pitch and instead lead the choir using the original pitch. Even if the
cantor did adopt the organist’s illicit transposition, any instrumentalists would likely be
unable to follow it. “The result of all this is utter confusion—at the very best, it is a
pitiable racket.”
91
Praetorius has some harsh words for the organist who would precipitate
this musical mayhem during a church service.
Those responsible for this evil, senseless noise, this execrable music, are
seriously desecrating the public worship, which is directed towards the Lord’s
holy ears and countenance, and towards the Christian congregation. They are
insulting the Lord God—the God of order—and prostituting themselves. . . .
Such conduct . . . is due entirely to their obstinate arrogance, conceited over-
smartness, insatiable lust for attention, vindictive bickering, and ill-will.
92

90
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 9-10.

91
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum II: “und machen also wol gar eine Confusion, oder doch sonsten
erbärmliche Arbeit.” Translation from Syntagma musicum. II, trans. and ed. Crookes, 15.

92
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum II: “Für dem Angesichte und heiligen Ohren GOttes aber und Christlicher
Gemeine / prophaniren und entheiligen sie mit solcher ubellautenden inconsequentz und feindseliger Music
den öffentlichen Gottesdienst nicht wenig / offendiren GOtt den HErren als einen GOtt der Ordnung
schwehrlich / prostituiren auch sich selbst nicht ohne Christlicher Andechtiger Hertzen ergerlichem verdruß
und eifferigem unwillen / andern zum spöttlichem gelächter und lächerlichem gespötte: Wie leider aus
angemaster eigensinnigkeit / uberiger Weiß und Klugheit / auch unersettigtem Ehrgeitz und rachgirigem
wiederwillen eines wieder den andern / durch unselig eingeben des Störnfrieds und Kirchenfeindes an
etlichen / doch / Gott lob / gar wenig Ortern zugeschehen pfleget.” Translation from Syntagma musicum. II,
trans. and ed. Crookes, 15.
61
An additional point that arises from this description is the importance of spiritual
unity in the church body. The organist’s indefensible conduct arises out of his disregard
for, and his lack of unity with, others. Elsewhere, Praetorius extols the presence of unity
within the congregation:
What gracious and fatherly satisfaction does the almighty God and Father take
in these aspects of his service[?] [He takes satisfaction] primarily in a lovely
spiritual harmony in the congregation, of which we find a very clear example
in 2 Chronicles 5.
93

The collective music-making of hundreds of singers and instrumentalists described in 2
Chronicles 5 is the audible demonstration of the “spiritual harmony” to which Praetorius
refers. Just as one person’s singing is an outward expression of the state of his heart,
collective singing is an outward expression of the unity among the church body.
Collective singing also promotes the very unity it demonstrates. Basil’s prologue
to Psalm 1, quoted by Praetorius, expresses this concept: “For who would consider
anyone an enemy, if he sings songs together with him to God. Therefore psalmody
demonstrates charity, which is the greatest good, and joins people together in one

In the dedicatory epistle to Syntagma musicum I, Praetorius explains that musicians should adhere
to the traditions of church music instead of making church a venue to indulge their own musical tastes:
“Quemadmodum autem in CONCIONIBUS sacris turpe est, non cum Scriptura loqui, aut verbis sanis, canoni
congrius, non uti: Sic qui vult canere in templis, cum Ecclesiá eum oportere canere, non incongruè dixero.
Neq; enim in eorum numero Melopaeorum haberi volo, qui Ecclesiae aliquam navaturi operam, receptas in
templis melodiae choralis normas prorsus aspernantur se ponuntq; suo unicè genio & ingenio indulgentes.”
(“Just as it is shameful, then, not to speak with Scripture, or not to use sound words agreeable to the rule in
sacred assemblies, so I shall say, not improperly, that if someone wishes to sing in church, he should sing
with the church. Nor do I wish to have anyone counted among the musicians who, in undertaking any task
for the church, totally disregards the accepted norms of choral melody in church, who sets himself up to
indulge only his own taste and temperament.”) Translated in Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 20-21.

93
Praetorius, Polyhymnia panegyrica, IX-X: “Was auch der Allmechtige GOtt und Vater / für ein gnediges
und väterliches Wolgefallen habe an solchem Stücke seines Dienstes / nemblich an einem lieblichen
geistlichen Concent in den Versamlungen: Dessen finden wir ein Sonnen Clar Exempel 2. Par. 5.”
Translated in Boudreaux, “Michael Praetorius’s ‘Polyhymnia caduceatrix et panegyrica,’” 55.
62
accord.”
94
Congregational singing, then, would promote this necessary unity between
Christian believers.
While emphasizing the power of music over emotions, Praetorius does not neglect
the intellectual aspect of man. Man is to “seek and recognize the truth,” the most
important aspect of which is “the knowledge of God.” Organ music, for instance, can
help the congregation to do this, by preparing them to listen to the sermon.
95
Figural
singing should serve a similar function, directing the attention of the congregation
towards God’s Word.
96
Choral music creates an aural environment that encourages
meditation about God.
Certainly a mind [possessed] of devout faith perceives that in choral music
and the psalmody of the church, the glory of God has been spread about. For
indeed [choral music] balances, considers, and reflects on the importance of
each word and sentence, and presents them for contemplation to the alert
singer and the aroused listener.
97

Although the congregation plays no active role in polyphonic choral music, and certainly
not in organ preludes, it has an important silent participatory role to play. With choral

94
In Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 16: “Quis enim inimicum, cum quo unam ad Deum emittit vocem,
putaverit? Itaque charitatem, quae maximum est bonorum, Psalmodia praestat, ac in unius consonantiam
populum coaptat.” Translated in Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 62.

95
Syntagma musicum II, introduction. See also page 12 of Crookes’s translation.

96
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 11-12. On page 45 Praetorius specifically mentions “Gospel Hymns” as
serving this function: “Odae ante concionem quidem, sed post Epistolam canebantur, quia ad Evangelij
devotam auscultationem populum excitarent, dici possunt . . . hymni Evangelici.” (“The odes which are
sung before the sermon, but after the Epistle may be called . . . ‘Gospel hymns,’ since they rouse the people
to hear the Gospel with devotion.”) Translated in Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 119.

97
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 16: “Certè in Chorali Musica & Psalmodia Ecclesiae gratam de Deo
famam esse sparsam, devotae fidei mens deprehendit . . . strictis notarum numeris, & certis tractuum
ambituumque modis, ad singula verborum & sententiarum pondera librat, appendit & meditatur,
meditandaque Cantori non oscitanti, excitatoque auditori, exhibet.” Translated in Fleming, “Michael
Praetorius,” 61.

63
music, “both the devout listener and the attentive singer unhesitatingly adapt the words
sung to themselves, and adopt them as their own.”
98
The congregation must constantly
employ their minds to consider the texts of the pieces, the sermon and God’s Word.
The act of singing itself encourages this reflection. It stimulates the singer to
internalize the text.
And moreover, in sacred songs it is remarkable that the one who sings thinks
that he is singing his own words, on account of his piety; and whoever sings
thus, [sings] as if that which he is singing had been of his own composition,
and as if the words were his own, and thus directs his mind to God.
99

Praetorius also quotes John Chrysostom on this subject: “And let us sing in such a way
that the mouth in singing instructs the mind.”
100
Singing God’s Word not only promotes
thinking, but also encourages reverence: “There is also a twofold benefit of psalmody in
church, namely, that the singers, when reciting the divine words, receive God into their
hearts, and thus, devotion to God is kindled by songs of this type.”
101

Thus, for Praetorius, in relationship to the intellect, all sacred music demands
some participation from the congregation. Instrumental and choral music prepares the

98
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 21: “ut tàm devotè auscultans, quàm attentè decantans decantata verba
ad sese accommodare, eademque pro suis usurpare non dubitet.” Translated in Fleming, “Michael
Praetorius,” 72.

99
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 21: “Et proinde in sacris canticis illud miri est, quod, qui psallit, sua se
verba in re pietatis suae canere opinatur, & quilibet ita psallit, quasi de se ea ipsa, quae psallit, conscripta
essent, & tanquam de seipso sermo fieret, ita mentem suam ad Deum dirigit.” Translated in Fleming,
“Michael Praetorius,” 73.

100
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 9: “. . . & ita ut os canendo mentem erudiat.” Translated in Fleming,
“Michael Praetorius,” 49.

101
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 8: “Duplicem quoque fructum Psalmodiarum in Ecclesia esse : nempe
quod psallentes, dum verba divina loquuntur, Deum in corde suscipiant; & eiusmodi cantibus in Deum
devotio accendatur.” Translated in Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 47. The passage that follows implies that
psalmody also kindles devotion in the listeners.

64
listener to think carefully about the sermon and encourages reflection on Scripture. In
singing, all active participants exercise their minds.
While even purely instrumental music can move hearts and stimulate minds,
Praetorius consistently emphasizes the centrality of text to the Christian worship service.
He notes that the summons for everyone to praise God is a consistent theme recurring
throughout the Psalms and observes that David urges all of creation to actively participate
in worshipping God:
Does not David stand as chapel master and bring in all the people, even the
sky, earth, and sea, the fields and all the trees in the “new song,” Psalm 96,
desiring that they all should sing with him: as also in [Psalm] 98:4-8: “Rejoice
in the Lord all the world; sing, glorify, and praise; praise the Lord.”
102

Man alone, however, is able to worship God with words, particularly words combined
with music. In Luther’s essay cited above, which Praetorius reprints in Musae Sioniae I,
Luther argues for the importance of both words and music in praising God.
However, to men alone is given the voice with speech, before other creatures,
that he should be able to and should know to praise God with songs and words
together, namely with the bright, sounding sermon and praise of God’s
goodness and mercy, wherein beautiful word and lovely sound might be heard
together.
103

The importance of words and text is a central theme throughout Praetorius’
writings about worship. He divides text-based elements of church services into two

102
Praetorius, Polyhymnia panegyrica, IX: “Stehet nicht David gleichsamb als ein Capellmeister und
stimmet allen Völckern / ja Himmel / Erden und Meer / dem Feld und allen Bäumen / das Canticum
Novum an / im 96. Ps. und wil / daß sie alle mit ihm Singen sollen: Wie eben auch im 98. v. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Jauchtzet dem HErrn alle Welt / Singet / Rühmet und Lobet / Lobet / den Herrn.” Translated in Boudreaux,
“Michael Praetorius’s ‘Polyhymnia caduceatrix et panegyrica,’” 53.

103
In Praetorius, Musae Sioniae I, p. VIII: “Dem Menschen aber ist allein / vor den andern Creaturen / die
Stimme mit der Rede gegeben / daß er solt können und wissen / Gott mit Gesängen und Worten / zugleich
zuloben / Nemblich / mit dem hellen / klingenden Predigen / und rühmen von Gottes Güte und Gnade /
darinnen schöne Wort / und lieblicher Klang / zugleich würde gehöret.”

65
categories: concio and cantio, or sermon and song. Both of these are essential elements of
Christian worship:
Beyond that, for the perfection and stability of the Church’s government and
the full service of God, [it is not enough] only to include concio, a good
sermon, but rather it is also necessary [to include] cancio [sic], good music
and singing.
104

In the first part of Syntagma musicum I, Praetorius emphasizes the importance of the two
categories of speech and song by comparing them to a number of biblical images,
including the two trees at the center of the Garden of Eden (the tree of the Knowledge of
Good and Evil and the Tree of Life), the Urim and Thumim, two cherubim, two
seraphim, the two trumpets that Moses made at God’s command, and two pillars in the
portico of Solomon’s temple.
105
In reference to this last image, Praetorius writes,
To be sure, speech and song are more valuable to the church than a column of
bronze or oak, for by these the reign of Christ is established in the homily and
in the congregation of the faithful, who, like seeds enclosed within the skin of
an apple, joined with the Prophets and the Apostles in confessing one and the
same faith, depending on the death of Christ, awaiting an incorruptible
crown.
106

Praetorius warns that these two elements of the Christian worship service should always
be used in concert with each other: “so should those entrusted with the supervision of the

104
Praetorius, Polyhymnia panegyrica, VII: “Demnach nun zur volnkommenheit und bestand des Kirchen
Regiments / auch völligem Gottes Dienst / nicht allein gehörig ist CONCIO, Eine gute Predigt: Sondern
auch dazu erförderlich, CANTIO, Eine gute Music und Gesang.” Translated in Boudreaux, “Michael
Praetorius’s ‘Polyhymnia caduceatrix et panegyrica,’” 35. Unsurprisingly, Luther’s writings also include
statements comparing preaching and singing. See Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music, 288-89.

105
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, dedicatory epistle. See also Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 5-12.

106
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, dedicatory epistle: “Quippe Ecclesiae plus quàm aheneum columen &
robur est concio & cantio, quo stabilitur regnum CHRISTI in homiliam & congregationem fidelium, qui, ceu
grana unius mali punici cortice conclusa, cum Prophetis & Apostolis una eademq; fide fideiq; confessione
juncti pendent à Christi cruore, exspectantes coronam immarcessibilem.” Translated in Fleming, “Michael
Praetorius,” 10.

66
church completely avoid ever separating or pulling apart speech and song in the
ecclesiastical system of the public liturgy.”
107

Just as the text is manifestly an—indeed, the—integral element of the sermon,
Praetorius maintains that the text is also integral to church music, and that its
comprehensibility should be promoted. In contrast to the seventeenth-century Roman
Catholic service, in which the most important thing was that the liturgical text was said
by the priest, not necessarily that the congregation could hear or understand it, in the
seventeenth-century Lutheran service it was essential that everyone be able to hear and
understand the text. Furthermore, this text was to bring about changes in the hearts,
minds and behavior of the congregation.
Praetorius insists that at least one vocalist be present in every choir in polychoral
chorale settings with instruments, so that the text is always expressly proclaimed, not
merely understood by the presence of a familiar tune.
108

However, as I already mentioned, at least one vocal musician, who has a fine,
pure voice, must sing the chorale in the discant, alto, or tenor; at least one
should be available in each choir, so that the text is actually heard, and could
be heard by everyone.
109

107
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, dedicatory epistle: “sic quibus summa creditur Ecclesiarum inspectio,
cavendum omnino, ne alterutra, aut Concio, aut Cantio, in Rationali Leiturgiae publicae Ecclesiastico
divellatur aut separetur unquam.” Translated in Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 7.

108
The capella fidicinia, a choir essentially performing the role of a basso continuo, is an exception. Such a
choir acts as support for singers, but itself does not need to include a singer.

109
Praetorius, Urania, X: “Doch das wie hievor allezeit erwehnet / uffs wenigst ein Vocalis Musicus, der
eine feine reine Stimme hat / und den Choral im Discant, Alt oder Tenor singe / bey jedem Chor vorhanden
sey / damit der Text eigentlich gehört / und von jederman vernommen werden könne.” Barbara Wiermann
indicates that this practice of including a voice in an otherwise instrumental choir was not unique to
Praetorius. She gives as an example Georg Otto’s 1607 Magnificat for the Kassel court. It includes three
choirs: one incorporating only voices, one incorporating three cornetti and a voice, and one incorporating
three sackbuts and a voice. See Wiermann, Der Entwicklung vokal-instrumental Komponierens, 169.

67
In another instance, Praetorius implies the importance of the text by including human
voices within an instrumental choir without explicitly explaining the reason for their
presence:
It does not strike me as uneven when the first chorus is performed on the
organ . . . or with viols, lutes and similar lovely instruments, and the Cantus is
sung by one or two boys.
110

Praetorius follows this principle of using at least one voice in every choir throughout his
oeuvre.
It is not enough, however, for the text to be present. It must be audible to the
congregation. Basilius Sadler specifies this point in the essay mentioned above.
Also, what is written about the prophet Elisha in 2 Kings 3 [:15], that when
the minstrel played, then the spirit of the Lord came upon him, can still occur
today . . . during a good motet and instrumental music. However, one should
make sure, as much as possible, that the text and the word can also be
heard.
111

Praetorius himself makes this point very explicitly elsewhere. Singers should
articulate the text so that it is not fuzzy or garbled.
The vocalists, especially the discants, must then pronounce the words and
syllables clearly and carefully in all [the pieces], especially in the solo parts,
so that the text can be clearly and exactly heard and understood by the
hearers.
112

110
Michael Praetorius, Kleine und Grosse Litaney, 14: “So deuchtet mich nicht uneben seyn : daß der Erste
Chor auff der Orgel mit einem gar lieblichen Stimmwerck / oder mit Violen / Lauten und dergleichen
lieblichen Instrumenten musiciret, und der Cantus von einem oder zween Knaben darein gesungen werde.”

111
In Praetorius, Musae Sioniae V, p. VII: “Auch von dem Propheten Elisa 2. Reg. 3. geschrieben wird /
Daß da der Spielmann auff der Seiten geschlagen / sey der Geist deß HErrn auff ihn kommen / kan noch
heutiges Tages . . . geschehen / Das man unterweilen eine gute motet, und Instrumenta Musica mit unter
lauffen lest. Mann sol sich aber befleissen / Das / so viel immer müglich / der Text unnd die Wort auch
vernommen werden können.”

112
Praetorius, Polyhymnia panegyrica, XVI: “Do dann in allen / sonderlich in den Concertat-Stimmen / die
Vocalisten / bevorab aber die Discantisten fein vernemlich / deutlich und rein die Wörter und Syllaben
exprimiren, und herauß bringen müssen / damit der Text von den Auditoribus deutlich und eigentlich
68
Praetorius gives “insofar as it is quite pleasing and affords a better understanding of the
text” as a criterion for how to decide the best arrangement for voices and instruments.
113

Elsewhere, he urges: “Above all, care must be taken not to place the instrumental choirs
too close to their attendant solo voices, thus obscuring the voices (the most important
parts) so that they cannot be heard well.”
114
Here he not only requires that text-carrying
voices be audible, but claims that they are the most important parts.
Beyond being able to hear and distinguish the text, the congregation must also be
able to understand it. Sadler reiterates one of the core principles of Luther’s approach to
Christian worship.
And God should be thanked greatly that [through] him, in this recent time, his
lovely Word has been cleansed from all additions and man-made trumpery,
and also that the right use of music has been brought on course again, and we
can praise God in our Christian gatherings, giving him praise and thanks in
our mother tongue, which we understand, and not only, as happened many
times before, in Latin.
115

eingenommen und verstanden werden könne.” Translated in Boudreaux, “Michael Praetorius’s
‘Polyhymnia caduceatrix et panegyrica,’” 109.

113
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum III, 174: “Wiewol es auch gar anmütig unnd die wort des Textes desto
besser zuvornemen seyn . . .” Translation from Syntagma musicum III, trans. and ed. Kite-Powell, 176.

114
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum III, 197: “Vor allen dingen aber ist dieses in acht zu nehmen / daß ja die
Chori Instrumentales nicht zu nahe bey ihre zugehörige Concertat-Stimmen gestellet / und dadurch die
Cantores mit ihren Stimmen (daran zum allermeisten gelegen) obscuriret unnd nicht wol gehöret werden.”
Translation from Syntagma musicum III, trans. and ed. Kite-Powell, 194.

115
In Praetorius, Musae Sioniae V, p. VII: “Und ist Gott billich hoch dafür zu dancken / Daß nach dem in
diesen letzten Zeiten / sein liebes Wort von allerley Zusatz und Menschentandt gereiniget und geleutert /
auch der rechte Gebrauch der Musica wiederumb auff die Bahn gebracht / und wir nun Gott Lob und
Danck in unser Muttersprach / die wir verstehen / und nicht allein / wie zuvor mehrestheils geschehen /
Lateinisch / in unsern Christlichen Versamlungen Gott loben und preisen können.”

69
Sadler, however, does not condemn the use of Latin altogether, but supports its use in
places where the congregation can understand it. This is, of course, also squarely in
accord with Luther’s ideas.
As a conveyer of text, music functions both as a means to praise God, and to help
teach Scripture and correct doctrine. About this latter function, Praetorius writes: “also
truth . . . should be pursued with an eager heart in psalms, songs and spiritual hymns,
that the word of God would dwell abundantly among us.”
116
Music helps people, even
children, memorize Scripture,
117
it aids in the learning of doctrine, and it helps dispel
heresy.
118
It acts as a sweetener that makes medicine more palatable.
Then because the Holy Ghost has seen that it is very hard to steer the human
heart to godliness and virtue, but all too easy to steer it to salaciousness, he
has mixed together godly commands with the loveliness and joy of melody,
that together with sweetness, the discovery and praise of God and all Christian
virtue would be poured into hearts, according to the habit of wise doctors
who, in order to supply the bitter, repellant medicine to the patient, mixes it
with lovely, delightful juices.
119

116
Praetorius, Missodia Sionia, VII: “Verùm idem . . . ut sermo Dei abundè inter nos habitet . . . Psalmis,
Canticis & Hymnis spiritualibus, intento corde sectabitur.”

117
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 17-19.

118
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 25-27. In his discussion of the ability of music to spread correct
doctrine and combat heresy, Praetorius quotes Luther in a letter to Ludwig Senfl: “Scimus . . . Musicam
Daemonibus etiam invisam & intolerabilem esse. Et planè judico, nec pudet asserere, post THEOLOGIAM
esse nullam artem, quae possit Musicae aequari: Nam ipsa sola post Theologiam id praestat, quod alioqui
sola Theologia praestat, &c.” See Syntagma musicum I, 19. (“We know that music is hateful and intolerable
to demons, and quite rightly so. Nor am I ashamed to say that, after theology, there is no art which can
equal music, for [music] itself, after theology, offers that which only theology offers, etc.”) Translated in
Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 68. Praetorius notes that music also had been used to spread false doctrine
and commends those who had purged hymns of false beliefs, implying that music must be used carefully
and correctly. See Syntagma musicum I, 18-19.

119
Praetorius, Urania, VI: “Dann weil der H. Geist gesehen / daß das Menschliche Hertz schwehrlich zur
Gottseligkeit und Tugend zulencken / zur Wollust aber allzu sehr geneigt: Hat er die Göttliche Gebot mit
der Liebligkeit und Lust der Melodey vermischet / das zugleich mit dero Süssigkeit / die Erkentnüß und
Lob Gottes / und aller Christlichen Tugenden in die Hertzen eingegossen würde; Nach der weisen Artzten
gewohnheit / welche die bittere wiedrige Artzneyen dem Patienten beyzubringen / mit lieblichen anmutigen
70
In the Lutheran view, Scripture and correct doctrine, conveyed through music,
bear fruit in virtuous living. Praetorius explains that the Psalms and other portions of the
Old Testament meant to be sung were written so that “the praise and glory of God would
be continued and increased, and the churches would be edified in correct doctrine and
godly lives, as is evident in the second book of Chronicles, 5.”
120
As Paul teaches in
1 Corinthians 13, Christian faith and accurate doctrine, proclaimed through music, must
be reflected in charitable attitudes and actions.
121
Praetorius insists that Christians must
“take care that what you sing with your mouth, you believe in your heart; and that what
you believe in your heart, you confirm in your deeds.”
122

While righteous living proves one’s musical praise to be authentic, the study of
music can also promote righteous living.
God the Lord has given the knowledge of musical harmony to men in their
hearts, at every time to compose his godly teaching and the glory of his holy
name in songs, and also to perform with them his worship services . . . [for]
the doctrine of the true God and all godly comfort, praise and thanksgiving,
when enclosed in the Psalms and harmony, is placed more easily and deeply
in the hearts, and these hearts are then ignited and encouraged to the ardent
zeal of true godliness.
123

Säfften durchgiessen und vermischen.” Quoting Basil, Praetorius makes the same point about music acting
as a sweetener in Syntagma musicum I, 17-18.

120
Praetorius, Urania, VI: “auff das Gottes Lob und Ehre dardurch fortgesetzet und vermehret / und die
Kirche in rechter Lehr und Gottseligm Leben erbawet würde; Wie im andern Buch der Chronick am 5.
zuersehen.” Second Chronicles includes a description of the dedication of Solomon’s temple. At the end of
chapter 5, singers and instrumentalists glorify God, after which God’s glory fills the temple.

121
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 148.

122
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 9: “Vide, ut, quod ore cantas, corde credas, &, quod corde credis,
operibus comprobes.” Translated in Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 48. Praetorius notes that this is a
quotation from the fourth Synod of Carthage.

123
Praetorius, Urania, VI: “Es hat GOtt der HERR die Wissenschafft der Musicalischen Harmony dem
Menschen ins Hertz gegeben / und zu jederzeit seine Göttliche Lehr / und seines H. Namens Ehr in Lieder
verfassen / und auch damit seinen Gottesdienst verrichten lassen. . . . das die Lehr vom wahren GOtt/ und
71
In Luther’s essay reprinted in Musae Sioniae I, the reformer encourages the study of
music by young people, partially because “through discovery and diligent practice [of it]
they drive out evil thoughts at the moment, and also can avoid evil society and other bad
habits.”
124

The importance of the text underscores the notion that Lutheran worship is
fundamentally participatory.
125
For many elements of a worship service—the sermon and
purely choral singing among them—the participation of the congregation is silent and
internal. The congregation worships God with its emotions and allegiance. They
contemplate his character, his Word, and correct doctrine with their minds. Actively
participating in singing helps congregants to espouse texts and express their own thoughts
and emotions. In the Lutheran view, because singing is an important and conspicuous
means of glorifying God, and therefore is a means to obey God’s commands and give
God his rightful worship, all Christians should joyfully sing sacred songs. Congregational
singing provides a valuable opportunity for churchgoers to engage in this essential

alle Göttliche Vermahnung / Trost / Lob und Dancksagungen in die Psalmen und Harmony eingeschlossen
/ desto leichter und tieffer in die Hertzen eingebildet / und dieselbige zum fewrbrennendem Eyfer wahrer
Gottseligkeit entzündet und ermuntert werden möchten.”

124
In Praetorius, Musae Sioniae I, p. IX: “durch welcher Erkentnus / und fleissige Ubung sie zu Zeiten böse
Gedancken vertreiben / und auch böse Geselschafft und andere Untugend vermeiden können.”

125
Later in the seventeenth century, Johann Michael Dilherr described worship as fully participatory,
although most of the participation takes place internally. According to Dilherr, worship should include
“praying before the sermon, preparing for it by reading the Holy Scriptures, singing devoutly with the
congregation, following the church prayers with silent devotion, attending to the sermon with close
attention, thoughtfully going one’s way after receiving the benediction, repeating the sermon at home with
one’s family, and jotting down the most important points.” See Johann Michael Dilherr, Augen- und
Hertzenslust, d. i. emblematische Fürstellung der sonn- und festtäglichen Evangelien (1661), 188.
Translated in Kalb, Theology of Worship in 17th-century Lutheranism, 169.
72
activity. Righteous living is the appropriate result of the exercise of heart and mind in
both internal and external acts of worship.

Worship on earth as a reflection of worship in heaven
Praetorius repeatedly stresses an additional important perspective on worship, the
eschatological one, which constitutes another significant rationale for the inclusion of
congregational singing in church services. He first discusses worship in heaven in the
notes to Musae Sioniae I:
And to the sincere reader, that he—together with me and all true Christians—
would harmonize and sing to the praise, glory and honor of the highest
Majesty and eternal, undivided Trinity—beginning in this transient life with
babbling tongues, and later in the heavenly, eternal choirs, together with the
holy angels and archangels, thankfully and in all eternity, with full unending
voices—the heavenly songs of praise: “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of
Hosts,” and “Glory to God in the Highest.”
126

This concept, that in heaven Christians will worship God in concert with the angels and
that worship on earth is a foretaste of this joyous future, is one of the most prevalent in
Praetorius’ writings and often appears in extended passages of fervently rapturous prose.
For instance, in the preface to Musae Sioniae V, Praetorius implies that worship
on earth foreshadows worship in heaven. He explains that his goal for writing Musae
Sioniae V—a volume that includes his first published cantional settings and in which he
provides specific suggestions of how the congregation can be included and motivated to

126
Praetorius, Musae Sioniae I, p. XI: “Und thu also dem trewherzigen Leser / das er sampt mir und allen
wahren Christen diese / in diesem vergenglichen Leben mit lallenden Zungen anstimmende himlische
Lobgesenge / Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus DEVS Sabbaoth, und Gloria in excelsis DEO, hiernechst
in den himlischen unvergenglichen Choren / sampt allen heiligen Engeln und ErtzEngeln / dero aller
höchsten Majestedt und ewigen unzertheilten einigen Dreyfaltigkeit zu Lob / Ehr und Preiß / mit
vollkommenen unauffhörlichen Stimmen danckbarlich figurirn und in alle Ewigkeit singen möge.”

73
sing along—is to encourage all Christians to sing praises to God here on earth as they
will later do in heaven alongside the angels.
127
In Megalynodia, another volume that
espouses congregational participation in the prefatory notes and also provides musical
material suitable for congregational involvement, Praetorius again describes worship in
heaven and specifically associates it with congregational singing. He suggests that the
combined forces of singers and musicians imitate the throng of countless participants in
heavenly worship.
It is very lovely and charming to hear when the complete assembly is joined
by choirs and organ, dramatizing, as it were, how it will be in Heaven when
all the angels and saints of God will join with us in intoning and singing the
“Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Gloria in Excelsis Deo.”
128

Sadler’s essay also explicitly compares congregational singing to future celestial
worship in which humans will join together to worship God.
I, for my humble person, must admit that when the congregation sings
together the joyful Christmas and Easter songs and other similar Psalms and
songs with joyful and loud voices, it puts me in a different mood, and I hope
devout hearts will agree with me, that when such songs are sung, a person lets
himself think that he is already, in some manner, in heaven. There, all saints
and chosen ones will join in, and with us and next to us, will praise God with
inexpressible joy with one voice, and we will forever praise his great
benevolence.
129

127
Praetorius, Musae Sioniae V, p. VI.

128
Praetorius, Megalynodia, X-XI: “Sintemahl es sehr lieblich und anmuthig zu hören ist / wenn die ganze
Versamblung also mit dem Chor und der Orgel zugleich einstimmet / und gleichsamb ostendiret und
vorstellet / wie es im Himmel / da alle liebe Engel und Heiligen Gottes mit uns / das Sanctus, Sanctus,
Sanctus, Gloria in Excelsis Deo intoniren und anstimmen sollen / zugehen werde.” Translated in Cook,
“The German Troped Polyphonic Magnificat,” 161.

129
In Praetorius, Musae Sioniae V, p. VII: “Ich für mein gering Person mus bekennen / Wann die Gemein
allhie mit frölicher und lauter Stimm die fröliche Weinacht und Ostergeseng / und andere dergleichen
Psalmen und Lieder singet / das mir gleich anders zu Sinnen wird / und hoffe ich / fromme Hertzen werden
das mit mir einig sein / das / wenn solche Cantiones gesungen werden / ein Mensch sich gleich beduncken
lest / er sey etlicher massen allbereit im Himmel / da denn Heiligen und außerwehlten mit ein stimmen /
74
Praetorius associates specific musical devices with angelic and heavenly worship.
Urania contains polychoral chorale settings, and Praetorius explains that he chose the
title because of the associations of this type of music with angelic singing.
130
He argues
from the antiphonal singing of angels in Isaiah 6 that heavenly worship uses antiphonal
principles.
Particularly, though, I have wanted to use this title, because the sort for choirs
to sing is in truth the correct heavenly way to make music. In so much as
Isaiah the sacred and distinguished prophet and man of God testifies in
chapter 6 of his prophesy, that he heard the heavenly Seraphim in their angelic
choir singing in alternation the Thrice Holy one to another, to the glory and
praise of God; There one called to the other, and the other answered again,
and thus repeated their “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts” continually.
131

He argues also from history and the Psalms that antiphonal singing accurately imitates
the manner of singing in heaven.
The three-part history of the old teacher Saint Ignatius—who was the disciple
of St. John the evangelist and then bishop of Antioch—testifies that he heard
at one time how the holy angels divided themselves into two parts or choirs,
and one sang to the other and praised God. This gave him cause to make the
arrangement in his church, that one should sing the psalms in two choirs, one
verse and then the other (which is still held and observed in all monasteries
and cloisters). Long before that, the king and prophet David, a poet and
musician filled with the Holy Spirit prophesied in Psalm 87 the same idea—

und mit und neben uns / Gott mit unaußsprechlichen Frewden loben und preisen / und seine grosse
Wolthaten ewig rühmen werden.”

130
Praetorius, Urania, VIII: “hat mir geliebet / solche Geistliche per Choros componirte Betpsalmen zu
intituliren Urania oder Urano-Chorodia, Das ist / Musica per Choros caelestia canens: Oder Himmlische
Chor-Music.” (“It pleased me to entitle such sacred Psalms of prayer composed for choirs Urania or
Urano-Chorodia, that is, music for choirs singing in the heavens: or heavenly choir music.”)

131
Praetorius, Urania, VIII: “Sonderlich aber / hab ich dieses Tituls mich gebrauchen wollen / dieweil die
Art per Choros zu singen / in Warheit die rechte Himmlische Art zu musiciren ist. Inmassen Esaias der
heilige und fürnehme Prophet und Mann GOttes im 6. Capitel seiner Weissagung bezeuget / das er die
Himmlische Seraphin in ihrer Englischen Cantorey das !"#$%&#'(, habe gehört abwechseln/ und eins umbs
ander singen / dem HERRN zu Lob und Ehren; Da einer zu dem andern geruffen und ihn angeschrien / der
ander wieder geantwortet / und also ihr Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus Zebaoth, ohn unterlaß
wiederholet haben.”

75
that in holy Zion, all born-again heathens and Jews will praise God the Lord
in choirs—when he said “And the singer and the dancers, will all sing in you,
one to another.’”
132

Further, Praetorius maintains that antiphonal singing in Christian worship services
foreshadows the eternal delight of antiphonal worship in concert with the angels.
This way of making music is very delightful, and, as I have heard from many
devout hearts, it has great power for praising God with Christian devotion and
alacrity. It gives, as it were, a foreshadowing and taste of heavenly joy, where
joyfully, without all doubt the right Urano-Chorodia will persist and be
continued in eternity. There on one side and choir the chosen, blessed men
and on the other side and choir, the heavenly singers, cherubim and seraphim
will stand or hover, and in alternation praise God the Lord with their praise
and joyful cries, will concert, as it were, and supply many magnificent
concertos, the like of which we cannot imagine in this life.
133

The polychoral chorale settings in Urania are intentionally simple enough to invite
congregational participation, implying that antiphonal congregational singing, in
particular, provides a foretaste of worship in heaven.
Additionally, Praetorius indicates that the use of instruments in polychoral singing
also imitates celestial worship. Perhaps his most rhapsodic description of worship in

132
Praetorius, Urania, VIII: “Wie auch die Tripartitia Historia von dem alten Lehrer S. Ignatio, welcher S.
Iohannis des Evangelisten Jünger und hernach Bischoff zu Antiochia gewesen / zeuget / das er auff eine
Zeit gehört habe / wie die heilige Engelein in zwo Part oder Chor sich getheilet / und eins umbs ander
gesungen und GOtt gelobet haben. Welches ihm Ursach gegeben haben soll / in seiner Kirchen die
Anordnung zu machen / das man die Psalmen auff zween Choren / einen Verß umb den andern (welches
noch an itzo in allen Stifften und Clöstern also observiret und gehalten wirdt) habe singen müssen. Wiewol
lang zuvor der sehr Geistreiche Poët und Musicus, der König und Prophet David im 87. Psalm / dieses auch
erwehnet / und geweissaget; Wie im Geistlichen Zion / beyde wiedergeborne Heyden und Jüden per Choros
GOtt den HERREN loben werden; Wenn er sagt: Und die Sänger wie am Reigen / werden all in dir Singen
eins umbs ander.”

133
Praetorius, Urania, VIII: “diese Art zu musiciren sehr anmutig ist / Und wie ich von vielen frommen
Hertzen vernommen / grosse Kräffte hat zur Christlichen Andacht und Munterkeit GOtt zu loben / Ja
gleichsam ein Vorspiel und Schmack gibt der Himmlischen Frewde / da freylich / ohn allen zweiffel die
rechte Vrano-Chorodia angehen / und in Ewigkeit continuiret werden wirdt. Da auff einer seyten und Chor
die außerwehlte selige Menschen; Auff der ander seyten und Chor / die Himmlischen Cantores, Cherubim
und Seraphim stehen oder schweben / und alternatim mit ihrem Lob und Frewdengeschrey GOtt den
HERRN zu loben / gleichsam concertiren, und viel herrlichere Concert, dergleichen in diesem Leben wir
nicht erdencken können / anstellen werden.”
76
heaven and its reflection in earthly worship comes in the second volume of Syntagma
musicum, his treatise on instruments.
Now may the dear Lord in his loving-kindness and faithfulness be with us, as
we begin during this transitory life to blend our voices in different choirs (not
without confusion at times), and sound the heavenly songs of prayer and
praise of the holy patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and other saints filled with
God’s Spirit. For there awaits us now the life everlasting, the celestial state
that will never pass away! Soon we will stand before the throne of the Lamb,
at the joyful feast of our Heavenly Bridegroom, Jesus Christ, with the
choristers of heaven and those most perfect musicians, all the host of the holy
angels and archangels—an everlasting chorus, praising the Lord in our
different choirs by turn, worshipping the triune indivisible God in concert with
our joyful hymns of praise, and joining with the cherubim and seraphim in the
most worthy and beautiful song of all, the threefold Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus:
“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of hosts.” We will join as well in the joyful
song of the dear angels that was first heard announcing the Savior’s birth—
Gloria in excelsis Deo: “Glory to God in the highest,” without confusion or
error. And, together with the elders playing their harps and cymbals—
mentioned in the Revelation of St John—we will sound forth the Canticum
Agni, the song of the Lamb—“Worthy art thou to receive praise and
thanksgiving; unto thee is all honour, all virtue, all strength due, O Lord our
God, for evermore”: thus through all eternity we will praise and extol the
riches, the power, the redeeming grace, and the strength of our God and
Saviour. Amen, and Amen.
134

134
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum II, introduction: “Hellfe nun der fromme liebe getrewe GOtt / das / wie
wir in diesem vergenglichem Leben / die Himlische Bet- und Lobgesänge der H. Patriarchen / Propheten /
Aposteln und anderer Geistreichen Gottseligen Christen mit unterschiedenen Choren (bißweilen nicht absq;
confusionibus) anzuordnen und mit Lallenden Zungen anzustimmen / angefangen haben. Also auch im
künfftig ißt herzunahendem ewigen Leben / und himlischen unvergenglichen Wesen / bey der
frewdenreichen Hochzeit unsers himlischen Breutigams JEsu Christi / mit den himlischen Cantoribus und
perfectissimis Musicis allen H. Engeln und ErtzEngeln für dem Stuel des Lambs stehen / eine stätig
immerwehrende Cantorei halten / und alternatim per Choros varios mit unserm Lob und FrewdenGeschrey
/ GOtt den HErrn die dreyeinig-unzertheilte Heiligkeit zu Loben und zu Preisen gleichsam Concertiren und
mit den Cherubin und Seraphin die allerlieblichste köstlichste Concert-Gesänge / das dreyfache Sanctus, S.
S. Heilig H. H. ist GOtt der HErre Zebaoth: Und was die liebe Engelein bey der Geburt des HErrn Christi
angestimmet / dasselbige ohne einige Confusion und fehlen / mit frewden vollendis hinaus führen Gloria in
excelsis Deo, Ehre sey Gott in der Höhe: Und mit den Eltesten in der Offenbarung Johannis sambt ihren
Harffen und Zimbeln / Canticum Agni, das Lied des Lambes singen / klingen / Te decet laus, te decet
hymnus, tibi debetur omnis honor, tibi virtus & fortitudo, Domino Deo nostro in secula: Und also das Reich
und die Krafft und das Heil und die Macht Christi / unsers GOttes ewiglich rühmen und preisen mögen /
Amen / Amen.” Translation adapted slightly from Syntagma musicum. II, trans. and ed. Crookes, 18-19.

77
Even now when Christians sing on earth, Praetorius suggests, they not only imitate, but
actually join the angels in praising God.
After [Kyrie Eleison], the church, somewhat joyful because it has obtained
pardon for its sins in Christ, who was born in Bethlehem, and hoping to take
part in the heavenly harmony with the angels, sings the angelic hymn (in order
that men may worship on earth him whom the angels worship in heaven).
135

Praetorius visually displays these ideas about heavenly worship in the
exceptionally detailed title pages to Musae Sioniae I and Polyhymnia caduceatrix et
panegyrica.
136
The top of the title page to Musae Sioniae I depicts heaven. God the
Father is represented by the Tetragrammaton at the center, and is surrounded by the four
beasts from Revelation. A lamb carrying a cross with a banner represents Christ. On
either side are throngs and throngs of worshippers—angels on the left and humans
carrying harps on the right.
137
This illustrates the combination of angels and men as well
as the concept of antiphonal singing, both ideas central to Praetorius’ vision of heavenly
worship.
138
Underneath the clouds of heaven three choirs of church musicians perform on
instruments. By depicting heavenly and earthly worship simultaneously and by splitting

135
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 41: “POst !"#$% &'&()*+ Ecclesia, quodammodo laeta, ob impteratam
peccatorum veniam in CHRISTO, Bethlehemi nato, & sperans fore, ut concentus in caelis commisceat cum
Angelis, Angelicum Hymnum (ut quem venerantur Angelis in coelis, homines vererentur in terris . . .).”
Translated in Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 112. In discussing the Sanctus/Benedictus, Praetorius says it
combines the praise of angels (from Isaiah) with the praise of men (from Palm Sunday), and that the
angelic praise emphasizes the Trinity while the human praise emphasizes the hypostatic union. See
Syntagma musicum I, 53-54.

136
The title page to the first volume of Musae Sioniae appears in some of Praetorius’ subsequent
publications, with the information about the specific volume altered.

137
The man at the front on the right, leading the harpists, is wearing a robe and crown—probably
representing King David.

138
Of course, the division into two groups occurs naturally from the need to balance the composition of the
picture. Nevertheless, placing angels on one side and men on the other also imitates Praetorius’ description
of antiphonal singing in heaven.

78
the biblical quotation “Gloria in excelsis Deo et terra”—placing the first part beneath the
heavenly choir and the second beneath the church musicians, Praetorius emphasizes the
unity of the worship of these two groups.
139

The title page to Polyhymnia panegyrica contains swarms of angels and men,
overwhelming in their number and variety, playing all manner of instruments.
Inscriptions refer to attending the wedding of the lamb and to singing the song of the
lamb. Juxtaposed to these masses of worshippers surrounding Christ the lamb in heaven,
an inset depicts a man—Praetorius himself—kneeling in front of and embracing the
crucified Christ.
140
In this woodcut, Praetorius not only places Christ at the center of the
worship of countless men and angels in heaven, but also declares that Lutheran doctrine
holds personal significance for him. Directly underneath is the motto Praetorius fashioned
from his initials: Mihi Patria Coelum, a motto expressing an intense desire for heaven
and the worship that he personally will take part in there.
The anticipation of heaven is intimately related to the preparation for death and
the doctrine of the resurrection, which were absolutely fundamental for Lutherans.
Praetorius expresses the importance of all Christians boldly proclaiming their faith in the
hope of resurrection.

139
Lauterwasser also makes this same point in Helmut Lauterwasser, “Michael Praetorius: Anmerkungen
zu seinem Schaffen unter besonderer Berückssichtigung des evangelischen Kirchenliedes und der
gottesdientslichen Bestimmung,” in Von Luther zu Bach: Bericht über die Tagung 22.-25. September 1996
in Eisenach, ed. Renate Steiger (Sinzig: Studio, 1999), 163. For more on the woodcuts in Praetorius’
publications see Ulf Wellner, “Die Titelholzschnitte der Praetorianischen Drucke: Ein unbekannter Teil im
Schaffen des MPC,” in Michael Praetorius: Vermittler europäischer Muisktraditionen um 1600, 51-66.

140
Wellner, “Die Titelholzschnitte der Praetorianischen Drucke,” 63.

79
Any one of the faithful who sounds the praise of God with grateful lips, and
bears witness to constancy of faith, may be called a trumpet or a trumpeter.
Certainly it is fitting for all Christians in the church militant, who follow the
leadership of Gideon, and regard him, to sound the trumpet of public
confession, and with willing hearts to tell of the many great benefits of God,
until the time when the mass of this body will be broken, and we may pierce
and shatter death, and death-dealing enemies, carrying the torch of burning
faith and the hope of blessed immortality.
141

The list at the end of Syntagma musicum III of volumes that Praetorius had published and
planned to publish in the future further confirms the significance to him of the
preparation for death and of resurrection. He intended to print six volumes of devotional
literature with the title Regnum Coelorum. The third volume was to be on death, and was
a compilation of readings on preparation for dying with such specific topics as: “how to
deport oneself when ill,” “comfort for the sick,” “whereby I can realize that I am one of
God’s chosen children,” and “examples of how many devout Christians in their last
throes of death have found heartfelt consolation.”
142
About the sixth volume, which was
to be a book of daily devotions, he writes: “This little handbook has been composed for

141
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 126-27: “Tuba vel Buccinator etiam dici potest fidelis quisque, Dei
laudes grato sonans ore, & fidei constantiam attestans. Nostrum quippe Gideonem, Ducem praevium
sequentes, & respicientes, Christianos in militante Ecclesia decet Buccinâ apertae confessionis clangere, &
grato corde tot tantaq; beneficia Dei praedicare, donec fractâ hujus corporis mole, facem fidei ardentis, &
spem beatae immortalitatis praeferentes perruinpamus ac penetremus mortem, & hostes sibi ipsis
mortiferos.” Translated in Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 265. While Praetorius does not mention singing
explicitly in this passage, it certainly would be included in Praetorius’ notion of public confession of God’s
benefits.

142
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum III, 225-26: “Wie man sich in Kranckheiten verhalten sol. . . . Der
Krancken Trost. . . . Worbey ich wissen könne / daß ich ein Außerwehltes Kind Gottes sey. . . . Exempla,
wie sich viel fromme Christen in ihren letzten Todes nöthen hertzlich getröstet haben.” Translation from
Syntagma musicum III, trans. and ed. Kite-Powell, 210-11.
80
daily use to achieve a life that is in accordance with the Christian God, a blessed demise,
and everlasting bliss.”
143

Praetorius contends not only that worship on earth is a foretaste of the worship
that will occur in heaven and that he anticipates based on his faith in resurrection after
death, but that in heaven this worship will be man’s primary occupation: “we would also
be like the angels in Matthew 22. No eating, drinking, sleeping, and such will hinder or
cut us off from such music, since in heaven we, like the angels, will neither eat nor drink
in order to survive.”
144
This pertains to every Christian, no matter what his societal
position in this life. No man will be excluded and no man will be exempt.
Therefore I would rather have him hear the truth with good humor: he who
has no love for music and does not want to be a musician, what in heaven will
that person do? In heaven we must all make music, the lord as well as the
servant, next to those lovers and supporters of Christian music who are
enlightened and driven by the Holy Spirit. ([This will be] when all power is
given up, [including] their external [existence]. [In heaven their] bodily
princely position and office [is] ended, and [the spirit of] God is within all.)
[There everyone will join] with heaven’s princes including all the holy angels
and the chosen, patriarchs, kings, prophets, and apostles and stand before the
throne of the Lamb and make a constant, everlasting choir singing together the
threefold Sanctus from Isaiah 6:3 and Revelations 4:3 [together] with the
seraphim and cherubim, “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabaoth.” Then
[they] will rightly call “Heaven and earth are full of thy glory.” And what the

143
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum III, 227: “Christlichem Gott wolgefelligem Leben / seligem Absterben /
und ewiger Seligkeit zu erlangen / tegliches Manual und Hand Büchlein seyn kan / begriffen und verfasset
seyn.” Translation from Syntagma musicum III, trans. and ed. Kite-Powell, 211-12. From the wording, it
would seem that Praetorius had already written the devotional book. However, I am not aware of a
surviving record of the publication of any of Praetorius’ devotional volumes. For descriptions of all of the
planned volumes of Regnum Coelorum, see pages 225-27 of Syntagma musicum III (pp. 210-12 of Kite-
Powell’s translation).

144
Praetorius, Polyhymnia panegyrica, IX: “Nun aber werden wir auch in diesem Stück seyn !!"##$%&'
Matth. 22. den Engeln gleich. Von solcher Musica wird unß kein Essen Trincken / Schlaffen / u. abhalten
oder verhindern: Dann wir im Himmel / so wol alß die Engel weder Essen noch Trincken / Freyen oder uns
Freyen lassen werden.” Translated in Boudreaux, “Michael Praetorius’s ‘Polyhymnia caduceatrix et
panegyrica,’” 49.

81
angels voiced together at the birth of the Lord Christ we will always help to
carry out with full joy, “Glory to God in the highest”: and with the elders of
the Revelations of John singing and playing the song of the Lamb with their
harps and cymbals, “And thus the reign and the power, and the glory and the
strength of Christ our God forever glorify and praise.”
145

Because of the prominence of music in heavenly life, Praetorius argues,
Christians should prepare now for the joyous task they will fulfill forever.
And for us also, with the Church Militant on earth, it is fitting to cultivate and
practice it piously, until with the Church Triumphant in heaven, having been
admitted to the choirs of angels, we shall sing and celebrate without end,
singing together and celebrating the eternal Sabbath in the sight of the triune
God: Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts. Hallelujah. Glory to our God for
ever. Amen.
146

145
Praetorius, Polyhymnia panegyrica, VIII: “Daher ich wol ehr im schertz / jedoch an ihm selbsten der
Warheit nicht uneben / sagen hören: Wer nicht lust zur Musica, oder kein Musicus sein wil / was derselbe
im Himmel machen wolle? Denn im Himmel müssen wir alle / der Herr so wol alß der Knecht / Musiciren,
uund neben solchen vom. H. Geist erleuchteten unnd getriebenen Liebhabern und Beförderern der
Christlichen Music (wann alle Obrigkeit wird auffgehaben seyn / ihr eusserlicher / leiblicher Fürsten-Stand
und Ampt auffhören und GOtt alles in allem seyn) Als Himmelß Fürsten sampt allen heiligen Engelein und
Ausserwehlten / Patriarchen / Königen / Propheten und Aposteln / für dem Stuel des Lambs stehen / und
eine stetig immerwährende Cantorey halten / mit den Seraphin und Cherubin, das dreyfächtige Sanctus im
Esaia c. 6. v. 3. und Apocal, c. 4. v. 8. intoniren; Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Heilig / Heilig / Heilig ist GOtt
der HErr Zebaoth / u. Denn wirds recht heissen / Pleni sunt Coeli & Terra majestatis gloriae tuae. Und was
die Engel bey der Geburt des HErrn Christi angestimmet / das werden wir immer helffen mit Frewden
vollends hinaus führen / Gloria in excelsis Deo, Ehre sey GOtt in der Höhe: Und mit den Eltesten in der
Offenbahrung Johannis / sampt ihren Harffen und Zimbeln / Canticum Agni, das Lied des Lambes singen
und klingen / Te decet laus, te decet hymnus, tibi debetur omnis honor, tibi virtus & fortitudo, Domino Deo
nostro in secula: Und also das Reich und die Krafft / und das Heil und die Macht Christi unsers GOTtes
ewiglich rühmen und preisen.” Translation adapted slightly from Boudreaux, “Michael Praetorius’s
‘Polyhymnia caduceatrix et panegyrica,’” 47.

146
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 34: “Eam nos quoque, cum Ecclesia in terris militante, piè excolere
atque exercere, à pietate non est alienum, donec cum triumphante in coelo, Angelorum choris inserti,
junctis concentibus, & continuis aeterni sabbathi liturgiis, in conspectu Dei Trinunius, sine fine decantaturi,
& celebraturi simus: Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus Deus Zebaoth: Hallelujah, Deo nostro in Secula
Gloria, Amen.” Translated in Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 99. Sadler expresses the same idea in his
essay printed in Musae Sioniae V (p. VII): “Der fromme Gott gebe Gnade / das wir albereit noch in diesem
Leben / einen guten Anfang machen / dem HErrn zu singen und spielen in unsern Hertzen / auff daß wir
dermaln eins / wann diß Leben / darinn uns dieser Frewden Gesang offt zerstöret wird / ein Ende hat / Wir
ihn / in seiner himlischen Cantorey, mit allen Engeln und Gleubigen / in hertzlichen Frewden ewiglich
loben und rühmen mögen / AMEN.” (“May the pious God give grace, that we still in this life may make a
good beginning to sing and play in our hearts to the Lord, so that when this life, wherein this joyous song is
often destroyed by us, has an end, we may eternally sing and praise him in his heavenly Cantorey, with all
angels and believers in great joy.”)

82
So important is this preparation in Praetorius’ view, that every devout Christian must
show interest in his own musical development.
And not only should we be richly delivered into the heavenly choir with
enough instructions and abilities, but let us also learn the arts on earth that we
will use in heaven. . . . With a person who wishes to praise God in heaven
with his voice, there must be, at the very least, a desire and love to always
pursue such [musical enrichment] with his best [effort] and greatest affection
in all his work.
147

Not only does a true Christian desire to glorify God, he also wants to glorify him well, to
the best of his ability. If he really considers God as a being of infinite worth, he will want
to give him the best musical offering he can, both now and for eternity.
Praetorius implicitly acknowledges that some people will not be brilliant
musicians, and of course the music produced by such people may be of an inferior
quality. He does not insinuate that such mediocre singers cannot be genuine Christians or
that they cannot give God authentic and valuable praise. Nor does he imply that a
naturally gifted musician who is willfully sinful, prideful and sings for his own benefit
produces praise that pleases God more than the tone-deaf layman who sings off-key with
great passion for God.
148
Rather, he maintains that the condition of the heart is what is
important. Nevertheless, he also affirms that outward fruits reveal what this condition is,
so that if a person shows little or no interest in learning to sing to the best of his ability, or

147
Praetorius, Polyhymnia panegyrica, IX: “Und ob es wol nicht ohne / daß wir in der reichen erstattung /
zu der Himmlischen Cantorey gnugsamb instruirt und tüchtig gemacht werden: So heist es dennoch /
Discamus ea in Terris, quorum scientia perseverat in Coelis, last uns die Kunst lernen auff Erden / die wir
im Himmel gebrauchen werden. . . . Es mus ja zum aller wenigsten bey einem Menschen / der mit seiner
Stimme hoffet GOtt im Himmel zu Loben / eine lust und liebe seyn / solches auch alhie auffs aller beste uñ
lieblichste ins Werck zurichten.” Translated in Boudreaux, “Michael Praetorius’s ‘Polyhymnia caduceatrix
et panegyrica,’” 51.

148
Recall Praetorius’ statements about singing being a reflection of the heart, and virtuous deeds
confirming this condition of the heart.

83
in understanding music as well as he can, this implies that he does not really see God as
worthy of great praise.
For Praetorius, an individual who does not desire to improve his musical abilities
ignores the mandates in Scripture to glorify God with singing, as well as the biblical
references to singing in heaven. By showing contempt for Scripture, he shows contempt
for God. This is the attitude of the stubborn man described earlier whose indifference to
glorifying God, especially to glorifying God with singing, reveals his underlying disdain
for God himself.
149
Thus, the person who shows no desire to improve his musical skills,
however meager his natural abilities may allow these to be, in turn shows no desire to
give God today as lofty a reflection of his glory as he can muster, and no motivation to
prepare now for the eternal activity of rendering to God the most excellent praise he
possibly can. In combination with the reasons for, and benefits of, active musical
congregational worship discussed above, the significance of congregational singing as a
foretaste of worship in heaven and the importance of preparation for eternity imply that
lay members of the congregation must be given opportunities to sing together and should
be encouraged to participate. By extension, the ideas about musical worship Praetorius
espoused, ones in close accord with those affirmed by his Lutheran predecessors and
contemporaries, entail the necessity for suitable material for this congregational
participation.

149
See footnote 62 on page 50.
84
Chapter 2: The Performance of Cantional Settings

Chorales and their functions
Although Luther’s Formula missae of 1523 did not include musical items
intended for congregational singing, at the end of the publication Luther clearly indicated
his desire for the creation of hymns in the vernacular, but cited a lack of poets as one
obstacle to the development of a large body of Lutheran hymns.
1
Later in the same year,
Luther wrote to his friend Georg Spalatin, explaining that he intended to write hymns in
the German tongue, and asking Spalatin to try his own hand at writing some, as well.
Luther stressed the need for simple language, accessible to people in all walks of life.
Luther’s initiative for hymn writing stimulated the creation of a large corpus of chorales
in German. The musical elements of the Deutsche Messe, published in 1526, were still
weighted toward choral numbers, but did include specific opportunities for
congregational singing of hymns. The congregational participation Luther envisioned
was realized to varying degrees in different locations over the course of the sixteenth
century, but the importance of chorales throughout the Lutheran world was
unquestionably great.
A multitude of hymns were printed in the sixteenth century, either with texts
alone or with texts and music. As a conservative estimate, between two million and four
million copies of hymnals, song sheets and other similar publications were produced in
Germany during the course of the century; the vast majority of these were for the

1
This paragraph is indebted to Herl, Worship Wars, 7-14.
85
Lutheran church. Most of these hymnals were for personal, private use, not for the use of
choirs.
2
Use of hymnals by congregations was very uncommon in the sixteenth century,
and spread gradually in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Even then, people
purchased their own hymnals and brought them to church.
3
The size of the congregational
repertoire of hymns varied significantly from place to place and from time to time,
ranging from around a dozen chorales to many times that.
4
Before it was common to
bring one’s own hymnal to church, people could only sing in worship services those
hymns they had memorized. But with the prominent place of chorales in Lutheran society
it would not be surprising for people to know quite a few of them. The more prevalent
hymnals became, the greater the number of chorales a congregation could sing.
Certainly, any person with access to enough money to purchase a hymnal could learn
dozens of hymns, but many of these might not be sung in church services.
Twenty-one years after publishing his Formula missae, Luther ranked hymnals—
along with the German Bible, postils, the catechism, and prayerbook—as one of the most
significant classes of documents produced for Lutherans.
5
Certainly, given Luther’s
views on the importance of worship, that hymnals provided and recorded appropriate
material for choirs and congregations to sing within worship services was a significant

2
Brown, “Devotional Life,” 233-34. See also Brown, “Singing the Gospel,” 9-13. During the sixteenth
century, the major centers of hymn printing were Nuremberg, Leipzig, Straßburg and Wittenberg. Printing
was actually quite widespread, however, with forty-seven towns contributing at least one hymnal or
songsheet.

3
Herl, Worship Wars, 106.

4
Herl, Worship Wars, 152-53.

5
Brown, “Devotional Life,” 205. This discussion of the importance of hymnals comes from Luther’s
Church Postil preface of 1544.
86
reason for his high assessment of them. The chorales printed in hymnals, however, also
served additional—though closely related—functions within Lutheran society.
One of these functions was to impart doctrinal truth to the believer. During the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, hymn-singing—along with Bible reading and
memorization, sermons on biblical texts, and the catechism (taught at home, in schools
and in church)—provided one of the main vehicles for instruction of the laity.
6
In
particular, but by no means exclusively, hymns based on the catechism helped transmit
doctrine to Lutherans, including children.
7
Luther wrote a hymn for each of the six
sections of the catechism; these hymns, and others in the same vein, were intended to
teach and reinforce important Lutheran doctrines.
8
Nearly all Lutheran hymnals included
a section of catechism hymns; church orders usually designated such hymns to be sung at
afternoon catechism services. Theologians such as Cyriacus Spangenberg and Cornelius
Becker explained that, beyond reinforcing doctrinal truth, hymns could actually be the
primary method of teaching such truth, especially to illiterate Germans who otherwise
would be unable to learn the catechism.
9

Hymns were particularly suited for imparting to the general populace the personal
significance of aspects of Lutheran doctrine. The Kleine Katechismus-Schule of 1631, for
instance, used hymns for this purpose. One of a number of catechisms authored by Justus
Gesenius, a pastor in Brunswick and later a preacher in Hildesheim, this particular work

6
Gerhard Bode, “Instruction of the Christian Faith by Lutherans,” in Lutheran Ecclesiastical Cutlture, 198.

7
Brown, “Singing the Gospel,” 198.

8
For more on catechism hymns, see Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music, 107-69.

9
Brown, “Devotional Life,” 216-17.
87
was meant for home use and was appropriate for children in various stages of
development. The Kleine Katechismus-Schule was divided into three parts; the first of
these was intended for beginners. Each lesson in this first part included text for the child
to learn, a lecture to be read by the parent, the related section from Luther’s Small
Catechism, and a relevant catechism hymn.
10
Gesenius’ goal for this volume was to
encourage Lutherans not only to learn and understand correct doctrine, but for this
doctrine to influence their actions in their daily lives.
11
Expressing doctrine in musical
form by singing a hymn related to important tenets of the Lutheran faith would not only
serve to reinforce these doctrinal points for a believer in an intellectual sense, but would
also encourage the believer to internalize these doctrines, and consequently to relate them
to his or her own life. Similarly, the confessional and prayer booklet of Wittenberg
student Georg Walter used sections of the catechism along with hymn stanzas to aid the
believer in preparing for confession and ultimately communion.
12
Like Gesenius, who
stressed that knowledge of the catechism—aided through hymn singing—should lead to
godly living, Walter believed that understanding of the catechism should lead to
repentance.
That Georg Walter and Justus Gesenius assumed the inclusion of hymns within
their instructional volumes to be effective underscores the theological substance of

10
The second section of this volume includes more background information and questions of greater
difficulty than those in the first part. The third section consists of a compilation of passages of Scripture
relating to the entire catechism.

11
This information about Gesenius’ Kleine Katechismus-Schule comes from Bode, “Instruction of the
Christian Faith by Lutherans,” 192-93.

12
Bode, “Instruction of the Christian Faith by Lutherans,” 175.
88
Lutheran chorales, particularly of catechism chorales. It also demonstrates that many
chorales were familiar to the general Lutheran community. As Luther did when he wrote
catechism chorales, Walter and Gesenius no doubt expected that including the hymns in
the catechism would prove fruitful because this strategy connected something familiar
and easy to remember—the hymns—to the concepts to be retained and acted upon.
Complementing the public church setting, the domestic sphere was a significant
locus of learning of Lutheran doctrine. Along with catechisms—some of which included
hymns—and the prayerbook, hymnals provided a valuable aid to learning, retaining, and
encouraging application of the fundamental teachings of the Christian faith.
13
Many
hymnals were intended partially, even principally, for home use
14
—for private devotion
and the instruction of children.
15
Parents taught hymns to children, and conversely,
schoolboys might teach hymns learned in school to their parents.
16
Laymen in Lutheran
Germany seem to have been ready purchasers of hymnals—as well as sermons and
prayers—for use at home.
17
Chorales could be heard not only at church and at home,
though. They also found their way onto public streets. For instance, the Kurrende—a
group of schoolboys singing to raise money, usually for school tuition—performed on

13
Brown, “Devotional Life,” 206.

14
Ibid., 235.

15
Ibid., 212.

16
Ibid., 236.

17
Brown, “Singing the Gospel,” 49-50. Brown cites evidence that even laymen whose church attendance
was poor purchased hymnals and books of sermons and prayers. For more on hymnbooks, catechisms, and
other devotional literature, see Esther Victoria Criscuola de Laix, “Cultures of Music Print in Hamburg, ca.
1550-1630” (PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2009).

89
city streets and in front of houses. Such fundraising sessions might occur as often as once
per week and might be supplemented with participation in funeral processions.
18

Just as hymns could impart the message of the gospel to those studying the
catechism and teaching their children at home, and to people on city streets, obviously
they also could be used to proclaim the gospel in the church setting. In fact, because they
were both familiar and doctrinally substantive, hymns not infrequently served as the basis
for sermons. On the one hand, the theological weight of the hymns provided the
foundation for meaningful sermons. On the other hand, the same sermons could elucidate
the doctrinal depth of the hymns, so that the texts sung and rehearsed at home, and
running through the heads of members of the congregation as they went about their daily
tasks, would gain new meaning and substance.
19
Such sermons demonstrate that the two
essential text-based elements of a Lutheran service, as described by Praetorius—concio
and cantio (sermon and song)—could be interconnected. A sermon could reveal deep
meaning in a song and in turn the song, sung at any time by individuals or families, or by
the entire church, could function as a sermon.
Hymns and sermons based on hymns not only provided an important means of
substantive instruction, but also a powerful vehicle for profoundly impacting believers—
in particular in promoting confidence and assurance. Hymnals of the sixteenth century
frequently mentioned comfort as a significant outgrowth of hymn singing. Chorales were

18
Herl, Worship Wars, 45.

19
Brown, “Devotional Life,” 217.

90
potent in their ability to provide comfort because music caused the doctrinal truth
expressed in the chorale to “[enter] more deeply into the heart.”
20

In a summary of the various benefits of hymn singing, Spangenberg mentions
comfort as well as instruction, devotion to God and praise of God.
God is praised . . . the human creature is spurred to true devotion; all the chief
articles of divine doctrine (especially the promise of the gospel) are called to
mind; the singer is strengthened; the neighbor is taught, encouraged, and
exhorted and the hearts of both are comforted; the soul is rejoiced, the
conscience stilled, hope increased, the cross lightened, fear and sadness are
diminished; the angels are delighted, the devil put to flight and brought to
shame.
21

The first item in Spangenberg’s list—that God is praised by hymn singing—is
interconnected with the other items. Indeed, all of the other benefits of singing chorales
contribute to the praise of God. In the Augsburg confession, Melanchthon explains what
it is that glorifies God.
[F]aith gives honor to God, gives him what is properly his; it obeys him by
accepting his promises. . . . The greatest comfort comes from this doctrine that
the highest worship in the gospel is the desire to receive the forgiveness of
sins, grace and righteousness.
22

In the Lutheran worldview, then, it is precisely because hymns provide a means for
human beings to profess their belief that Scripture is true, and to express their need for
salvation and their desire to receive it through God’s grace, that singing them worships
God. It is because they emphasize doctrine and provide comfort that God is glorified

20
Brown, “Devotional Life,” 218-19. This is a quotation of Johann Mathesius, from 1562. In “Singing the
Gospel,” Brown discusses another prominent use of the hymn within Lutheranism. Chorales became part of
Lutheran identity and were used to show opposition to Roman Catholicism and Calvinism.

21
Translated in Brown, “Devotional Life,” 217-18.

22
Translated in Brown, “Devotional Life,” 221.
91
when believers sing them. Because of this, as a means for private or family devotion, they
are potent. However, the hymn is also potent within the context of congregational
singing, as it is essential that the church extol, profess faith in, and thus obey God as a
community.
Thus, chorales served various interrelated purposes within sixteenth- and
seventeenth-century Lutheranism: they were tools for instruction, a means to make a
point of doctrine more understandable and relevant, a means of comfort, and therefore the
primary material used by the Lutheran laity to worship God. The pervasiveness of
chorales in Lutheran Germany heightened the efficacy of each one of their functions.
People knew them, so they made doctrine more understandable and easier to learn. They
were rich in doctrine, so they made worship more substantive and they were applicable to
daily life—and could be taken in one’s memory into any situation in which one found
oneself—so they could provide assurance and comfort.
Musically, Lutheran chorales were very versatile, suitable for the home and for
worship services. Within a church setting, the congregation could sing chorales in unison,
either with the choir, or in alternation with the choir or organ.
23
Everyone—man, woman,
and child—was expected to sing.
24
Schoolchildren—schoolboys, in particular—helped
support the congregation in singing chorales in worship services;
25
sometimes these

23
Friedrich Blume, Protestant Church Music: A History (New York: W. W. Norton, 1974), 106. See also
Herl, Worship Wars, 113, 132-33.

24
Herl, Worship Wars, 163-64.

25
Brown, “Devotional Life,” 232.

92
members of the choir stood near the congregation in order to fulfill this role.
26

Alternatively, chorales could be arranged for choir—as in Walter’s settings in the style of
the Tenorlied, homophonic settings with the cantus firmus in the tenor, or Michael
Praetorius’ chorale motets—or played on organ.
27
All of these types of settings
performed important functions within the Lutheran service. Unison singing, of course,
allowed for congregational participation, while settings for the choir or organ could
provide magnificence and brilliance that more closely reflected the majesty of God.
Sometimes, these two ways of performing chorales—in unison with the congregation and
in complex polyphony by the choir—were combined using alternatim practice. Luther
and Walter incorporated such a practice—unison on the first verse, polyphony on the
second, unison on the third, and so forth—into worship services in Wittenberg.
28

Likewise, a 1569 visitation report on Kapellendorf, a town in Saxony, recorded that
chorales were performed alternating choraliter verses with polyphonic ones.
29

Alternatively, the first verse of a hymn might be sung in polyphony, with the subsequent
verses sung choraliter with the congregation.
30

26
Herl, Worship Wars, 113.

27
Blume, Protestant Church Music, 106.

28
Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music, 205-6.

29
Herl, Worship Wars, 112. This type of singing was used on high feasts, presumably because this is when
polyphony was sung. In his discussions of congregational singing, Praetorius uses the term choraliter to
refer to unison singing. He uses the term figuraliter to refer to any music sung in parts, including
homophonic music with uniform note values as well as contrapuntal music. In what follows, the relevant
terms will adopt Praetorius’ usage.

30
Herl, Worship Wars, 112. This procedure was implemented in Strehla, Saxony in 1595. It was used on
Sundays on which hymns otherwise were sung polyphonically, giving the congregation a chance to
participate in the singing on those weeks.
93
The development of the cantional setting
Although Lutherans considered the grandeur and beauty of figural music to be
especially appropriate to the worship of the Almighty God and simultaneously valued lay
participation in musical worship, for much of the sixteenth century they lacked an
effective means of combining harmony with congregational singing. Because many
members of a lay congregation, particularly in provincial areas, might have limited
musical education, and because of the difficulties inherent in inducing a large,
unrehearsed group—many members of which might have neither text nor music in front
of them—to sing together, any viable method of congregational singing of chorales
would need to be simple, and feature the chorale tune prominently. These two elements
were necessary so that the congregation could hear the melody they were to sing and
would not become confused by excessively decorative counterpoint. Considering the
difficulty with which lay Lutherans were enticed to sing in some places, and reports of
obstacles to successful singing even by eager members of some congregations, avoiding
confusion was of utmost importance.
The immensely influential publication in 1586 by theologian Lucas Osiander of
four-part settings of Lutheran chorales provided a means by which lay people could
participate in singing harmonized versions of chorales. For this reason, the style Osiander
developed in the collection was incredibly important for Lutherans of the later sixteenth
and the seventeenth centuries and instigated the composition of hundreds and hundreds of
harmonized chorales suitable for congregational singing. Indeed, Osiander’s innovation
94
remains the standard method of harmonizing hymns, and forms the basis for introductory
part writing in theory classes even today.
31

Osiander’s publication, entitled Fünffttzig Geistliche lieder und Psalmen mit vier
stimmen auff contrapunctsweise, für die Schulen und Kirchen in löblichen Fürstenthumb
Würtenberg, also gesetzt, das ein gantze Christliche Gemein durchauss mitsingen kan
and printed in Nuremberg, included fifty settings, all of popular chorales. Osiander used
what is now known as cantional style. Intended to combine the practicality of unison
singing with the greater musical interest of choral singing in parts, cantional style consists
of a chorale melody—placed in the soprano voice—harmonized with simple chords in
homophony.
32
In performance of a piece in cantional style, the choir would sing all of the
parts, while members of the congregation were to join in by singing the familiar melody.
Placing the melody on the top is essential in this type of setting, as it makes the chorale
prominent, preventing it from being buried in the middle of the texture. Obscuring of the
chorale tune was the main reason that homophonic settings with the chorale in the tenor
voice were not optimal for congregational singing. Osiander noted this in the preface to
his volume of cantional settings.
I know well that as a rule, the composer usually places the chorale in the
tenor. But when that is done, the chorale is unrecognizable under the other
voices. Then the common man cannot understand what sort of Psalm it is, and

31
The following discussion of Osiander’s Cantional is indebted to Louis Eugene Schuler, Jr., “Lucas
Osiander and his Fünfftzig Geistliche Lieder und Psalmen: The Development and Use of the First
Cantional” (PhD diss., Washington University, 1986), in particular pages 2-36, 41-58, 66-71. Pages 122-82
of Schuler’s dissertation comprise a transcription of the entire Cantional.

32
In the following, “cantional setting” will refer to a chorale setting in cantional style, and “Cantional”
(capitalized and italicized; plural Cantionale) will refer to a collection of chorale settings in cantional style.
95
cannot sing along. Therefore I have placed the chorale in the discant so that it
is truly recognizable and every amateur can sing along.
33

In Osiander’s settings, uniform declamation of the text in all voices forms an additional,
and very important, method of reinforcing the chorale. He further accentuates the chorale
tune by including fermatas at the ends of phrases. Additionally, frequently there are rests
after each phrase, setting one phrase even more clearly apart from the next.
Lucas Osiander was an amateur as a musician, although apparently a capable one.
In addition to fulfilling his duties as a preacher in Württemberg, he often assisted
Kapellmeister Ludwig Daser in examinations of music students. He built an organ for the
Duke of Württemberg, helped to restore another organ for him, and was called upon to
provide advice about the building of an organ in Ulm.
Osiander showed interest in hymns prior to the publication of his Cantional. For
instance, he and fellow court preacher Balthasar Bidenbach published Der gantz Psalter
Davids wie derselbig in Teutsche Gesang verfasset, written by Sigmund Hemmel and
forming the first complete German-language psalter employing multiple voice parts. This
psalter was meant to provide settings that everyone could understand, but it was not
intended for congregational singing as the melody was in the tenor. Osiander was also the
major compiler and editor of the Württemberg Gesangbuch, the result of a project
discussed and approved by a council of clergymen—of which Osiander was a member—
in Württemberg.

33
Translated in Schuler, “Lucas Osiander,” 68.

96
Although he was a capable musician, Osiander’s vocation was as a theologian and
preacher.
34
Like Michael Praetorius, Osiander grew up in a devoutly Lutheran household;
Osiander’s father, like Praetorius’, was a serious Lutheran pastor who became involved in
theological debates.
35
Lucas Osiander followed in his father’s footsteps, becoming a
notable Lutheran theologian and preacher of the latter sixteenth century.
36

Osiander earned a doctoral degree in theology from the University of Tübingen. A
participant in the Diet of Augsburg, Osiander was also one of the theologians involved in
drafting the Formula of Concord and provided the first Latin translation of this
document.
37
He debated Calvinists on points of Christian doctrine; for example, he
participated in various colloquies, including the Colloquy of Maulbronn in 1563,
38
where
he was secretary, and the Colloquy of Montbéliard.
39
His Institutio Christianae religionis,
written between 1576 and 1586, propounds the Lutheran doctrinal system in opposition
to Calvin’s Institutes. He also wrote tracts against and debated with Catholic theologians,
including the Jesuit Gregor von Valencia, against whom Osiander argued for the doctrine
of justification by faith alone. Osiander’s scholarly publications included a nine-volume

34
As a sixteenth-century Lutheran theologian with musical abilities, Osiander was by no means unique. As
Leaver points out, the “close association between music and theology, initiated by Luther, manifested itself
in Lutheran tradition by pastors and theologians who were also competent musicians.” See Leaver, Luther’s
Liturgical Music, 278.

35
In Andreas Osiander’s case these debates were over the doctrine of justification.

36
Lucas Osiander’s four sons also became theologians.

37
Osiander’s Latin translation underwent significant revision to create the Latin text still in use.

38
The Colloquy of Maulbronn was a debate between Calvinists and Lutherans over the meaning of the
words of Institution. Due to disagreements over the nature of the Eucharist, the two groups were unable to
reach agreement on the issues at hand.

39
This Colloquy is discussed in Chapter 1 of this dissertation.
97
history of the church from an evangelical perspective; the volume covering the sixteenth
century includes eyewitness accounts. He also published a number of exegetical works.
A respected minister, Osiander served as a court preacher to Duke Ludwig of
Württemberg from 1567 until the Duke’s death in 1593. Duke Ludwig’s successor—his
cousin Count Friedrich—found offensive the direct and unrestrained preaching style
Osiander developed under Duke Ludwig and demoted the preacher, first to a post in
Stuttgart and then to one in Adelberg. In this latter position, Osiander wrote and delivered
five volumes of sermons intended for uneducated Lutherans. This collection, entitled
Bauernpostille,
40
was published after his death and contains sermons in simple and clear
language. These sermons, conforming to specific advice included in the publication,
avoid references to debates and literature that peasants would be unlikely to recognize or
understand. Osiander instructs preachers to be aware of their audience when planning the
length and content of their sermons.
The Word of God is to be declared for the Christian congregation in such a
way that it can be understood by the most simple person since there are more
of them everywhere than of scholars. Therefore a preacher must address this
part of his listeners, the poor peasants for whom the Son of God spilled his
blood as well as the most prominent person. Our Lord loves both just as well,
and often times the peasants are much more pleasant to Him than the rich and
distinguished people in the world.
41

40
Homilies for Peasants, 1609. For more on postils in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Lutheranism, see
Haemig and Kolb, “Preaching in Lutheran Pulpits,” especially pages 126-34.

41
Translated in Schuler, “Lucas Osiander,” 32. Schuler found the quotation, taken from the preface to
Bauernpostille I, in Friedrich Fritz, “Die württembergischen Pfarrer im Zeitalter des dreissigjahrigen
Krieges,” BWGK 33 (1929), 244. Osiander was not alone in his concern that the uneducated understand
sermons. The 1585 church order from Lauenberg, for instance, instructed pastors to use simple language
for the benefit of lay people and children. See Haemig and Kolb, “Preaching in Lutheran Pulpits,” 146.

98
The Bauernpostille not only reveal Osiander’s keen insight into teaching various sorts of
people, but also show his tender heart towards those who are uneducated.
Osiander’s motivation for developing cantional style grew out of his passion for
theology and preaching. In the preface to his Cantional, Osiander presents a theological
foundation for his creating and publishing his settings.
42
As do numerous other prefaces
to volumes of sacred music printed in Lutheran Germany in the sixteenth century,
Osiander points to the Psalms (notably Psalm 34 and Psalm 150) and to Colossians 3:16
as biblical support for the importance of worship in mouth and deed. From these
passages, Osiander argues that all creatures should praise God and that Christians in
particular should “give the purpose in all our work to praise and honor the Holy
Trinity.”
43
Osiander further explains the relevance of triadic harmony in the praise of the
Trinity.
Likewise, the Almighty has imparted this gift to men so that our dear Lord
and God can be praised especially with many voices, which certainly all blend
well and beautifully together. . . . For God has also portrayed the Holy Trinity
to some extent in the music, in that no more than three voices can be found or
contrived which rightly sound together.
44

Here Osiander argues that Christians should embrace singing in triadic harmony because
it reflects the very nature of God. Osiander hopes that his settings will encourage
believers to sing with triadic harmony in church.
Apart from his theological motivation—his belief that it is fitting for all to
worship God using figural music—for writing his Cantional, one also can see reflected in

42
Osiander’s preface is reproduced in translation in Schuler, “Lucas Osiander,” 66-69.

43
Translated in Schuler, “Lucas Osiander,” 66.

44
Translated in Schuler, “Lucas Osiander,” 67.
99
Osiander’s creation his consideration for people in every stratum of society. These
settings were suitable for everyone, and in particular for schoolboys and congregations—
including ones largely comprised of peasants. His concern that those not part of a choir
and those uneducated in music would have the opportunity to participate in worshipping
God with figural music is akin to his concern that uneducated peasants would be able to
understand sermons. However, while Osiander’s scholarly works were of necessity
intended only for an educated audience, and his Bauernpostille were clearly most
appropriate for an uneducated one, cantional settings are the sorts of pieces that could be
useful for both of these groups, and therefore allow all Christians—educated or not—to
participate in the worship of God together. They were not intended for purely choral
singing (as Osiander put it, “this insignificant work of mine was not engaged for
excellent musicians but for the schools and Christian congregations”
45
), but they were
designed to be sung together by people with various levels of musical skill.
46
When used
as Osiander envisioned, they would foster the unity of the body of Christ, a concept
important in Lutheranism and addressed in Praetorius’ writings. Because Osiander’s
purposes in writing these settings were fundamentally theological and pastoral,
47
rather
than purely musical, it is not especially surprising that they often are more practical than
aesthetically profound. Osiander acknowledged as much; his settings are simple, but
fulfill their purpose.

45
Translated in Schuler, “Lucas Osiander,” 69.

46
People with some musical training were needed to sing the lower parts. The melody could be sung by
anyone.

47
Schuler also notes that Osiander had educational motives.

100
Osiander’s settings exhibit similar traits to several previous and contemporary
musical genres of homophonic songs. Many such genres—including the Horatian ode,
48

the Protestant polyphonic lied (in particular, some of the settings in Walter’s Geystliche
Gesangk Buchlein),
49
four-voice settings of the reformed Psalter,
50
and compositions in
falsobordone style
51
—have been suggested as possible influences on Osiander. Sortisatio,
a technique of improvisatory harmonization, likely was also an influence.
52
In many of
these genres, the melody can appear at the top of the texture; such is usually the case in

48
Schuler discusses Horation odes on pages 41-45 of his dissertation. These are syllabic settings of Latin
verse in strict four-voice homophony. The melodies, written in the church modes, are in the tenor voice. As
James Haar explains in Grove Music Online, these were intended to illustrate the nineteen Latin meters in
Horace’s odes to German students. The first such settings were commissioned at the end of the fifteenth
century by Conradus Celtis, a German humanist, and were written by Petrus Tritonius, one of his students.
These settings, and other similar settings they inspired—such as those by Ludwig Senfl and Paul
Hofhaimer—became quite popular in German schools in the sixteenth century. Plays performed by German
schoolchildren in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries often included choral odes. See James Haar, et al,
"Ode (ii)," in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/article/grove/
music/50067 (accessed January 19, 2012).

49
Schuler discusses these on pages 46-48 of his dissertation. Among the chorale settings in Walter’s
Geystliches Gesangk Buchleyn of 1524 (subsequent editions appeared in 1525, 1528 and 1551) are a
number devoid of imitation, with few melismas, and with text relatively closely aligned between voices.
The melody remains in the tenor in such settings, however. Walter’s settings were intended principally for
use in schools, but also were used in worship services.

50
Schuler discusses these on pages 48-52 of his dissertation. Homophonic settings of the metrical psalter
formed the Protestant parallel to the musique mesurée of Claude Le Jeune. Loys Bourgeois, who composed
the melodies for Marot’s and Beza’s metrical psalter, published 50 four-part homorhythmic psalm settings
in 1547. Goudimel published his own harmonizations—some of which feature note-against-note
counterpoint—of Bourgeois’ tunes between 1551 and 1566. Ambrosius Lobwasser’s German translation of
Goudimel’s psalter, published in 1573 in Leipzig, became extremely popular in reformed churches in what
are now Germany and northern Switzerland.

51
Schuler discusses the importance of falsobordone practice in Lutheran Germany, both in liturgical
services and in schools (p. 56). Other genres have been suggested as influences on Osiander. However,
because homophonic writing was characteristic of many sixteenth-century genres, and thus writing in such
a style was a standard skill for composers at the time, such influence is difficult to determine.

52
For instance, see Franz Kaern, “Die Harmonia Cantionum Ecclesiasticarum des Sethus Calvisius im
Lichte seiner musiktheoretischen Schriften,” in Tempus musicae—Tempus mundi: Untersuchungen zu Seth
Calvisius, ed. Gesine Schröder (Hildesheim: Olms, 2008), 43, 53. See also Franzpeter Messmer,
“Kantionalsatz,” in Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 2nd ed., pt. 1, vol. 4, ed. Ludwig Finscher
(Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1996), 1773-79.

101
falsobordone practice. Walter and Goudimel also periodically placed the melody in the
discant. Ludwig Senfl published a set of Horatian odes with the melodies in the top
voice.
53
Similarly, for the pieces in his second volume of psalm settings (1583),
Straßburg cantor, David Wolkenstein, regularly placed the melody in the soprano.
Although the settings in this volume are not uniformly homophonic, according to
Blankenburg and Gottwald, the publication “can profitably be seen as a link between the
French psalter and Lucas Osiander’s [collection].”
54
Osiander, then, did not invent the
essential elements of his cantional settings, but rather adopted musical elements from
preceding and concurrent religious and secular genres, and combined them in a
systematic way to create an entire volume of settings suitable for congregational singing.
Although Osiander was not the first to write a homophonic setting with the melody in the
top voice, it seems that he was the first to provide a theological defense for doing so and
among the first to keep the melody at the top of the texture consistently.
Osiander’s publication instigated an explosion in the production of collections of
cantional settings.
55
The majority of these volumes were intended explicitly for
congregational singing, although some were written for other purposes.
56
Such composers

53
Haar, "Ode (ii)."

54
Walter Blankenburg and Clytus Gottwald, "Wolkenstein, David," in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music
Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/article/grove/music/30514 (accessed January 19, 2012).
Wolkenstein was a mathematics instructor, as well as a Kantor, in Strasbourg (c. 1568-1592).

55
Herl places the number of Cantionale published between 1586 and 1620 at fifty (Worship Wars, 114).

56
Georg Weber’s 1588 publication, for instance, was intended for use by schoolboys rather than as material
to accompany congregational singing. See Ludwig Finscher, “Das Kantional des Georg Weber aus
Weißenfels (Erfuhrt 1588),” Jahrbuch für Liturgik und Hymnologie 3 (1957): 64.

102
as Andreas Raselius (1588, 1599),
57
Georg Weber (1588), Roggier Michael (1593), Seth
Calvisius (1597), Johannes Eccard (1597), Bartholomäus Gesius (1601, 1605), Melchior
Vulpius (1604, 1609), Samuel Mareschall (1606), Johannes Jeep (1607, 1629), Hans Leo
Hassler (1608), Gotthart Erythräus (1608), Christoph Demantius (1620), Johann
Hermann Schein (1627), and many others published one or more volumes of chorale
settings in which the melody was in the top voice. The four main organists in Hamburg at
the turn of the seventeenth century—Hieronymus Praetorius, Jacob Praetorius, Joachim
Decker, and David Scheidemann—collaborated on the Melodeyen Gesangbuch, a
collection of cantional settings published in 1604.
58
Michael Praetorius contributed
around 750 settings to this burgeoning genre. Taken as a collection, his cantional
settings—interspersed throughout Musae Sioniae V, and constituting nearly the entirety
of the sixth, seventh and eighth volumes of this collection—form a complete hymnbook
for the seventeenth-century Lutheran choir to use in accompanying congregational
singing.
Most of the cantional settings composed around the turn of the seventeenth
century are for four voices, although some composers used five, and even six, voices at
times. The style in some of the settings remains close to that of Osiander’s—nearly

57
The 1588 collection, which includes various types of pieces in addition to some cantional settings,
remained in manuscript. The 1599 collection is for five voices. Raselius also composed an earlier collection
of 5-voice settings (1591). In these, however, the melody is usually in the tenor voice. See Walter
Blankenburg, "Raselius, Andreas," in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.
oxfordmusiconline.com/article/grove/music/22911 (accessed January 19, 2012), and Joseph Auer, M.
Andreas Raselius Ambergensis: sein Leben und seine Werke (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1892).

58
In addition, Heinrich Schütz used Osiander’s general stylistic approach when composing his Becker
Psalter (1628). This collection, however, differs from Osiander’s significantly in that the majority of the
melodies are not chorale tunes, but rather are original, making the settings less suitable for congregational
singing.
103
uniform homophony with clear distinctions between phrases. However, even though the
necessities of the genre place many restrictions on composers, most composers of
cantional settings in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries strove to use more
artistry than Osiander had incorporated in his pieces by including in the lower voices
more decoration in the form of passing tones, neighbor tones, suspensions and the like.
Some settings, such as many of those by Johannes Eccard, depart significantly from
Osiander’s style, incorporating relatively complicated counterpoint in the lower voices so
that the rhythm and text rarely line up vertically in all parts. Although many of the pieces
of this latter sort were also intended for congregational singing, their suitability for this
purpose—especially in provincial locations—is not as readily apparent as it is with
Osiander’s simple settings.
While, in keeping with Praetorius’ beliefs about the importance of congregational
singing, most of his settings are relatively transparent, they also exhibit a range of
complexity; some of the pieces are purely homorhythmic, various sorts of decoration
permeate others, while the majority of the settings lie somewhere in between. As a whole,
his large collection of cantional settings reveals Praetorius’ compositional skill and
creativity, while it also proves his ability to create musical gems within the confines of a
very simple type of composition.
In what follows, we will consider Praetorius’ instructions for singing cantional
settings in order to better understand his work as a church musician and also to glean
information about more widespread performance practice of his time. We will examine
Praetorius’ body of cantional settings as a whole in order to uncover important elements
104
of his compositional style for this genre. Given the sheer size of Praetorius’ output, the
study cannot be exhaustive, but will discuss the basic contents of the collection, and
common compositional techniques as well as atypical ones found there. Finally, we will
evaluate Praetorius’ pieces within the context of the composition of cantional settings
between 1586 and 1630 to determine how Praetorius’ pieces compare—in type and
quality—to those of other composers, and to discern what his compositions can teach us
about Lutheran hymn singing around the turn of the seventeenth century.

General advice for encouraging congregational singing

Praetorius includes in his writings indications of specific principles by which a
music director should be guided in order best to accommodate the congregation while
singing chorales during church services. For example, a music leader should make sure
that the version of a chorale melody used in the service matches local practice. This
principle applies even in situations in which the congregation does not sing. For instance,
in reference to one of his chorale settings in the new Venetian polychoral style—
specifically, regarding a presentation of the chorale melody accompanied by lute in a
setting of Christus der uns selig macht—Praetorius writes “But because different
melodies are used in different churches, any musician can make accommodations
according to his locality, and can adjust the melody accordingly.”
59
This attention to the

59
Michael Praetorius, Puericinium, 58: “Dieweil aber in unterschiedenen Kirchen auch ungleiche
Melodeien gefunden werden / so kann ein jeder Musicus nach seinem Ort sich akkommodieren und die
Melodei darnach richten.” Translated in Cynthia Cole Russell, “The Pueri in the Puericinium: The Use of
Choir Boys in the Music of Michael Praetorius” (DMA Diss, University of Memphis, 2005), 69. Praetorius
also indicates that this verse can be sung by the congregation without accompaniment.

105
relevance of the chorale melody for a given congregation reflects the importance for
Praetorius that the congregation understand the music in the church service, even when
they are only listening, encouraging them to participate with their minds.
Certainly, though, it is even more imperative that chorale melodies used for
congregational singing be familiar to the congregation. Praetorius emphasizes that
directors of church music should choose cantional settings that use versions of chorale
tunes common in their given regions. In the context of presenting ways to arrange a
cantional setting for multiple choirs, for instance, he not only urges the reader to choose
an appropriate cantional setting, but also lists composers whose settings would be useful
in given regions.
60

So that his own volumes of cantional settings would be germane in a wide area,
and in order to help facilitate thriving congregational participation, Praetorius also
included in his publications multiple arrangements of many chorale melodies. Referring
to his cantional settings, Praetorius first mentions this matter in the preface to the first
volume of Musae Sioniae.
In addition, in many Psalms and songs the melodies in various lands and cities
are from time to time dissimilar and different. So I have nevertheless not
neglected this, but as far as I may have knowledge, have joined and set down
harmony of every place, in confidence that it, according to the opportunity of
the places, will not be displeasing to devout Christians.
61

60
Praetorius, Urania, X.

61
Praetorius, Musae Sioniae I, p. XI: “Nachdem auch in viel Psalmen und Liedern die Melodeyen in
unterschiedlichen Lendern und Stedten bißweilen ungleich und anders sind / So habe ich gleichwol solches
nicht gar aus der acht gelassen / sondern soviel ich darvon wissenschafft haben mögen / jedes Orts
harmoniam adjungirt und hinzu gesetzet / der zuversicht / das es / der Orter gelegenheit nach / fromen
Christen nicht unangenehm sein werde.”

106
In his list of publications, printed at the end of Syntagma musicum III, Praetorius again
addresses this aspect of his settings in cantional style.
N.B. In parts 6, 7 and 8 [of Musae Sioniae] the psalms and hymns are set in
simple counterpoint so that the congregation can join in. Inasmuch as nearly
every province has its own melody, each psalm has been arranged several
times, in the manner in which it is sung in principalities of Brunswick,
Turingia, Meißen, the Mark [of Brandenburg], Prussia, the maritime cities,
Franconia, Swabia, etc.
62

Another aspect of accommodating the needs of the congregation when performing
cantional settings is making sure that the chorale melody is clearly heard at all times.
Praetorius underscores the importance of this element, again when discussing the
polychoral cantional settings of Urania. In two of the settings for multiple choirs in this
volume the alto from one choir doubles the soprano from another in singing the chorale
melody. Praetorius defends this unusual—and improper—doubling, explaining that it is
acceptable in this case because it accentuates the melody and helps the congregation sing
along.
63
In addition, the melody may be sung by a tenor in one choir while it is sung by
the discant in another, resulting again in doubling at the octave. According to Praetorius,
not only is this doubling permissible, but sometimes it is constructive to sacrifice artistry
to some extent in order to promote congregational participation.
Therefore, also it cannot harm, if in the three-choir pieces, if there are not
enough discantists, a tenor sings the cantus of the third choir an octave lower.

62
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum III, 219: “Im 6. 7. und 8. Theil sind die Psalmen und Lieder Schlecht in
Contrapuncto simplici gesetzet / damit die Gemeine in der Kirchen mit einstimmen könne. Weil aber ein
jeder Land fast seine Melodey hat / Als ist ein jeder Psalm auff etzliche mal / wie er im Fürstenthumb
Braunschweigk / Thüringen / Meissen / Marck / Preussen / SeeStädten / Francken / Schwaben etc.
gesungen wird / Componiret und gesetzet worden.” Translation from Syntagma musicum III, trans. and ed.
Kite-Powell, 206. Praetorius also mentions his use of melodies from various regions on the title page to
Musae Sioniae VIII.

63
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum III, 96-97.

107
This can be tolerated and excused even though, if the [third] choir comes
together [with the other two choirs] the two discantists of the first and second
choirs will be in pure octaves [with the melody in the third choir], [because]
then the entire congregation, softly and loudly, can sing along, thus the girls
and women with the discantists, the men however in the lower octave with the
tenors. Because not so much art is seen in this, but rather that the entire people
is enticed and encouraged to praise God and join in.
64

Praetorius admits that some may find his settings in Urania to be “humble, unworthy and
childish” (“gering / unwerd / und kindisch”). Yet he argues that these modest pieces, with
their small variations and their alternations between choirs, “please all who hear them
very well, both high and lowly persons, and almost better than others, which may be set
far more artfully. Because nothing better than what they understand and can sing along
with themselves can be brought before the entire people.”
65

A statement from Syntagma musicum III regarding substitution of some of the
verses of a chorale setting in Venetian polychoral style with unison verses highlights a
tendency of congregations about which directors should be aware.
If, subsequently, the chorale is to be sung after and between the figural
verses . . . the organist must interrupt with a strong registration as soon as the
penultimate verse, sung in unison, is finished, and after about three or four
beats he must cadence so that the congregation may be silent. The final verse

64
Praetorius, Urania, XIV: “Dahero dann auch nicht schaden kan / das in den Dreichörigen / in manglung
der Discantisten, ein Tenorist den Cantum 3. Chori in Octava inferiore singe. Denn ob es gleich / wenn die
Chor zusammen treffen / mir [recte: mit] den andern beyden Discanten primi und secundi Chori eytel
Octaven sein / so kan es doch daher / dieweil die gantze Gemeine in der Kirchen klein und grob mit singet /
also das die Jungfrawen und Weibes Volck mit den Discantisten, das Mans Volck aber in der Octav mit
dem Tenoristen zugleich einstimmet / passiren und entschüldiget werden. Weil doch hierinnen nicht so sehr
auff die Kunst / sondern vielmehr daß hiedurch das gemeine Volck Gott zu loben / und mit einzustimmen /
gelocket und angetrieben werde / gesehen wirdt.”

65
Emphasis mine. Praetorius, Urania, XIV: “allen / beyde hohes und niedriges standes Personen / welche
dieselbe angehöret / sehr wol / und fast besser als andere / die ungleich künstlicher gesetzt sein mögen /
gefallen. Denn vor das gemeine Volck nichts bessers / als was sie verstehen / und selbsten mit singen
können / herfür gebracht werden kan.” Here Praetorius implies the importance of variation in effective
musical settings.

108
should then be sung figurally, after which the hymn is concluded. In a number
of localities, however, as I have witnessed myself, the congregation will not
allow itself to be stopped, especially if it has not become accustomed to doing
this beforehand. It is therefore almost better to permit them to sing the verse to
the end and then immediately begin to sing the same verse once more and
conclude with it.
66

This passage confirms what might be suspected: once congregations were singing,
their impulse was to persist in doing so as long as the piece continued. The specific type
of performance Praetorius discusses here could involve the choirs singing some of the
verses, the congregation joining in on most of the remaining verses, sung in unison, and
then choirs concluding with the final verse in complex polyphony. It is unsurprising that
a congregation, having sung a number of verses in a row, would be inclined to continue
singing until the end of the piece. It seems that this tendency could even affect pieces
performed using common, simple alternation technique, as a 1671 report from the city of
Züllichau attests.
67
Of course, contrary to the Züllichau case, alternatim practice was
executed successfully in many instances. Nevertheless, this report underscores
Praetorius’ observation that the impetus of congregations often was to continue singing
once they had started. This tendency will need to be taken into account when assessing

66
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum III, 184: “Wenn hernachmahls auch der Choral / nach und zwischen dem
Figural bißweilen solte gesungen werden . . . mus / so bald der antepenultimus versus choraliter
außgesungen / der Organist mit einer starcken Stimmen / in der Orgel drein fallen / und etwa nach drey
oder vier Tacten das Final machen / damit das Volck in der Kirchen still halte; darauff sol der letzte Vers
figuraliter angefangen und also der Gesang damit beschlossen werden. Dieweil aber an etlichen Orten / alß
ich selbsten observiret und befunden / die Gemeine in der Kirchen / sonderlich ehe sie es gewohnet und
recht innen wird / sich nicht wol auffhalten lesset: So ists fast besser / daß man sie den letzten Verß / auch
immer vollends hinaus singen lasse / und dann alsobald denselben Verß nach einmahl darauff zu Musiciren
anfangen und damit beschliesse.” Translation from Syntagma musicum III, trans. and ed. Kite-Powell, 184.

67
Herl, Worship Wars, 113. The intended method of presenting the chorale was for the organ, choir and
congregation to perform the first verse, with the second performed by choir, by organ, or by soloist and
organ, and then for the piece to proceed using alternatim practice. According to Matthäus Hertel, an
organist in this town, the congregation sometimes failed to realize they were supposed to remain silent on
even-numbered verses and continued to sing, obscuring the effect of the alternatim practice.

109
the usefulness for lay participation of any chorale arrangements involving some portions
in a style suitable to accompany congregational singing and other portions during which
the congregation could not participate. In such cases, if the congregation must start and
stop—especially at irregular intervals, and multiple times—a successful performance
might prove difficult, at least until they became used to the manner of performance.
Praetorius’ comments on this matter also reveal an important general principle for
the practice of congregational singing: that the astute musical director should understand
the tendencies of his congregation. He should plan arrangements of chorales with these
inclinations in mind and counteract these tendencies—for instance with a strong organ
cadence to signal to the congregation that it is time to stop singing—when possible.
When such countermeasures prove futile, he should adjust the performance to
accommodate these tendencies—for instance by singing the final verse twice, once
simply with congregation, and once without.

Praetorius’ methods for singing cantional settings

Besides recitation formulas and perhaps some chant, monophonic chorales
comprised the material that the congregation could sing. Because of this, with the
exception of the recitation formulas harmonized in his Kleine und Grosse Litaney, and a
few printed in Musae Sioniae, whenever Praetorius discusses congregational singing it is
in the context of singing chorale melodies. The choir could sing along in unison, or they
could enhance this basic material in a variety of ways. Most simply, of course, they could
sing a cantional setting, adding parts—either in pure homorhythm or with varying
110
degrees of complexity—to the chorale and resulting in the primary type of multi-voice
piece accommodating congregational singing. To add variety or to further decorate the
chorale, this basic material could be performed in assorted ways, or in combination with
other sorts of polyphony. Inspired by worship services he witnessed in Kassel, Praetorius
included in his writings details of a number of ways of presenting cantional settings, ones
that he used in Wolfenbüttel and that were closely related or identical to practices used
not only in Kassel but also in Lutheran churches elsewhere.
A while back, I heard in the royal chapel of the Landgraf of Hesse several
sacred Psalms set to music for choirs together with the congregation in the
church. And [because] every church official should concern himself with
maintaining and furthering the beauty of music in the church, I—with regard
for my duty and on behalf of the talent entrusted to me—have thought further
about which form sacred songs of each author—set with four voices, simply,
note-against note, or, as one says, in simple counterpoint—could be arranged
and used in various ways in the Christian church.
68

Many of Praetorius’ writings on specific methods of performing cantional settings
come from volumes 1 and 5 of Musae Sioniae as well as the lengthy preface to Urania. In
these volumes, the related ways Praetorius presents of performing chorales that use
cantional style in at least some portions can include, along with the sections in simple
four-part harmony, sections in unison, and even a verse in imitative counterpoint to be
sung only by the choir. He also gives some suggestions for using the organ. The
recommendations in the preface to Urania are the most extensive, and are presented as a

68
Praetorius, Urania, VIII: “Nach dem ich vor der Zeit / in der F. Landgräfflichen Heßischen Schloß-
Capell / etliche Geistliche Psalmlieder per Choros zugleich mit der Gemeine in der Kirchen musiciren
hören: Und ein jeder KirchenDiener / den decorem Musicum in der Kirchen zuerhalten und zuerweitern /
sich angelegen sein lassen soll. Als hab ich / ratione officij, pro talento mihi concredito, den Sachen etwas
weiter nachgedacht / Welcher gestalt eines jeden Autoris Geistliche Gesänge / so mit 4. Stimmen / nota
contra notam, simpliciter, oder / wie mans nennet / in contrapuncto simplici gesetzet seind / uff
unterschiedliche Arten in der Christlichen Kirchen gebraucht und angeordnet werden könten.”

111
series of eight related possibilities. Because the eighth in the series involves the use of
two or more choirs and includes a number of subcategories, this section of the
instructions will be discussed later. Disregarding the polychoral options for the moment,
then, the various suggestions Praetorius gives for performing chorales with the
congregation using cantional settings, arranged from roughly the simplest to most
complex, follow.

Type 1: Options using unison singing and simple counterpoint only
Among the suggestions in the preface to Urania, Praetorius mentions the most
obvious and straightforward method of singing a cantional setting: “one can sing all the
verses figuraliter from beginning to end straight through with the congregation.”
69
As a
minor twist, in multiple places Praetorius indicates that beginning the setting in unison
helps the congregation to be able to sing the chorale successfully, and encourages them to
do so.
In the German psalms, however, I like to begin the first line choraliter (as also
admonished in the fifth part [of Musae Sioniae] in the third paragraph of the
note to the reader) and then continue the following line and further up to the
end in cantional style. The reason for this is that one can both entice and incite
the common people to sing along with the beginning of the chorale [sung in
unison]. Otherwise, they think the whole piece will be elaborate and for that
reason they remain silent and do not want to sing along.
70

69
Praetorius, Urania, IX: “Zum anderen / kan man alle Verß von anfang biß zum ende durch und durch /
figuraliter mit der Gemeine zusammen musiciren.” Praetorius later indicates (in Urania, IX) that this
method is used commonly in Germany. The suggestion appears as number 2 in his list of eight options.

70
Praetorius, Magalynodia, X: “Das ich aber in den deutschen Psalmen / die erste Reyen oder Zeit
choraliter gern anfahen / (wie im V. Theil paragrapho tertio Notae ad lectorem auch admoniret) und die
folgende Reyen fürter biß zum ende figuraliter fortfahren lasse; ist die Ursache / damit man also das
gemeine Volck / mit dem Anfang deß Chorals gleichsamb zum mitsingen anlocke und incitire, sonsten sie
vermeinen / es wehre alles Figural, und derwegen gantz und gar stille schweigen und nicht mitsingen
möchten.”
112
He recommends various ways of doing this. Firstly, one can sing the entire first verse
choraliter, adding the lower parts on the second and subsequent verses.
71

Table 2.1. Performing a chorale: first verse choraliter and the other verses
figuraliter

Verse Performers No. of parts Setting type
Verse 1
Verse 2
Verse 3
etc...
choir and congregation
choir and congregation
choir and congregation

1
4
4
in unison
cantional
cantional

Similarly, one can sing only the first line in unison and add the bottom voices of the
cantional setting on the second line of the first verse.
Fourthly, one can sing the first phrase or line of the first verse (Allein Gott in
der Höhe sei Ehr) choraliter with the congregation (so that in the beginning
the song may be heard better), and then the chorus of singers can sing the
second and following phrases until the end of the first verse. And the
following verses can proceed in the same way; or they could be sung
figuraliter throughout, or alternate figuraliter and choraliter on alternate
verses.
72

This suggestion actually includes three related options. The simplest of these is
the second option, a full performance of which would consist of the following:

71
Praetorius, Urania, IX: “Vors dritte / ist auch wol der I. Verß choraliter, und die folgende figuraliter
vollends hinauß zuführen.” This suggestion appears as number 3 in his list of eight options.

72
Praetorius, Urania, IX: “Zum vierdten / das man im I. Verß nur die erste Reige oder Zeile (Allein Gott in
der Höhe sey Ehr) choraliter mit der Gemine (damit im anfang der Gesang desto eigentlicher vernomen
werden müge) anfahe; und dann also bald der Chorus Cantorum mit 4. Stimmen die andere und folgende
Zeilen biß zum ende des I. Verses vollends hinauß singe: Und mit folgenden Versen auch also procedire;
Oder aber / entweder figural durchauß / oder einen Verß umb den andern figuraliter und choraliter
abwechsele.”
113
Table 2.2. Performing a chorale: begin with the first line choraliter, option 2

Verse Line Performers No. of parts Setting type
Verse 1

Verse 2
Verse 3
etc...
line 1
line 2ff
all lines
all lines
boys and congregation
full choir and congregation
full choir and congregation
full choir and congregation
1
4
4
4
in unison
cantional
cantional
cantional

The other two options involve numerous alternations between unison and four-
part singing. One way of executing these alternations is to begin every verse choraliter
before adding the lower parts on the second line of each verse.
Table 2.3. Performing a chorale: begin with the first line choraliter, option 1

Verse Line Performers No. of parts Setting type
Verse 1

Verse 2

Verse 3

etc...
line 1
line 2ff

line 1
line 2ff

line 1
line 2ff

boys and congregation
full choir and congregation

choir and congregation
full choir and congregation

choir and congregation
full choir and congregation
1
4

1
4

1
4
in unison
cantional

in unison
cantional

in unison
cantional

This would serve to reassure the congregation at the beginning of each verse that the
performance of the chorale would continue to be simple enough for them to sing. Such a
method of performance might be useful in places where the congregation expected some
verses to be sung in complicated counterpoint by the choir only, so that a unison
beginning to each verse would emphasize that no complicated verses were imminent in
114
this case. Finally, when beginning a chorale with the first line choraliter and then adding
parts on the second line, one could proceed by alternating verses in cantional style with
ones sung in unison.
Table 2.4. Performing a chorale: begin with the first line choraliter, option 3

Verse Line Performers No. of parts Setting type
Verse 1

Verse 2
Verse 3
Verse 4
Verse 5
etc...
line 1
line 2ff
all lines
all lines
all lines
all lines

boys and congregation
full choir and congregation
choir and congregation
full choir and congregation
choir and congregation
full choir and congregation
1
4
1
4
1
4
in unison
cantional
in unison
cantional
in unison
cantional

Praetorius also offers this last option, along with specific examples of pieces set in
the prescribed way, in the preface to Musae Sioniae V.
In addition, it is to be remembered that in those songs in which the chorale is
set simply in four voices—particularly no. 153 and others—if one desires, the
boys can begin, singing the first phrase in unison with the entire congregation
(as no. 29: Wir glauben is set) so that the entire congregation can truly
understand [the song] and sing along. And then immediately the entire choir
can sing the second and following lines in four voices until the end.
Sometimes, a verse sung choraliter can alternate with one sung figuraliter (as
I have extensively outlined in the general preface [to Musae Sioniae, Part 1],
and as is demonstrated in the cantus voice in several pieces in this volume, for
instance numbers 7, 21, 53, 56, etc.).
73

73
Praetorius, Musae Sioniae V, p. XI: “Nebenst dem ist noch zuerinnern / daß in denen Gesängen / welche
mit vier Stimmen schlecht hin nachm Choral gesetzet / sonderlich in Num. 153. und andern / ein jeder nach
seinem gefallen / bißweilen die erste Reyen im anfang des Gesanges die Knaben mit der gantzen Gemeine
alleine anfangen lassen kan (gleich wie in dem: Wir gleuben / Num. 29. es also gesetzet) damit die gantze
Gemeine desto eigendlicher den Gesang vernehmen und zugleich mit singen / und dann alsobaldt der
gantze Chor mit vier Stimmen die andere und folgende Reyen / biß zum ende / bißweilen einen Verß und
den andern Choral und Figural (wie in der general praefation weitleufftiger angedeutet / und auch alhier im
Cantu an etlichen / als Num. 7. 21. 53. 56. &c. darbey gezeichnet ist) mit musiciren könne.”
115
Because Musae Sioniae V contains a variety of types of pieces—settings in
imitative and non-imitative polyphony for two, three, four and more voices, as well as
cantional settings—Praetorius mentions a specific one to clarify what he means by a
“chorale . . . set simply in four voices.” A close examination of the texture of this piece
will clarify Praetorius’ concept of simple four-part writing, and lay some of the
groundwork needed for assessing the usefulness for congregational singing of certain
other chorale arrangements.
74
MSV: 153, a setting of Gott der Vater wohn uns bei, is
indeed quite simple, although it does include some decoration in the lower voices. The
piece consists of twelve phrases; in three of them all of the lower voices move strictly
with the soprano throughout. Four additional phrases also are entirely homorhythmic,
except that in each at least one of the bottom voices holds a note while the soprano sings
two. The remaining phrases are homorhythmic for more than half of the notes, but
include minor decorations or syncopation among the lower voices for others. For
instance, the bass incorporates two passing tones in phrase 3, and the alto has one
rhythmic suspension in phrase 11. A series of two suspensions in the tenor voice in
phrase 4 causes the text in that voice to be out of phase with the text in the other voices,
but only for one syllable. Similar instances of non-alignment of text in phrases 5, 8 and 9
are likewise extremely brief to avoid causing any confusion for the congregation. The
majority of this piece, then, consists of note-against-note counterpoint. Intermittent

74
For the sake of convenience, in what follows each volume of Praetorius’ published music usually will be
designated by the first letter of each word in the title of the collection, followed by the volume number
(e.g., MSV for Musae Sioniae, volume 5). Each piece will be identified by the abbreviated volume title,
volume number, and the number of the piece within the volume. Thus, MSV: 153 is piece number 153 in
Musae Sioniae, volume 5.
116
decorations—usually one or two in a given phrase—provide relief from this strict
writing, and lightly increase the musical excitement beyond what can be found in most of
Osiander’s pieces, while maintaining a high level of transparency ideal to allow anyone
to sing along without difficulty. Although some of Praetorius’ cantional settings have an
even simpler texture than that of MSV: 153, and others include significantly more
decoration, the uncomplicated but delicately adorned texture of this piece is quite typical
for Praetorius’ cantional settings.
As Praetorius notes, for the setting of Wir glauben all mentioned in the preface to
MSV, he wrote no harmony for the first line; the harmony begins on the second line of
text. Praetorius does not provide text for the two subsequent stanzas, but presumably
these stanzas would be sung, and if this setting were used, the first line of all stanzas—
both the choraliter and cantional-style ones—would have to be sung in unison (making
the resulting performance a combination of “begin with the first line choraliter,” options
1 and 3). Of course, any typical cantional setting, with all lines composed in four parts,
could be sung with any stanza beginning in one or four parts as desired. Praetorius
mentions nos. 7, 21, 53 and 56 as examples of alternating between choraliter and
figuraliter singing. In the printed parts, Praetorius labeled the odd verses figuraliter and
the even ones choraliter. Numbers 46, 48, 68 and 73 are other cantional settings in MSV
with the same indications.
In the preface to Urania, Praetorius again offers the method of alternating
choraliter and figuraliter verses, this time suggesting one add an organ introduction at the
beginning.
117
Firstly then, after an organ introduction, the first verse can be sung with the
entire congregation choraliter (so that one can note the tempo); the second
verse can be sung figuraliter in simple counterpoint, together with the
congregation; the third verse could be sung choraliter, the fourth figuraliter
and so forth, one verse and then the other choraliter and figuraliter, but so that
the people and congregation always sing along. To conclude, the last verse
can be performed figuraliter and choraliter resounding together with one
another.
75

Praetorius emphasizes that the arrangement should conclude in four parts with both choir
and congregation singing. A full performance using this method would include the
following:
Table 2.5. Performing a chorale: alternating choraliter and figuraliter, with
organ introduction

Section/Verse Forces No. of parts Setting type
Organ Introduction
Verse 1
Verse 2
Verse 3
Verse 4
etc...
Final Verse
organ
congregation (choir implied)
choir and congregation
congregation (choir implied)
choir and congregation

choir and congregation

1
4
1
4

4

in unison
cantional
in unison
cantional

cantional

Praetorius does not stipulate whether the organ should play only the introduction, or
whether it also should accompany the singing. We do know that organ accompaniment of
congregational singing of chorales was practiced in some locations by the early

75
Praetorius, Urania, IX: “Dann erstlich kan nach geendigter Orgel / der I. Verß mit der gantzen Gemeine
choraliter (darmit man auffmercke / wie sie die Mensur halten) angefangen und vorgesungen werden: Der
2. Verß uffm Chor figuraliter in contrapuncto simplici zu gleich mit der Gemeine: Der 3. Verß wiederumb
choraliter: Der 4. Verß figuraliter und so fortan ein Verß umb den andern Choral und Figural; doch das
allzeit das Volck und Gemeine in der Kirchen mit singe: und der letzte Verß Figural und Choral zu gleich
miteinander resonire und beschliesse.” This suggestion appears as number 1 in his list of eight options.
118
seventeenth century, as the preface to the Melodeyen Gesangbuch (Hamburg, 1604)
makes clear.
76
Therefore, it is possible that the organ might have accompanied the
chorale in Wolfenbüttel, as well; certainly, Michael Praetorius was quite capable of
providing a tasteful and effective organ accompaniment to congregational singing.
Praetorius further notes that the verses in cantional style could be enhanced
simply by employing two or more choirs to perform them.
And here in the place of the simple figural songs, the Second Manner for
choirs, according to which numbers 7, 16, and 26 are set, can be considered
and used between the choraliter verses.
77

The Second Manner for choirs involves the performance of a cantional setting divided
between two or more choirs, alternating singing by line. Number 7 of Urania, mentioned
here, is for two four-voice choirs. The choirs alternate by line, and also join together on
some lines to form an eight-voice choir. Numbers 16 and 26 are similar, but use three and
four choirs, respectively. Employing this enhanced, polychoral version of the verses in
cantional style would provide greater variety and musical interest, but retain the
simplicity of the alternation of unison verses with ones in cantional style. The
congregation sings throughout, but the sonority of the accompanying parts frequently
changes.

76
Herl, Worship Wars, 131-33. According to Herl, the earliest known reference to the organ’s actually
accompanying hymn singing is not until 1591 (in Danzig). The reference specifically mentions the organ
accompanying the choir, but, as in Hamburg, the congregation in Danzig may have sung along.

77
Praetorius, Urania, IX: “Und alhier kan auch an stadt des schlechten Figural Gesangs / die ander Art per
Choros, wornach das Num. 7. 16. und 26. gesetzet / in acht genommen und zwischen den Choral Versen
gebraucht werden.”

119
Praetorius indicates that all of the methods of performance mentioned thus far—
singing the cantional setting straight through in all verses and alternating choraliter and
figuraliter singing in various ways, including with the use of organ introduction, with the
congregation singing throughout—were commonly used “in many places” during the first
part of the seventeenth century.
78
Elsewhere in the preface to Urania, Praetorius again
confirms that singing the cantional setting with choir and congregation throughout and
alternating between choraliter and figuraliter singing by verse were quite common in
Germany.
And therefore, in most places in the German lands, when a sacred Psalm is
sung in unison with the entire congregation in the church, usually (as has been
indicated before) it is done one verse and then the other [i.e., one verse in
unison, the next in cantional style, etc.], or, indeed, all verses together in parts
with everyone joining in.
79

These performance options, then, are by no means original to Praetorius. Instead they
reinforce common practice of the day, and function to encourage worship leaders who
may not already use them to adopt these simple methods of adorning chorale melodies in
such a way that the congregation can sing.

78
Praetorius, Urania, IX: “Und diese erzehlte vier Variationes seynd albereit an vielen Ortern im gebrauch:
Wie dann hiebevor von mir in den Musis Sionijs auch angezeigt worden.”

79
Praetorius, Urania, IX: “Und demnach an den meisten Ortern Deutsches Landes / wenn ein geistlicher
Psalm mit der gantzen Gemeine in der Kirchen choraliter gesungen wird / gar gebreuchlich / (wie hiebevor
angezeigt worden) das man einen Verß umb den andern / oder auch wol alle Verß zugleich figuraliter mit
einstimmet.”

120
Type 2: Options including verses in elaborate counterpoint

To further decorate the chorale, yet still allow the congregation to participate, one
can combine in one performance verses in unison or set simply with a verse sung by the
choir in complex counterpoint. Praetorius’ main suggestion in this regard is to begin with
a complicated verse for choir and follow that with simpler verses in which the
congregation can participate. He mentions this method in slightly different forms in a few
places. For instance, in MSV Praetorius notes,
Similarly, one can sing the first verse, either with two, three, or even with four
and more voices (as, for example, Gelobet seist du, no. 60 or 62 or 66) and
after that sing the second verse choraliter with the congregation, and then sing
the third figuraliter (as in no. 63), the fourth choraliter, the fifth figuraliter
again, and so forth, although the last verse always must be sung figurally with
the entire congregation.
80

The first three versions of Gelobet seist du mentioned here (MSV: 60, 62 and 66) all
present the first verse of the chorale—making them suitable for beginning the piece—
using a mixture of imitative and non-imitative counterpoint and are in three, four and five
voices respectively. That MSV: 63 is a straightforward cantional setting affirms that
figuraliter here refers to simple four-part harmony. In contrast to all of the methods
recorded until now, this method of singing chorales does not begin choraliter.
Presumably, for this version to be successful, the congregation would need to be used to
the manner of performance and understand that simple verses would follow the opening

80
Praetorius, Musae Sioniae V, p. XI: “Item / man kan den ersten Verß / entweder mit zwo / drey / oder
aber mit vier und mehr Stimmen vorher singen (Als exempli gratia: Gelobet Seistu / Num. 60. oder 62. oder
66.) und darauff den andern Verß mit der Gemeine Choraliter anfangen / den dritten Figural, (Als Num.
63.) den vierden Choral, den fünfften wiederumb Figural, und so forthan: Wiewol der letzte Verß allezeit
mit der Gemeine zugleich Figural muß gesungen werden.” In MSV: 63 there are seven verses. These
alternate choraliter and figuraliter until the final two verses, both of which are marked figuraliter to match
Praetorius’ point here that everyone sings together on the last verse.
121
polyphonic verse. Once the unison verse began the congregation could then join the
choir.
Table 2.6. Performing a chorale: a combination of imitative counterpoint,
unison singing and cantional style

Verse Performers No. of parts Setting type
Verse 1
Verse 2
Verse 3
Verse 4
Verse 5
etc...
Last Verse
choir
choir and congregation
choir and congregation
choir and congregation
choir and congregation

choir and congregation
2, 3, 4 or more
1
4
1
4

4
polyphonic
in unison
cantional
in unison
cantional

cantional

Praetorius mentions essentially this same manner of singing the chorale in two
other places, both times suggesting the addition of an organ introduction. One instance is
in Urania, where he specifically mentions the bicinias and tricinias from Musae Sioniae
IX as suitable for use as polyphonic verses, and also indicates the option of using
contrapuntal chorale settings requiring four or more voices and written by other
composers.
81
The other mention of this specific method of singing a chorale happens to
be from the first volume of Musae Sioniae, and is thus Praetorius’ first published rubric

81
Praetorius, Urania, IX: “Zum siebenden / kan auch nach geendigter Orgel / der erste Verß mit 2. oder 3.
Stimmen auß dem IX. Theile Musar Sioniarum; Oder aber mit 4. 5. und mehr Stimmen auß anderer
Componisten gesetzten Psalmen / darauff also bald der ander Verß mit der gantzen Gemeine choraliter, der
3. Verß figuraliter in contrpuncto simplici, und so fortan / gesungen werden.” (“Seventh, also after an organ
[introduction], the first verse can be sung with 2 or 3 voices from the ninth part of Musae Sioniae, or,
however, with 4, 5 and more voices from psalms set by other composers, after which the next verse can be
sung choraliter by the entire congregation, the 3rd verse figuraliter in simple counterpoint and so forth.”)

122
for including the congregation. It appears as the sixth of nine paragraphs written to
church leaders and lovers of music.
82

It now remains up to one’s own discretion and judgment how and in which
form he wants to use this work of mine and otherwise similar works. For one
must keep in mind the circumstances of the given choir and church and the
occasion itself. One could (as is observed in this royal chapel here in my time)
sing the first verse with 5, 6 or 8 voices imitatively, directly after an organ
introduction; the second verse as an unadorned chorale with the congregation;
the third verse with 4 or 5 voices set more simply without imitation, together
with the choir and the congregation at the same time; the fourth verse again
choraliter; the fifth figuraliter (however, so that the congregation can
continue to sing along), and so forth, one verse and then the other. This is
usually done in Bavarian and other Roman Catholic churches with German
and Latin Psalms. In all of this I do not mean to encroach on anyone who
would arrange things according to his size and purpose. Inasmuch as anyone
who knows better does not need to be reminded [of these instructions].
83

Apart from indicating a specific order for singing chorales, this paragraph
provides further important information. Firstly, in his typical manner, Praetorius presents
the instructions as suggestions, to be used if desired and to be implemented with
flexibility. He fully intends every music director to assess the size, abilities, and resources
of his musical establishment and location of worship, and then to use whatever parts of
Praetorius’ suggestions he deems helpful. Praetorius acknowledges that other musicians
may have a different or even better way of arranging things. Although this manner of

82
Praetorius heads this section “Ecclesiastis & Philomusis.”

83
Praetorius, Musae Sioniae I, p. XI: “Stehet nun zu eines jeden selbst eigner discretion und gut achten /
wie und welcher gestaldt er dieser meiner und sonsten dergleichen Arbeit gebrauchen wolle: Dann einen
jeglichen seiner Chor und Kirchen umbstende und gelegenheit selbsten erinnern und geben wird / ob er /
(inmassen in dieser Fürstlichen Capell alhie / by meiner zeit observire) den ersten Verß mit 5. 6. oder 8.
Stimmen Fugweiß / alßbaldt im Anfang nach geschlagener Orgel anfangen / und den anderen Verß mit der
Gemein schlecht Choral: den dritten mit 4. oder 5. Stimmen simpliciter absq; fugis schlecht hingesetzt /
sampt dem Choro und der Gemein zugleich: den vierden wiederumb Choral / den fünfften Figural (doch
das die Gemeine allezeit mit singe) und so fortan einen Verß umb den andern singen wolle / Wie solches in
den Bayrischen und andern Römischen Catholischen Kirchen mit deutschen und lateinischen Psalmen
meistlich gehalten wird. In welchem allem ich niemands vorzugreiffen / noch maß und ziel zusetzen
gemeint / Sintemahl es für diejenigen / so es besser wissen / gantz nicht erinnert wirdt.”
123
writing—minimizing one’s own abilities and emphasizing the merits of the reader—is
clearly rhetorical in nature, the multiple, slightly varied versions of the same sorts of
performance methods surveyed above support the conclusion that Praetorius indeed
meant for his instructions to be used with flexibility. Certainly, he neither envisioned that
there was but one way or even only a few ways to sing a chorale setting with the
congregation, nor assumed that his suggestions on the matter exhausted all satisfactory
possibilities.
In addition, the paragraph cited above reveals the—or at least one—typical
method of arranging chorales in Praetorius’ own church, the chapel in Wolfenbüttel (see
Table 2.7, below). The excerpt also confirms that other churches frequently used this
same method—even implying that this was the standard method of performance in
certain regions, including in churches that were not Lutheran.
84

Table 2.7. Performing a chorale: a combination of imitative counterpoint,
unison singing and cantional style, with organ introduction

Section/Verse Forces No. of parts Setting type
Organ Introduction
Verse 1
Verse 2
Verse 3
Verse 4
Verse 5
etc...
organ
choir
choir and congregation
choir and congregation
choir and congregation
choir and congregation

5, 6 or 8
1
4 or 5
1
4 or 5

imitative counterpoint
in unison
cantional
in unison
cantional

84
For more on congregational singing in Roman Catholic churches within German-speaking regions, see
Herl, Worship Wars, 33-34.
124
Two details distinguish this set of instructions from the similar sets in MSV and
Urania. Although the other instances do not preclude using counterpoint of five, six or
eight parts, this number of voices suggested for the initial contrapuntal verse here is
greater than the numbers specifically indicated in the other instances. Undoubtedly
Praetorius here suggests this number of voices because the volume of music
accompanying these instructions consists of chorales set in complicated polyphony using
eight voices.
In addition, Praetorius also recommends using a setting in simple counterpoint
requiring four or five voices. Likely, Praetorius suggested the possibility of a simple
setting with five voices as opposed to only four because any choir that could manage
five-, six- or eight-voice polyphony could certainly execute a five-voice homophonic
texture, and the greater number of voices in the homophonic portions would more closely
match the forces used in the polyphonic ones. At the time of publication of MSI
Praetorius had not yet published his own volumes of cantional settings. Until his own
cantional settings appeared a few years later, then, in order to perform a chorale as
indicated, one could use a polyphonic setting from the volume of music at hand (i.e.,
MSI) but would have to look elsewhere for a simple four- or five-part setting. When
writing instructions in MSV and Urania, after he had already published (or was presently
publishing) his own cantional settings, Praetorius only mentions four-part settings, likely
because those are the type he emphasized in his collections and because they were much
more common in general. Praetorius did write a few cantional settings for five voices, but
the four-voice setting is vastly more common in his output. Once Praetorius had
125
published his own volumes of cantional settings in four voices, and consequently
described homophonic chorale settings as having four voices, the number of voices
Praetorius suggested for the accompanying contrapuntal verses tended to decrease, and
thus corresponded more closely to the number of voices in his own cantional settings.
One common method of performance in sixteenth-century Lutheran Germany not
detailed above is the regular alternation of verses in complex counterpoint and ones in
unison, a method allowing for congregational singing as well as great artistic value. Such
a performance would not include verses in cantional style, however, which is perhaps one
reason Praetorius does not seem to discuss this method in his prefaces. Nonetheless, he
undoubtedly encountered this practice, and it is certainly plausible that he also employed
it in the Wolfenbüttel court chapel at times.
85

Type 3: Options including soloists

In the middle of his list in the preface to Urania of methods of singing simple
hymn settings with choir and congregation, Praetorius includes two suggestions that
involve alternating a soloist or small group of singers with a large choir and instruments.
Besides that, and fifthly, I find it not a little charming when a tenor with a
beautiful, strong, clear voice begins the first line (Allein Gott in der Höhe sei
Ehr), and the second line (and Dank für seine Gnade) [is sung by] the choir of
singers and instruments. The third line (Darumb das nun und nimmermehr)
would again be sung by the tenor alone, the fourth line (Uns rühren kan sein
Schade) [by] the entire choir; the fifth (Ein wolgefallen Gott an uns hat) [by]
the tenor; the sixth line (Nun ist gross Fried ohn unterlass) [by] the choir. In

85
In a similar vein, in his last volumes of music Praetorius discusses using unison singing for some verses
and concerted style for others when performing a single chorale, although implementing his suggestions in
these cases does not result in a regular alternation between unison singing and polyphony.

126
the seventh, [by] the tenor for All fehd and [by] the entire chorus for hat nun
ein Ende.
That would be the first verse with its seven lines; after which the
following verses could be [arranged] in the same way.
(It should be noted, that this option should only be used in royal chapels
and small churches, because in large churches it will not work well.)
In addition, and sixthly, I find it similarly not unpleasant if, in place of the
tenor (which was mentioned in the previous fifth point), four individual
musical voices, namely a discant, alto, tenor and bass who have lovely, pure
voices, are used for the 1st, 3rd, 5th etc. lines, which produce from their
voices not so much a powerful but a subtle, quiet sound; and the full choir of
instruments and singers with a bright and fully loud sound respond in the 2, 4,
6, etc. lines.
86

For neither of these methods does Praetorius specifically mention the
congregation joining in the singing, although he does include such a specification for
every other item on the list, except for number 3—singing the first verse choraliter and
then continuing with the remaining verses in cantional style—for which the inclusion of
the congregation is clearly implied and intended. Given 1) that Praetorius declines to
specify the inclusion of the congregation for these two methods, 2) that the methods
would seem to work well using only soloists and choir without congregation, and 3) that
he does emphasize the soloist in method 5 singing alone, it seems possible that Praetorius

86
Praetorius, Urania, IX: “Neben dem und zum fünfften / halt ich nicht wenig anmutig zu sein / das ein
Tenorist mit enier schönen starcken reinen Stimme / die erste Zeile oder Reige (Allein Gott in der Höhe
Sey Ehr) anfahe: Die ander Zeile / (Und Danck für seine Gnade) der Chorus Cantorum und
Instrumentisten: Die 3. Zeile (Darumb das nun und nimmermehr) wiederumb der Tenorist alleine: Die 4.
Zeile (Uns rühren kan kein Schade) der gantze Chorus: Die 5. Zeile (Ein wolgefallen Gott an uns hat) der
Tenorist: Die 6. Zeile (Nun ist groß Fried ohn unterlaß) der Chorus: In der 7. (All fehd) der Tenorist: (hat
nun ein Ende) der gantze Chorus.
Und diß wehre also der erste Verß mit seinen sieben Zeilen: Nach welchem die folgende Verse eben also
angestellet werden können.
(Doch ist alhier zumercken / das dieser Punct allein in Fürstlichen Capellen und kleinen Kirchen in acht zu
nehmen sey: Denn in grossen Kirchen wil sich dieses nicht wol arten.)
Aber das und zum sechsten / achte ich gleichergestalt nicht unangenehm sein / das an stadt des Tenoristen
(darvon im vorhergehenden fünfften Puncte meldung geschehen) vier entzelne Vocales Musici, als
nemblich ein Discantist, Altist, Tenorist, Bassist, welche liebliche reine Stimmen haben / zu der 1. 3. 5. etc.
Zeilen genommen werden / die nicht so gar Starck / sondern fein submissè ihre Stimmen herfürbringen:
Und der volle Chorus von Instrumentisten und Cantoribus mit hellem hauffen und vollem laut / die 2. 4. 6.
etc. Zeilen darauff respondire.”
127
here presents—alongside various ways to include the congregation—two related methods
of performing simple chorale settings that do not incorporate congregational singing.
That one of the obvious benefits of both methods is a clear contrast between small and
large and between loud and soft—benefits that undoubtedly would be obscured
somewhat were the congregation to join in the singing throughout the performance—
supports this interpretation of Praetorius’ suggestions. It is unlikely that Praetorius
intends for the congregation to sing only with the full choir because it probably would be
unreasonable to expect many congregations to sing only alternate lines of each stanza of a
chorale. Praetorius’ comment, explained above, that congregations frequently fail to stop
singing once they have started, supports this suspicion. If items five and six in the list are,
in fact, intended to describe a performance without congregational participation, a
realization of either of these two related methods would provide an opportunity within a
church service to highlight beautiful singing and the important compositional element of
contrast while providing a very clear version of the chorale to encourage reflection.
However, certain reasons for interpreting Praetorius’ statements differently are
worth examining. Firstly, these statements occur in the middle of a list detailing ways of
singing with the congregation—a list Praetorius says was inspired by hearing the
congregation and choir sing together in the chapel of the Landgraf of Hesse. In addition,
the entire volume of Urania is intended to provide material suitable for congregational
participation. Even though Praetorius does not mention congregational singing
specifically, then, the context in which the statements are made suggests that Praetorius
intends for the congregation to sing along with the soloist(s) and the choir. Furthermore,
128
Praetorius indicates that alternating a soloist with a full choir will work well only in a
small church. While it is possible that he means by this that a soloist would have trouble
projecting adequately in a large building, it is also plausible that this statement means that
only in a small church will the congregation be able to hear the soloist adequately to be
able to sing along.
Additionally, later in the same preface, as a suggestion for the composition of
choirs for polychoral performances of cantional settings, Praetorius indicates that an
organ with a soloist can comprise one choir. In this instance, he explicitly states that the
congregation is to sing along with this choir, as well as the four-part vocal choir with
which it alternates, resulting in regularly changing sonorities despite the constant singing
of the congregation. A congregation accompanied by the alternation of a lone soloist, or
four soloists, with a large choir of voices and instruments would produce a similar,
though by no means identical, effect. Admittedly, a choir comprised of an organ and
soloist would provide more support for congregational singing than would one or a few
singers, so that the two situations do differ in relevant ways. Nevertheless, although
Praetorius’ recommendation of assisting congregational singing using a similar method to
the soloist(s)-versus-full choir option does not prove conclusively Praetorius’ intentions
in the matter under consideration, it is suggestive. Thus, it is plausible that Praetorius
meant for the congregation to join the soloist(s) as well as the full choir during
performances of cantional settings using methods 5 and 6 on his list in Urania.
A full performance of a chorale of seven lines using this soloist-versus-full choir
option, incorporating congregational singing, would consist of the following:
129
Table 2.8. Performing a chorale: alternating one soloist with full choir and
instruments

Verse Line Performers No. of parts Setting type
Verse 1

Verses 2ff
line 1
line 2
line 3
line 4
line 5
line 6
line 7a
line 7b
tenor and congregation
choir, instruments, congregation
tenor and congregation
choir, instruments, congregation
tenor and congregation
choir, instruments, congregation
tenor and congregation
choir, instruments, congregation
same as above
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
unison
cantional
unison
cantional
unison
cantional
unison
cantional

A director obviously could adjust the pattern of alternations slightly for chorales with
fewer or more than seven lines. A full performance using number 6 on the list in Urania
would be very similar, with four singers in place of the soloist.
Table 2.9. Performing a chorale: alternating four soloists with full choir and
instruments

Verse Line Performers No. of parts Setting type
Verse 1

Verses 2ff
line 1
line 2
line 3
line 4
line 5
line 6
line 7a
line 7b
quartet and congregation
choir, instruments, congregation
quartet and congregation
choir, instruments, congregation
quartet and congregation
choir, instruments, congregation
quartet and congregation
choir, instruments, congregation
same as above
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
cantional
cantional
cantional
cantional
cantional
cantional
cantional
cantional

130
Alternating a soloist or small group with a large choir including instruments approaches
the polychoral style of singing chorales that will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.

General principles of types of settings to use
The above general principles for encouraging congregational singing and the
rubrics furnishing various ways of including the congregation not only present interesting
information about specific performance practice within Praetorius’ own church in
Wolfenbüttel and other churches in the early seventeenth century, but also suggest that
the musical abilities of various congregations differed considerably. On the one hand,
Praetorius advocates beginning the performance choraliter because even simple four-part
harmony at the beginning of a chorale might deter the congregation from participating.
Given this, it seems that a focus on stark simplicity—for instance, avoiding cantional
settings with relatively complicated counterpoint in lower voices—would be preferable
for the congregation. On the other hand, Praetorius also includes instructions for
beginning a performance of a chorale with a verse in imitative polyphony, implying that
some congregations, at least when given enough practice and experience, were capable of
recognizing the appropriate places to sing, and were willing to participate in such
performances. While a certain level of simplicity was necessary for the accommodation
of any congregation, Praetorius verifies what could be assumed: that this level differed
from place to place. It will be constructive to keep this in mind when assessing the
functions of Praetorius’ various types of settings and placing them within the wider
context of congregational singing in Lutheran Germany.
131
In addition, Praetorius’ observation that it is difficult to get congregations to stop
singing once they have begun—at least in certain circumstances—is instructive. While
clearly some congregations could be trained to rest on alternate verses of stanzas, it
seems—and is supported by outside evidence as already noted—that some congregations
might founder even with this standard method. It is even more likely that expecting the
congregation to rest on alternate lines or phrases would be impractical. Certainly, at the
very least, settings in which the chorale melody rests extensively while the other voices
continue or with phrases of the chorale melody repeated indiscriminately would cause
confusion for lay churchgoers and could not be used feasibly for general congregational
participation.
To best accommodate the congregation adequately, a stanza of a chorale should
be presented from beginning to end without stopping or inserting additional material.
Further, local rhythmic and melodic practice should be observed as much as possible.
Paraphrasing of the chorale melody within the soprano voice also would be detrimental to
the congregation’s recognition of the chorale tune and ability to sing along. Indeed,
anything that detracts from the prominence and clarity of the chorale text and tune—
syllables that fail to line up vertically between voices, motion in lower voices at the ends
of phrases that obscures rather than emphasizes the phrase structure, and especially busy
lower voices—could cause confusion for a congregation. The quality and degree of these
distractions will influence the usefulness of a cantional setting for congregational singing.

132
Musae Sioniae, volume 5
Musae Sioniae, volume 5, is the first of Praetorius’ publications to present chorale
tunes in cantional style. With a total of 166 settings of more than 60 tunes, it is a sizeable
repository of styles of chorale settings, a “historical compendium of chorale arrangements
from Johann Walter to the threshold of later ‘concerto’ settings.”
87
An array of styles of
imitative and non-imitative polyphony using a variety of structures appear alongside the
cantional settings; performing forces range from two to eight voices.
88
In this publication,
Praetorius includes fifteen pieces by other composers, a procedure typical for him.
89

Many tunes appear in only one setting, but there are also two or more versions of many
tunes, and a few melodies are set more than five times. For instance, there are eight
settings of Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist, and eight of Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ.
This volume, then, provides material for churches of varying sizes and musical
capabilities to present chorale settings in a wide range of styles and complexity. A firm
grasp of the breadth of this volume is important for a full understanding of Praetorius’

87
Blume, Protestant Church Music, 159. See also Robert L. Marshall and Robin A. Leaver, "Chorale
settings," in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/article/
grove/music/05663 (accessed January 21, 2012), which also places this volume and its significance within
the broad context of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Lutheran chorale settings. Marshall and Leaver
observe that in this volume, “Praetorius consistently applied tehniques that were often only incipient in the
works of his contemporaries.” As an example, Marshall and Leaver note in Grove the “rhythmic variability
and freedom” with which Praetorius treats the cantus firmus.

88
There are five settings for two voices, fourteen settings for three voices, eighty-eight settings for four
voices (seventy-three of these are cantional settings), thirty-one settings for five voices (five of these are
cantional settings), twelve settings for six voices, five settings for seven voices, two settings for eight
voices, and nine settings in which the number of voices changes over the course of the setting.

89
These include six by Johann Walter and one each by Heinrich Grimm, Andreas Raselius, Jacques Wert,
Bartolomäus Gesius, and Johann Knöfel. See the Praetorius Gesamtausgabe, vol. 21, for the sources for
these pieces. Also included are four labeled “incerti,” of which one is a cantional setting, and one could be
classified as a cantional setting, but has more activity in lower voices than many cantional settings.
Praetorius labels no. 37, a setting of Hosianna dem Sohne David for five voices, incerti. Riegel and
Schöberlein print this twice, once attributing it to Praetorius, and once to Bartholomäus Gesius.
133
recommendations for performing chorales with choir and congregation, because it
underscores the abundance of possible types of pieces that could precede unison singing
of the chorale or a setting in cantional style. For this reason, a close inspection of the
settings of Gelobet seist du (nos. 60-67) in particular is warranted here because they
provide a general reflection of the scope and contents of the volume as a whole and
because Praetorius mentions some of them, specifically numbers 60, 62, 63 and 66, in the
preface as examples of the sorts of pieces useful to introduce or accompany
congregational singing. In addition, many of the elements found in Praetorius’ intricate
polyphony—harmonic variety, manipulation of motives, contrast, and emphasizing
certain concepts in the text to encourage the choir and the congregation listening to
reflect on specific theological points—can appear in cantional settings, as well. While
harmonic variety can arise frequently in cantional settings, because of the restrictions of
the genre things such as motivic manipulation and contrast occur irregularly and are often
subtle when they do appear. This is because, while Praetorius has the freedom to alter,
reshape and deconstruct the chorale melody in an arrangement meant for the choir, by
necessity he must keep it firmly intact throughout a cantional setting. Motivic
manipulation in that context, then, is restricted to such strategies as cleverly inserting
snippets of the melody into lower voices, or creating an accompanimental motive and
weaving it among the alto, tenor and bass. Therefore, it will be helpful to examine such
features used widely and freely in complex polyphonic settings so that we can be alert to
their less conspicuous presence within cantional settings, where they attest to Praetorius’
134
creativity, skill and care in writing even simple, pragmatic chorale arrangements for
congregational singing.
The text of Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ, written by Martin Luther, is for
Christmas and especially emphasizes the incarnation of Christ. The first verse of text and
the melody as it appears in Praetorius’ cantional-style version of this chorale in Musae
Sioniae V (no. 63 of that volume) are as follows:
90

Example 2.1. Melody of Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ

Table 2.10. The settings of Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ
in Musae Sioniae, volume 5

Number No. of
Voices
Type or Structure Specific points of interest

*60 3 each phrase developed in turn Use of cantus firmus;
Motivic manipulation
61 3 cantus firmus Emphasis on specific text
*62 4 each phrase developed in turn Distinct, contrasting sections
*63 4 cantional setting
64 4 Tenorlied By Johann Walter
65 5 Tenorlied By Andreas Raselius
*66 5 weighted toward the first half of the
chorale

67 5 weighted toward the second half of
the chorale
Continuation of no. 66;
Uses the final stanza of text
* = mentioned in connection with congregational singing

90
You are to be praised, Jesus Christ / that you have been born a man /
from a virgin, it is true; / therefore the host of angels rejoices. / Lord have mercy!
135
In MSV: 60, as Praetorius develops each phrase of the chorale in succession—
with the end of the fourth phrase and the concluding “Kyrioleis” tag forming one section,
and with multiple iterations of the text in three of the sections—he demonstrates his
dexterity in treating the chorale melody and his cleverness in manipulating it.
91
Direct
statements of the melody occur in all but the second section—in the first section in note
values audibly longer than those in the other voices, creating a clear cantus firmus, but in
values more commensurate with, though still longer on average than, those in the other
voices in the third and fourth sections. Praetorius includes variety not only in the length
of the notes of these direct statements of the chorale melody, but also in the location
within a given section and in the voices in which the cantus firmus appears. It occurs at
the end of the first section in the lowest voice, in both halves of the third phrase—first in
the lowest voice and then in the middle voice—and at the end of the fourth section in the
top voice.
The chorale tune not only appears in the role of a roving cantus firmus, but also
provides much of the melodic material for all three vocal parts throughout the piece. For
instance, the piece begins with nearly exact imitation of the chorale’s opening phrase—
here between the top two voices—unsurprisingly, a procedure used frequently by
Praetorius in his polyphonic settings. Elsewhere, for example in the second section (end
of m. 7 through the middle of m. 10), a decorated version of the relevant portion of the
melody forms the basis for imitation.
92
Similarly, the fourth section begins with imitation

91
This setting has two higher voices and one lower voice.

92
The Praetorius Gesamtausgabe divides most of Praetorius’ polyphonic pieces into measures. The
following analyses of such pieces will exploit this feature by referring to specific measures when
136
and manipulation of the conspicuous motive that begins phrase four of the chorale—a
leap of an ascending fourth in this setting, although it appears as an ascending fifth in
other versions. In contrast, measures 5-8 constitute an example of a passage in which,
although the melody forms the basis of all parts simultaneously, little imitation is
apparent because the melody is used differently in each voice. Above the cantus firmus in
the bottom voice, the middle voice begins with the melody and then moves into new
territory. In the top voice, the melody is concealed amidst passing and neighbor tones and
by rhythmic alterations.
93

Example 2.2. MSV: 60, mm. 5-8

Praetorius’ aptitude for manipulating short motives is evident in this setting as
well, as again the first section attests (see Example 2.3, below). Praetorius extracts the
opening motive of the chorale (motive x), and alters it in a logical fashion by replacing

appropriate. Analyses will refer to specific phrase numbers for those pieces left unmeasured in the
Praetorius Gesamtausgabe.

93
In what follows, all excerpts from Praetorius’ compositions are transcribed from the Praetorius
Gesamtausgabe.
137
the repeating Gs with a G-Major triad descending from D to G (motive x’). He changes
x’ in turn, replacing the opening D with a C (motive x’’). With the resulting two related
motives, x’ and x’’, Praetorius creates a short imitative dialogue of four elements
between the top two voices (mm. 3-5). The last of these statements, transposed down a
fifth and incomplete, serves as a smooth transition into the clever paraphrase of the
opening melody presented in Example 2.2 above.
Example 2.3. MSV: 60, mm. 1-5

In MSV: 62, for four voices, Praetorius again develops each section of the chorale
individually, but in this case he uses contrasting meters, textures, pulses and styles for
different sections, creating great variety, but also retaining coherence. The stately first
section is in triple meter and strict homorhythm and includes five statements of “Gelobet
seist du” with whole notes providing the pulse.
94
Praetorius avoids monotony in these
five similar statements, however, by changing the harmony for each successive one, by
moving the melodic line between soprano, alto and bass, and by transposing the melody

94
For the sake of convenience, all note values in the analyses in this and the following chapters will be
given in modern notation as presented in the Praetorius Gesamtausgabe.

138
down a fourth for the final statement. Later in this piece, after four intervening
contrasting sections, Praetorius recalls this opening by using a modification of its texture
in a section setting the text “des freuet sich der Engelein Schar.” By incorporating the
homorhythm from the beginning of the piece along with the additional elements of
imitation and antiphonal exchange, Praetorius not only connects the two sections
musically while maintaining variety, but also subtly expresses the connection between the
texts of the two sections.
Example 2.4. MSV: 62, mm. 32-36

The other sections diverge from these two noticeably. For instance, the second
section (mm. 7-15), in duple meter with the quarter note forming the pulse and with an
imitative texture, is in stark contrast to the austere opening. The third section (mm. 16-
20), while maintaining an imitative texture, also incorporates two direct statements of the
melody in the vein of a cantus firmus in note values commensurate with those in the other
voices. Section four (mm. 21-26) returns to triple meter, which is appropriate for
reflecting the joy expressed in its text, “des freuet sich der Engel Schar.” Following
139
section four, and then again at the end of the piece, passages setting the word “Kyrioleis”
continue the theme of joy by exploiting the interval of a fifth that defines the melody for
“des freuet sich.” In contrasting duple meter, these “Kyrioleis” sections are permeated by
a motive consisting of ascending stepwise motion spanning a fifth—in rapid eighth
notes—and the leap of a descending fifth—in quarter notes. By incorporating two
separate sections for the text “des freuet sich” as well as two jubilant “Kyrioleis” sections
related motivically to the “des freuet sich” melody, Praetorius emphasizes the theme of
joy in this setting.
Praetorius uses yet a third overall structure for MSV: 66. In this piece, he focuses
especially on the first two phrases of the chorale: the first 44 measures of a total 65 in the
critical edition are devoted to extended development of these two phrases. First,
Praetorius presents the two phrases of the chorale in turn, using portions of the melody as
points of imitation and also extracting and developing motives from the melody.
Beginning in measure 24, Praetorius combines in various ways the two phrases already
presented. For instance, during measures 24-28 the bass voice treats “Gelobet seist du,
Jesu Christ” as a cantus firmus, stating it in breves and whole notes against imitative
statements of “daß du Mensch geboren bist” in the other voices, mostly in quarter notes.
Similarly, to conclude this section combining phrases one and two of the chorale, in
measures 41-44, “daß du Mensch geboren bist” appears in the bass as a cantus firmus.
Conspicuous throughout measures 24-44 are ascending and descending scalar patterns—
related motives derived from the second phrase of the chorale melody and manipulated
melodically and rhythmically. The structure of this setting, then, clearly emphasizes the
140
first two lines of the chorale and therefore focuses on the importance of praising God for
becoming man. Finally, starting at the end of measure 44, Praetorius states the text in all
voices from beginning to end with little text repetition, using both non-imitative and
imitative counterpoint.
MSV: 67, though presented as the second part of MSV: 66, does not appear
among Praetorius’ examples of settings to precede congregational singing, undoubtedly
primarily because it is a setting of verse seven, the final verse of Gelobet seist du, and
therefore not applicable to that discussion. Numbers 66 and 67 of MSV could be
performed as bookends to a full presentation of the chorale, perhaps with choraliter and
cantional-style verses to include the congregation used for the middle five verses,
although Praetorius does not suggest this option explicitly.
95
The setting itself uses
procedures and textures similar to those in MSV: 66, although this one emphasizes the
latter two sections rather than the former two
96
—the first two sections are nine and five
measures, respectively, while the third and fourth are seventeen and twenty-eight
measures, respectively—thus constituting a counterbalance structurally to no. 66.
97

While Praetorius highlights line four of the chorale in MSV: 62 and weights the
setting toward the first two lines in MSV: 66, in MSV: 61 he weaves lines two and four

95
If such a performance were attempted, the difficulty of stopping the congregation for the final verse
undoubtedly would be a factor. Praetorius’ solutions to this difficulty—the organist’s clearly emphasizing
the final phrase of the penultimate verse, or, if that proves ineffective, allowing the congregation to sing
through the seventh verse in cantional style and then immediately following with MSV: 67—would thus be
relevant for such a performance of Gelobet seist du.

96
In this setting, “Kyrioleis” does not constitute its own section. Instead “Und dank ihm des in Ewigkeit,
Kyrioleis” is treated as one unit, forming the fourth and final section of the setting.

97
For additional discussion of MSV: 66 and 67 see Forchert, Das Spätwerk des Michael Praetorius, 28-32.

141
of the chorale throughout the piece, and thus promotes reflection by the singers, and the
congregation listening to them, on the significance of that particular text.
98
The bottom of
three voices
99
functions as a cantus firmus, directly presenting the melody from
beginning to end almost exclusively in whole notes, and thus providing the harmonic
foundation and textual backdrop for the musical and thematic material in the other two
voices. For the first nine of the setting’s twenty measures, the upper voices toss back and
forth the texts “daß du Mensch geboren bist” and “des freuet sich.” In measure 10,
Praetorius adds the words “der Engel Schar” to “des freuet sich” to complete that phrase
of text.
100
The upper voices continue to sing these two phrases until nearly the end of the
piece. With this setting, then, Praetorius highlights the relationship between the doctrine
of the incarnation and the joy that accompanies this revelation, not only for angels—as he
emphasizes from measure ten—but also in general—as the first nine measures
communicate.
101

98
This is one of the chorale settings of Gelobet seist du in MSV not mentioned specifically by Praetorius in
the preface. Nevertheless, it too is suitable to precede verses in cantional style. Since those mentioned in
the preface are meant as examples of the sorts of settings he has in mind, this, along with any other choral
setting of the first verse of a chorale, could be followed by congregational singing.

99
This setting incorporates one upper voice and two lower voices using a clef an octave below that of the
upper voice.

100
A texture consisting of a cantus firmus in the bottom voice and the top voices constructed out of
motivic material from a single phrase of the chorale melody conforms to Praetorius’ description of the
“Clausul-Art,” a type of cantus-firmus setting that he claimed to have invented himself. Praetorius employs
this basic structure in MSV: 61, but uses two “clauses” instead of one for the material in the upper voices.
The “Clausul-Art” is one of three types of cantus-firmus settings he mentions in the preface to Musae
Sioniae IX, specifically relating to three-voice pieces. The other two types are the motet style and the
madrigal style. See MSIX and an explanation of Praetorius’ styles in Marshall and Leaver, "Chorale
settings.”

101
Forchert emphasizes Praetorius’ role as a preacher or interpreter of text in pieces of this type in Das
Spätwerk des Michael Praetorius, 38.
142
By deriving the musical material of which these voices consist from the sections
of the chorale melody associated with these texts, Praetorius expresses the associated
themes even more clearly, and also exhibits his skill at manipulating motives. In addition
to presenting the melodic portions and fragments directly, he also presents them with
varied rhythms and pitches, while maintaining their general melodic shape. For instance,
for the motive for “des freuet sich” already encountered, instead of employing its
expected even rhythm in all instances, Praetorius also uses a jaunty combination of eighth
notes and a dotted quarter note to express the joy affirmed in the text. This motive
appears not only with the original interval of an ascending fifth, but also as ascending
fourths and thirds, and in ascending and descending sequences.
Praetorius includes in MSV two settings of this famous chorale by other
composers. No. 64, a four-voice setting by Johann Walter, is in tenorlied style—the tenor
voice functions as the cantus firmus, stating the melody from beginning to end without
decoration and in mostly whole notes while the other voices, also stating the text from
beginning to end, provide faster counterpoint against the melody. Throughout, the text
fails to line up vertically between voices and beginnings and endings of phrases in
different voices are staggered. Even so, apart from one cantional setting of this chorale in
MSV, this version is much simpler—and shorter—than Praetorius’ versions and would be
useful to a choir with modest musical abilities. No. 65, a setting for five voices by
Andreas Raselius, is also in tenorlied style, and is even simpler than Walter’s setting. The
voices begin and end phrases together, and although the text does not line up in all voices
143
in the middle of phrases, often multiple voices do sing together, promoting the audibility
of the words.
In addition to these versions of Gelobet seist du clearly appropriate for choral
singing only, MSV also includes one cantional setting of the chorale (MSV: 63).
Example 2.5. MSV: 63

Indeed, this version is one setting provided as an example of the type suitable for
congregational participation. Although eminently practical for this purpose—with the
melody in the top voice mostly in even note values, a transparent, homophonic texture,
and clearly articulated divisions between phrases—the setting includes some decoration
144
in the lower voices throughout the first three phrases, increasing its musical interest
without diminishing its usefulness for accompanying congregational singing.

Assessing the scope of settings intended to accompany congregational singing
The fifth volume of Musae Sioniae incorporates additional styles of chorale
arrangements, including two-voice canonic settings,
102
polychoral settings,
103
and settings
for three, four or five voices with the top voice acting as a cantus firmus and faster
counterpoint underneath. The pieces of this last type, especially those written for four or
five voices,
104
share some salient features with cantional settings, namely that the melody
appears undecorated from beginning to end and is in the top of four or more voices. The
elaborate and faster counterpoint in the lower voices, however, is foreign to the cantional
setting archetype developed by Osiander, and does not correspond closely to the
predominantly homorhythmic texture exhibited in MSV: 153 and MSV: 63. Nevertheless,
pieces with the chorale melody stated on top and relatively complex counterpoint
underneath should not be ruled out as candidates for congregational singing without

102
For instance, in no. 4, a setting of Nun bitten wir den heiligen Geist, the melody for each of the five
phrases forms the raw material for an extended passage of polyphony. In the first section, for example, the
opening phrase of the chorale appears in the bottom voice in whole and in part at various pitch levels. The
top voice imitates in strict canon at the unison. Halfway through this section part of the melody is placed in
sequence, with the top voice imitating the bottom in strict canon at the fourth. Other portions of the setting
include counterpoint that is less-strictly imitative, and some that is non-imitative.

103
One of these (MSV: 164, a setting of Psalm 51) uses falsobordone, with a migrating reciting tone and
choirs alternating by verse. The choirs join together on some verses. If a congregation were used to singing
Psalm tones, this setting could work quite well for congregational participation. The procedure Praetorius
uses to create this setting is similar to that used in Urania to create polychoral settings out of cantional-
style ones, resulting in polychoral pieces suitable for congregational participation. MSV: 107 is for seven
voices divided three against four. Praetorius varies the interaction of these two groups so that sometimes
one echoes the other, sometimes they alternate phrases and sometimes they join together.

104
Nos. 8, 105, 125, 147.
145
further scrutiny. The lower voices in pieces of this type—some of which also appear in
volumes dedicated almost exclusively to cantional settings—vary in difficulty, such that,
while some of them are so far removed from the overall simplicity of the majority of
Praetorius’ cantional settings that congregational participation appears to be unfeasible,
others are only moderately distant from his typical texture in cantional settings. For the
simplest pieces of this latter type, it seems possible that some congregations could sing
along with them, making them not only pieces with a cantus firmus in the top voice, but
actually ones that can be designated as cantional-style pieces. In addition, Praetorius’ set
of pieces demonstrably in cantional style also features a range of complexity; while the
majority of these pieces are quite simple, others incorporate fairly active lower voices.
Because of this, there is a grey area of uncertainty between the category of pieces
Praetorius clearly thought suitable for congregational singing and the group obviously not
intended for that purpose.
105
The apparently varying levels of musical ability of
congregations, and likely also the varying amounts of willingness to tolerate activity in
lower voices, further complicate attempts to determine which of Praetorius’ cantus firmus
pieces might be viable options for accompanying congregational singing. Before looking
at these cantus firmus pieces, then, it will be helpful to consider closely the effects that
specific aspects of intricate counterpoint in lower voices would be likely to exert on lay
members of a congregation by examining such features in one of Praetorius’ more
complicated cantional settings that is clearly intended for congregational singing. To do

105
The issue becomes even more complicated when cantional settings by certain other composers, for
instance Johannes Eccard (many of whose settings are quite elaborate and far more complex than the
majority of Praetorius’ cantional settings), are taken into account. For more on this, see Chapter 3.

146
this, we will draw from one of the three volumes of Musae Sioniae dedicated primarily to
cantional settings.
Musae Sioniae, volume 6 includes arrangements of chorales for major church
festivals. Catechism chorales, chorales for communion, prayers and songs of praise
appear in volume 7. The hymns in volume 8 address various topics such as trust,
thanksgiving and death; the volume also includes songs for morning, evening and for the
home. Praetorius clearly stated that “the psalms and hymns [in these volumes] are set in
simple counterpoint so that the congregation can join in,” and, indeed, the overwhelming
majority of the pieces in these volumes are clearly appropriate for this purpose.
106

Nevertheless these volumes also include some pieces obviously not meant, or suitable,
for congregational participation. Most conspicuous among these are the four organ pieces
in volume 7 written idiomatically for that instrument.
107
Among the sorts of pieces for
purely choral performance, which could also precede choraliter or cantional-style verses
including the congregation, are those that are primarily imitative,
108
those that combine
imitative polyphony with some homophonic sections so that the congregation would be
unable to sing them,
109
those with text repetition in the melody voice,
110
and ones with

106
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum III, 219: “Im 6. 7. und 8. Theil sind die Psalmen und Lieder schlecht in
Contrapuncto simplici gesetzet / damit die Gemeine in der Kirchen mit einstimmen könne.” Translation
from Syntagma musicum III, trans. and ed. Kite-Powell, 206.

107
MSVII: 241-244.

108
E.g., MSVII: 212, a setting by Johann Walter with extensive imitation between voices.

109
E.g., MSVII: 232.

110
E.g., MSVII: 234. J. a Burck composed this setting.

147
the melody in the tenor voice.
111
Almost two thirds of such pieces were written not by
Praetorius, but by composers such as Johann Walter and Joachim a Burck.
112

In these volumes, some pieces apparently intended for congregational singing
exhibit especially active and syncopated lower voices, at least for cantional settings;
MSVIII: 119, a setting of Verleih uns Frieden gnädiglich, is one such piece. It is printed
between two other arrangements of the same chorale tune, both of which exhibit a similar
level of complexity to that of MSV: 153 and MSV: 63 and are thus clearly in cantional
style and useful to accompany congregational singing. Praetorius designates each setting
for use in a specific region—Meissen, the Marck and Prussia for no. 118, Swabia and
Franconia for no. 120, and the Maritime Cities for no. 119—implying that he intended
each one to fulfill the same function. From its context within the volume, then, it is
apparent that Praetorius thought MSVIII: 119, along with the other two versions of the
same chorale, appropriate for congregational singing. Yet the texture of this piece
deviates significantly from that of archetypal cantional style (see Example 2.6, below).
The pace of the top voice, almost exclusively whole notes in the modern edition, is
substantially slower than the pace of the bottom voices. The bass, with numerous half and
quarter notes, moves twice as fast as the soprano. The alto and tenor, though not as busy
as the bass, also move noticeably faster than the top voice. Such disparity in pace
between the melody and accompanying voices is atypical in a cantional setting.

111
E.g., MSVIII: 166, which is very similar in style to Praetorius’ more flowery cantional settings, except
that the melody is in the tenor voice.

112
Eleven such settings (not counting the organ pieces) are by Praetorius while nineteen are by other
composers.
148
Example 2.6. MSVIII: 119

More significantly, the lower voices consistently move between, and in syncopation with,
the top voice. These instances often coincide with non-alignment of text between the
soprano and one or more lower voices so that nearly half the syllables in the lower voices
fail to align vertically with the syllables in the soprano voice, and frequently the soprano
149
sings one word while at least one bottom voice sings another. In addition, the bass voice
repeats the words “denn du” in the final phrase two extra times. All of these features
obscure the rhythm and text of the chorale and therefore would tend to lead to confusion
for a congregation.
Certain aspects of these features, however, mollify their tendency to confuse,
making this setting, in spite of its relatively quick and intricate counterpoint, useable for
congregational singing. Firstly, while the text in one or two lower voices clashes with the
text in the soprano much of the time, simultaneously at least one of the lower voices
reinforces the soprano’s text. In addition, the lower voices sometimes line up with each
other against the soprano so that, although the text is not as clear as it could be, the
texture is less turbulent than if all the voices were entirely independent. Most
importantly, with the minor exception of the final syllable of the piece, which the lower
voices reach after the top voice, the text and notes line up in all voices at the beginning
and end of every phrase. As a result, the phrase structure remains very clear, helping the
congregation follow the progress of the chorale melody. Sustained notes at the ends of all
the phrases reinforce the phrase structure further.
113

To assess the suitability for congregational singing of relatively complicated
chorale arrangements, then, we will compare the frequency and strength of those factors

113
In the preface to Urania (p. XIV), Praetorius instructs music directors to “lengthen the beat for the final
and at the end of each verse, as well as each line, as is normal and comfortable for the congregation in the
church” (“Den TACT belangend; so muß man sich darinnen / wie auch im Final und außhalten eines jeden
Verses oder Gesetzes / ja auch einer jeden Reigen oder Zeilen / gantz und gar nach der Gemeine in der
Kirchen / und wie es doselbst gebreuchlich / bequemen”) in order to minimize confusion. This statement
confirms the importance of clear phrase divisions for successful congregational participation (since it is
only possible to lengthen the final beat of a phrase if all voices conclude the phrase together), and indicates
that a director should emphasize these divisions.
150
that obscure the chorale tune and text—notes and text in the bottom voices that fail to
align with the soprano and independence among lower voices—against the frequency and
strength of those factors that reinforce it—clear divisions between phrases and at least
one voice supporting the soprano as much as possible. These criteria can act as guidelines
in evaluating in an informed way Praetorius’ intended use for settings exhibiting some
features of cantional style but with a greater degree of complexity than the majority of his
cantional settings. Even so, the final determination will remain tentative for some,
because Praetorius did not provide definitive information regarding his intentions for
such pieces and it is not clear how much activity in accompanying voices congregations
could—or would—tolerate.
An especially interesting piece in this context is MSVII: 211, an adaptation of a
tenorlied setting of Allein auf Gottes Wort will ich by Johann Walter, which Praetorius
prints as MSVII: 212. As a Tenorlied, Walter’s setting certainly is intended for choral
performance only. The presence in the piece of multiple features not conducive to
successful congregational participation confirms this clearly—aside from the location of
the melody in the tenor voice the piece is constructed on points of imitation with
successive entrances in many of the phrases, there are only two clear phrase breaks in the
piece, it includes extensive text repetition in the soprano and alto, and the text is
staggered between voices throughout (see Example 2.7a).
151
Example 2.7a. MSVII: 212, phrase 1

Example 2.7b. MSVII: 211, phrase 1

152
The melody of Walter’s Tenorlied is atypical for a Lutheran chorale in that it is quite
melismatic: most phrases end with melismas of up to nine notes, and the final phrase has
three melismas. It seems likely that such a high concentration of florid passages could
cause difficulty for laypeople trying to sing together successfully.
Despite the complexity of the melody, many of the features of Praetorius’
adaptation are compatible with congregational singing (see Example 2.7b, above). Most
notably, Praetorius reorders the voices so that the melody is on top, such that the voicing
matches that used in cantional settings and the melody gains prominence. Praetorius
simplifies the texture from that used in Walter’s setting, significantly reducing the
number of notes in the accompanying voices that sound between the melody from about
27 per phrase to about 17 per phrase on average—still high for a Praetorius setting
intended for congregational singing, but perhaps within the range some congregations
could tolerate. In addition, he removes almost all text repetition so that the text in the
lower voices lines up with the text in the melody voice to a much greater degree than in
Walter’s setting. Indeed, while only about thirteen percent of syllables sung by
accompanying voices in Walter’s piece align with their counterparts in the melody voice,
almost two thirds do so in Praetorius’. Significantly, Praetorius sustains the final pitch in
all voices at the ends of phrases and further delineates separations between most phrases
with simultaneous rests in all parts. In addition, all voices begin each phrase together;
indeed the first two phrases begin homorhythmically (for four syllables) and the fourth
phrase is homorhythmic for the first five syllables. With these alterations, Praetorius
153
greatly increases the prominence and clarity of the melody, and accentuates the phrase
structure.
Although he simplifies the texture of Walter’s setting substantially, Praetorius
succeeds in retaining its imitative flavor in his own setting. He sprinkles brief instances
of imitation throughout his piece, relying more heavily on paraphrase in such passages
than does Walter, and removing conspicuous successive entrances in order to maintain a
suitable balance between polyphonic complexity and accessibility. By incorporating
contrapuntal passages, but confining them to the interior of individual phrases and
limiting their scope, Praetorius effectively combines elements of complex part writing
with an overriding structure borrowed from archetypal cantional settings.
Therefore, despite its relative complexity, this setting includes most of the
important elements of cantional style, and features the most prominent elements of
Verleih uns Frieden that make it usable for a congregation—clear phrase structure, at
least some homophony, and moderate support of the soprano’s text in lower voices.
Likely, the nature of the melody, and the remaining activity in lower voices could
confuse some congregations. Nevertheless, the specific alterations Praetorius made to
Walter’s setting indicate that he was adapting it specifically for the purpose of
congregational singing, while incorporating imitation and counterpoint to a much greater
degree than he generally allowed in his congregational pieces.
Similarly, although MSV: 125 (a five-voice setting of Christ lag in Todesbanden)
is more complex overall, its features also are comparable to those of the relevant version
of Verleih uns Frieden gnädiglich. The melody in the top voice is almost entirely in
154
whole notes while the lower voices sometimes move significantly faster, even faster than
those of Verleih uns Frieden. Within phrases, these voices sometimes are independent of
each other. Certain factors promote intelligibility of the top voice, however. For instance,
all voices begin phrases together, with the exception of two instances in which one voice
enters half a beat after the others. Additionally, all voices end phrases together on
sustained notes. Moreover, the text, and even many of the notes, of the bass voice move
in tandem with the soprano, and other voices support the soprano intermittently, as well.
Still, the relationship between the middle three voices is more intricate than in Verleih
uns Frieden, potentially causing difficulties for a congregation trying to sing along. The
combination of these elements suggests that many congregations could participate on a
performance of this setting, although perhaps some might find the piece too confusing to
do so successfully.
114

MSVI: 130 is an example of a setting that is more difficult to classify. The
especially active lower voices, combined with other relevant factors, create some
ambiguity as to the intended purpose for this piece, and whether it could be used to
accompany congregational singing successfully. It is in two sections, the first of which is
for three voices, and the second of which is labeled “Responsio a 4. Chorus.” This
designation reflects the trajectory of the text. The first half of each verse resembles the

114
MSV: 105, a setting of Christe, der du bist Tag und Licht, has similar features to those of MSV: 125,
although the joints between phrases are not always as clear. In particular, phrases two and three begin with
staggered entrances. The bottom voices also repeat small portions of text, especially in phrase 2. Some
features of the texture, then—namely the frequent syncopation between voices in the middle of phrases, the
staggered entrances to two phrases, and some text repetition—reduce the usefulness of this setting for
congregational singing while other features—vertical alignment of text at the beginnings and endings of
some phrases and the melody’s appropriation of the rhythm commonly used for this chorale—increase the
likelihood that a congregation could sing it.
155
manner of a sermon, using second- and third-person voices and the imperative mood
directed at believers. The second halves of the verses, however, corresponding to the
portion of the setting for four voices, use second-person voice and the imperative mood
directed toward God, and thus represent a response of those listening to the message of
the first half of each verse. A performance of this piece using a small group for the three-
voice section and a larger group, perhaps including the congregation, for the four-voice
section would conform to the structure of the text. Musical features also suit such a
performance option.
In both sections, a cantus firmus in the top voice proceeds almost exclusively in
whole notes, with counterpoint mostly in half and quarter notes underneath. In the three-
voice section, the text lines up vertically between all three voices at the beginning and
ending of phrases 1 and 2, and even lines up within much of phrase 1. However, at the
joints of the remaining three phrases, the text lines up only in two voices, not all three,
and on only one syllable during the entirety of these three phrases does the text line up in
all voices simultaneously. As a result, the text of the soprano voice and the beginnings
and endings of phrases are obscured somewhat. This feature—when considered in
combination with the number of voices, which is atypical for harmonized congregational
singing, and the structure of the text that favors a small group of singers for this section—
suggests that the most suitable performing forces for this section would be a group of
three soloists, or small rehearsed choir, without congregation.
The activity in the lower voices remains similar in the four-voice section. The
text, however, lines up vertically much more frequently, not only at the beginning of each
156
phrase, and the end of all phrases but the final two, but within phrases, as well. In
particular, the bass voice aligns with the soprano for most of this section. Even the inner
voices sometimes coordinate with the soprano within phrases, as well, a feature reflected
in the almost total lack of text repetition in these voices.
115
Such alignment of text would
aid a congregation in following and singing along successfully in this section. Indeed, the
four-voice portion of this setting resembles closely the characteristics of MSVIII: 119,
demonstrably intended for congregational singing. This supports the conclusion that
Praetorius intended for the congregation to sing along in this section. Perhaps the most
appropriate solution, considering the nature of the text and the music in each section,
would be for a small group of soloists to alternate by section with the full choir and
congregation. This would require the congregation to recognize when to sing and when to
be silent, a task evidently mastered by some more than others. In spite of certain concrete
difficulties, congregational participation throughout both sections might also be possible.
A four-voice arrangement of Nun bitten wir den heiligen Geist, MSV: 8, also
states the melody from beginning to end in the top voice. Yet, in this case the complexity
of its counterpoint and the degree to which this complexity conceals the melody likely
would prohibit members from most congregations from singing this piece and suggest
Praetorius probably did not intend this to accompany congregational singing. The
rhythmic and melodic profiles of the chorale tune in MSV: 8 closely resemble those
found in the cantional setting of the same chorale printed just before it. However, while

115
The tenor repeats two words in the final phrase.
157
anyone familiar with this chorale could sing the top voice by itself, lay people would
undoubtedly find it difficult to sing this same line along with the bottom voices.
Example 2.8. MSV: 8, mm. 1-7

Significantly, the setting does not begin with all voices singing together, but instead the
voices enter imitatively in succession from top to bottom. In addition, throughout the
setting notes in the lower voices generally move at a faster rate than, and sometimes in
syncopation with, notes in the top voice. This is the case not only in the middle of phrases
but at their endpoints, as well, causing the beginnings and endings of phrases to be
158
obscured. The text rarely lines up vertically in all, or even three or two voices; indeed, the
lower voices regularly repeat portions of text underneath one phrase in the top voice.
Because of these factors, this setting seems to be ill-suited to congregational singing (see
Example 2.8, above).
116
The question of how complex a setting can be and still allow for
congregational singing will return in the context of comparing Praetorius’ settings to
those of his contemporaries. For now, it is important to keep in mind that determining
precisely the number of Praetorius’ pieces suitable for, or even intended for,
congregational singing is a task accompanied by some uncertainty.
Complexity in inner voices is not the only factor that could cause confusion for
the congregation, of course; the treatment of the melody could also lead to confusion. For
instance, although the texture of MSV: 85, a five-voice version of Puer natus in
Bethlehem, is exemplary for congregational singing—it is homorhythmic for more than
half the setting and incorporates light decoration for the rest—the atypical presentation of
the melody makes this setting less than ideal for accompanying congregational singing.
Apart from two notes in the setting, the melody voice sounds not on top, but second from
the top, so that it is concealed by the higher voice above it. In addition, for the first two
phrases the chorale melody switches between the two soprano voices every few notes,
resulting in two soprano lines that must be combined in order to fully realize the melody

116
This setting is quite similar to some of the cantional settings by Johannes Eccard, intended by him for
congregational singing in Königsberg, suggesting that at least some congregations might be able to sing
this Praetorius setting, as well. Nevertheless, it is uncertain whether Praetorius himself envisioned
incorporating the congregation in this piece, considering his comments about ways to help the congregation
to participate and the texture of the majority of his cantional settings.
In MSV: 147, the chorale melody is in the top voice and treated like a cantus firmus. However,
this setting is even more complicated than MSV: 8, and therefore it is unlikely that Praetorius intended for
it to accompany congregational singing.

159
of this familiar chorale. This could very well make the melody even more difficult to
hear.

Pieces with contrasting sections
For a few of the pieces in MSV, Praetorius marks certain sections “sola voce,”
indicating reduced forces, while for the remaining portions of such pieces he includes
indications such as “chorus” or “Choro et Organo et Instrumentis,” suggesting the
director employ expanded forces in these sections. A passage in the preface to this
volume clarifies that “sola voce” refers to one or more singers, and that Praetorius intends
for the relevant pieces to incorporate full choir, instruments and organ on appropriate
passages, according to a director’s tastes.
117
Most of these pieces include at least some
sections in cantional style, suggesting the possible incorporation of congregational
singing. However, for laypeople to participate successfully in a piece of this type not only
must it include some material that they can sing, but the structural relationship between
those sections composed in a style conducive to congregational singing and any sections
with musical elements creating complications for such singing must cause as little

117
Praetorius, Musae Sioniae V, p. XI: “Im 33. 86. 91. 95. 96. 135. 159. und andern mehr / hat der Autor
darbey notiret daß etliche Verß / Sola voce, nur mit einer oder mehr Menschen Stimmen: etliche aber Pleno
Chor, Vocibus, Instrumentis & Organo mit vollem hauffen können musiciret werden. Doch hiermit
nimands vorgegriffen / denn es einer also / oder seinem eigenen gefallen nach anders und wie es im gut
deuchtet / kan anordnen: nachdem er mit Cantorn / Instrumentisten und Organisten versehen ist.” (“In 33,
86, 91, 95, 96, 135, 159 and others, the author notes that some verses can be performed sola voce, [that is]
with one or more men’s voices; some, however, [marked] Pleno choro, Vocibus, instrumentis & organo can
be performed with full forces. But not to preempt anyone, each can arrange these as seems good to him and
suits his desires, with singers, instrumentalists and organists.”) Given that some of the parts in the “sola
voce” passages are in a boy’s rather than a man’s vocal range, by Menschen Stimmen Praetorius must be
referring to human voices in general rather than adult male voices specifically. MSV: 91 does not include
any performing indications, at least in the Praetorius Gesamtausgabe, while MSV: 34, not mentioned
specifically in the relevant passage in the preface to MSV, does.
160
confusion as possible. The greater the musical and structural complexity, the less likely
the piece could be used successfully in the context of active congregational participation.
For instance, in MSV: 34, although the melody is stated from beginning to end in
the top voice, and some portions of this setting of Jesaiah dem Propheten are harmonized
simply, the placement and nature of the intervening sections could make active
participation difficult for the laity. There are sixteen phrases in the piece, seven of which
are in cantional style. The remaining phrases are marked “sola voce,” an indication that in
almost all cases coincides with compositional features—such as polyphonic vocal duets,
text repetition in non-melody voices, frequent non-alignment of text and disparity in pace
between the top voice and the accompanying material—suited to trained singers rather
than the congregation. The sections in cantional style alternate with the contrapuntal ones
in an irregular manner, so that it is unlikely that a congregation would be able to reliably
predict the location of the simple sections and sing along only in them. Because
complicating features are introduced gradually—the piece begins with a choraliter phrase
followed by one in three-voice homophony and two phrases in cantional style, all
preceding the first polyphonic vocal duet—it is conceivable that laypeople could sing the
melody from the beginning, and gain enough momentum before the introduction of
complex features to allow them to continue unfazed in singing the melody during the
subsequent polyphonic sections as well as the homophonic ones. But even though such a
performance might be possible, given the style and placement of the “sola voce” sections
it is likely that Praetorius envisioned a performance by trained singers only, with the
161
homophonic sections providing textural, timbral and dynamic contrast to the polyphonic
ones.
Conversely, neither the style nor structure of MSV: 96 would pose any difficulty
for congregational singing. The piece is comprised of two parts, the first of which
consists of a verse for three voices with six stanzas of text, labeled “sola voce,” and the
second of which is a five-voice refrain for full forces. Despite the use of only three
voices—an atypical number for cantional style—in the verse, and frequent crossing
between the soprano and alto voices in the refrain, the nearly homorhythmic texture and
catchy melody ensure that a congregation could sing along throughout without
difficulty.
118
Even a performance incorporating congregational singing only on the
choruses, in order to accentuate the contrast between reduced and expanded forces, would
be feasible, because the alternation between sections in this scenario is regular and
predictable.
Other pieces with indications for performing forces consist of multiple
arrangements of a single chorale melody, only some of which are suited to congregational

118
Performing this piece with congregation singing throughout would produce a similar result as the sixth
suggestion in Praetorius’ list of options in Urania for performing cantional settings, assuming he intended
that option to incorporate the congregation. In MSV: 96, however, the soloists and choir alternate not by
line, as in the suggestion in Urania, but by section, and the part for reduced forces is for three voices rather
than four.
MSV: 159 also incorporates the salient features of cantional style throughout. It uses an
interlocking chorale structure, alternating stanzas of one chorale (Als der gütige Gott) for reduced forces
with stanzas of the other (Gott, durch deine Güte) for expanded forces. Each of the six verses of Als der
gütige Gott, however, uses a different melody, so that a congregation would need to be familiar with all six
in order to sing along in them. In contrast, Praetorius uses the same melody for all verses of Gott, durch
deine Güte. Although, based solely on the style of the setting, the congregation could sing along in the
entire piece, given the six melodies used for Als der gütige Gott, it seems reasonable to conclude that the
congregation was not meant to sing along for these sections. Additionally, the interlocking structure
undoubtedly would cause confusion for congregations not used to singing these chorales in alternation.
Those that were could participate in singing the verses of Gott, durch deine Güte.
162
participation. For instance, MSV: 86 consists of five arrangements of Puer natus in
Bethlehem, three marked “solo voce” and two marked “chorus.” As with MSV: 34, in this
piece the “sola voce” sections incorporate features inconducive to successful
congregational participation—specifically, the first arrangement is a polyphonic duet and,
although the second and third arrangements are homophonic, the melody in them sounds
in the middle of the texture. In the “chorus” sections, however, not only is the texture
homophonic, but the melody also sounds on top. Praetorius assigns these sections to
verses four, five, nine and ten of the text. If the congregation knew to sing in these
sections, perhaps signaled by the entrance of additional singers and of instruments, they
could join in. The success of such a performance would depend on the attentiveness and
flexibility of the congregation, and the ability of the director to indicate to them when to
sing.
Similarly, the utility for congregational singing of MSV: 135 hinges on the ability
of a congregation to navigate its structure. Incorporating many of the features of MSV:
86, this piece includes an additional characteristic relevant to successful congregational
participation, namely the integration of two different, but compatible melodies (A and B)
within the same piece.
119
The setting, consisting of five arrangements for between two
and seven voices, is homophonic throughout, with melody A sounding on top for four of
the arrangements. However, in the remaining harmonization the melody, B in this case,

119
On page 64 of Urania, Praetorius states that it is uncertain which of the two, distinct melodies was
originally sung to this text. He suggests that, whichever one it was, a harmony part was added to it, creating
a duet. Eventually, the harmony part became separated from the original melody and became a new melody
for the chorale.

163
sounds in the middle of the texture, making it difficult for the congregation to hear what
they should sing, a situation exacerbated by the presence of two melodies in the piece.
Table 2.11. Structure of MSV: 135 (Erstanden ist der heilige Christ)

Verse Arrangement Melodies No. of
parts
Suggested forces Texture expedient for
congregational singing?
1 1 A 7 choir, organ,
instruments
yes
2 1 A 7 choir, organ,
instruments
yes
3 1 A 7 choir, organ,
instruments
yes
4 2 A 3 3 solo voices yes
5 3 A, B 2 2 solo voices maybe
120

6 3 A, B 2 2 solo voices maybe
7 4 A 4 4 solo voices yes
8 5 B 3 3 solo voices no
9 4 A 4 4 solo voices yes
10 5 B 3 3 solo voices no
11 4 A 4 4 solo voices yes
12 5 B 3 3 solo voices no
13 4 A 4 4 solo voices yes
14 5 B 3 3 solo voices no
15 4 A 4 4 solo voices yes
16 5 B 3 3 solo voices no
17 4 A 4 4 solo voices yes
18 1 A 7 choir, organ,
instruments
yes
19 1 A 7 choir, organ,
instruments
yes

120
In verses 5 and 6 of MSV: 135, Melody A is on top of a two-voice texture, and thus is only slightly
more prominent than Melody B. This might engender confusion as to which melody to sing, but since only
Melody A would have been sung up to this point, likely any congregation singing along would continue to
sing Melody A in these verses.
164
It is, therefore, questionable that lay church members would be expected to sing along in
the verses set to that musical arrangement.
121
The irregular alternation between the two
chorale melodies used, as well as the non-uniform alternation between verses that the
congregation easily could sing and those they likely would have trouble singing could
cause confusion for a congregation trying to participate in this piece (see Table 2.11,
above). Were laypeople able to overcome these obstacles, however, and join in at least in
those verses most friendly to congregational singing, the result would be an excellent
example of the combination of voices and instruments, choir and congregation, and
variety that Praetorius recognized as profitable in Lutheran worship.
122

Despite the ambiguity of purpose associated with some of Praetorius’ chorale
settings in volumes 5-8 of Musae Sioniae, the majority of these pieces are either clearly
not meant to accompany congregational singing—for instance, the contrapuntal
arrangements of Gelobet seist du detailed above—or unquestionably intended for this
purpose. However, because Praetorius’ intended function for those pieces combining
some of the salient features of cantional style with some elements of cantus firmus style
is debatable, the precise number of Praetorius’ published pieces considered to be in

121
Although it might raise difficulties for the congregation in following along, the use, and even
combination, of multiple melodies for the same chorale text would not necessarily cause insurmountable
confusion for the congregation. Significantly, in no. 15 of Urania, a three-choir version of Erstanden ist
der heilige Christ, Praetorius uses both melodies A and B of MSV: 135 as well as an alternate version of
melody B. He also combines melodies A and B in some of the verses. In most such verses melody A—
placed in the soprano of the highest choir, as well as in a lower range in the two other choirs—is the more
prominent of the two. In one instance, Melody B is on top of the texture, while Melody A sings in two
lower voices. Many verses of this piece use only one choir, and only one melody (A, B, or the alternate
version of B). Since this piece is intended for congregational singing, apparently Praetorius thought that at
least some congregations would be likely to know both melodies, would be able to switch between them,
and would be able to sing one while some choir members sang the other .

122
For an additional use for this piece, see Chapter 5 on troped Magnificats.

165
cantional style will differ slightly depending on how many of the borderline cases are
accepted. Regardless, Praetorius published around 757 such pieces. His collection of
cantional settings is more extensive than others published in the early seventeenth century
and includes a broader range of melodies. This large set of pieces is especially important
because of its wealth of hymn texts, some of which can only be found in these volumes,
and because Praetorius strove to incorporate in it chorale melodies as they were sung in
churches in various regions.
123
Therefore, given the significance of Praetorius’ Cantional,
as well as the overall quality of the pieces it contains, this collection of chorale settings
deserves close examination.

123
Blume, Protestant Church Music, 138-39. See also Chapter 4 of this dissertation.

166
Chapter 3: Characteristics of Michael Praetorius’ Cantional Settings

When studying cantional settings to understand their typical features, to
distinguish a particular composer’s style of writing, and to discover the noteworthy
features of collections of settings and of specific pieces, relevant areas to consider include
the characteristics of individual voices, the relationships between voices, texture,
harmony, incorporation of variety, and ways a composer might illuminate texts through
music. Focusing on such areas, the following discussion of Praetorius’ cantional settings
relies on the analysis of the 757 settings in his publications that either are clearly in
cantional style or belong to the group of borderline cases most likely to be useful for
congregational singing.
1
The discussion will depend especially upon the scrutiny of a
number of elements of 241 settings—nearly a third of the total—that form a
representative subgroup of the entire collection.
2

1
None of the following pieces printed in Musae Sioniae, volumes 5-8 are included in this total of
Praetorius’ cantional settings: pieces in cantional style that Praetorius attributes to other composers; pieces
with multiple arrangements of the same melody; pieces that incorporate both cantional style and
polyphonic sections; pieces in cantus firmus style that lack clear breaks between at least some phrases
(although some, such as MSV: 105 might still be useful for congregational singing); the Litanies at the end
of MSVIII (these will be discussed later along with Kleine und Grosse Litaney). On page 134 of volume 20
of the Praetorius Gesamtausgabe are two cantional settings attributed to Praetorius from manuscript (a
setting of Erstanden ist der heilige Christ) and print sources outside Praetorius’ published volumes (a
setting of Ich dank dir schon appears in two Cantionale printed after Praetorius’). Neither of these pieces
appears in Praetorius’ surviving printed works (see page XXXIX of volume 20 of the Praetorius
Gesamtausgabe). These pieces also are not included in the tally of Praetorius’ 757 published cantional
settings.

2
This group of 241 settings consists of pieces Praetorius mentions as good examples of the types of pieces
useful for congregational singing, pieces suitable to use in combination with complex settings in
Megalynodia and the three extant volumes of Polyhymnia, and pieces chosen more or less at random in
order to create a representative subgroup of the entire set of Praetorius’ cantional settings.

167
Range of voices and voice crossing
Of Praetorius’ 757 chorale settings in cantional style, 746 are for four voices.
3

Five settings incorporate an additional tenor voice
4
while the remaining six use varying
forces of between one and five voices for different phrases.
5
The typical soprano part in a
Praetorius cantional setting spans an octave, while the middle voices most often span just
under an octave and the bass voice usually spans at least a major ninth.

3
For a study of the basic elements of cantional settings written around the turn of the seventeenth century,
see Erich Wolf, Der vierstimmige homophone Satz: die stilistischen Merkmale des Kantionalsatzes
zwischen 1590 und 1630 (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1965). This study describes characteristics of
cantional settings composed in the first fifty or so years of the genre’s existence and relies on settings by
various composers, including Michael Praetorius, Hans Leo Hassler and Heinrich Schütz. The book
includes a basic description of fundamental rules of part writing (e.g., you should not use parallel fifths;
avoid having all voices move in the same direction at the same time; the distance between voices constantly
should be changing) as derived from such settings, as well as harmonic analysis, including a discussion of
typical chords found in harmonizations of melodies in different modes. Although Wolf writes that he
strives to analyze cantional settings harmonically within their historical context, approaching them as a
mixture of modal and tonal properties, the Kantionalsatz article in MGG characterizes Wolf’s approach as
anachronistic, relying too heavily on functional tonal theory.
The following discussion here necessarily will broach some topics similar to those in Wolf’s book,
but has a different emphasis. Instead of assessing cantional settings as a group, as Wolf does, this study will
analyze Praetorius’ settings as a distinct entity, looking for specific properties and tendencies amongst his
settings alone, and then compare them to settings by other composers. This will help us better understand
Praetorius’ compositional tendencies and place his pieces within the history of the composition of cantional
settings. In addition, I will focus more on the linear characteristics of Praetorius’ pieces than does Wolf,
and also relate them to the text when useful to do so. Further, my focus is on how Praetorius’ part writing
relates to the ability of the congregation to sing along, as well as its interest for the choir.

4
MSV: 13, 40, 44, 92, 125

5
MSV: 96 and MSVI: 45, 64, 65, 66, 77. These MSVI pieces all are settings of Christmas texts. Settings
that begin in unison for pragmatic reasons are considered to be for four voices in this discussion, and are
not included in the set of pieces with changing vocal forces.
168
Table 3.1. Size of vocal ranges within Praetorius’ cantional settings

Average span of all
analyzed settings
Widest span used in a
single setting
Narrowest span used
in a single setting
Soprano P8 P11 dim5
Alto > m7 P11 dim4
Tenor > M7 M10 dim5
Bass > M9 P12 M6

Table 3.2. Vocal ranges in Praetorius’ cantional settings

Range of notes most
commonly used
Inclusive range of all
analyzed settings
Span of inclusive
range

Soprano

P15

Alto

M14

Tenor

m14

Bass

P15

Voice crossing occurs in nearly half of Praetorius’ settings. Even so, voice
crossing is infrequent, since in the overwhelming majority of settings in which it does
occur, it occurs only once, or at most a few times over the course of the piece. It is rare
for there to be more than five instances of crossing between any two voices within a
single piece.
169

Though uncommon, crossing between the tenor and bass voices, so that the tenor
briefly assumes the role of the foundation of the sonority, does occur. Praetorius
sometimes uses this unconventional voicing to avoid parallel perfect intervals. For
instance, here the bass moves up by step to an E instead of down by step to a C, avoiding
parallel octaves with the alto and parallel fifths with the soprano, while the tenor leaps
below the bass to sing the root of the chord.
Example 3.1. MSVI: 76, phrase 1

Table 3.3. Number of instances of voice crossing per setting

Total settings counted = 240
Total instances of voice crossing = 369
No. of instances No. of settings % of settings counted
0 126 52.5%
1 55 22.9%
2 28 11.7%
3 15 6.25%
4 4 1.7%
5 3 1.25%
More than 5 9 3.75%
170
In the following passage, Praetorius allows the tenor to drop below the bass in order to
maintain a smooth bass line while including contrary motion in the tenor against the other
parts.
Example 3.2. MSVII: 2, end

Although the bass voice functions as the harmonic foundation as a rule, this function can
be transferred to the tenor in the interests of the melodic shape of individual lines.
6

6
The above instances of crossing between tenor and bass provide counterexamples to Wolf, Der
vierstimmige homophone Satz, 7: “Zwischen Bass und Tenor ist die Stimmkreuzung nicht möglich, da der
Bass als harmonisches Fundament grundsätzlich den tiefsten Ton des Satzes haben muss.” (“Crossing
between the bass and tenor voices is not possible, because the bass, as the harmonic foundation, must have
the lowest tone of the piece in principle.”) This type of voicing is not unique to Praetorius’ Cantional. For
instance, it occurs a few times in the Melodeyen Gesangbuch (e.g., in Mensch, willst du leben seliglich, in
which the bass and tenor swap notes to avoid parallel octaves with the soprano). Calvisius uses this
voicing, as well. See Kaern, “Die Harmonia Cantionum Ecclesiasticarum des Sethus Calvisius,” 62.
171
Table 3.4. Types of voice crossing, by percent

Total settings counted = 240
Total instances of voice crossing = 369
Interval Alto above
soprano
Tenor above
soprano
Tenor above
alto
Bass above
tenor
2nd 5.4% 0.27%
3rd 42.5% 0.54% 11.65% 1.9%
4th 20.3% 0.27% 12.7% 0.27%
5th 1.9% 0.27% 0.27%
6th 1.08% 0.27%
8ve 0 .27%

Total 71.5% 0.813% 25.2% 2.4%

Interestingly, considering the importance to successful congregational singing of
the melody voice’s sounding on top of the texture, it is most common for the alto to cross
above the soprano, usually by a third, although sometimes by a fourth, second or another
interval (see Table 3.4, above). But such crossing usually happens in isolation, or
involves a few successive chords in the middle or at the end of the setting, so that the
prominence of the melody is not challenged. In only ten pieces in Praetorius’ output of
cantional settings does the alto voice sound above the soprano during a significant
portion of the piece.
7
The text of nine of these settings revolves around the theme of
Christ’s birth, suggesting that Praetorius used unconventional voicing with a high alto
tessitura in these in order to produce a festive sound. Notably, two of the settings appear
nearly unchanged as tropes within the second Magnificat printed in Megalynodia.
8
Three

7
In MSV: 89 and MSVI: 12, 41, 54, 62, 67, 73, 76, 79 and 83 the alto sounds above the soprano for
between 30% and 73% of the setting. For an excerpt from MSVI: 76, see Example 3.1, above.

8
In fact, a conspicuous characteristic of most of the tropes in this Magnificat is that the melody frequently
sounds in the middle of the texture, and it is likely that Praetorius chose to use these settings as tropes
172
others are alternate settings of chorales that also appear in between verses of one of
Praetorius’ Magnificats with Christmas tropes.
Even in these pieces with extensive voice crossing, however, it is likely that a
congregation could sing along because, while one of the important features of cantional
settings accommodating congregational singing is neglected to a certain degree in them,
usually other features aiding the congregation are in full force. For instance, although the
soprano of En Trinitatis speculum (MSVI: 41) sounds below the alto for more than 70%
of the setting, it does sound on top throughout the first phrase, allowing the congregation
to hear and recognize the melody before voice crossing partially conceals it.
9
In addition,
confusion that might be caused by the voice crossing in this setting is countered by the
texture, which is purely homorhythmic apart from a 4-3 suspension, decorated with a
neighbor tone, at the very end of the piece. The square rhythm of the chorale, enhanced
by this simple texture and the clean breaks between phrases, would also aid the
congregation in singing along with this harmonization. Even when the alto sounds at the
top of the texture from the beginning of the setting, other mollifying factors would help
the congregation. In Herz Sinn und unser Gmüte (MSVI: 67), for example, the alto
sounds above the soprano for almost half of the piece’s duration, beginning on the second
note of the piece. In this case, the congregation would not have the opportunity to hear
the melody clearly before the alto partially covers it up. Nevertheless, the particular

partially because of their large amounts of voice crossing. Alternatively, he may have written these to be
used as Magnificat tropes, and then printed them in Musae Sioniae before publishing them in Megalynodia.
See Chapter 5 for a discussion of Praetorius’ troped Magnificat settings.

9
This setting, transposed down a fifth, is used nearly verbatim as a trope in Magnificat 2 of Megalynodia.
173
tunefulness of the melody, the uncluttered texture and the clear phrase structure would
aid the congregation to sing even in this setting.
Example 3.3. MSVI: 67, phrases 1-4

Texture
In terms of simply supporting and assisting congregational singing by reinforcing
the melody line, certainly the ideal texture for a cantional setting would be pure
homorhythm throughout. Yet, activity and syncopation in lower voices provide relief
from the rhythmic predictability of purely chordal movement, create excitement, promote
the formation of pleasing contours in accompanying lines, and can produce interesting
musical relationships between voices. For these reasons, the farther the texture moves
away from strict homorhythm, the greater is the possibility for artistic substance and
depth, but also the possibility for confusion in the congregation. A composer of a
cantional setting must decide the best balance between these opposing forces of artistry
and accessibility.
174
Within a given volume of cantional settings printed around 1600, usually most or
all of the major types of rhythmic and melodic decorations used in modern part writing
appear in the lower voices,
10
and sometimes form part of the melody line in the soprano
voice, as a perusal of cantional settings by various composers from the late sixteenth and
early seventeenth centuries confirms.
11
Naturally, different composers tend to emphasize
certain figures and decorations more than others. For instance, the composers of the
Melodeyen Gesangbuch are especially fond of harmonic suspensions, using them in
nearly four-fifths of their settings, more frequently than they use other types of
decorations.
12
Praetorius’ own propensities in his use of decorations in the lower voices
correlate to increased sophistication in part writing, to be examined presently.
The types of elaborations in lower voices can be separated into two basic
categories, namely notes in syncopation with the melody voice, and ones sounding
between two notes that line up with the beginnings of successive melody notes. In the
first category, along with traditional suspensions (sus) and anticipations are what might
be called rhythmic suspensions (RS) and rhythmic anticipations (RA): specifically, notes
in syncopation with the soprano voice, but without the move from dissonance to
consonance accompanying harmonic suspensions. The second category consists of

10
Harmonic anticipations are an exception, as they occur infrequently in cantional settings, at least of many
composers.

11
For example, the settings in the Melodeyen Gesangbuch and in the complete published collections of
Osiander, Mareschall and Hassler, and various selections by Calvisius, Demantius, Raselius and Vulpius.
See also Wolf, Der vierstimmige homophone Satz, chapter 4.

12
They use passing tones in about half of their settings, although when passing tones do appear, many can
occur in succession so that the total number of passing tones used in the entire collection is actually greater
than the number of suspensions. They use other types of decorations in fewer settings.
175
passing tones, neighbor tones, and any other extra tones—such as escape tones and other
notes approached or succeeded by leap—sounding between melody notes.

Category 1: Notes in syncopation with the soprano
In Praetorius’ settings, the tenor voice sings the most notes out of alignment with
the melody, followed by the alto, and then the bass. In particular, the middle voices
include far more notes in syncopation with the melody than does the bass voice. Because
the bass almost always moves with the soprano to its next pitch, it reinforces the melody,
increasing its clarity for the congregation.
Table 3.5. Approximate number of notes in syncopation with
the melody, by voice

sus RS RA Total Percent of
total in all
voices
Alto 105 176 99 380 44%
Tenor 148 166 106 420 48%
Bass 3 20 46

69 8%

Although anticipations seldom occur in Praetorius’ cantional settings, suspensions
are very common. They appear most frequently in the inner voices, especially the tenor,
in which almost half of them occur. Suspensions in the bass are very rare. The melody
voice can also participate in a suspension, although, of course, in this case, the
congregation sings the syncopated voice against straighter rhythm in one or more of the
lower voices. The 4-3 suspension is by far the most common type in Praetorius’ cantional
settings; in terms of harmony, the 2-1 or 9-8 suspension is also quite common, although
176
usually this harmonic motion occurs in an inverted triad, so that the resulting intervals
over the bass are either 7-6 or 5-4. Other types, such as the 6-5 suspension, are relatively
rare (see Table 3.6, below). Naturally, since suspensions are a means of creating a
cadence, the vast majority of suspensions occur at the ends of phrases, in particular the
final phrase of the piece. Nevertheless, they also appear not infrequently at the middle of
phrases, and even near the beginning of phrases.
Table 3.6. Types of suspensions in Praetorius’ cantional settings

4 - 3 7 - 6 5 - 4 9 - 8 (2 - 1) Other Total

Soprano 14.38% .64% .96% 1.28% .96% 18.21%
Alto 24.92% 4.15% 1.6 % 1.92% 1.28% 33.87%
Tenor 34.19% 7.99% 4.15% .64% 46.96%
Bass

.96%

.96%

Total 74.44% 12.78% 6.71% 3.19% 2.88%

Most of Praetorius’ suspensions appear in isolation, although successions of two
or three in a row (in particular, 7-6—4-3 and 5-4-3 successions) do occur. In addition to
setting up a cadence, Praetorius sometimes uses suspensions to express a concept within
the text of the chorale. For instance, in Example 3.4 (below) the harmonic tension within
the chain of suspensions correlates to the words “bitter Leiden” (bitter suffering). In this
case, the chain includes a 2-1 suspension, creating a pungent half step between the
soprano and alto, which, although it sounds only briefly, effectively illustrates the text.
13

13
Similarly, in MSVIII: 177, Praetorius again uses a 2-1 suspension, with a half step between soprano and
alto, this time to harmonize the word “Marter.”
177
Example 3.4. MSVIII: 176, phrase 5

Rhythmic suspensions and Rhythmic anticipations
Table 3.7. Frequency of rhythmic suspensions, by voice

No. of settings (out of 240) % of settings % of all rhythmic
suspensions
Alto 113 47% 48.6%
Tenor 99 41% 46 %
Bass 14 6%

5.5%

Table 3.8. Frequency of rhythmic anticipations, by voice

No. of settings (out of 240) % of settings % of all rhythmic
anticipations
Alto 67 28% 39%
Tenor 73 30% 42%
Bass 28 12%

18%

178
Often, a harmonic suspension is prepared by a rhythmic anticipation. In addition
to this function for syncopated chord tones, Praetorius—along with other composers of
cantional settings—often utilizes rhythmic anticipations and rhythmic suspensions to
avoid breaking basic part-writing rules, specifically the rules prohibiting parallel perfect
intervals between two voices.
14
By staggering the movement of one or more of the lower
voices, he can adopt voice leading that technically breaks no rules, but would be replete
with parallel perfect intervals if the staggering of voices were removed.
Example 3.5. Rhythmic anticipations and suspensions used for avoiding
parallel perfect intervals

Interestingly, although Praetorius frequently uses rhythmic tricks or inserts additional
tones in order to avoid incorrect voice leading, in a few instances parallel fifths do sneak
through.
15

14
See also Wolf, Der vierstimmige homophone Satz, 10-11, which discusses this topic in the context of
cantional settings by multiple composers.

15
Parallel fifths occur in Calvisius’ Cantional, as well. See Kaern, “Die Harmonia Cantionum
Ecclesiasticarum des Sethus Calvisius,” 64.
179
Example 3.6. Parallel perfect intervals

With rhythmic anticipations and rhythmic suspensions, a voice may re-articulate a
single note, or leap from one chord tone to another. Although the result lacks the
harmonic tension and release of traditional suspensions and anticipations, such
syncopated notes do contribute rhythmic excitement to a setting.
Example 3.7. MSVII: 13, phrase 2 (excerpt)

180
As the above comparison of two versions of an excerpt from a Praetorius setting—one
with straight rhythm, and the other as printed in Praetorius’ Cantional—demonstrates,
Praetorius’ use of rhythmic suspensions can be extremely effective in enlivening a
section otherwise written using strictly chordal movement (see Example 3.7). In the
following example, the combination of all three types of syncopated tones produces not
only correct voice leading and rhythmic excitement, but also a rich web of rapidly
changing harmony.
Example 3.8. MSVIII: 125, phrase 2

Category 2: Notes added between successive melody notes

Although the bass voice does sometimes move in syncopation with the soprano, it
most typically moves in conjunction with the melody. However, it is quite common for
the bass voice to sing extra notes—whether passing tones, neighbor tones, or notes
181
preceded or succeeded (or both) by a leap—between those notes in line with the melody
voice. Such added tones are also very common in the alto and tenor voices.
Table 3.9. Approximate number of added notes, by voice

Passing
tones
Neighbor
tones
Other Total Percent of
total
Alto 217 87 220 524 30%
Tenor 341 94 247 682 39%
Bass 316 20 200

536 31%

As with rhythmic suspensions and anticipations, some of the notes added in the
lower voices between successive melody notes not only serve to provide momentum, but
also to avoid parallel perfect intervals.
16

Example 3.9. Intermediate notes used for avoiding parallel perfect intervals

16
For an examination of Calvisius’ discussion of avoiding parallel perfect intervals with the aid of passing
and neighbor tones, see Benito V. Rivera, “Zarlino’s Approach to Counterpoint Modified and Transmitted
by Seth Calvisius,” Theoria: Historical Aspects of Music Theory 4 (1989): 1-9. Calvisius indicated the use
of passing and neighbor tones to avoid parallel perfect intervals to be a legitimate procedure. Zarlino,
however, upon whose writings Calvisius based his discussion, actually advised composers to avoid this
procedure, or if using it proves absolutely necessary, to do so sparingly.
182
Excerpts c and d of Example 3.9 demonstrate another function of auxiliary notes:
accelerating the harmonic rhythm in a phrase by inserting a new triad—often in the first
inversion—between two melody notes. Added triads, of course, not only arise as
byproducts of proper voice leading, but also for their own sake. For instance, in Example
3.10a a purely decorative neighbor tone, one whose presence is unnecessary to produce
proper voice leading, creates an extra triad.
Example 3.10. Additional functions of neighbor tones and passing tones

Similarly, a passing tone can create an intermediary triad while filling in the leap of a
third (see Example 3.10b). Praetorius often uses passing tones as a means to resolve an
inner voice correctly while still maintaining a complete triad at the end of a phrase (see
Example 3.10c).
Some pieces within Praetorius’ Cantional demonstrate not only his attention to
maintaining proper voice leading and creating harmonic interest, but also his use of
minute details of the individual vocal lines to express the text. For instance, in the
183
opening phrase of MSVIII: 158 extra tones used to decorate the basic outline of the tenor
voice—tones needed for the sake of proper voice leading—result in a fleeting change in
harmony; but they do more than that. The quicker pace and jaunty rhythm coinciding
with the word Freud subtly, but effectively, illustrate an important idea for Lutherans that
is emphasized within the chorale as a whole: for Christian believers death should be
approached not only with a sense of peace, but even with joy.
Example 3.11. MSVIII: 158, phrase 1

Table 3.10. Frequency of neighbor tones, by voice

No. of settings (out of 240) % of settings % of all neighbor tones
Alto 63 26% 43%
Tenor 70 29% 47%
Bass 17 7%

10%

184
Of the types of added tones, neighbor tones are the least common and least likely
to appear in the bass voice (see Table 3.10, above). Many neighbor tones decorate the
resolution of a suspension; about ten percent of them are used for this purpose. Added
tones occurring before or after a leap, or between two leaps, are much more prevalent,
and occur at a similar rate in all lower voices.
Table 3.11. Frequency of other extra tones, by voice

No. of settings (out of 240) % of settings % of all extra tones
Alto 124 52% 33%
Tenor 133 55% 37%
Bass 87 36%

30%

Table 3.12. Comparison of occurrence frequency of types of decoration notes

Type of
decoration
No. of settings
in which it
occurs
(out of 240)
% of settings
in which it
occurs
No. of
times it
occurs
17

Average
occurrences per
100 phrases
(1527 phrases total)
Passing tone 180 75% 874 57.23
Other extra tone 168 70% 667 43.68
Rhythmic
suspension
142 59% 362 23.71
Suspension
18
147 61% 316 20.69
Rhythmic
anticipation
111 46% 251 16.44
Neighbor tone 104 43% 201 13.16

Of course, in addition to other functions, passing tones, along with neighbor
tones, promote smooth voice leading. By using passing tones most frequently and most

17
Due to the large number of settings counted, these numbers may not be absolutely precise, but should be
considered as very close approximations.

18
Does not include suspensions in the soprano voice.
185
pervasively of all types of decoration notes, Praetorius increases the stepwise movement
in his settings (see Table 3.12, above). In addition to passing tones in lower voices, in
approximately 15% of Praetorius’ settings the soprano voice sings at least one passing
tone against sustained tones in the other voices. Non-harmonic passing tones comprise
about two-thirds of the total number of these types of notes. The rest of them result in a
new inversion of a chord, add a seventh, or create a new chord altogether, as mentioned
above. Significantly, passing tones appear routinely in the bass voice, much more
frequently than any other type of decoration does, and counterbalance the leaps of fourths
and fifths that usually characterize that voice.
Table 3.13. Frequency of passing tones, by voice

No. of settings (out of 240) % of settings % of all passing tones
Alto 105 44% 25%
Tenor 140 58% 39%
Bass 103 43%

36%

Praetorius sometimes uses passing tones to create especially interesting linear
countermelodies in lower voices. In the following excerpt, for example, passing tones
contribute to the formation of a smooth, rhythmically vibrant bass line and conjunct inner
voices. Together with the soprano, they create a string of rapidly changing triads and
seventh chords. A brief instance of imitation between the bass and alto voices also occurs
in this phrase.

186
Example 3.12. MSVII: 95, phrase 2

All of these types of decoration tones can produce non-aligned text between at
least one lower voice and the soprano, usually for one or two syllables. In addition, one
voice sustaining a single note against two or more notes in the soprano can lead to non-
aligned text, depending on the nature of the text setting. Lengthy sections of non-aligned
text, especially ones in which more than one lower voice is out of phase with the soprano,
resulting in unclear words and a sense of verbal clutter, are uncommon within Praetorius’
generally chordal chorale settings with the melody on top.

The range of textures in Praetorius’ cantional settings
Praetorius’ 757 cantional settings exhibit various amounts of activity in lower
voices. The textures in these settings range from the pure homorhythm ideal for the
congregation to relatively complicated counterpoint that allows for increased possibilities
for intricate relationships between voices and interesting individual vocal lines. The
187
following division of the settings into three basic groups, combined with a further
description of the types of settings within these basic groups, demonstrates the variety of
textures among them and clarifies the relative frequency of each general type:
Table 3.14. Basic types of textures within Praetorius’ cantional settings

Group General description Total
(out of 757)
% of all cantional
settings

1
In these settings, at least half of the phrases
exhibit strictly chordal movement. Some of
them include only one or two decorations,
and some of them are purely homorhythmic.

203

27%

2
In these settings there is a general sense of
homophony, but also some activity and
decoration in lower voices that breaks up the
monotony of strictly chordal movement. In
most of these settings, the majority of the
movement is strictly chordal. Nevertheless,
in the majority of the individual phrases in
each setting at least one lower voice moves
out of conjunction with the melody at least
once. In some of the settings in this group
slightly less than 50% of movement is
strictly chordal.

508

67%

3

In these settings strictly chordal movement is
infrequent. In many of them there are
numerous decorations per phrase. In others,
some of the phrases are permeated by dec–
oration and some of the phrases are much
more strictly chordal. These range from
settings that are certainly homophonic but
with frequent ornaments to settings in which
at least one bottom voice is out of alignment
with the soprano voice on most notes.

46

6%

Just over a quarter of the settings utilize, or approach very closely the ideal
texture for encouraging congregational singing.
188
Table 3.15. Breakdown of Group 1 Settings

Subgroup General description Total % of
Group
% of all cantional
settings

1.1
Purely
homorhythmic
These settings exhibit chordal
movement throughout. That is, there
are no decorations whatsoever or
even instances of one voice sus–
taining a pitch while the others
move.

21

10.34%

2.77%

1.2
Almost purely
homorhythmic
These settings include one or two,
or if the setting is quite long per–
haps a few, instances of lower
voices moving between melody
notes. Alternatively, there might be
one or a few instances of a lower
voice holding a note against move–
ment in the soprano. Nevertheless,
they are overwhelmingly
homorhythmic.

65

32.02%

8.59%

1.3
Mostly purely
homorhythmic
In these settings, the majority of
phrases are purely homorhythmic
and the other phrases exhibit few
decoration tones. If the phrases are
even in number, at least half of the
phrases are purely homorhythmic
and the others have at most a few
decoration notes. In general, there is
some rhythmic variety to break up
the monotony, but only in some of
the phrases.

117

57.64%

15.46%

By far the most common type of cantional setting in Praetorius’ output is one in
which strictly chordal movement prevails but increased activity in the lower voices
contrary to the progress of the soprano voice provides greater opportunity for rhythmic
excitement, independence of motion in the lower voices, and even text painting.
189
Table 3.16. Breakdown of Group 2 Settings

Subgroup General description Total % of
Group
% of all cantional
settings

2.1
Mostly
homorhythmic
Most of the phrases include at least
one decoration, and some include
quite a few more. In these settings,
all three lower voices move with the
soprano more than half the time at
the very least, and often on more
than three quarters of the notes.
Although these pieces are clearly
homophonic, some rhythmic vari–
ety in the lower voices breaks up the
monotony of strictly chordal
movement.

403

79.3%

53.24%

2.2
Quite
homorhythmic
The harmonization moves with the
melody on approximately 50% of its
notes, while the text in the lower
voices lines up with the text in the
melody most of the time. Although
these still exhibit a clear sense of
homophony, there are quite a few
decorations in the lower voices
throughout these settings.

105

20.7%

13.87%

The following version of Ach wie elend ist unser Zeit is representative of the
“mostly homorhythmic” type of setting abundant in Praetorius’ output. Various sorts of
decorations appear in the lower voices. The recurrence of a short three-note scalar
motive—once in the alto and twice in the bass in descending motion, and an additional
time in the bass in ascending motion—is conspicuous in this piece. As with some other
instances of motivic manipulation in Praetorius’ settings to be discussed presently,
although motives similar to this are commonplace in cantional settings, its appearance
190
four times within the limited scope of five homophonic phrases provides some coherence
to the lower voices, and suggests intentionality on Praetorius’ part.
Example 3.13. MSVIII: 180

Praetorius composed three cantional settings of Ein feste Burg. The first of these,
MSVIII: 99, is among the more complex of the Group 2 settings, and in the top 20% of
complexity of Praetorius’ settings overall. While the texture of some of the phrases,
notably 1, 2 and 6, would not be out of place even in Osiander’s Cantional, in other
191
phrases, especially the last, little or no strict homorhythm is present. The other two
harmonizations of Ein feste Burg belong in the third group.
Table 3.17. Breakdown of Group 3 settings

Subgroup General description Total % of
Group
% of all cantional
settings

3.1
Fairly
homorhythmic
These settings either alternate be–
tween strictly chordal sections and
ones with busy lower voices, or are
characterized by syncopation and
decoration in the lower voices
throughout. In these, at least one
lower voice is out of alignment with
the melody during many of the so–
prano’s notes.

31

67.39%

4.10%

3.2
Somewhat
contrapuntal
In these settings, the lower voices
demonstrate significant independ–
ence from the soprano voice; strictly
chordal movement is rare. Synco–
pation with the soprano voice is
common, as are added tones be–
tween melody notes. In these, it is
not uncommon for the text of at least
one lower voice to be out of align–
ment with the soprano’s text for an
entire phrase.

15

32.61%

1.98%

In MSVIII: 101, though it is by no means the most ornate of the Group 3 settings, nearly
a quarter of the syllables sung by the lower voices are out of alignment with the soprano’s
text. With even more intricate relationships between voices, the version of Ein feste Burg
Praetorius composed for the regions of Meissen, the Mark, Thuringia and the maritime
cities (MSVIII: 100) is among his most complicated settings clearly intended for
accompanying congregational singing. On average, ten notes per phrase occur between
192
notes of the melody, and more than a third of the syllables in the lower voices conflict
with the text of the soprano.
Example 3.14. MSVIII: 100

193
Clusters of passing tones in the bass voice promote smooth voice leading and fill in leaps
of a fifth, forming a recurring melodic motive that appears in the bass and tenor voices in
the final phrase, briefly creating imitation at the fifth.

In general, then, the lower voices
exhibit a much greater sense of rhythmic independence from the melody than in most of
Praetorius’ cantional settings. Yet, the phrase structure remains clear, with all voices
beginning and ending each phrase together.
Table 3.18. Comparison of textures in Michael Praetorius’ Cantional and
Cantionale composed by his contemporaries

Total number Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
MPC 757 27% 67% 6%

Melodeyen
Gesangbuch
19

89 34.8% 62.9% 2.3%
Hassler
20
68 27.9% 70.6% 1.5%
Mareschall
21
89 38% 62% 0
Osiander
22
50 54% 46% 0

Most other Cantionale printed between 1586 and the mid-1620s include similar
sorts of textures as those found in Praetorius’ pieces. While some of the collections, such

19
In what follows, analysis of the Melodeyen Gesangbuch is based on the modern edition edited by Klaus
Ladda and Klaus Beckmann (Singen: Bodensee-Musikversand, 1995).

20
In what follows, analysis of Hassler’s Cantional is based on the Critical Edition of Hassler’s works:
Kirchengesäng: Psalmen und geistliche Lieder, ed. C. Russell Crosby Jr., Hans Leo Hassler: Sämtliche
Werke, vol. 8 (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1966).

21
In what follows, analysis of Mareschall’s Cantional is based on the transcription of this publication in
William Raymond Kendall, “Samuel Mareschall, His Life and Works (1554-1640)” (PhD diss., Cornell
University, 1940). For additional discussion of Mareschall’s use of cantional style in Basel, see Kenneth H.
Marcus, “Hymnody and Hymnals in Basel, 1526-1606,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 32, no. 3 (Fall
2001): 723-41.

22
In what follows, analysis of Osiander’s Cantional is based on the transcription of this publication in
Schuler, “Lucas Osiander,” 122-82. Osiander’s settings are even less complex than Table 3.18 might imply,
as his “Group 2” settings tend toward the simpler end of that group.
194
as those by Osiander and Mareschall, contain only settings at the simpler end of the
spectrum, a host of others, including the Melodeyen Gesangbuch and the collection by
Hassler, incorporate a range of settings similarly diverse to Praetorius’ (see Table 3.18,
above). Although the Hamburg organists and Hassler place less emphasis than Michael
Praetorius on the most contrapuntal types of setting, the difference in emphasis is not
stark, and the variety of styles is similar in all of their collections. In addition, other
important Cantionale—those by Vulpius, Gesius and Jeep among them—also exhibit a
spectrum in the complexity of the textures used.
23

At least one composer of cantional settings intended for congregational singing,
however, used a different approach than the one exhibited in the majority of collections
of such pieces. In 1597, Johannes Eccard, Vice-Kapellmeister in Königsberg, published
fifty-four chorale settings in which the melody is stated from beginning to end in the top
voice.
24
These pieces are for five voices, and appeared in two volumes. Only a few of
them are largely homorhythmic in nature, or even exhibit a clear sense of homophony
throughout the entire setting; indeed, out of the twenty-three pieces in Eccard’s first
volume, only seven of them exhibit a texture comparable to the texture in any of
Praetorius’ cantional settings.

23
However, further analysis of the complete Cantionale of these and other composers would be required to
establish the exact prevalence of different textures in these other collections, such that Praetorius’
collection could be compared precisely to all of them to give a more complete picture of his use of textures
in his cantional settings in relation to others’.

24
For more information on Eccard’s Cantional, see Christine Böcker, Johannes Eccard: Leben und Werk
(Munich: Musikverlag Katzbichler, 1980), 108-60. For modern editions of these pieces, see Johannes
Eccard, Geistliche Lieder zu fünf Stimmen, ed. Friedrich von Baußnern (Wolfenbüttel: Möseler Verlag,
1963) and Friedrich Riegel and Ludwig Schöberlein, eds., Schatz des liturgischen Chor- und
Gemeindegesanges, nebst den Altarweisen in der deutschen evangelischen Kirche, 3 vols. (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1865–72).
195
Table 3.19. Types of settings in Eccard’s Cantional, volume 1

Basic texture No. of
Volume 1
Eccard
settings
% of
Volume 1
Eccard
settings
No. of notes per phrase
in lower voices out of
alignment with the
melody
% of syllables
sounding with
the soprano
Comparable to
which type of
MPC cantional
settings?
Almost purely
homorhythmic
1 4.3% 0.5 > 99% Group 1
homophonic 6 26% 7-10
25
54%-81% Group 3
Mostly
contrapuntal
4 17.39% 8-14 42%-54% N/A
Fully
contrapuntal
12 52.17% 11-33 6.8%-38% N/A

In a few of the remaining settings, short sections that are generally homophonic in
nature appear, either at the beginning or interspersed throughout the piece. But even in
these the bottom four voices exhibit greater independence from the melody line than do
Praetorius’ bottom voices, or the lower voices in most cantional settings from the same
period, for that matter (see Example 3.15, below).
26
The independence is even more
pronounced in about half of Eccard’s settings. Throughout a given phrase, many notes in
these voices fail to align with the melody, and they tend to move at a faster pace than the
top voice. In addition, the text in the bottom voices often is out of alignment with the text
in the soprano; sometimes all five voices sing different syllables, even different words, at
the same time. Repeated text in lower voices is common in these settings. Frequently
beginnings and endings of phrases are staggered between voices so that no clear breaks

25
One of the settings in this category, Resonet in laudibus, is an exception. On average, almost nineteen
notes per phrase in lower voices are out of alignment with the soprano in this piece. Nevertheless, because
most voices are in alignment with the soprano at the beginnings and endings of phrases, this pieces is more
similar to one of Praetorius’ complex cantional setting than it is to one of Eccard’s complex ones.

26
Transcribed from Friedrich von Baußnern’s edition, vol. 1, pp. 16-17.
196
between phrases are evident. Imitation, usually fragmentary, but sometimes more
extensive, appears commonly in these.
Example 3.15. Eccard’s cantional setting of Von Himmel hoch

197
Among the most intricate of the settings in the first volume of Eccard’s collection,
Christum wir sollen loben schon possesses all of these features in abundance.
27

Example 3.16. Eccard’s cantional setting of Christum wir sollen loben schon,
phrases 1-2

27
Transcribed from Friedrich von Baußnern’s edition, vol. 1, pp. 10-11. Böcker, Johannes Eccard, 116-19
discusses Wir glauben all (vol. 2, no. 3), which incorporates free imitation throughout. Given the
restrictions even in Eccard’s broad concept of a cantional setting, such extensive imitation does not appear
frequently in these works.

198
The texture in the majority of Eccard’s cantional settings, then, diverges markedly
from the textures in Praetorius’ Cantional, and those of other composers of the time—
despite the range of possible textures in these Cantionale. Of Praetorius’ chorale settings
with the melody on top, only those few in MSV in which the top voice moves in slow
note values and the bottom ones move more quickly are really comparable to the most
common type in Eccard’s collection.
28
However, as argued above, given the context in
which such settings are printed, it is not altogether clear that Praetorius intended all of
them to accompany a lay congregation, although this conclusion is not definitive. Even if
these few, exceptionally complex settings were meant for congregational participation,
Eccard’s cantional settings as a whole are far more complex, with a texture far more
intricate than Praetorius’ settings for accompanying congregational singing as a whole,
and at least the majority of other cantional settings written at the same time.
Quite obviously, a congregation would find it more difficult to sing along with the
intricate and relatively chaotic texture of Eccard’s pieces than the transparent, simple,
straightforward cantional style Praetorius adopted from Osiander. Beginning
homophonically, as a total of twenty of Eccard’s settings do, would aid the congregation
somewhat, as it would give them a chance to hear the melody clearly before the
contrapuntal texture disguises it.
29
Even so, for much of the piece, the melody, text and
phrase-structure—all elements highlighted clearly in Praetorius’ pieces—are
camouflaged within intricately interwoven lines, creating a significant challenge for the

28
E.g., MSV: 105, MSV: 8. Joints between phrases are obscured in these, making them similar in style to
Eccard’s common type.

29
Böcker, Johannes Eccard, 115.
199
congregation. Of course, this challenge would only increase for the nearly two thirds of
Eccard’s cantional-style pieces with staggered or imitative entrances.
Nevertheless, Eccard explicitly states that these are intended to accompany
congregational singing. I have not encountered any evidence regarding how much
success Eccard might have had in using these pieces to accompany his congregation in
Königsberg, but we can deduce what his experience might have been. Presumably, before
publishing the settings he would have tried at least some of them in worship services to
ascertain their practicality for accompanying congregational singing, and it is improbable
that he would have published them in their final form if the congregation had responded
to these with dazed confusion rather than spirited enthusiasm. Because of this, we can
assume that the congregation could follow the chorale in these, despite the barrage of
activity underneath, and sing along. Therefore, it seems likely that Eccard’s style, though
considerably more complicated than that used by most composers of cantional settings,
was effective, at least for the presumably relatively educated congregation in Königsberg,
accompanied by a skilled choir, and with Eccard at hand to instruct the choir how to
balance the various lines so that the melody would remain prominent against the complex
writing underneath.
The question remains as to what Praetorius’ opinion was of the usefulness of
pieces of this type for accompanying congregational singing. At least at first glance, the
list Praetorius gives in Urania of prominent composers of cantional settings supports the
idea that he also thought these specific pieces were appropriate in the context of
congregational participation. One of the main subjects covered in the lengthy preface to
200
Urania is the creation of polychoral cantional settings. Although Urania itself includes
composed versions of such pieces, in the preface Praetorius discusses various ways of
converting a simple cantional setting into a more elaborate, polychoral work. He suggests
beginning with a chorale, harmonized in “contrapuncto simplici,” that presents the
chorale melody as customarily sung in one’s particular church. Praetorius includes a list
of composers whose chorale settings would be useful for this purpose in various regions.
Composers of cantional settings similar in style to Praetorius’, such as Melchior Vulpius,
Hieronymus Praetorius, Hans Leo Hassler, and Samuel Mareschall appear on the list.
That Johannes Eccard does, as well, would seem to imply that Praetorius considered
Eccard’s settings to be admirably suited for chorale singing with the congregation, and
also would work well in a polychoral context.
Yet despite the presence of Eccard on this list, I think Praetorius’ actual view of
Eccard’s style deserves further scrutiny. Praetorius uses the term “contrapuncto simplici”
to describe the style the pieces used for this type of polychoral performance should
embrace. He introduces this term earlier in the preface and describes exactly what he
means by it:
Thus I have, with regard to my office, according to the talent given to me,
thought further about this matter of what form the sacred songs of any
author—set with four voices, nota contra notam, simpliciter, or, as one calls
it, in contrapuncto simplici—could be used and arranged in various ways in
the Christian churches.
30

30
Praetorius, Urania, VIII: “Als hab Ich / ratione officij, pro talento mihi concredito, den Sachen etwas
weiter nachgedacht / Welcher gestalt eines jeden Autoris Geistliche Gesänge / so mit 4. Stimmen / nota
contra notam, simpliciter, oder / wie mans nennet / in contrapuncto simplici gesetzet seind / uff
unterschiedliche Arten in der Christlichen Kirchen gebraucht und angeordnet werden könten.”

201
The pieces in Urania confirm that, with this term, Praetorius was referring to the use of
homorhythm, lightly or moderately adorned with decorations here and there; such a
texture is much simpler than the type that appears in the majority of Eccard’s settings.
31

Further, some of the options in Urania for creating polychoral performances of cantional
settings include the suggestion of alternating forces on every other phrase of the chorale.
This practice would not work well using most of Eccard’s settings, in which the joints
between phrases are staggered among the different voices. In addition, although he
certainly could write in Eccard’s style, or at least use a similar amount of complexity as
did Eccard, Praetorius chose not to do so for the overwhelming majority of his settings.
Considering his descriptions of congregational singing as a foretaste of worship in heaven
and his efforts to embellish pieces intended to include the congregation, one would think
Praetorius would have jumped at the chance to use a contrapuntal style for writing
cantional settings if he thought it sufficiently effective. All of these factors suggest
Eccard’s style was not what Praetorius had in mind when he discussed congregational
singing—as in Urania—or ventured to write pieces for this purpose.
How, then, do we account for the presence of Eccard’s name on this list? There
are a few possibilities that might explain at least most of the relevant data. Firstly,
perhaps Praetorius knew of Eccard’s Cantional, but was unacquainted with most of its
actual contents. In this hypothetical scenario, Praetorius knew of Eccard’s prominent

31
No. 3 of Urania, a setting of Gelobet seist du, is an exception. Of the four harmonizations of the chorale
that comprise this piece, two of them include obscured joints between phrases and relatively complicated
counterpoint. However, as will be discussed further in Chapter 6, the context in which these elements
appear (alongside simple verses) renders them less likely to confuse a congregation than they would in a
verse of complicated counterpoint performed by itself. Regardless, the overwhelming majority of the pieces
in Urania resemble the pieces in Praetorius’ Cantional rather than those in Eccard’s, confirming that
Praetorius used “contrapuncto simplici” to refer to transparent, homophonic writing.
202
position in the Königsberg Kapelle, knew that he had published a Cantional, and
assumed the melodies used there were appropriate for churches in Prussia. As one
possible support for this scenario, it is relevant to note that another composer on the list,
Christoph Demantius, did not publish cantional settings until 1620, a few years after the
publication of Urania.
32
While it is quite plausible that these settings were floating
around before 1620 and that Praetorius had access to them, or that Praetorius knew of
other cantional settings by Demantius never published and now lost, there is another
possible explanation for a composer who had never published cantional settings being
included on the list: maybe the list simply records composers prominent in given areas—
ones who would be capable of writing settings appropriate for congregational singing
using melodies from their particular regions—rather than ones who actually had
produced such settings. If this is the case, then the type of cantional settings Eccard wrote
is somewhat irrelevant to the purpose of the list and what Praetorius thought about the
ability of congregations to sing along with pieces of this type cannot be gleaned from
Eccard’s presence on it. Counting against this scenario, however, is Praetorius’ extensive
knowledge of music from various locations, even ones in Italy where he had never
visited. In addition, the chorale melodies in his own cantional settings written for Prussia
align very closely to the melodies in Eccard’s, and it is plausible that he even referred to
Eccard’s melodies when composing these pieces. It is likely, then, that Praetorius was
acquainted with Eccard’s settings. While he may have included on his list composers who
had not published cantional settings—but presumably could write them—it is unlikely

32
Walter Blankenburg and Dorothea Schröder, "Demantius, Christoph," in Grove Music Online. Oxford
Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/article/grove/music/07523 (accessed January 25, 2012).
203
that Praetorius would include a composer whose extant cantional settings he thought
unusable for the purpose at hand.
Another possibility is that, in placing Eccard on this list, Praetorius was
recommending specifically Eccard’s few settings in simpler counterpoint. Indeed, in his
preface to Urania the chorale Praetorius uses in his discussion of ways to create
polychoral chorale settings is Allein Gott in der Höh sei Ehr, which Eccard sets using a
simpler style. However, since Praetorius is using this specific example to give general
instructions applicable to any number of chorales, it would be odd for him to refer in his
discussion to a composer of chorale settings whose few pieces relevant to the topic at
hand are overshadowed by a much larger number that aren’t. Therefore, this does not
seem to be the most likely scenario.
It seems to me that the best explanation for Eccard’s place on the list is that
Praetorius did think his pieces, both the simple and complex ones, could be used to
accompany congregational singing, at least in Prussia, but that he did not think his style
best suited for this purpose for the greatest number of congregations. If this interpretation
of the situation is accurate, in Praetorius’ view Eccard’s pieces could even be used for
polychoral arrangements, but the various choirs involved would need to alternate by
verse—another option Praetorius discusses in much detail—rather than by line. This
would explain why Praetorius referred to Eccard in the preface to Urania, but adopted a
much simpler style for most of his own pieces: he thought Eccard’s style had limited
utility and might result in frustration for provincial churches with few educated members
and musical resources, and a choir with minimal skill. That he harmonized for many
204
chorales multiple versions of the same melody, each using the tune as sung in a distinct
region, confirms that Praetorius wanted to make his own volumes of cantional settings
useful for a wide variety of congregations. Yet, as Praetorius’ advice for encouraging
congregational participation implies, many churchgoers were prone to resist singing if the
piece seemed complex. Writing pieces with a transparent rather than a relatively
polyphonic texture furthered this goal of universality for his volumes, because such
pieces could be used in any type of church—either as written, especially in churches with
few resources, or if desired, in those churches with greater musical capabilities, arranged
for instruments and multiple groups to increase their grandeur. Additionally, within this
framework of Praetorius’ assessment of Eccard’s pieces, it makes sense that he also
would write some settings with greater complexity (e.g., MSVIII: 119), knowing that
some congregations could sing along with them and the resulting service would benefit
from increased musical sophistication. If Praetorius did think Eccard’s pieces suitable for
lay participation in certain situations, then perhaps a few additional pieces from MSV
(e.g., no. 8) should be included in the set of Praetorius’ pieces meant to accompany the
congregation. Although Praetorius’ intent for these relatively complicated pieces remains
an open question, his apparent implicit endorsement of Eccard’s settings makes such an
assessment of them more plausible than a study of Praetorius’ compositions alone
suggests. Regardless, if this scenario (concerning Praetorius’ understanding of Eccard’s
compositions as useful for congregational singing, but in a limited context) is correct, and
Praetorius’ view was accurate, it would also explain why most composers in the early
205
part of the seventeenth century, Hieronymus Praetorius and Hassler among them, chose
to adopt Osiander’s approach to writing cantional settings rather than Eccard’s.

Conclusion
The textures of Praetorius’ settings appear to be fairly typical for cantional
settings written by the leading composers of the first decade of the seventeenth century.
The lower voices in his pieces exhibit a bit more freedom than those in Osiander’s
publication, and some others. Nevertheless, in writing these cantional settings, Praetorius
did not create anything particularly out of the ordinary, at least in terms of the amount
and types of decoration in lower voices. He did emphasize accessibility—however much
he also included relationships between voices, text painting, recurring motives, and other
such elements—especially in contrast to the settings of Eccard with their frequent bursts
of imitation, almost complete independence of lower voices (in many of the settings) and
faster lower voices.

Harmony in Praetorius’ settings
As in other Cantionale of the time, the chorales in Praetorius’ collection appear
both in untransposed dorian, phrygian, mixolydian, aeolian and ionian modes, as well as
in transposition. Indeed, at least in the cross-section of pieces surveyed here, Praetorius
uses G dorian more frequently than D dorian, and the ionian mode with the final on F as
regularly as with the final on C. A phrygian, D aeolian and G aeolian are encountered in
206
Praetorius’ Cantional periodically, as well. Other transpositions, such as G ionian, are
uncommon.
Although Osiander included in his harmonizations no seventh or diminished
chords, and almost always doubled the root of the triad, later composers increased the
sophistication of the four-part writing in their cantional settings, including both
diminished and seventh chords and doubling notes other than the root more frequently.
33

Praetorius, of course, was no exception. He uses all major, minor and diminished triads
compiled from diatonic pitches of the untransposed church modes, as well as those
requiring a Bb, Eb, F#, C# or G#. On average, including all triads formed from passing
tones and other decorations, Praetorius incorporates about nine different harmonies per
setting, although he may use as few as six or as many as thirteen.
Table 3.20. Number of distinct triads per setting in Michael Praetorius’
cantional settings

No. of chord
types
No. of
settings
% of analyzed
settings
Average number of total chords in settings
with this number of chord types
6 9 3.73% 36.44
7 33 13.69% 45.36
8 64 26.56% 51.27
9 56 23.24% 52.45
10 49 20.33% 54.83
11 22 9.13% 65.59
12 7 2.9 % 69.29
13 1 .41% 49

Sevenths, often created by a decoration note, expand the harmonic scope of Praetorius’
settings. The most common four-note sonority is formed by adding a minor seventh to a

33
Schuler, “Lucas Osiander,” 113-15.

207
D-minor triad.
34
Usually, this chord appears in the first inversion.
35
Other minor-seventh
chords also occur periodically, as do a few dominant-seven chords. The following arise
most frequently:
Table 3.21. Most common 4-pitch chords in Michael Praetorius’
cantional settings

Type of 7th chord No. of settings
(out of 241 analyzed settings)
% of analyzed settings with
this chord
d7 52 21.58%
a7 26 10.79%
g7 22 9.13%
G7 18 7.47%
C7 15 6.22%

On the majority of chords, Praetorius doubles the note in the bass voice. However,
he does not follow this method rigidly, but doubles something other than the bass note in
about ten percent of triads in second inversion, more than twenty percent of triads in root
position, and more than half of triads in first inversion.
36
Although sonorities lacking a
third account for less than three percent of all chords, their placement—the majority of

34
For the sake of convenience, in the following discussion, I will use lower-case letters to denote chords
with a minor third at the bottom of the uninverted triad and upper case ones to denote chords with a major
third. In order to discuss cadences efficiently, and also to facilitate comparison of chord use between pieces
in different transpositions of the same mode and between different modes, I will use upper- and lower-case
roman numerals as shorthand to denote the scale degree on which a triad is built, as well as the quality of
the chord. Unless otherwise noted, the roman numerals should not be interpreted as implying a tonal
function for the chord, but solely as indication of a specific sonority, built on a specific modal scale degree.
Thus, in mixolydian mode, “V” will denote a D-major triad, but no implications as to any tonal function of
this chord is implied or should be assumed.

35
Wolf characterizes this chord as an F-major triad with added sixth.

36
These data regarding the frequency of doublings of the bass note for triads in each inversion comes from
Fay, “The Vocal Style of Michael Praetorius,” 172-73. Fay examined doubling in 175 cantional settings
from Musae Sioniae, excluding volume 7.

208
them appear at the end of a phrase, and approximately fifteen percent of settings begin
with such a sonority—tends to heighten their prominence and reinforce the modal quality
of the settings in which they do occur. However, in the approximately nine percent of
settings in which the harmonization of the final melody note initially sounds without the
third, one of the middle voices usually moves to the third so that the piece concludes with
a complete triad.
As with seventh chords and alternate doublings, many composers of Cantionale
after Osiander increased the number of inversions in their settings. While Osiander’s
settings average about one for every five phrases, those by later composers often have
many times that.
37
In Praetorius’ pieces, for instance, inversions occur six times more
frequently than in Osiander’s.

Table 3.22. Frequency of inversions in Michael Praetorius’ cantional settings

Average of all
analyzed settings
Maximum from all
analyzed settings
Minimum from all
analyzed settings
No. per phrase 1.25 4.5 .14
No. per setting 7.925 39 1
% of chords per
setting appearing in
inversion
14.88% 33.33% 1.89%

37
Schuler, “Lucas Osiander,” 114-15.

209
As in Osiander’s collection, however, the first inversion is by far the most common type
in Praetorius’. All chords Praetorius uses appear in inversion, although Eb, E and e do so
rarely. Diminished chords appear almost exclusively in the first inversion.
38

Table 3.23. Types of inversions in Michael Praetorius’ cantional settings

Type of inversion % of all inversions
1st 88.19%
2nd 10.35%
3rd 1.46%

In Praetorius’ Cantional, and by extension in common practice in the seventeenth
century, a majority of chorale melodies—about four-fifths of those surveyed in this
study—begin and end on the same pitch. For most such chorales, Praetorius begins and
ends his settings on the same chord, as well, or, in the case of chorales in the dorian,
aeolian and phrygian modes, begins with a minor chord and ends on the parallel major
chord. Nevertheless, it does not seem that he—or other composers of his generation,
since the same feature arises in other Cantionale, as well—felt a compulsion to start and
conclude his settings on the same harmony, even when the notes allow him to do so. In
about ten percent of analyzed settings in which the initial note is a member of the triad
built on the final, such that beginning and ending on the same chord is eminently feasible,
Praetorius declines to use this harmonization. Indeed, even in some cases in which the

38
This is also the case in the Melodeyen Gesangbuch, suggesting that this voicing for diminished triads
probably was standard for composers around the turn of the seventeenth century.
210
chorale begins and ends on the same pitch, Praetorius uses different chords to harmonize
these notes.
39

Table 3.24. Use of diatonic and non-diatonic triads in Michael Praetorius’
cantional settings of chorales in untransposed modes

C ionian E phrygian G mixolydian A aeolian D dorian
C 28.77 % 19.06 % 18.68 % 16.53 % 14.84 %
G 23.55 % 16.00 % 29.85 % 12.99 % 12.37 %
a 13.29 % 17.96 % 9.98 % 18.64 % 13.49 %
d 13.11 % 16.94 % 14.01 % 15.96 % 20.67 %
F 8.89 % 8.77 % 7.69 % 9.18 % 12.49 %
e 6.03 % 8.34 % 5.86 % 7.63 % 4.71 %
Diatonic
b
o
.817% .511% .458% .989% 1.06 %

D 3.45 % 1.87 % 9.07 % 2.97 % 6.01 %
A .998% 3.4 % 2.84 % 7.06 % 7.71 %
E .544% 5.45 % 1.00 % 6.07 % 1.83 %
g .091% .085% .092% .565% 2.83 %
Bb .045% .255% .847% 1.47 %
f#
o
.272% .596% .183% .141% .177%
b .136% .681% .183% .141%
c#
o
.092% .141%
g#
o
.085% .141%
Non-diatonic
e
o
.353%

C, G, F 61.21 % 43.83 % 56.23 % 38.70 % 39.69 %
a, d, e, b
o
33.26 % 43.74 % 30.31 % 43.22 % 39.93 %
A, D, E 4.99 % 10.72 % 12.91 % 16.10 % 15.55 %

Diatonic 94.46 %

87.57 % 86.54 % 81.92 % 79.62 %
Non-diatonic 5.54 %

12.43 % 13.46 % 18.08 % 20.38 %

Difference
between diatonic
and non-diatonic
88.92 75.14 73.08 63.84 59.24

39
This occurs in thirteen of the analyzed settings, about seven percent of settings of chorales that begin and
end on the same note.
211
With a particular emphasis on diatonic chords, the harmonic language Praetorius
uses to create cantional settings is quite conservative (see Table 3.24, above). This
emphasis on diatonic chords places Praetorius’ compositions in this genre firmly within
the modal harmonic framework. Notice, for instance, that the major chord built on the
fifth scale degree is not a part of the harmonic toolbox in phrygian settings. Additionally,
when harmonizing chorales in the mixolydian mode, Praetorius uses D-minor chords far
more frequently than D-major triads. Likewise, the F-major triad is an important sonority
in his mixolydian settings, though it is not, of course, a staple of pieces written in the key
of G major.
Praetorius’ emphasis on diatonic chords is especially noticeable when it is
contrasted with the harmonic practice used in the Melodeyen Gesangbuch, published at
approximately the same time as Praetorius’ collection (see Table 3.25, below). The
Hamburg organists use a larger proportion of D-, A- and E-major triads than does
Praetorius. Although V chords appear rarely in phrygian settings here, as in Praetorius’
pieces, they do arise a couple of times. In harmonizations of chorales in dorian mode, the
Hamburg organists use a larger proportion of Bb-major and G-minor chords than does
Praetorius. This use of the flat-six scale degree, a characteristic largely absent from
Praetorius’ settings, foreshadows the eventual ascendancy of minor over the dorian mode.
The difference in the harmonizations of chorales in the mixolydian mode between the
two collections is especially striking. While Praetorius uses D-minor triads far more
frequently than D-major ones, underscoring the modal quality of his mixolydian settings,
the Hamburg organists prefer the D-major triad. Similarly, Praetorius uses the F-major
212
triad twice as frequently as do the Hamburg organists, again accentuating the modal
quality of these settings more than the composers of the Melodeyen Gesangbuch.
40

Table 3.25. Use of diatonic and non-diatonic triads in settings of chorales in
untransposed modes in the Melodeyen Gesangbuch

C ionian E phrygian G mixolydian A aeolian D dorian
C 32.52 % 20.1 % 18.40 % 16.38 % 11.47 %
G 26.99 % 12.46 % 38.40 % 12.16 % 8.41 %
a 7.74 % 14.95 % 7.20 % 18.61 % 13.38 %
d 5.31 % 11.96 % 6.80 % 10.17 % 18.74 %
F 9.51 % 6.98 % 3.60 % 7.2 % 8.99 %
e 4.20 % 7.48 % 4.80 % 8.93 % 3.06 %
Diatonic
b
o
2.88 % 1.16 % 2.48 %

D 6.19 % 4.49 % 13.60 % 4.47 % 8.99 %
A 1.77 % 5.98 % 2.40 % 8.19 % 10.9 %
E 1.11 % 10.96 % .400% 8.68 % 3.25 %
g 1.16 % 1.20 % .496% 6.88 %
Bb .885% .332% 1.20 % 3.25 %
f#
o
.997% .800% .993% .382%
b .400% .248% .191%
c#
o
.885% .400% .496% .574%
g#
o
.664% .400% .248% .765%
e
o
.248% .765%
Non-diatonic
B .332%

C, G, F 69.03 % 39.53 % 60.40 % 35.73 % 28.87 %
a, d, e, b
o
20.13 % 35.55 % 18.80 % 40.2 % 35.18 %
A, D, E 9.07 % 21.43 % 16.40 % 21.34 % 23.14 %

Diatonic 89.16 % 75.08 % 79.20 % 75.93 % 64.05 %
Non-diatonic 10.84 % 24.92 % 20.80 % 24.07 % 35.95 %

Difference
between diatonic
and non-diatonic
78.32 50.16 58.4 51.86 28.1

40
Because only five of the chorales set in the Melodeyen Gesangbuch are presented in G-mixolydian mode,
it is possible that this statistic skews the harmonic tendencies of the Hamburg organists. Nevertheless,
because it is so great, the disparity between the practices in the two Cantionale is telling.

213
A comparison of the lists of chords Erich Wolf compiled from his analysis of
cantional settings in the dorian and mixolydian modes published by various composers
provides additional evidence of the conservative nature of Praetorius’ chord choices.
Wolf’s list indicates that B-minor and C-minor chords, as well as the occasional Eb-major
chord, arise in dorian settings. These are absent from the Praetorius settings encountered
in this study. Wolf notes that the mixolydian mode is especially susceptible to harmonic
alterations. Accordingly, C-minor, G-minor and Bb-major triads all are listed as appearing
in harmonizations of chorales in the mixolydian mode, though Praetorius avoids them
almost entirely in his mixolydian settings.
41

Table 3.26. Use of diatonic and non-diatonic chords and chords inside and
outside the Guidonian Hand in Michael Praetorius’ cantional
settings of chorales in untransposed and transposed modes
Diatonic
to mode
Not diatonic
to mode
Inside the
Guidonian hand
[C, d, e, e
o
, F, g,
G, a, Bb, b
o
]
Outside the
Guidonian hand
[a
o
, A, b, c, c#
o
, D,
Eb, E, f#
o
, g#
o
]
C ionian 94.46% 5.54% 94.6 % 5.4 %
F ionian 94.31% 5.69% 97.86% 2.14%
E phrygian 87.57% 12.43% 87.91% 12.09%
A phrygian 83.64% 16.36% 86.18% 13.82%
G mixolydian 86.54% 13.46% 86.63% 13.37%
A aeolian 81.92% 18.08% 83.33% 16.67%
D aeolian 86.9 % 13.13% 89.06% 10.94%
G aeolian 82.06% 17.94% 81.13% 18.87%
D dorian 79.62% 20.38% 84.28% 15.72%
G dorian 81.5 % 18.5 % 84.69% 15.31%

All analyzed settings 89.49%

41
Wolf, Der vierstimmige homophone Satz, 83 and 93. Praetorius also avoids Eb-major triads in his
mixolydian settings. Wolf notes that this chord does appear in some mixolydian settings, but infrequently.

214
Praetorius’ use of chords remains conservative in his harmonizations of chorales
printed in transposed modes (see Table 3.26, above).
42
In these, Praetorius tends to de-
emphasize even diatonic chords when they include ficta. For instance, there is a
significant discrepancy between the use of the iv chord in A-aeolian and D-aeolian
settings, in which this chord does not require ficta, and its use in G-aeolian settings, in
which it does. The difference in the frequency of the bVI chord between these same
settings also is noticeable.
Table 3.27. Use of iv and bVI triads in settings of chorales in aeolian mode in
Michael Praetorius’ Cantional

% of all chords in settings of chorales in this mode
iv bVI
A aeolian 15.96% 9.18%
D aeolian 18.13% 9.69%
G aeolian 6.99% 5.15%

Therefore, while Praetorius might transpose a chorale melody from one final to another,
the scale degrees on which he builds the chords to harmonize it, and the qualities of these
chords, are not entirely identical from one transposition to the next, in particular when
direct transposition of vertical sonorities would require the introduction of ficta.

42
This tally includes chorales for which the mode is ambiguous, as well as those in uncommon
transpositions. It also includes all settings in G-aeolian mode, with the exception of MSVI: 99, 100 and
102—three settings of Christe der du bist Tag und Licht which could be in G dorian or G aeolian—and
MSVII: 63. This latter setting is very atypical for Praetorius’ settings, in that the first two phrases begin
with eight successive D-major chords. The chords mimic the shape of the chorale melody, which uses
repeating A’s to illustrate the text about pain and sorrow. In this case, it seems that Praetorius uses “hard”
D-major triads to accentuate the meaning of the text. Because D-major triads are used here in the service of
text painting rather than as a result of Praetorius’ usual harmonic practice, I have left this setting out of the
tally. The general proportion of diatonic to non-diatonic chords and frequency of ficta in G aeolian are
approximately the same whether this setting is included or not, although the percentage of chords diatonic
to the mode and inside the Guidonian hand in G aeolian each drop by about three percent if this setting is
included.
215
A comparison of the harmony in Praetorius’ four cantional settings of Allein Gott
in der Höh sei Ehr demonstrates this further. Praetorius published two settings of this
chorale in F-ionian mode (MSVI: 168 and MSVI: 170), a third in C ionian (MSVI: 169)
and an additional one in G ionian (MSV: 21).
43
Even though the frequency of the V chord
is lower in all of these than in many of Praetorius’ ionian settings, the particular scarcity
of the V chord in the G-ionian setting—it appears only as the penultimate chord in the A
and B sections to create a V-I cadence on G—is especially anomalous for this mode.
Even more telling is the frequent use of the minor-v triad in this piece, one appearing
very rarely in C- and F-ionian pieces in Praetorius’ Cantional.
Table 3.28. Comparison of the frequency of chords built on the fifth scale degree
in four settings of Allein Gott in der Höh sei Ehr

% of chords in the
setting
Piece Final V Chord V chord
requires
ficta?
No. of V
chords
No. of v
chords
V v
MSVI: 168 F C no 13 0 20.31% 0
MSVI: 170 F C no 6 0 11.76% 0
MSVI: 169 C G no 8 0 16.33% 0

MSV: 21 G D yes 2 6 4.35% 13.04%

Since the harmony in many pieces obviously will not conform exactly to the typical
harmonic profile established by assessing the average frequency of chord use among all
settings of a given mode and transposition, we must proceed carefully when trying to

43
When transposed to the same pitch, the melodies of MSV: 21 and MSVI: 168 are identical. Therefore,
any harmonic differences between them are a result of Praetorius’ specific intentions; they are not required
by the melody. These two settings differ from MSVI: 169 on three pitches (7% of the total) and from
MSVI: 170 on seven pitches (15% of the total). Except in one instance, these melodic discrepancies do not
coincide with triads built on the fifth scale degree in any of the settings, and thus are not a primary factor in
determining the number or quality of chords built on that scale degree.
216
deduce something specific about Praetorius’ harmonic practices from one, or a few,
settings. Nevertheless, because this preference for the minor-v triad over the major-V
triad occurs in the context of the ionian mode only in this G-ionian piece,
44
in which the v
triad does not require ficta while the V triad does, it takes on particular significance.
45

Four settings of In dich hab ich gehoffet, Herr—two in C-ionian mode and two in
G-ionian mode—also illustrate Praetorius’ tendency to emphasize those chords within the
Guidonian hand. Here D-major chords do arise more frequently than D-minor ones in the
G-ionian settings, but the prevalence of the minor-v chord is still much greater than in the
C-ionian settings of this chorale and in Praetorius’ ionian settings in general.
Table 3.29. Comparison of the frequency of chords built on the fifth scale degree
in four settings of In dich hab ich gehoffet, Herr

% of chords in the
setting
Piece Final V Chord V chord
requires
ficta?
No. of V
chords
No. of v
chords
V v
MSVI: 20 C G no 12 0 26.09% 0
MSVI: 22 C G no 11 0 23.4 % 0

MSVI: 19 G D yes 7 4 15.56% 8.89%
MSVI: 21 G D yes 9 4 20.45% 9.09%

The complete lack of minor chords built on the third scale degree in the G-ionian settings,
where this triad requires an F#, is also worthy of mention since Praetorius does use the iii
chord, albeit sparingly, in his C-ionian settings of the chorale.

44
This is the case, at least, in the 241 settings analyzed harmonically in this study.

45
Out of 42 chords in MSVIII: 181 (Ach Wie elend ist unser Zeit), a piece in F ionian, five are C-minor
triads (11.9% of the total). The Eb in the melody near the beginning of the piece is the impetus for these.
Nevertheless, there are twelve C-major triads in this setting (28.57% of the total chords), so that, even with
the atypically high frequency of the minor-v triad in this setting, the major-V clearly overshadows it.
217
Table 3.30. Frequency of minor triads built on the third scale degree in four
settings of In dich hab ich gehoffet, Herr

Piece Final iii Chord iii chord
requires
ficta?
No. of iii
chords
% of chords in the
setting
MSVI: 20 C e no 3 6.52%
MSVI: 22 C e no 2 4.26%

MSVI: 19 G b yes 0 0
MSVI: 21 G b yes 0 0

Table 3.31. Use of diatonic and non-diatonic chords and chords inside and
outside the Guidonian Hand in settings of chorales in untransposed
and transposed modes in the Melodeyen Gesangbuch
Diatonic
to mode
Not diatonic
to mode
Inside the hand
[C, d, e, e
o
, F,
g, G, a, Bb, b
o
]
Outside the hand
[ao, A, b, B, c, c#
o
,
D, Eb, E, f#
o
, g#
o
]
C ionian 89.16% 10.84% 90.04% 9.96%
F ionian 88.19% 11.81% 92.87% 7.13%
E phrygian 75.08% 24.92% 76.41% 23.59%
A phrygian
46
65 % 35 % 67.5 % 32.5 %
G mixolydian 79.2 % 20.8 % 81.6 % 18.4 %
A aeolian 75.93% 24.07% 77.17% 22.83%
D aeolian 88.24% 11.76% 92.16% 7.84%
G aeolian 72.44% 27.56% 71.65% 28.35%
D dorian 64.44% 35.56% 74.95% 25.05%
G dorian 65.45% 34.55% 71.86% 28.14%

All settings in MG 77.52% 81.81%

Comparison of the use of chords requiring ficta in Praetorius’ settings with those in the
Melodeyen Gesangbuch also underscores the conservative tendencies of Praetorius’
harmonic practice (see Table 3.31 above).

46
There are only three G-aeolian settings, one D-aeolian setting and one A-phrygian setting in the
Melodeyen Gesangbuch.
218
Except in harmonizations of phrygian-mode chorales, by far the most common
concluding cadence in Praetorius’ Cantional consists of V-I harmonic motion, with “I”
representing a major chord built on the final of the chorale. Indeed, all final cadences in
the analyzed ionian pieces use these concluding sonorities. There are exceptions to this
standard practice in harmonizations of chorales in other modes, however. Dorian pieces
conclude with IV-I or iv-I harmonic motion in approximately six percent of settings,
aeolian in about seven percent, and mixolydian in about fourteen percent of cases. In a
few settings, the penultimate sonority is a minor triad built on the fifth scale degree.
With the characteristic descending half step concluding most phrygian chorales,
and an ascending whole step concluding most others, harmonizations of these chorales
obviously require alternate final cadences. Praetorius, like other composers of his
generation, usually uses one of two versions of the phrygian cadence at the end of such
chorales: vii-I and iv-I (see Example 3.17, below).
47
In one instance in the analyzed
group, Praetorius uses an authentic cadence to conclude a harmonization of a chorale in
the phrygian mode, but in this case the root of the final chord is A, while both the
penultimate and concluding notes of the chorale are E (see Example 3.18, below).

47
The composers of the Melodeyen Gesangbuch use the same basic types of concluding cadences as
Michael Praetorius, in similar proportions, suggesting that these concluding cadences are probably fairly
standard in Cantionale published around the turn of the seventeenth century.
219
Example 3.17. Cadences in settings of melodies in phrygian mode

Example 3.18. MSVI: 133, end

220
Although most final cadences in Praetorius’ Cantional conform to a few standard
types, internal cadences exhibit a wide range of variety of harmonic types and voicings.
48

The following summary shows the range of harmonic motion at cadences; no matter the
final of the chorale, the resolution of interior cadences may occur on many different
pitches.
49

Table 3.32. Interior cadences in Michael Praetorius’ Cantional

Cadence
type
Most
common
forms
Ionian Mixolydian Aeolian Dorian Phrygian Total

V-I/i V-I, V-i 54.99% 66.2 % 52.59% 54.47% 33.33% 53.43%
IV/iv – I/i iv-I, iv-i,
IV-I
14.44% 9.15% 21.48% 17.11% 36.17% 17.81%
VII-I;
vii-I/i
VII-I,
vii-I, vii-i
10.19% 7.04% 11.11% 8.68% 11.35% 9.61%
Deceptive V-vi,
vii
o
6-vi
6.16% 5.63% 3.7 % 5.00% 4.96% 5.36%
v-I and v-i v-I; v-i 3.4% 3.52% 3.7 % 7.63% 3.55% 4.73%
II/ii – I/i ii - I 4.88% 4.93% 1.48% 2.89% 6.38% 4.1 %
vii
o
-I
family
vii
o
6-I 4.67% 2.82% 3.7 % 2.89% 2.84% 3.62%
Other 1.27% .7 % 2.22% 1.32% 1.42%

1.34%

Other cadences include III-i, iii-I, bIII-I, v
o
6-I, ii
o
6-I, vi-I VI-I and I-I.

Many of Praetorius’ cadences exhibit the essential characteristics of the standard
cadential motion in Renaissance practice, usually with a minor third or tenth compressing

48
For a thorough discussion of the various forms cadences of each general harmonic type can take within
cantional settings see Wolf, Der vierstimmige homophone Satz, 41-63. Wolf’s chapter on cadences in these
types of pieces confirms the abundant variety of options for harmonizing ends of phrases in this genre.

49
As with concluding cadences, this harmonic profile of interior cadences and the relative frequency of the
general types is very similar to that found in the Melodeyen Gesangbuch, showing that Michael Praetorius’
use of various types of cadences in cantional settings was probably pretty typical for composers of his
generation. Nevertheless, there are some different tendencies in the Melodeyen Gesangbuch, such as a
larger percent of authentic and vii
o
-I cadences, and considerably less frequent use of deceptive cadences.
221
to a unison or octave. However, because the melody is in the soprano rather than the
tenor voice, the soprano takes on the role of the tenor at many cadences. Any of the three
lower voices can create cadential motion against the soprano; in phrygian cadences the
bass usually fills this role, while the interior voices tend to fill this role at other cadences.
Example 3.19. Excerpts incorporating standard Renaissance cadential motion

Example 3.20. Cadences without standard Renaissance cadential motion

222
Yet Praetorius is not constricted in forming his cadences by the necessity to create
conventional cadential motion between two voices. In many instances, he adopts
alternative motion between lower voices (see Example 3.20, above).
Alongside cadence types—such as V-I, V-vi and IV-I—that would remain
standard after the ascendancy of tonality, composers of cantional settings utilized at
phrase endings a variety of harmonic successions that later fell out of common use. Most
of these cadences involve two chords with roots a step apart, such as the II-I or V-IV
cadence and the ii-I cadence.
Example 3.21. Cadences in the ii–I and II–I families

An especially interesting case is the E-F cadence, which has three leading tones.
Nevertheless, at least in the instances encountered in the analyzed settings, Praetorius
voices the two chords in such a way that only the root and third of the penultimate chord
resolve up by step, thus avoiding parallel perfect intervals (see Example 3.22a, below).
Similarly, in e-F cadences and others of this same family, which include two leading
223
tones a fifth apart, Praetorius almost invariably resolves only one pitch up by step (see
Example 3.22b). But this approach is not universal. Notably, Praetorius includes in
MSVIII: 101, one of his settings of Ein feste Burg, a cadence consisting of a b6 chord
moving to a C triad, and resolves both leading tones by step, creating a parallel perfect
fourth (see Example 3.22c).
Example 3.22. Cadences with leading tones a perfect fifth or perfect fourth apart

The resulting sonority recalls the double leading-tone cadence, contributing an archaic
flavor to the piece, yet appears in the same setting alongside more contemporary
harmonic successions, such as a V7-I cadence, a vii
o
-I cadence and a I6-4—V—I
cadence, among others.
50
Having at their disposal the possibility of using neighboring
triads at cadences, along with triads related by fifths and fourths, provided to composers
such as Praetorius a vast array of options for both linear and harmonic motion, giving

50
Calvisius also uses this double leading-tone construction (see Kearn, “Die Harmonia Cantionum
Ecclesiasticarum des Sethus Calvisius,” 54).

224
them flexibility when forming the shape of the accompanying voices in cantional
settings.
Despite the modal character of Praetorius’ harmonic palette, and his generous use
of cadences outside the bounds of subsequent functional tonality, certain elements within
his settings, and sometimes even the successions of chords in multiple phrases within a
single piece, foreshadow the rise of the tonal system. In particular, the form of many V-I
cadences—the frequency of which anticipates to some extent the eventual supremacy of
this relationship—increases the strength of their momentum toward the final sonority.
Notably, IV-V-I, i6-4—V-I and I6-4—V—I cadences are prevalent at the ends of
settings, with almost two in every ten settings concluding with one of these patterns that
underscore the importance of the triad built on the final of the chorale.
51

Successions of chords remarkably similar to standard chord progressions in tonal
music can be found within Praetorius’ cantional settings, especially in harmonizations of
chorales in the ionian mode, such as MSVI: 2 (see Example 3.23, below). In the opening
phrase of this piece, the first three chords reinforce the C-major triad, while the rest of the
phrase comprises the standard IV-V-I harmonic progression, again reinforcing the
importance of C. The second phrase begins with a portion of another standard tonal
progression, I-V-ii-vi, followed by a reinforcement of the dominant. Likewise, the basic
outline of the final phrase is the standard I-IV-V-I progression. The overall harmonic
trajectory of this short piece is from C (I) in the first phrase, to G (V) in the second, with

51
A marked increase in the frequency of the cadential 6-4 chord (or what would later be known as the
cadential 6-4) in Schein’s Cantional of 1627 from its frequency in Calvisius’ in 1597 also reflects the
growing importance of the I/i6-4—V—I cadential formula. See Kaern, “Die Harmonia Cantionum
Ecclesiasticarum des Sethus Calvisius,” 52.
225
a reinforcement of the G via its dominant at the end of the third, and a return to the tonic
in the final phrase. This tonal interpretation of the setting, with a modulation to G at the
end of phrase 2 and a return to the tonic in phrase 4, is not impeccable, as much of phrase
3 is in the tonic rather than remaining in the dominant, as a tonal interpretation of the
entire piece would require. Nevertheless, there are substantial similarities between the
successions of chords in the piece and common practice chord progressions.
Example 3.23. MSVI: 2

Praetorius’ use of essential cadential formulas of tonal harmony, and even his
composition of pieces incorporating harmonic successions identical to tonal chord
226
progressions by no means imply that he was anticipating tonal harmony and somehow
consciously preparing the way for it in his cantional settings. Clearly such an
interpretation of his harmonic practice would be an illicit projection of a later
compositional framework and of subsequent procedures and ideas onto his era.
Nevertheless, the presence of such elements should be recognized, and assimilated into
our understanding of the evolution of harmonic practice towards the tonal system, even if
Praetorius’ compositions themselves, with their embrace of modal logic despite the
intermittent tonal elements, were not the most influential in this trajectory.

Discussion and critique of Ruhnke’s article, and further analysis
As composers, especially those with exceptional abilities, adopted Osiander’s
model for simple chorale harmonizations, the level of sophistication in these types of
compositions naturally increased from what Osiander produced, in particular through the
increase in movement in lower voices, more frequent use of inversions, and inclusion of
additional harmonies. Flexibility in doubling, in voicing, and in cadence types, and the
flexibility in harmony inherent in the modal system—which is not constrained by the
requirements or expectations of functional chord progressions, although close cousins of
these might be used if desired—allowed composers of cantional settings at the turn of the
seventeenth century to place special attention on the individual melodic shapes of lower
voices, as well as the contrapuntal relationships of these voices to each other and to the
melody. When a skillful composer focused on these elements, he could move his
cantional settings from the merely functional realm to a more artistic one; Praetorius’
227
harmonic practice as detailed above was especially amenable to such a purpose. Indeed,
in an article published in 1971 for the 350th anniversary of Michael Praetorius’ death,
Martin Ruhnke argues that Praetorius’ cantional settings outshine in their beauty and
sophistication those of other composers in his and the following generation.
52
The MGG
entry on Praetorius cites this article as evidence of Praetorius’ exceptional contributions
to the composition of cantional settings.
53

Ruhnke dedicates about half of the article to a comparison of Praetorius’ three
settings of Ein feste Burg in cantional style with those of thirteen other composers in
order to assess the artistic merit of Praetorius’ pieces in the context of the composition of
cantional settings around the turn of the seventeenth century.
54
Ruhnke chooses this
particular piece because it is found in most Cantionale; he uses as comparatives to
Praetorius’ three versions those cantional settings of the piece included in a publication
by Friedrich Zelle.
55
The composers in Ruhnke’s study include many notable musical
figures from the early part of the seventeenth century, such as Hans Leo Hassler and

52
Martin Ruhnke, “Michael Praetorius,” Musik und Kirche 41, no. 5 (Sept-Oct 1971): 229-42.

53
Arno Forchert, “Michael Praetorius,” in Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 2nd ed., pt. 2, vol. 13,
ed. Ludwig Finscher (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 2005), 884-91. With its comments citing the attractive inner
voices in Es ist ein Ros entsprungen as examples of Praetorius’ skill in composition of cantional settings—
a topic addressed in Ruhnke’s article—the Grove Music Online entry on Praetorius may allude to the
article, as well. See Walter Blankenburg and Clytus Gottwald, "Praetorius, Michael," in Grove Music
Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/article/grove/music/22253 (accessed
March 18, 2012).

54
Ruhnke’s article also includes a summary of some of the important research on Praetorius’ life and works
published up to 1971, and consideration of some questions relating to Praetorius’ biography and theoretical
works, with emphasis on the fact that the historical situation in which Praetorius lived must be considered
when assessing his goals and his music.

55
Friedrich Zelle, Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott (Berlin: R. Gaertner, 1895-1897).

228
Johann Hermann Schein, as well as lesser-known figures such as Johann Georg Schott.
56

In his article, Ruhnke adopts the labels MPC1, MPC2 and MPC3 to denote MSVIII: 99,
100 and 101 respectively. I will use these designations here for ease of discussion.
57

The elements of the settings Ruhnke investigates serve to illustrate two basic
areas in which Praetorius’ Ein feste Burg settings excel, and that are significant in the
context of compositional distinction: conjunct, elegant part writing in the lower voices
and variety. To demonstrate Praetorius’ superior results in the former area, Ruhnke first
analyzes the harmonic elements of the settings that can promote linear motion in the bass
line. Noting that an increase in use of I, IV and V chords corresponds to a greater number
of leaps in the bass line, he analyzes the relative prevalence of these chords in each of the
settings. Those settings not written by Praetorius each include 30 or more such chords,
while MPC1, MPC2 and MPC3 have 27, 26 and 19, respectively. Praetorius uses a larger
percentage of ii, iii and vi chords than do other composers, creating a smoother bass line
as a result, although his use of II, III, VI and VII chords (D, E, A, B) is about average for
the surveyed pieces.

56
The full list of composers with the dates of composition for their settings of Ein feste Burg is as follows:
Lucas Osiander (1586), Seth Calvisius (1597), Johann Georg Schott (1603), Melchior Vulpius (1604),
Samuel Mareschall (1606), Hans Leo Hassler (1608), Michael Praetorius (1610), Moritz von Hessen
(1612), Martin Zeuner (1616), Otto Siegfried Harnisch (1621), Johann Hermann Schein (1627) and
Heinrich Schütz (1628). In addition, Ruhnke also analyzes the version of Ein feste Burg found in the
Eisleben Gesangbuch of 1598. David Scheidemann’s setting from the Melodeyen Gesangbuch (1604) is
included, as well, though Ruhnke attributes this setting to Heinrich Scheidemann, David’s son.

57
For a comparison of Schütz’s eleven cantional settings using traditional Lutheran melodies with
Praetorius’ cantional settings of these same melodies, see Thomas Synofzik, “Michael Praetorius und
Heinrich Schütz,” Schütz-Jahrbuch 29 (2007): 123-35, especially pages 127-28. Synofzik notes that
Praetorius uses a large number of cadence forms. Additionally, his findings agree with Ruhnke’s, in
particular in the areas of contour of bass and middle voices and use of neighbor chords.
229
Similarly, Ruhnke examines the cadences in the Ein feste Burg settings, noting
that for each of the cadences, the majority of pieces use the same basic cadential motion,
creating a leap of a fourth or a fifth in the bass. Praetorius varies this formula at least as
frequently as other composers, in harmony, bass movement, or both. Schein’s setting
includes three deviations—the most of composers apart from Praetorius: MPC1 and
MPC2 also include three, while MPC3 has five deviations. From this evidence, Ruhnke
shows that Praetorius’ cadences not only promote smooth bass lines, but harmonic
variety at the ends of phrases, as well.
Ruhnke notes that MPC1 includes seven inversions overall, while MPC2 and
MPC3 include eleven. Schein’s setting has eight—more than MPC1 but fewer than
Praetorius’ other two settings—while the compositions by the remaining composers use
fewer than seven. As with Praetorius’ chord and cadence choices, his use of inversions
contributes to smoother voice leading. Finally, Ruhnke calculates the number of leaps of
a fourth or more in the bass lines, ignoring the intervals created at joints between phrases.
As expected, based on the elements of Praetorius’ settings already noted, his pieces have
the smoothest bass lines. Although one of his pieces ties with Schein’s in this area, with
sixteen leaps in the bass, his others have thirteen and eleven leaps, while the remaining
pieces have as many as thirty such leaps in the bass. Praetorius’ bass lines, then, are more
conjunct than most of the others. The bass lines in these other settings tend to be choppy
and angular, fulfilling the role as a harmonic foundation, but lacking in recognizable
melodic shape.
230
According to Ruhnke, Praetorius’ inner voices also are characterized by greater
melodic shape—both in succession of pitches and in rhythm—than those written by other
composers. To demonstrate this, he compares the alto voices from the final three lines of
the settings by Mareschall, Osiander and Schott to those from MPC1 and MPC2.
Praetorius’ lines incorporate linear motion and rhythmic excitement to a greater degree
than do the others, which are either relatively choppy or static. Furthermore, Ruhnke
argues, much of the disjunct motion that does occur in Praetorius’ lines, particularly in
MPC2, is used in a targeted way to illustrate the text. Ruhnke also compares the tenor
voice in Osiander’s Ein feste Burg to that in Praetorius’ famous Es ist ein Ros
entsprungen. While Osiander’s serves mostly to fill in harmony, Praetorius’ is a true
melodic line, though it also supports the chorale melody in the soprano.
Along with elements of part writing, Ruhnke analyzes the amount of variety in the
settings. Since phrases 2 and 7 of the melody are identical, for each setting Ruhnke
assesses how many of the nine vertical sonorities in the second iteration of the phrase
vary from their counterparts in the first iteration. In half of the settings, the
harmonizations for both statements of the phrase are identical. Five of the composers
change some notes. Among composers other than Praetorius, Osiander and Moritz von
Hessen introduce the most changes into the second iteration of the phrase, with some of
the lower voices altered underneath four of the nine melody notes. Praetorius varies his
harmonizations far more than do any other composer in the study; only three vertical
sonorities in MPC2 are identical in both iterations of the phrase, and none of them are in
the other two pieces. In addition to this obvious use of variety, Praetorius’ choices of
231
chords, cadences and inversions not only promote smooth part writing, but also instill
harmonic and intervallic variety throughout his settings.
Ruhnke’s analysis convincingly demonstrates Praetorius’ settings of Ein feste
Burg to be superior in multiple features relevant to artistry and beauty in composition. In
every area Ruhnke evaluates, all of Praetorius’ settings surpass, or at least match closely,
the others. However, to meaningfully expand these findings about Praetorius’
compositional practices as indicative of his settings as a whole would require that these
three particular pieces be typical of Praetorius’ entire output of cantional settings.
Likewise, for the comparisons to other settings to be expanded legitimately to apply to
entire Cantionale of Praetorius’ contemporaries, the Ein feste Burg settings of these
composers would need to be typical settings for their respective collections, or if
Praetorius’ are atypical, the others would need to be similarly atypical for the collections
from which they originated.
Yet, in regard to texture, Praetorius’ Ein feste Burg settings are far from average
for his collection. MPC1 is among the top twenty percent of Praetorius’ settings in terms
of the prevalence of decoration notes—that is, those notes in the lower voices not in line
with the soprano—and MPC2 and MPC3 are among the top six percent. Indeed, MPC2 is
one of the busiest of Praetorius’ cantional settings. While this does not necessarily imply
that these settings are atypical in terms of all of the areas Ruhnke investigates, it does
mean that we should be wary of accepting Ruhnke’s findings as normative for the entire
collection. In particular, number of inversions, bass movement at cadences, and overall
contour of the bass line and inner voices are likely to be affected directly by an increase
232
in number of passing tones and other types of activity in lower voices, features that
MPC2, in particular, has in profusion. Therefore, to glean a fuller picture of Praetorius’
writing style for its own sake, and in comparison to the style of other composers, it is
necessary to look at these elements in a cross-section of Praetorius’ cantional settings, as
well as a cross-section of settings in volumes of at least some of his contemporaries.
Toward this end, in what follows, a large representative group of Praetorius’ cantional-
style pieces will be compared to the complete output of cantional settings of other
composers, namely Osiander and Mareschall—two composers whose compositions are
generally considered to be of a lesser caliber than Praetorius’—as well as Hassler and the
four Hamburg organists—composers whose positions and influence more closely
matched those of Praetorius. In general, we will find that, for most of the areas Ruhnke
investigates, Praetorius’ collection is indeed exemplary, though it is far less distinct from
others than the comparison of the Ein feste Burg settings implies.

Harmony
Praetorius’ particular emphasis on the ii, iii and vi sonorities in his Ein feste Burg
settings results in a large percentage of adjacent triads and few leaps in the bass lines.
This affinity for ii, iii and vi reflects the harmonic profile in Praetorius’ harmonizations
of ionian chorales. Moreover, the emphasis on diatonic minor chords applies to pieces in
every untransposed mode in his collection. Nevertheless, the prevalence of the iii triad, in
particular, in the Ein feste Burg settings is significantly higher than average for
Praetorius’ harmonizations of chorales in the ionian mode. In addition, at least in the case
233
of Scheidemann’s setting, the paucity of minor triads is exaggerated in Ein feste Burg far
beyond the average of all ionian chorales in the Cantional from which the setting comes.
Table 3.33. Comparison of the prevalence of ii, iii and vi triads in Michael
Praetorius’ Cantional and the Melodeyen Gesangbuch

Modal scale degree
and quality of triad
All analyzed
harmonizations
of MPC ionian-
mode chorales
The 3 MPC
Ein feste
Burg
settings
Scheidemann
Ein feste
Burg setting
All Melodeyen
Gesangbuch
harmonizations
of ionian-mode
chorales
I 28.64% 23.5 % 32.2 % 31.51%
V 23.31% 20.77% 27.12% 24.68%
vi 13.66% 14.21% 6.78% 8.87%
ii 12.71% 12.19% 1.69% 8.75%
IV 9.99% 9.84% 10.17% 9.98%
iii 5.35% 11.48% 3.39% 2.98%
II 3.26% 6.01% 11.86% 4.67%
VI .88% .55% 1.69% 2.74%
vii
o
.84% 1.09% 1.69% 1.63%
III .73% 0% 0% 1.46%
other .63% 1.64%

3.39% 2.74%

I, IV, V 61.93% 54.1 % 69.49% 66.16%
ii, iii, vi 31.72% 36.61% 11.86% 20.6 %
II, III, VI 4.88% 6.56%

13.56% 8.93%

Difference between
percentage of I, V,
IV triads and ii, iii, vi
triads
30.21 17.49 57.63 45.56
Difference between
percentage of I, V,
IV triads and
neighboring triads
(ii, iii, vi, II, III, VI)
25.33 10.93

44.07 36.63

Therefore, although Ruhnke’s analysis does highlight some of Praetorius’ harmonic
tendencies, and those of the Hamburg organists, as well, his results are not indicative of
234
the average proportions of the use of certain chords in these two Cantionale. For this
reason, we must be cautious when using the results from analysis of these pieces alone to
distinguish between Praetorius’ harmonic practices and those of other composers in the
study.
Table 3.34. Comparison of cadence types in Michael Praetorius’ Cantional and
the Melodeyen Gesangbuch

All analyzed
harmonizations
of MPC ionian-
mode chorales
The 3 MPC
Ein feste
Burg
Settings
Scheidemann
Ein feste
Burg Setting
All Melodeyen
Gesangbuch
harmonizations of
ionian-mode
chorales
V-I and V-i 54.99% 61.9 % 85.71% 65.71%
IV/iv – I/i 14.44% 4.76% 14.29% 9.05%
VII/vii – I/i 10.19% 9.52% 0 7.14%
deceptive 6.16% 9.52% 0 2.38%
II/ii-I/i 4.88% 4.76% 0 1.9%
vii
o
-I family 4.67% 9.52% 0 5.71%
v – I and v-i 3.4% 0 0 3.33%
other 1.27% 0

0 4.77%

V-I/i
IV/iv-I/i
69.43% 66.66% 100% 74.76%
Cadences with
neighboring triads:
vii
o
-I
Deceptive
VII/vii-I/i
II/ii-I/i
25.9% 33.32%

0 17.13%

The use of cadences in Praetorius’ Ein feste Burg settings is closely aligned to the
use in his ionian settings overall, particularly in terms of variety of cadence types.
However, the lack of cadential variety in settings of other composers is not an accurate
reflection of the types of cadences in at least some of their full collections. Again, the
235
Scheidemann setting from the Melodeyen Gesangbuch demonstrates this clearly (see
Table 3.36 above). At four of the seven cadences in MPC3, the bass moves in stepwise
motion. This is a considerably higher frequency than occurs in Praetorius’ settings in
general, which usually have two or fewer instances of such cadential movement in a
single setting. Additionally, the lack of any stepwise motion at cadences in
Scheidemann’s Ein feste Burg setting does not accurately reflect his typical practice, or
that of his Hamburg colleagues.

Table 3.35. Stepwise motion in the bass at cadences in Michael Praetorius’
Cantional and in the Melodeyen Gesangbuch

% of cadences with
stepwise motion in
the bass
% of cadences with
movement by unison,
second or third in the bass
MPC: full Cantional 20.41% 23.43%
MPC1 14.29% 14.29%
MPC2 28.57% 28.57%
MPC3 57.14% 57.14%

David Scheidemann Ein feste
Burg Setting
0 0
All David Scheidemann settings
in the Melodeyen Gesangbuch
16% 17.33%
Melodeyen Gesangbuch 18.05% 20.07%

On average Praetorius’ settings do have more cadences with stepwise motion in the bass
than do the ones in the Melodeyen Gesangbuch, although the contrast is nowhere near as
extreme as the comparison of the Ein feste Burg settings would suggest. Indeed, within
the Melodeyen Gesangbuch, Joachim Decker’s compositions actually exhibit stepwise
236
motion at cadences more frequently than do the compositions in Michael Praetorius’
Cantional, although the difference is so slight as to be negligible.
Table 3.36. Correlation of texture to number of inversions in Michael
Praetorius’ cantional settings

Texture group Inversions per
setting
Inversions per phrase % of chords appearing
in inversion
1.1 6.167 .925 11.82%
1.2 4.88 .864 10.63%
1.3 7.4 1.016 13.18%
2.1 7.724 1.222 14.79%
2.2 10.46 1.655 17.62%
3.1 12.125 2.109 19.796%
3.2 15.25 3.21 28.77%

In Praetorius’ Cantional, the frequency of inversions correlates closely to the
amount of activity in lower voices (see Table 3.36, above).
58
Therefore, it is not
surprising that the number of inversions found in his Ein feste Burg settings is far above
average for his collection as a whole. Even so, inversions are more frequent in Praetorius’
Cantional than they are in Mareschall’s and in the Melodeyen Gesangbuch, although,

58
Ruhnke’s method of counting inversions is different from the one used here. I counted every triad and
seventh chord, even when created by passing tones and other decorations, in order to derive a full picture of
the harmonic variety created by the various decorations used by the composers. Ruhnke did not count the
inversions resulting from this activity. Including the subsidiary inversions, Scheidemann’s setting has three
inversions more than Ruhnke counted, and the Praetorius settings have quite a few more, which is to be
expected with the large number of decorations in these. These discrepancies would likely be similar for the
other settings in Ruhnke’s analysis, with the discrepancy tending to increase the more decorations a setting
has.

237
again, the difference in usage is much smaller than the comparison of Ein feste Burg
settings implies.
59

Table 3.37. Comparison between the frequency of inversions in Michael
Praetorius’ Cantional, Mareschall’s Cantional and the
Melodeyen Gesangbuch
Inversions per
phrase in Ein
feste Burg
Inversions
per phrase
in all
settings
Minimum
inversions per
phrase in a
single setting
Maximum
inversions per
phrase in a single
setting
MPC1 1.57 1.27 .14 4.5
MPC2 2.14
MPC3 2.14

Mareschall .286 0.59 0 1.6
Melodeyen
Gesangbuch
.857 .954 0 2.25

Table 3.38. Correlation between the texture of a setting in Praetorius’ Cantional
and the percent of the successions of bass line notes comprised
of unisons, seconds and thirds
Texture
subgroup
Seconds Stepwise Motion
(unisons and seconds)
Intervals a third or
smaller
1.1 26% 46% 59%
1.2 31% 42% 56%
1.3 33% 42% 56%
2.1 36% 45% 60%
2.2 41% 49% 62%
3.1 43% 50% 62%
3.2 45% 57% 69%

At least partially due to an increase in the number of passing tones, the contour of
Praetorius’ bass lines tends increasingly towards stepwise motion as the texture of the

59
Indeed, since Schein’s Ein feste Burg setting includes almost as many inversions as Praetorius’ settings—
in fact Schein’s setting has one more inversion than MPC1—it is quite likely that the average frequency of
inversions in his Cantional is similar to, or higher than, that found in Praetorius’ entire Cantional.
238
settings becomes more complex (see Table 3.40 above). As one would expect, this same
relationship is apparent in the Melodeyen Gesangbuch, and undoubtedly other
Cantionale, as well. Therefore, given the complexity of Praetorius’ Ein feste Burg
settings, it is unsurprising that his versions of the piece would exhibit especially smooth
bass line contours. In fact, his Ein feste Burg bass lines use a higher percentage of
unisons, seconds and thirds than even his average setting with a similar texture.
60

Table 3.39. Comparison of the percent of successions of bass line notes
comprised of unisons, seconds and thirds in various settings
of Ein feste Burg

seconds Stepwise motion
(unisons and seconds)
Intervals a third or
smaller
MPC 2 60 72 78
MPC 1 54 63 73
MPC 3 50 63 73

Hassler 47 51 58
Osiander 28 40 51
Scheidemann 26 34 41

Nevertheless, although the conjunct nature of Praetorius’ bass lines is greatly
exaggerated in the Ein feste Burg settings from the average contour across his Cantional
as a whole, in general his cantional settings do indeed exhibit a smoother contour than
those of Osiander, Hassler and the Hamburg organists. The distinction, especially
between Michael Praetorius and the Hamburg organists, is not necessarily stark, but it is
discernible.

60
For this study of contour, in the relevant pieces I examined the intervals created by every succession
from one bass line note to the next, including those created by the final note of one phrase and the initial
note of the following phrase.
239
Table 3.40. Comparison of bass line contours in the Cantionale of Michael
Praetorius, Hans Leo Hassler, Lucas Osiander, and the
Melodeyen Gesangbuch

Unisons
(% of all
intervals
in bass)
Seconds
(% of all
intervals
in bass)
Thirds
(% of all
intervals
in bass
% of
intervals a
third or
smaller
% of intervals
comprised of
stepwise motion
(unisons and
seconds)
Michael
Praetorius
9.34 36.54 13.55 59.43 45.88

Hassler 5.49 33.31 17.38 55.73 38.34
Melodeyen
Gesangbuch
11.07 32.02 11.42 54.51 43.09
Osiander 10.34 26.6 10.54 47.48 36.94

With the possible exception of Osiander’s, all of these collections of settings exhibit a
healthy balance between large leaps, small leaps, steps and unisons in the bass lines. This
balance—created by a generous use of seconds, as well as unisons and thirds, combined
with larger leaps—allows for increased opportunities to create melodic bass lines rather
than choppy ones that fulfill only harmonic requirements but largely ignore linear
considerations. Praetorius’ more extensive use of seconds, in particular, may reflect a
greater penchant for recognizable melodic motion in his bass lines than in the bass lines
in the other Cantionale. Nevertheless, because the distinction in the use of this interval
between his settings and those by Hassler and the Hamburg organists is small, the results
do not allow us to form concrete conclusions on the matter from the above data alone.
61

Further, given that the distinction in this area is small between these three Cantionale, an

61
Notice, for instance, that Hassler uses a relatively high percentage of thirds. These often occur in
succession, creating triadic movement in his bass lines. Such triadic motion, like conjunct motion, can
promote a sense of melody.
240
investigation of additional Cantionale—especially that of Schein whose Ein feste Burg
setting exhibits only slightly less conjunct movement in the bass than Praetorius’—could
very well show that bass lines of some other composers, on average, exceeded Praetorius’
in the use of conjunct motion.

Variety

Although the relative proportion of repetition and variety in compositions differs
from age to age, genre to genre, and composer to composer, balancing these two elements
is an important feature of the art of musical composition. Certainly, Praetorius was
concerned with incorporating variety in his compositions. Recall from Chapter 1 that in
his prefaces Praetorius mentions variety as an important element of music. Additionally,
he repeatedly promotes diversity in his compositions by providing multiple options for
performance with different, and often changing, forces. Even in the features already
surveyed, Praetorius’ cantional settings exhibit tendency towards subtle variety. His
relatively democratic use of chords, at least in comparison to the composers of the
Melodeyen Gesangbuch, his incorporation of multiple types of cadences into many
settings and his frequent use of inversions, which results in disparate voicings of the same
set of tones, serve to increase the general sense of harmonic variety within his settings,
even though he uses fewer actual chords, on average, in a single setting than some
others.
62

62
This is certainly the case for the composers of the Melodeyen Gesangbuch who use, on average, about
one more chord type per setting than does Michael Praetorius.
241
Quite obviously, for strophic pieces at least some of the repetition is achieved
through the mere reiteration of the same music for each strophe. Musical variation occurs
within a single strophe, although certainly performers can create variety between strophes
through the use of dynamics, articulation and other elements of phrasing. When a
congregation sings chorales, however, subtle variety of this sort originating from the
performers is, at best, unreliable and quite possibly often absent. For this reason, creating
variety within strophes is a relevant concern for a composer of cantional settings,
especially when a chorale melody itself includes much repetition. Given the nature of the
cantional setting, then, in general a great amount of alteration of harmony and shape of
individual accompanying lines for subsequent iterations of a particular melodic phrase is
desirable. Thus, Ruhnke’s examination of the amount of difference in vertical sonorities
between phrases 2 and 7 of Ein feste Burg is especially germane to an assessment of
compositional style and quality in cantional settings of this chorale.
As with the elements of Ruhnke’s analysis relevant to the creation of smooth bass
lines, variety in harmonizations of repeated phrases of a chorale melody is exaggerated in
Praetorius’ Ein feste Burg settings relative to his Cantional as a whole. Conversely, at
least three composers—Scheidemann, Hassler and Mareschall—alter the harmonization
in the second iteration of the repeated phrase in Ein feste Burg far less than in many
settings in their Cantionale (see Tables 3.41a and 3.41b, below). Despite these disparities
between the general practices of these composers and what occurs in their respective Ein
feste Burg settings, Praetorius still tends to vary both the chords and the individual
242
accompanying lines more than these other composers when harmonizing the same phrase
two or more times within the same setting.
63

Table 3.41a. Change in chords and voice leading from phrase 2 to phrase 7 in
cantional settings of Ein feste Burg

Setting % change in chords % change in voice leading
MPC1 50 68
MPC3 45 74
MPC2 43 63

Melodeyen
Gesangbuch
0 9
Hassler 11 10
Mareschall 0 4
Osiander 33 37

Table 3.41b. Change in chords and voice leading in a representative subset
of Michael Praetorius’ Cantional and four full Cantionale of
his contemporaries

Cantional Average %
change in
chords over a
single repeated
phrase
Average %
change in voice
leading over a
single repeated
phrase
Largest %
change in
chords over a
single repeated
phrase
Largest % change
in voice leading
over a single
repeated phrase
MPC 34 44 100 95

Melodeyen
Gesangbuch
30 37 83 75
Hassler 27 32 80 83
Osiander 25 23 67 63
Mareschall 17 20 62.5 79

63
This analysis of variety in Praetorius’ Cantional and those of other composers includes those cases in
which an entire phrase of the melody repeats, as well those in which a majority of the phrase of the melody
repeats, perhaps with a different initial note, different ending to the phrase, or the like. While Ruhnke’s
analysis considers each vertical sonority as a whole, this analysis considers the harmony separately from
the specific notes sung by each of the three lower voices.

243
Whether Praetorius emphasizes variety more than all other composers cannot be
concluded from this analysis of only a few Cantionale. The data combined with his
remarks on the topic, however, do imply that varying harmonies and individual
accompanying lines, especially for phrases that are repeated, was a conscious choice for
Praetorius, a significant trait of his compositional style, and yet another element of the
composition of cantional settings in which he excelled.
Example 3.24. Repeated phrases of the melody in MSVI: 115

244
In Praetorius’ Cantional, although an increase in decoration in the lower voices
corresponds to greater variety in harmonization of repeated phrases, even the simplest
settings can exhibit remarkable disparity between successive iterations of the same
phrase. For instance, with just a few minor exceptions, all voices move together in both
the initial statements and the repetitions of three phrases in MSVI: 115. Nevertheless, in
the repeat of the third phrase of this excerpt almost half of the notes and chords differ
from the first statement to the second and an even greater percentage of notes differs
between the two statements of the first phrase. The repeat of the second phrase is
especially remarkable, with only one note and one chord identical in both statements (see
Example 3.24, above). Unsurprisingly, the amount of completely new harmony and voice
leading for repeated phrases tends to decrease as the number of iterations of a given
phrase increases. Even so, Praetorius sometimes presents three or more versions of the
same phrase with distinct accompanying voices, as Example 3.25 demonstrates (see
below). Incidentally, the tenor line in the third iteration of phrase 1 of this example uses
the notes from the soprano line of the previous phrase (the second iteration of phrase 3),
resulting in a brief instance of imitation between these voices—a clever effect, even if the
texture of the setting and the general de-emphasis on the tenor line in performance might
render it inaudible, at least to a typical congregation.

245
Example 3.25. Repeated phrases of the melody in MSV: 42

246
Melodic accompanying voices, balance, motivic unity and text painting
Most of the elements of part writing assessed in Ruhnke’s article—chord choice,
cadence types, number of inversions, contour of bass line, and variety in harmonization
of repeated phrases—are easily quantifiable. Yet, as Ruhnke implies with his
comparisons of multiple phrases of inner voices written by Praetorius with those written
by other composers, while these elements often accompany, correlate with and contribute
to artistic, sophisticated part writing—which is why it is illuminating and worthwhile to
compare the use of these elements in different Cantionale, exceptional part writing
cannot be reduced to the mere incorporation of such elements. The specific combination
of these and other ingredients to create distinct melodic shapes, the relationships between
voices, and the relationship of the notes to the text all are relevant to the quality of part
writing in cantional settings. Therefore, beyond noting that the flexibility encountered
repeatedly in the various aspects of Praetorius’ part writing allows for the construction of
elegant lower voices, it is expedient to investigate additional characteristics of Praetorius’
inner voices to those noted by Ruhnke and to examine specific examples, demonstrating
features that make them noteworthy. Expanding on the content of Ruhnke’s analysis,
such an examination will reveal the care, cleverness and sophistication Praetorius
manages to instill even in these simple compositions meant to accompany congregational
singing. This type of focused, selective analysis will demonstrate that Praetorius thought
highly of the humble cantional setting and that he produced some especially fine
examples of the genre. Additionally, this analysis—combined with the above quantitative
analysis confirming that elements relevant to creating melodic accompanying voices and
247
variety in cantional settings occur in Praetorius’ Cantional at a discernibly higher
frequency than in the collections of at least some of his important contemporaries—will
provide some compelling evidence to suggest that, as a whole, Praetorius’ cantional
settings are among the most eloquent of his generation.
Often cited when reference is made to Praetorius’ skill at part writing in his
cantional settings—because it is recognizable and still used today and because of the
undeniable beauty of its melody, enhanced by the lower voices, Praetorius’ cantional
setting of Es ist ein Ros entsprungen (MSVI: 53) incorporates a number of elements of
elegant part writing.
64
Especially conspicuous in this setting is the linear motion in the
lower voices; in total, within its seven phrases there are fourteen individual scalar
motives of at least four notes each. Such scalar motion promotes a sense of melodic
direction, an important component of graceful voice leading. These sorts of scalar
motives, with up to eight notes in succession, pervade Praetorius’ cantional settings,
occurring in nearly every one at an average rate of about five per setting. Frequent scalar
motion contributes to a sense of melodic independence and meaningful trajectory in the
lower voices. Similarly, triadic motion also is an important component of many melodies;
it features prominently in the popular Christmas song Resonet in laudibus, for instance.
In the following example, Praetorius uses ascending and descending triadic motion to
create a recognizable pattern in the tenor voice. The result is a very catchy tune that has
its own independent identity, and simultaneously complements the other voices. While

64
In addition to Ruhnke’s analysis, see for instance Vogelsänger, “Michael Praetorius: Hofkapellmeister
zwischen Renaissance und Barock. I,” 24, for a brief discussion of the sensitivity of the tessitura of the
voices and of the harmony to the text.
248
rhythmic diversity between voices often aids in the creation of melodically coherent,
independent lower voices, this passage demonstrates that Praetorius can construct such
voices in the context of pure or almost pure homorhythm.
Example 3.26. MSVI: 50, phrases 2-3

A good melody not only incorporates recognizable direction, but also includes
balance, especially between stepwise motion and leaps, between ascending and
descending motion, and between rhythmic stasis and movement. The tune of Ein feste
Burg incorporates balance in all of these areas. Stepwise motion predominates in this, but
the melody also is punctuated by timely leaps. The interplay of ascending and descending
motion in the opening phrase foreshadows the upward and downward trajectories in
phrases 3-4 and 5-7, respectively. In the opening phrase syncopation follows the initial
stable rhythm, and these two rhythmic elements alternate throughout the chorale.
Although the primary function as harmonic support—and in the bass as harmonic
foundation—limits the degree to which accompanying voices in cantional settings can
249
exhibit such a perfect balance of multiple musical elements, frequently in his settings
Praetorius does create balanced melodic lines in these voices.
This is the case in one of his harmonizations of the Christmas chorale Geborn ist
Gottes Söhnelein (MSVI: 62; see Example 3.27, below). Along with balance in stepwise
motion and leaps, rising and falling motion and strategic minor divergences from the
rhythm of the melody in phrases 1, 2 and 4, the tenor voice also includes two short
intervallic patterns. These mini-sequences, the first in phrase 3 and the second in phrase
4, increase the direction and melodic sense in this voice. The bass and alto voices exhibit
similar melodic qualities to those of the tenor, especially in phrases 1-3. In addition, the
four voices complement each other well. Leaps in one voice balance stepwise motion in
another. They rise and fall at different rates and in different places. For instance, in the
opening phrase the soprano and bass lines both ascend from, and return to, an F, but they
reach their apexes on different beats; meanwhile, the tenor motion is predominantly
upward throughout the phrase. The respective rhythmic anomalies of the four voices
occur in different places, increasing the independence of the voices even as they share
some motivic material. This piece, then, while certainly the harmonization of one chorale
melody is also a logical combination of four discernible melodies.
65

65
Because this setting is characterized by abundant crossing of the alto above the soprano in phrases 1 and
4, it is atypical of Praetorius’ settings in terms of voicing. Nevertheless, the amount of voice crossing in
phrases 2 and 3 is typical, and phrase 3 is perhaps the nicest of the phrases in many ways, demonstrating
that Praetorius could write exceptionally melodic lower voices with typical voicing.
250
Example 3.27. MSVI: 62

Similarly, each of the four voices in Example 3.28 (see below), an excerpt from
one of Praetorius’ settings of In dulci jubilo, has discernible melodic features. The bass,
with its two-member sequence of ascending leap of a fourth followed by descending
scalar motion, is clearly melodic in nature. Likewise the alto, also with a two-member
sequence as well as a stepwise descending drive to the end of the phrase, could have been
251
pulled directly from a coherent tune. The pattern of notes of the tenor is less manifestly
melodic than those in the bass and alto, but this voice exhibits strong rhythmic logic.
Example 3.28. MSVI: 33, phrase 4

The result of the combination of these discrete lines is remarkable. Against the
unwavering lilting pulse of the soprano, each of the bottom lines contributes a unique
rhythmic character to the complex: cascading motion in the bass and conflicting
syncopation in the tenor and alto. While the soprano and tenor lines each circle around a
pitch (G in the soprano and Bb in the tenor), the end of the alto line exhibits clear upward
motion to the end of the phrase, and the bass inevitably leads there with downward
motion. Thus, each of the four voices is logical and eminently singable on its own, but
the four of them also fit together perfectly like custom-cut puzzle pieces.
In addition to emphasizing conjunct motion and balance of various sorts within
and between voices, Praetorius sometimes creates interesting motivic relationships
between different lines. Given the nature of cantional settings, with their predominant
252
homorhythm and the prominence of the top line, motivic manipulation in these pieces
tends to be subtle, and involve common figures. For instance, in Example 3.29a,
Praetorius uses an ascending scalar motive in the bass, and a fifth higher in the tenor.
Example 3.29. Some recurring motives

Although there is nothing especially novel about this motive, the use of exactly the same
shape in both voices and the speed of the notes make it more prominent, especially in the
bass. Similarly, the motive passed between the three bottom voices in phrase 4 of
MSVIII: 44 appears frequently within cantional settings, but the rhythm and rapid
succession of the statements suggest that this sharing of material between voices was not
incidental, but intentional (see Example 3.29b).
A device Praetorius uses periodically in his settings involves the appearance of
the same motive in two voices simultaneously, but at different speeds. For example, to
accompany the chorale in phrase 2 of MSVII: 14, the tenor sings the same distinctive
melodic shape as the chorale itself, but uses a different rhythmic profile (see Example
253
3.30a, below). In another instance, Praetorius extracts the melodic shape from an entire
phrase of the soprano line, alters the rhythm, and presents the result against the soprano
in a series of three interlocking statements in the bass and tenor voices (see Example
3.30b).
Example 3.30. Two presentations of a motive in two voices simultaneously,
at different speeds

Example 3.31. MSVIII: 44, phrases 1 and 3

254
A similar relationship exists between the bass and alto in phrase 3 of MSVIII: 44. In this
case, the version of the motive found in the bass is derived from the tenor line in phrase
1. In addition, the relevant tenor part is related subtly to the chorale melody itself (see
Example 3.31, above).
Example 3.32. MSVIII: 256, final two phrases

In MSVIII: 256, a setting of Christ der du bist der helle Tag, material in both the
bass and alto derives directly from the melody: the bass sings in parallel to the soprano
for the first statement of “Prediger,” and the alto borrows the notes, but not the rhythm,
from the bass. Praetorius manipulates this same pattern further in the subsequent phrase
for use in the bass voice. Additionally, the tenor part for this subsequent phrase is related
to the original motive from the melody (see Example 3.32, above). The gradual evolution
of this simple motive from the chorale, then, produces a substantial proportion of the
255
accompanying voices in parts of two phrases, a procedure reminiscent of passages from
the polyphonic Gelobet seist du settings of MSV.
66

Example 3.33. Motivic manipulation and imitation in settings of
Christ der du bist der helle Tag

Motivic relationships between voices occur in other settings of this same chorale.
In the second phrase of MSVIII: 258, the tenor sings a short motive from the melody a
third lower, and with the rhythmic values cut in half. Because the tenor follows the
soprano by three beats, the result is a brief instance of imitation in diminution (see
Example 3.33a, above). Similarly, in the final phrase of an additional setting of this
chorale, the alto briefly imitates the soprano at a fourth below while the tenor sings the
inverse of the soprano’s motive. The bass part, initially in exact fore-imitation of the
tenor, consists of a string of material derived from this inverted version of the motive (see
Example 3.33b). Because the entrances of the motive are successive (bass, soprano and

66
In particular, see Examples 2.2 and 2.3.
256
tenor, alto) and Praetorius uses the same rhythmic pattern in all voices for the motive and
its inverse, the resulting imitation is more noticeable than some of the other relationships
between voices found in Praetorius’ settings. Nevertheless, because the imitative
structure is concise, develops a short motive, and occurs at the end of the setting, it does
not unduly undermine the clarity of the chorale melody.
Within Praetorius’ Cantional, conspicuous imitation—with staggered entrances
and non-aligned text—is extremely rare, undoubtedly because this type of construction
could confuse a congregation easily. Nevertheless, Praetorius does include such imitation
a couple of times in his Cantional, incorporating it into settings in such a way that it need
not exclude congregational participation. He begins a setting of the Christmas chorale
Hört zu ihr lieben Leute (MSVI: 65) in unison—a device he specifically suggests is
useful for encouraging members of the congregation to sing. The subsequent phrase, with
its pure homorhythm, also is suited ideally for encouraging laymen to participate.
Although the imitation following these phrases is at the unison, and begins in the alto
voice after sustained notes in all voices—so that some members of a congregation might
unintentionally start to sing with the altos and then become disoriented upon the soprano
entrance, the characteristics of the initial phrases of the setting counter churchgoer
confusion as much as possible (see Example 3.34, below). Similarly, the imitation in a
setting of Heut lobt die werte Christenheit (MSVI: 68), occurring following four phrases
set in a simple style, could accompany congregational singing.

257
Example 3.34. MSVI: 65

Praetorius’ attention to lower voices extended beyond the shapes of individual
lines and the relationships between these lines. He also strove to illustrate and accentuate
the structure and meaning of the text. For example, the Christmas chorale Herze, Sinn
und unser Gmüte consists of a verse in duple meter and a fervent refrain of “Mein
Herzenskindlein / mein liebstes Mündlein / mein Herzenskindlein / mein liesbstes
Fründlein, Jesu, O Jesu,” in triple meter.
67
In one of his settings of this chorale (MSVI:
66), Praetorius uses three voices (SAT) for the verse, but increases the sonority for the

67
My heart’s little child, my darling little ward, my heart’s little child, my darling little friend, Jesus, o
Jesus.

258
refrain by adding a second tenor and a bass part. This addition of voices reinforces the
division between verse and refrain and underscores the importance of the refrain’s
meaning.
In MSVI: 45—a setting with three verses, each of which consists of five main
phrases with an interjection of the words “der Herr Christ” after the first and second
phrases—alternations between two and four voices serve at least two related functions.
68

Table 3.42. Structure of Geborn ist der Emanuel (MSVI: 45)

Phrase
1
Interjection Phrase
2
Interjection Phrases
3-5

Verse 1 2 4 2 4 4
Verse 2 2 4 2 4 4
Number
of voices
used
Verse 3

4 4 4 4 4

Verse 1 S/A S/A/T/B S/A S/A/T/B S/A/T/B
Verse 2 T/B S/A/T/B T/B S/A/T/B S/A/T/B
Voices
used
Verse 3

S/A/T/B S/A/T/B S/A/T/B S/A/T/B S/A/T/B

Verse 1 Soprano Soprano Soprano Soprano Soprano
Verse 2 Tenor Tenor Tenor Tenor Soprano
Location
of
Melody
Verse 3

Soprano Soprano Soprano Soprano Soprano

Firstly, the change in forces creates contrast, not only in the number of voices used, but
also in the range of participating voices and the resulting sonority, in the volume, and in

68
Praetorius includes both Latin and German versions of the text for this chorale. The text of the
interjections in the Latin version is “Dominus.”

259
the location of the melody.
69
Additionally, by using reduced forces before each statement
of “der Herr Christ” in the first and second verses and incorporating more voices for
these interjections, Praetorius emphasizes these words, stressing that Jesus is the focal
point of the text, and ultimately of the Christmas season it celebrates.
In MSVI: 77, a macaronic Christmas song with Latin for the first two phrases and
German for the other six, Praetorius again exploits changes in performing forces, this
time for dramatic reasons. The German section consists of a set of two questions and
answers: “Wo ist ein Kind geborn? / Zu Bethlehem ist uns geborn ein Kindelein. / Wo ist
ein Kind geborn? / Zu Bethlehem / zu Bethlehem ist uns geborn ein Kindelein /
gewunden in ein Tüchelein / Jesus ist der Name sein.”
70
To distinguish between the
questions and answers, Praetorius appropriately sets the interrogative portions for two
voices, and the confident statements for four voices. The Latin lines are narrative in
nature: “In natali Domini / clamant mortales singuli.”
71
Praetorius sets the first of these
for soprano and alto only while he writes the second for all four voices, with the fuller
sonority serving to illustrate the literal meaning of that phrase.
Praetorius incorporated small-scale text painting—such as sharp dissonances to
portray the concept of pain, dotted rhythms and syncopation as a depiction of joy, and the

69
When the melody moves to the tenor, it continues to sound on top during the main phrases so that the
congregation would have no trouble singing along. Although it is buried in the middle of the texture during
the “der Herr Christ” interjections of verse 2, the congregation still likely would have little trouble singing
along, given the short duration of these interjections and their location midway through the piece.

70
Where is a child born? In Bethlehem is a little child born for us. Where is a child born? In Bethlehem, in
Bethlehem is a little child born for us, wrapped in a little cloth, Jesus is his name.

71
At the birth of the Lord, all mortal [beings] proclaim. . . .

260
literal illustration of “mortales singuli” with an expansion of forces—into numerous
settings in his Cantional as many previous examples attest. Similarly, regarding MPC1
Ruhnke notes that the four-fold repetition of an F chord with the same voicing in the first
phrase reinforces the chorale-melody’s illustration of God as a fortress.
72
Vogelsänger
observes that the placement of a D-major triad at the end of the penultimate phrase of Es
ist ein Ros entsprungen, where it harmonizes a note that was accompanied by a D-minor
triad in the first two iterations of the same phrase, evokes the “cold winter” of the text, at
least in the context of harmonic expectations in the early seventeenth century.
73
Such
instances further underscore Praetorius’ attention to text expression.
An especially extravagant and explicit example of text painting in Praetorius’
Cantional occurs in a setting of a funeral chorale, Hört auf zu trauren und klagen
(MSVIII: 168). The text of this chorale expresses one of the most essential principles of
Lutheran doctrine, which—rooted in the concept of salvation by grace through faith
alone, and thus assurance of salvation—emphasizes the hope for Christians of bodily
resurrection. The opening verse of the chorale contrasts the apparent hopelessness and
irreversibility of physical death with the confidence of resurrection and new life: “Stop
lamenting and grieving / let no one despair about death. / He has died as a Christian. / His
death is a corridor to life.”
74
The first three lines revolve around death, while the final line

72
As Ruhnke notes, Praetorius tends to avoid repeating chords with the same voicing (although this is not
the only instance in which he uses this device, by any means), suggesting that the use of this device here is
intentional.

73
Vogelsänger, “Michael Praetorius: Hofkapellmeister zwischen Renaissance und Barock. I,” 24.

74
Hört auf zu trauren und klagen / ob dem Tod niemand verzage / er ist gestorben als ein Christ / sein Tod
ein Gang zum Leben ist.
261
emphasizes the fortunate paradox in the situation as understood by Lutherans—that death
is not the end but rather the gateway to perfect life. Verse three employs this same
trajectory of ideas, commencing with imagery of death, and concluding in the final line
with imagery of life: “It well appears as if all is lost / because he lies without boldness
and sense. / But he will soon again find / life and strength in all his limbs.”
75
Similarly,
verse seven reserves the focus on resurrection for the final line: “The body made from
lumps of earth / will lie in the womb of the earth / and it will rest there without affliction /
until he raises it again.”
76
These three verses, then, encapsulate the overall message of the
poem and the trajectory of the text, from death to life, and sorrow to joy.
The chorale melody itself subtly illustrates this progression of thought with brief
rhythmic syncopation in the final line. In MSVIII: 168, by emphatically accentuating this
increased rhythmical activity present in the melody, Praetorius illustrates clearly the
meaning of the chorale through his use of texture. The first three lines of his setting are
purely homorhythmic, so that the lower voices are entirely lacking in rhythmic vitality.
The last line, however, incorporates no fewer than fourteen instances in which the rhythm
of the lower voices is not aligned to that of the melody voice. In addition, the text in the
tenor voice is out of alignment with the text in the other voices for much of the phrase.
All of these elements result in significant rhythmic activity and animation, representing
the future life anticipated by Christians (see Example 3.35, below). By juxtaposing this

75
Wohl scheints es sei nu alls dahin / Weil er liegt ohne Mut und Sinn / Doch soll sich bald finden wieder /
Leben und Kraft in alln Gliedern.

76
Der Leib gemacht vom Erdenkloß / Soll liegen in der Erden Schoß / Und soll da ruhen ohne Leid / Bis
daß er wieder aufersteht.
262
increased activity with the strict rhythmic stasis of the first three phrases, Praetorius
heightens its impact. Indeed, so stark is the contrast that it is not illegitimate to assume
that all churchgoers—choir members as well as laymen, the youth as well as adults—
would recognize the clear illustration of the text. Furthermore, within the cultural context
of seventeenth-century Lutheranism, surely many would receive encouragement from the
musical depiction of the chorale’s message.
Example 3.35. MSVIII: 168

263
Neither the texture used in the first three phrases nor the texture of the last phrase
is especially novel for Praetorius’ cantional settings. Certainly, sections of pure
homorhythm occur regularly in these pieces. Similarly, all of the decorations in the final
phrase are typical ones, employed frequently in cantional-style pieces. Even the
concentration of rhythmic activity in the last line—though higher than that in most of
Praetorius’ settings—is comparable to, even smaller than, that of some of Praetorius’
more complex pieces in cantional style. However, it is exceedingly uncommon for
Praetorius to include two such widely divergent textures in the same cantional setting,
indicating clearly that he uses these textures here strategically. Although word painting in
strophic pieces often only applies clearly to specific words in the first stanza of text, in
this instance Praetorius expresses the meaning of entire strophes, and of the chorale as a
whole. Additionally, while musical limitations inherent in the cantional setting tend to
hinder extensive text painting, here Praetorius powerfully depicts one of the central tenets
of the Christian faith, using only elements characteristic of the piece’s genre.

Conclusion
Michael Praetorius clearly intended to imbue his cantional settings with beauty
and expression. His flexible approach to part writing—in use of harmonies, cadences and
voicings—is especially conducive to creating coherent melodies and he skillfully realized
this potential in the composition of his cantional settings. Using well-constructed
melodies combined into balanced counterpoint and harmonic variety, and cleverly
employing motivic manipulation, imitation and text painting, Praetorius produced simple,
264
yet meaningful pieces. While they fulfill their function of accompanying congregational
singing of chorales exceptionally well, they are not merely functional, but, in varying
degrees, exhibit compositional sophistication. Attention to careful part writing and
specific devices used to create relationships between voices and to the text—elements
conspicuous in Praetorius’ contrapuntally complex motets and other chorale-based
pieces, such as his Gelobet seist du settings in MSV—are apparent in his cantional
settings. These elements appear more subtly than in works intended for purely choral
performance, and some arise only periodically in the cantional-style pieces, but their
presence is unmistakable and affirms the importance of the cantional setting to
Praetorius.
Ruhnke argues that Praetorius’ cantional settings outshine those of his
contemporaries. Even though the distinction between Praetorius and his contemporaries
in the areas Ruhnke’s study investigates is far smaller in the context of entire collections
of cantional settings than the analysis of the pieces in Ruhnke’s article implies, his study
is illuminating. It indicates certain areas relevant to good part writing that can be assessed
quantitatively and reveals the tendency, though often it is only slight, towards greater
excellence in these areas in Praetorius’ pieces than arises in other Cantionale of the same
period. Further investigation of Praetorius’ ability to capitalize on his generous use of
neighboring triads and inversions, variety of cadential motion, smooth bass lines and
harmonic variety to produce artistic part writing affirms that Ruhnke’s fundamental
conclusion with regard to Praetorius’ Ein feste Burg settings is applicable to his
Cantional as a whole:
265
But in his cantional settings he proves that the simplicity demanded by the
rules of the genre need not necessarily be purchased through a renunciation of
all art. Certainly limits were set on the melodic development of the lower
voices. Nevertheless, Praetorius did not have to write as the notes wanted, but
he gave as much freedom and preserved as much tunefulness as was generally
possible within the boundaries of the genre.
77

Undoubtedly, most laymen did not fully grasp the sophistication of Praetorius’
part writing. For many, the experience of singing along with a Praetorius cantional setting
may have been almost identical to singing with a functional one by Osiander. Still,
perhaps some would notice harmonic changes in repeated phrases of the melody, at least
multiple stanzas into a performance. Motivic relationships between voices, if performed
in such a way as to highlight them, might receive notice by some members of the
congregation. Particularly pleasing harmonic movement and refined voice leading might
elicit appreciation, even though members of the congregation might not be able to
distinguish the specific compositional features of the piece that make it pleasant to hear.
Some instances of text painting would have been apparent to all, or at least some, people
within a congregation such that their presence would deepen the experience of singing
chorales. Additionally, in the Christian worldview, because exquisite human creations
assist in directing a congregation’s focus towards God, the ultimate source of all beauty, a
congregation benefits from exposure to good art, even when it does not understand it
fully. Primarily though, while Praetorius confirmed his stated concern for promoting

77
Ruhnke, “Michael Praetorius,” 241: “Er hat aber in seinen Kantionalsätzen bewiesen, daß die durch die
Gattungsgesetze geforderte Schlichtheit nicht unbedingt durch einen Verzicht auf alle Kunst erkauft
werden mußte. Gewiß waren der melodischen Entfaltung der Unterstimmen Grenzen gesetzt. Dennoch
mußte Praetorius nicht so schreiben, wie es die Noten wollten, sondern er hat den Unterstimmen soviel
Freiheit gegeben und soviel Sanglichkeit bewahrt, wie es in den engen Grenzen der Gattung überhaupt
möglich war.”

266
congregational singing through the care with which he produced material for this
purpose, choir members were the main beneficiaries among church attendees of these
pieces.
Altos, tenors and basses in the choir would appreciate the melodic elements
integrated into their parts, both because these would make their parts easier and more
interesting to sing, and also because of the resulting beauty of these parts. Changes in
harmony and voice leading in subsequent iterations of the same chorale phrase would
make performance of a cantional setting more engaging for trained singers who might
grow weary of singing exactly the same phrase numerous times within a multi-stanza
performance; judiciously placed diminutions and decorations could also make a part
more interesting to sing. Choir members could notice and enjoy many of the motivic
relationships between voices, especially after singing a number of stanzas, although the
most subtle of these might remain unnoticed even by trained singers. They could enjoy
instances of brief, but clever, imitation; creative text painting not only could create
delight, but enhance the meaning of a piece for a choir member. Furthermore, since
beauty points people towards God in the Lutheran view, because trained singers could
grasp the artistry infused into these compositions more than laymen, they would also
receive increased spiritual benefits from singing these pieces.
For Praetorius, who believed that the “end of man is to know God and to worship
him,” providing a means to facilitate the realization of this end for laypeople and trained
musicians while promoting the unity of the body of Christ was of incalculable importance
and worth. Beyond that, given that he believed his own end was towards the worship of
267
God, Praetorius certainly would have considered the very act of composition as worship
and the omniscient God as the ultimate audience for his cantional-style compositions.
Because of this, regardless of whether the congregation could grasp the artistry in these
simple compositions or the choir members would detect the most subtle of the
relationships he produced between voices, these elements were of great value. Based on
what Praetorius’ writings reveal about his own passion to know and praise God, one can
imagine his enjoying embedding such elements within his part writing, believing that
God would grasp them more fully than even he did and delight in the product of his
honest efforts.
268
Chapter 4: Groups of Settings of the Same Chorale Tune

Regional variation of chorale melodies
Michael Praetorius included in Musae Sioniae—and in his output as a whole—
several types of settings of a large number of chorales, in order to suit the needs of
churches with different resources, and to fulfill the requirements for various types of
choral performance as well as congregational singing. Narrowing the scope to his simple
chorale harmonizations, his Cantional is comprehensive as well, not so much in its use of
different styles—although there is some variety of style within a limited range—but in
the number of melodies it incorporates and its relevance to people in many regions within
Lutheran Germany of the seventeenth century. In comparison to other volumes of
cantional settings composed during the first 25 years of this genre’s existence, Praetorius’
collection is especially extensive. Its 757 pieces spread across four different volumes
dwarf the number published by many composers, such as Osiander (50), Mareschall
(89),
1
Hassler (68), and the Hamburg organists who collaborated on the Melodeyen
Gesangbuch (89). Even the lengthy collections by Melchior Vulpius (approximately 400
settings)
2
and Bartholomäus Gesius (355 settings)
3
have far fewer pieces than does
Praetorius’.

1
Mareschall also wrote a similar collection of harmonizations of the Geneva Psalter.

2
Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht, “Die Kirchenweisen von Melchior Vulpius,” Musik und Kirche 23 (1953): 52-
54. Vulpius’ 1604 Cantional includes 148 settings with 84 texts and 81 melodies. His 1609 Cantional has
260 settings (188 texts and 168 melodies), although 107 of these are recycled (with changes on all but four
of them) from the 1604 Cantional.

3
Hans Borlisch, “Bartholomäus Gesius,” Musik und Kirche 22 (1952): 19-24.
269
In his Cantional, Praetorius sometimes harmonizes more than one melody for a
given text, as with Weltlich Ehr und zeitlich Gut, which appears with three different
melodies (MSVII: 169, 171 and 172). Even more notable, however, is that Praetorius
often provides between two and seven simple harmonizations of the same tune.
4
As he
states in the preface to the first volume of Musae Sioniae, and in Syntagma musicum III,
the resulting groups of settings of one chorale melody represent his attempt to reproduce
the regional variants of melodies from the Duchy of Braunschweig, the Maritime cities
(Seestädt), Prussia (Preußen), Thuringia (Thüringen), the Mark of Brandenburg (Marck),
Meißen, Swabia (Schwaben) and Franconia (Francken). Although he does not do this in
every case, often he notes the region or regions for which each version was intended. For
many chorales, Praetorius provides melodies for only two or three of these regions, while
in other cases there is a setting appropriate for each location; a given setting might be
meant for one of the eight regions, or for more than one. Schwaben and Francken are
almost always listed together—to the extent that Praetorius generally treats these two as
comprising one larger region—although this is not exclusively the case. Other regions
might be grouped in pairs, or even in threes or fours.
5
However, although it is rather
centrally situated among regions, very rarely does Praetorius group his home location of
Braunschweig with another region.

4
Judging from the works list in Walter Blankenburg, "Vulpius, Melchior," in Grove Music Online. Oxford
Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/article/grove/music/29738 (accessed January 19, 2012),
Vulpius includes up to four harmonizations of the same tune in his Cantional, but these do not seem to be
intended for people in different regions.

5
For instance, see MSVIII: 93, a setting of Ach Gott, von Himmel sieh darein for Preußen and Seestädt;
MSVIII: 118, the setting of Verleih uns Frieden for Meißen, Marck and Preußen; MSVIII: 100, the setting
of Ein feste Burg for Meißen, Marck, Thüringen and Seestädt; and MSVII: 41, a setting of Erbarm dich
mein, o Herre Gott for Preußen, Meißen, Thüringen and Seestädt.
270

Figure 4.1. Map of central Europe, showing cities Praetorius indicated as being
located within a specific region

The information regarding the regions of the cities shown in the map is derived from the list in the
preface to Urania (p. X) of composers who worked within the various regions.

For ease of recognizing the positions of the cities, both within central Europe and relative to each other,
the map shows political boundaries current as of summer, 2012.

271
Visitation reports confirm that unfamiliar melodies, tunes sung incorrectly, and
unexpected additions to hymns could hamper the ability of a congregation to sing
chorales successfully. Therefore, providing congregations in a given region cantional
settings of chorales using the versions of tunes customary there was a relevant concern
for composers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Praetorius’ practice of including
chorale harmonizations tailored to specific regions, then, reveals his sensitivity to the
needs of local congregations, not only in Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel, but in many
different regions. In contrast to the typical Cantional intended for a specific location
(e.g., Eccard’s publication expressly intended for use in Preußen), Praetorius created his
publication to serve the needs of local congregations over a wide geographical area, an
element that appears to be unique to his Cantional.
Additionally, as a passage from Syntagma musicum II indicates, it seems
Praetorius desired that the volumes of his Cantional be available even to those
congregations who could not afford to buy them.
Now since the only aim and intention behind all my works is the glorification
of God, and the establishment and promulgation of his name, I accordingly
invite those who require the aforementioned works, or whatever is still
available of the German Musae Sioniae, Uranodia and Litania, or my present
magnum opus, Polyhymnia III: Panegyrica, to write to the clergy or church
authorities of their district, indicating which pieces they require. I will be very
glad, then, to send them free of charge.
6

6
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum II, introduction: “So erbiete ich mich dahin / das zu GOttes Ehr und seines
Namens erbaw: und außbreitung (dahin alle meine Opera und labores eintzig und allein gerichtet und
gemeinet seyn) ob genante Opera und Exemplaria, und was auch von den Teutschen Musis Sioniis,
Vranodia und Litania, noch verhanden / so wol das jetzige grosse Opus Polyhymniae III. Panegyricae:
denen / so sie / doch auff vorgehende der Pfarrherrn oder Kirchväter desselben orts schreiben / begehren /
gantz willig und gerne ohn einig entgelt von Mir und den Meinigen gereichet Vnd außgefolget werden
sollen.” Translation adapted slightly from Syntagma musicum. II, trans. and ed. Crookes, 16.

272
Praetorius explains further that he “should have liked to send on to many places the later
parts (namely parts 6, 7, 8 and 9) of the German Musae Sioniae,” but that so many
unscrupulous individuals had acquired his publications for free in order to sell them for
their own profit that he had been forced to abandon this original plan.
7

Many of Praetorius’ statements denying a desire for monetary remuneration for
his publications are steeped in clever rhetorical language and thus must be read
cautiously rather than at face value. Nevertheless, as Stephen Rose has argued, because
this passage from Syntagma musicum II resembles an advertisement, with less ornate
rhetoric than in other of Praetorius’ writings, its claim regarding the offer of free prints is
likely to be genuine.
8
Thus, the expansive scope of the contents of Praetorius’ Cantional,
combined with his apparently sincere offer to give away copies of this publication,

7
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum II, introduction: “Jedoch das nicht jemand reichtfertiget weise sich
vnterstehe dieselbe abzufordern / seines gefallens Krämerey und Gewin damit zutreiben / Inmassen vor
diesem von etlichen geschehen sein sol; und ich selbst darhinder kommen bin / weiche dieselben der
Kirchen entzogen / auch wol von mir selbsten begehret / und andern umbs Geld verkaufft: Oder an andern
örtern vertauschet. Daß Ich dann an seinen Ort und zu deroselben verantwortung stelle. Hette zwar selbsten
/ wie angefangen / die letzten (als 6. 7. 8. 9.) Theil der Teutschen Musarum Sioniarum und mehre Sachen /
an viele Orter hernach senden wollen: So ist es mir mit den Botten so wiederwertig ergangen / daß Ich es
gantz verbleiben lassen müssen.” (“Still, I do ask that no one may be wanton enough to pretend that he is
ordering them for his own pleasure, when his intention is really to sell them for his own profit. This has
happened on a number of occasions in the past; I have personally come across people who deprive the
church of this music, or who order it from me, and then sell it to others, or barter it in some other district.
The result is that I blame the people to whom they have sold it. I should have liked to send on to many
places the later parts [namely 6, 7, 8 and 9] of the German Musae Sioniae, and other pieces, to follow up
the earlier volumes, but it would not have been worth my while with a racket like this going on, so I have
had to forget the idea.”) Translation adapted slightly from Syntagma musicum. II, trans. and ed. Crookes,
16.

8
Stephen Rose, “The Mechanisms of the Music Trade in Central Germany, 1600-40,” Journal of the Royal
Music Association 130, no. 1 (2005): 27-32. The Lutheran perspective that Praetorius embraced considered
compositional abilities to be a gift from God to be cultivated earnestly and shared freely, rather than a
means for monetary gain. Rose suggests that perhaps Praetorius “saw these arrangements [of chorales] as
adornments of common property rather than his own creation to barter and sell” (p. 32). Praetorius’
labeling many of the melodies in MSVI-VIII as appropriate for specific regions supports this hypothesis.

273
indicates that his vision for these volumes was that they be useful for, and available to, as
many congregations as possible.
However, several questions arise from the practices of printing multiple
harmonizations of the same chorale melody tailored to specific regions and of often
grouping regions together. Firstly, how distinct are Praetorius’ various versions of a
single chorale melody? Answering this question is important in helping us understand
how much difference between local variants Praetorius thought significant when trying to
accommodate the needs of congregations. Did he consider it advantageous to print two,
simple settings of a chorale for two regions when the versions of the melody sung in
these areas had just one difference in pitch or rhythm between them, or did Praetorius
expect that a single harmonization would suffice for two regions with very similar
performance traditions, so that he printed multiple versions of a chorale only when many,
considerable melodic discrepancies were present between them? Further, in addition to
revealing Praetorius’ perception of the needs and tendencies of local congregations,
comparing his versions of chorale melodies will help us gain insight into just how much
chorale melodies could vary across Lutheran Germany—or at least how much Praetorius
perceived that they did.
Although the average amount of congruence in pitch and rhythm between two
versions of the same melody compared for this study is approximately seventy-one
percent, this congruence differs considerably depending on the chorale and particular
settings compared.

274
Table 4.1. Number of settings for specific regions compared for this study

No. of
settings
in group
No. of groups
of this
magnitude
Total no. of
settings in all
groups of this
magnitude
No. of melody
comparisons
performed for each
group of this
magnitude
Total no. of
comparisons
performed for all
analyzed groups of
this magnitude
2 2 4 1 2
3 9 27 3 27
4 4 16 6 24
5 4 20 10 40
6 2 12 15 30
7 1 7

21 21

total 22 86 144

Table 4.2. Percent of congruence in pitch and rhythm in chorale melodies for
different regions in Michael Praetorius’ Cantional

90-97.5%
congruence
80-89%
congruence
70-79%
congruence
60-69%
congruence
50-59%
congruence
<50%
congruence
No. of
comparisons
6 32 47 35 14 10
% of total 4% 22% 33% 24% 10% 7%

Though clearly in the minority, pairs of settings with almost one hundred percent melodic
congruence are especially noteworthy, because they indicate that, even when melodies
were very similar between two locations, Praetorius sometimes included a separate
version for each region.
For instance, the versions of the Nun freut euch, lieben Christen gmein melody for
Meißen and Thüringen (set in MSVII: 121 and MSVII: 122, respectively) are nearly
identical; they use the same rhythmic profile, and diverge from each other on only three
pitches. Likewise, the melodies in two settings of Puer natus in Bethlehem—MSVI: 34
275
for Marck and Thüringen, and MSVI: 35 for Seestädt—are remarkably similar to each
other; indeed, they are alike for all but three notes. In this case, however, both the pitch
and the rhythm differ slightly between the two versions of the melody. Both the Nun freut
euch and Puer natus examples demonstrate that Praetorius thought it useful to print
separate versions of a chorale even to accommodate a few, brief differences.
Perhaps most suggestive are three settings of a melody for Ach Gott, von Himmel
sieh darein, one for Braunschweig (B), one for Meißen and Thüringen (MT) and one for
Preußen and Seestädt (PS).
9
The differences in melody between these versions seem to be
so slight that they beg the question of why Praetorius would bother to create more than
one setting of this melody, and especially why he would label each as relevant to a
specific region or pair of regions. Aside from the first note of phrase 4, the pitches of the
melodies in B and MT are identical, and the rhythm is exactly the same for both settings.
Similarly, the melodies in B and PS also have only one difference in pitch, although there
are three rhythmic differences between them. However, these rhythmic differences are
especially minute (see Example 4.1, below). In practice, a choir used to sustaining notes
at the ends of phrases and continuing to the next phrase without a rest—i.e., singing the
rhythm in PS—could easily use the overall rhythm as printed in MT or B and merely
adjust the length of the note at the end of each phrase as necessary. Even the melodies in
MT and PS, which are the most disparate versions, are still congruent on 87.5% of the
notes with only two slight differences in pitch, and the three seemingly negligible
rhythmic inconsistencies. Given that Praetorius’ stated purpose for including settings

9
These three settings are MSVIII: 91, 92 and 93, respectively. Praetorius also prints a different melody for
this chorale, specifically for the region of Francken (MSVIII: 94).
276
indicated for specific regions was to allow for melodic differences, apparently he
considered these melodies—despite their near identity—to be distinct in relevant ways.
The presence of this group of settings in his Cantional, as with the Nun freut euch and
Puer natus examples, implies that Praetorius considered even minute alterations to pitch
and rhythm to be significant and, by extension, believed that lay participation flourished
most when local churches used harmonizations of chorales that mirrored as closely as
possible the exact melodic characteristics to which they were accustomed.
Example 4.1. Comparison of three versions of the melody for
Ach Gott, von Himmel sieh darein

Although the above examples are illuminating in regard to Praetorius’
understanding of the tendencies and needs of local congregations, they are by no means
277
representative of all groups of melodies in Praetorius’ Cantional. Two versions of a
chorale picked at random are likely to have at least a few more notes—in pitch, rhythm or
both—in contrast than occurs in these examples. Indeed, in some cases, two versions of
the same melody differ on a majority of the notes. For instance, the Marck and
Schwaben/Francken versions of Christus der uns selig macht (set in MSVI: 114 and 115,
respectively) agree on pitch for only 45 percent of notes and on both pitch and rhythm for
only about 32 percent of notes (see Example 4.2, below). The versions of the O Lamm
gottes unschuldig melody for Marck and Thüringen (set in MSVI: 119 and 120,
respectively) also differ fairly significantly in pitch, with agreement on only 70 percent of
notes; their rhythmic divergence is even more pronounced (see Example 4.3, below).
Example 4.2. Comparison of two versions of the melody for
Christus der uns selig macht

278

Example 4.3. Comparison of two versions of the melody for
O Lamm Gottes unschuldig

A second, and important, question arises from Praetorius’ printing of multiple
versions of the same melody and labeling them by region: how accurately did he record
local variants? While his apparent attention to minor details in the settings of Ach Gott,
von Himmel, for example, provides some indication that he prized accuracy, concrete
evidence of his fidelity to actual local traditions is required if we want to expand the
relevance of his use of different melodies beyond his own perception of what people sang
in different places, and what type and frequency of changes in rhythm and pitch he
279
thought significant. Specifically, if his reproductions of melodies are accurate, this not
only speaks to Praetorius’ care and rigor, but also entails that his Cantional contains a
wealth of reliable information about local practices of chorale singing. This is especially
important for melodies arising only occasionally at most in other sources. Investigating
Praetorius’ accuracy in representing local variants that we can check—for instance by
comparing his version of a melody to other versions stemming from the area in
question—will help us to gauge the degree to which we can trust his versions of melodies
that appear infrequently elsewhere.
Since Praetorius was the music director in Wolfenbüttel, which was within the
territory of the Duke of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel, it is legitimate to assume that his
versions for this region accurately represent how melodies were sung there. At the time
he printed his Cantional, Praetorius had lived in Frankfurt an der Oder, among other
places, and had traveled to Regensburg.
10
Therefore, he had some first-hand knowledge
of how melodies were sung in Marck and the general aria of Schwaben/Francken, or at
least in the parts of these regions he had visited, and his reproduction of these melodies
likely was indebted to this knowledge. In addition, his understanding of how melodies
were sung in these and other regions could have come from interactions with people from
these areas traveling through Wolfenbüttel or whom he met in his own travels. He also
may have relied on notated sources for his information about many melodies. Certainly,
Praetorius was aware of Cantionale from the regions for which he created specific
settings, and, as discussed above, he recommended the works of composers from these

10
He also had lived in Torgau and Zerbst. Other notable places he had visited include Gröningen, Kassel,
and probably Prague with his employer.
280
regions for creating polychoral performances of cantional settings of chorales. Therefore,
it is plausible that Praetorius consulted some of these Cantionale, other hymnbooks, or
settings in manuscript for information about local traditions. However Praetorius
acquired his versions of regional melodic variations, a comparison of the melodies in his
settings for specific regions with the melodies in Cantionale printed by prominent
composers—ones with much knowledge and experience—working in these regions
would give, while not a complete picture, at least a good indication of Praetorius’
accuracy in representing regional differences. For our purposes here, the Cantionale of
Hassler (H) and Eccard (E) and the Melodeyen Gesangbuch of the Hamburg organists
(MG) will provide the primary material for comparison against Praetorius’ melodies.
11

Specifically, material for comparison includes all melodies in H for which Praetorius
wrote a setting for Schwaben/Francken, all of the melodies in MG for which Praetorius
wrote a setting for Seestädt, and all of the melodies from the first volume of E, and seven
of those from the second volume, for which Praetorius wrote a setting for Preußen.
12
A
few pieces from other Cantionale will be consulted, as well.
13

11
Hassler’s volume was published in Nuremberg and dedicated to citizens of that city. In the preface
Hassler indicates he had used some of its contents while organist at the Frauenkirche in Nuremberg. He
also indicates that he intended the pieces in the volume to be used in Nuremberg, implying the versions of
the melodies in the volume were compatible with its regional singing practices, although he envisioned that
the pieces would be used beyond Nuremberg, as well. Eccard indicates in his preface that his Cantional
was intended for use in Königsberg, and Preußen in general. The Melodeyen Gesangbuch, composed by the
four most prominent organists in Hamburg and published in that city, clearly was intended especially for
use there.

12
The pieces from the first volume of Eccard’s Cantional were drawn from Baußnern’s edition and the
pieces from the second volume were drawn from Riegel and Schöberlein’s Schatz des liturgischen Chor-
und Gemeindegesanges.

13
All note values will be taken from the modern editions of the Cantionale in question.

281
Judging from the comparison of his Cantional with H, E and MG, Praetorius was
exceptionally knowledgeable about local variants from all three of the regions in question
and meticulous in reproducing these variants, at least in many cases. Certain of the
chorales under consideration demonstrate this clearly. For instance, Praetorius’ Preußen
version of the melody for Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ (MSVI: 23) is identical in every
respect to Eccard’s version published in Königsberg and the tune in MSVI: 24, for
Seestädt, exactly matches Joachim Decker’s version of this melody in the Melodeyen
Gesangbuch.
14
Additionally, there is only one, relatively trivial difference between
Praetorius’ version of the Gelobet seist du melody for Schwaben/Francken (MSVI: 21)
and Hassler’s version: while Hassler’s penultimate note is a half note, Praetorius splits
this into two quarter notes on the same pitch.
15
Moreover, the versions of the melodies
from these three regions differ noticeably from each other, with any two of the versions at
most sharing only three quarters of their notes in both pitch and rhythm.
16

14
The text of the final word is slightly different, however, at least as it is printed in the modern editions.
Decker has “Kyrieleiss,” while Praetorius has “Kyrioleis.”

15
The disparity arises because the word “Kyrieleison” or “Kyrieleis” could occur in many different guises.
Those versions with fewer syllables obviously required fewer notes.

16
Regarding the melody from Schwaben/Francken, this comparison uses Praetorius’ rather than Hassler’s
version of the rhythm for the final phrase of the piece.
282
Table 4.3. Comparison of three versions of the melody for
Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ

Versions compared % of notes with
the same pitch
% of notes with
the same rhythm
% of notes with the
same pitch and rhythm
Schwaben/Francken
Preußen
85% (33/39) 79.5% (31/39) 69% (27/39)
Schwaben/Francken
Seestädt
77% (30/39) 82% (32/39) 74% (29/39)
Preußen
Seestädt
77% (30/39) 72% (28/39) 59% (23/39)

Schwaben/Francken
Preußen
Seestädt
67.5% (27/40) 67.5% (27/40) 52.5% (21/40)

Example 4.4. Comparison of three versions of the melody for
Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ

283
Three versions of the melody of Nun lob, mein seel, den Herren—for Preußen
(MSVI: 115), for Schwaben and Francken (MSVII: 116) and for Marck (MSVI: 114)—
also demonstrate Praetorius’ knowledge of local variants. In terms of the succession of
pitches, Praetorius’ Preußen version is identical to Eccard’s and his Schwaben/Francken
melody matches Hassler’s exactly. Furthermore, although there are a few rhythmic
discrepancies between Praetorius’ versions of Nun lob, mein Seel for Preußen and
Schwaben/Francken and their counterparts in E and H, these discrepancies are relatively
insignificant and would have little impact, if any, on the realizations of the melody in
performance.
17
In addition, Praetorius’ version for Marck is identical in every respect to
that used by Gesius in his Cantional published in Frankfurt an der Oder.
18
As with
Gelobet seist du, the versions of the Nun lob, mein Seel tune from the three regions differ
noticeably from each other, so that the nearly precise correspondence of each one with
Praetorius’ version for the same area could by no means be accidental, but instead
supports Praetorius’ claims to use the actual local singing practice from various places.

17
Specifically, Eccard concludes four of the ten phrases with a dotted breve followed by two whole rests,
while Praetorius concludes these phrases with a breve and no rests. Because the final notes of these phrases
likely would be sustained, and could be followed by a breath even in the absence of rests, their printed
length and the presence or absence of rests following them are of only minor consequence. In two places in
his Schwaben/Francken version Praetorius combines two syllables from Hassler’s version into one (“heilt”
instead of “heilet” and “verjüngt” instead of “verjünget”) and combines the corresponding notes—two
whole notes in the modern version—into one longer note. Additionally, he lengthens the penultimate note
of the melody, essentially writing out a ritardando.

18
The modern edition of Gesius’ setting comes from Riegel and Schöberlein’s Schatz des liturgischen
Chor- und Gemeindegesanges, 3:610-11.

284
Table 4.4. Comparison of three versions of the melody for
Nun lob, mein Seel, den Herren

Versions compared % of notes
with the same
pitch
% of notes with
the same
rhythm
19

% of notes with
the same pitch
and rhythm
Schwaben/Francken
Preußen
73% (60/82) 73% (60/82) 61% (50/82)
Schwaben/Francken
Marck
80% (63/79) 85% (67/79) 70% (55/79)
Preußen
Marck
81% (66/81) 75% (61/81) 69% (56/81)

Schwaben/Francken
Preußen
Marck
70% (59/84) 69% (58/84) 55% (46/84)

Similarly, Praetorius’ versions of the melody of Durch Adams Fall for
Schwaben/Francken and Seestädt match exactly the melodies of this chorale in H and
MG, despite their distinctions. Praetorius’ versions of Christ der du bist der Helle Tag for
these cities also correspond in every way with their counterparts in H and MG. Likewise,
his renditions of the melody of Dies sind die heilgen zehn Gebot for Schwaben/Francken
and Preußen are identical to those in Hassler’s and Eccard’s Cantionale, respectively.
Moreover, although Hassler’s and Eccard’s realizations of Christus der uns selig macht
agree in both pitch and rhythm on less than sixty percent of their notes, Praetorius’
Schwaben/Francken melody matches Hassler’s exactly, and his Preußen one matches
Eccard’s, with the exception of two half-step inflections that appear in Eccard’s version
but not Praetorius’.

19
This comparison does not take into account discrepancies in the lengths of the final notes of phrases or
the presence or absence of rests following them. Additionally, it uses Praetorius’ Schwaben/Francken
version of the melody and thus does not take into account the minor rhythmic differences between that and
Hassler’s version of the melody.
285
The melody of In dulci jubilo is also instructive in this context. The realizations of
the melody in E and MG correspond exactly, and in particular, both include two
prominent reversals—ones not found in Hassler’s version of the melody—of the lilting
long-short pattern characteristic of this tune. Praetorius prints one version of this melody
for both Preußen and Seestädt together, and accurately duplicates the pitch and rhythm
for every note. Additionally, his version of this chorale for Schwaben/Francken recreates
Hassler’s version of the melody exactly. Indeed, overall, Praetorius recreates the
melodies from these three Cantionale unchanged for 28 of the 77 total relevant examples,
and prints at least a close approximation with few differences for more than three quarters
of them.

Table 4.5. Comparison of melodies for Schwaben/Francken, Seestädt, and
Preußen with those melodies in H, MG and E, respectively

Same or essentially
the same
Close
approximation
Significant differences
Total
no. of
settings
Identical Almost
identical
Very
similar
Similar Somewhat
different
Very
different
Hassler 37 17 1 8 1 5 5
Melodeyen
Gesangbuch
26 7 7 4 3 2 3
Eccard 14

4 5

2 1

1 1

Totals 77 28 13 14 5 8 9
36.36%
41 = 53.25%
55 = 71.43%

60 = 77.92%

286
Table 4.5, continued
Explanation of the categories
Identical Denotes melodies in the Cantional identical in all aspects to Praetorius’. The only
possible exception is the length of the final note which, as a sustained note, may
not be printed in the same denomination in Praetorius as it is in H, E or MG.
Almost identical Denotes melodies in the Cantional identical in all aspects to Praetorius’, with the
following possible exceptions: half-step inflections, the lengths of notes at the
ends of phrases and the possible addition or omission of rests there, and occa–
sional discrepancies between whether a pitch in the melody is re-articulated to
accommodate one version of the text, or sustained to accommodate another.
A setting in either of the above two categories accurately reproduces all local variants as presented in
the piece to which the setting is compared, with the possible minor exceptions of the duration of
sustained pitches and breaks at the ends of phrases, whether or not a particular pitch is re-articulated,
and half-step inflections of pitches. This final exception could be a result of Praetorius incorrectly
identifying how some notes are inflected in various regions, but could also be a result of different
practices in printing ficta between Praetorius and another composer, or even different editorial practices.

Very similar Denotes a Praetorius melody with from one to three substantive discrepancies—in
pitch, rhythm, or both—with the version to which it is compared.
Similar Denotes a Praetorius melody with at most five substantive discrepancies with the
version to which it is compared. A melody in this category is a close approxima–
tion of the melody from the indicated region.
For a member of either of the above categories, we can conclude that Praetorius understood and repro–
duced the general manner of singing the melody—although he might have altered a few of the minute
variants (at least as they are recorded by Hassler, Eccard or the Hamburg organists). This is especially
true for those in the “very similar” category, for which the discrepancies are infrequent and often minor
in nature.

Somewhat
different
Denotes a Praetorius melody with more than five substantive melodic discrepan–
cies with the version to which it is compared, such that any of Praetorius’ ver–
sions of the melody are likely just as good an approximation of the singing prac–
tices of the indicated region as his version for that region is.
Very different Melodies in this category have even more substantive discrepancies with the ver–
sions for comparison than those in the “somewhat different” category.
For members of these two categories Praetorius did not approximate many of the local variants, as
presented in the settings to which Praetorius’ realizations of the melodies are compared.

Two Praetorius settings for Schwaben/Francken, one for Francken only, and one
for Seestädt use the same text, but not the same melody, as settings in H and MG.
20

20
Erstanden ist der heilig Christ (MSVI: 139) and Wer in dem Schutz des Höchsten ist (MSVIII: 16) for
Schwaben/Francken; Ach Gott, von Himmel for Francken; and Aus tiefer Not schrei ich zu dir (MSVII: 49)
for Seestädt.

287
This, however, should not be surprising, of course, since a single chorale text often was
sung to multiple melodies. This was the case even within the same region, as the
Melodeyen Gesangbuch itself shows; this Cantional includes two versions of Ach Vater
unser, der du bist, each using a different tune. Similarly, Osiander prints two different
melodies for Ach Gott, von Himmel sieh darein, In dich hab ich gehoffet, Herr, and Jesus
Christus unser Heiland, der den Tod—all for the area of Württemberg. Therefore,
Praetorius’ printing a melody for a certain region different from the one in a Cantional
for that region does not undermine his record of accuracy in reproducing local versions of
chorale melodies. Indeed, while one of his melodies for Erstanden ist der heilig Christ
for Schwaben/Francken (MSVI: 139) does not match Hassler’s melody for that chorale, a
second version in Praetorius’ Cantional for that region (MSVI: 138) uses a melody
identical to Hassler’s, underscoring Praetorius’ understanding of local singing practices.
For five additional chorales that appear in Hassler’s Cantional, Praetorius prints
two versions of the same melody, one of which is for Schwaben/Francken, the other of
which is also for Schwaben/Francken, for Francken alone, or for Francken/Meißen.
21
In
each case, the former melody is identical to, or a close approximation of, the melody in
H, while the other differs considerably from Hassler’s. Such instances of two versions of
the same melody for the same general region suggest, not that Praetorius’ understanding

21
The melodies of MSVIII: 286, MSVII: 193 and MSVIII: 149 are identical to Hassler’s versions of Singen
wir aus Herzensgrund, Warumb betrübstu dich, mein Herz, and Wenn mein Stündlein vorhanden ist,
respectively. The melodies of MSVIII: 24 and MSVII: 161 are close approximations of Hassler’s versions
of In dich hab ich gehoffet, Herr and Kommt her zu mir, spricht Gottes Sohn, respectively. The alternate
versions of Singen wir aus Herzensgrund (MSVIII: 285) and Wenn mein Stündlein vorhanden ist (MSVIII:
150) are for Schwaben/Francken, the alternate versions of Kommt her zu mir, spricht Gottes Sohn (MSVII:
164) and Warumb betrübstu dich, mein Herz are for Francken, and the alternate version of In dich hab ich
gehoffet, Herr (MSVIII: 22) is for Francken/Meißen.
288
of local variants was inaccurate—since one of the versions invariably matches closely a
version we know was used in the region in question—but that a melody might be sung
quite differently even within the same general geographical area, for instance within
Schwaben/Francken.
While a thorough investigation of multiple hymnbooks from within various
geographical regions would be necessary to fully understand the extent to which melodies
might differ within these regions—and of course, to determine what the differences were,
even a cursory glance at a few melodies from Cantionale printed in the
Schwaben/Francken area confirms that such variations did exist. For instance, Hassler’s
version of Allein Gott in der Höh sei Ehr, which is identical to Praetorius’ version for
Schwaben/Francken, departs from Götthard Erythräus’ for nearby Altdorf in pitch,
rhythm or both on eight notes. In addition, it also diverges from Johannes Jeep’s version
for Weikersheim on eight notes, while Jeep’s diverges from Erythraus’ on seven. In all,
these three versions have only about three quarters of their notes—in pitch and rhythm—
in common, although their composers worked within about seventy-five miles of each
other. Similarly, many of the melodies in Osiander’s Cantional differ markedly from
those in Hassler’s, although both composers worked within the general region of
Schwaben/Francken.
Certainly, this does not mean that all chorale melodies experienced large changes
as they traveled through Lutheran Germany. For example, Andreas Raselius, working in
Regensburg, used nearly the same version of the melody for Christe der du bist Tag und
Licht as Hassler, writing for Nuremberg. Incidentally, Hassler’s version is the one
289
Praetorius prints for Schwaben/Francken. Even wider areas could share the same melodic
inflections, as the identical renderings of In dulci jubilo for Hamburg and Königsberg—
over 400 miles apart—demonstrate.
Nevertheless, given the variability of at least some melodies even within a small
geographical area, for those instances in which Praetorius’ version of a melody for
Seestädt, Preußen or Schwaben/Francken does not match its counterpart in MG, E or H, it
is certainly plausible that it represents a version of the melody sung elsewhere in that
region. Even if this is not the case, so that some of Praetorius’ melodies do not accurately
record how a chorale was sung in any place within the indicated region, his overall
percentage of accuracy seems to be exceptionally high. This should give us measured
confidence in Praetorius’ precision when using his Cantional as a source of regional
singing practices for melodies for which appropriate comparisons are not forthcoming or
are hard to find. At the very least, we have good reason to think the melody recorded in
any given setting faithfully records the method of singing the chorale for at least some
part of the region in question, and perhaps much or all of the region or regions indicated.
Because of this, we can—with appropriate caution—use Praetorius’ Cantional as a useful
and reliable source of information about the use and adaptation of chorale melodies in
different regions of Lutheran Germany in the seventeenth century.
Of the twenty-two groups of chorales introduced previously, nineteen of them
represent at least four separate regions.
22
Further scrutiny of all of Praetorius’ versions of

22
Schwaben and Francken are considered to be separate regions in this context. Out of the nineteen groups
of chorales, five of them represent four total regions, five of them represent five total regions, five of them
290
these melodies indicates that the proportion of notes in a chorale melody remaining
unchanged in all aspects of pitch and rhythm across a large geographical area differs
considerably based on the chorale.
Table 4.6. Percent of melody remaining stable across four or more regions
Average of all
melodies examined
Maximum of all
melodies examined
Minimum of all
melodies examined
Pitch 73.58 % 95 % 38%
Rhythm 67.1 % 92.5 % 45%
Pitch and rhythm 53.92 % 87.5 % 24%

In the Marck and Thüringen versions of O Lamm Gottes unschuldig, presented
above (see Example 4.3) we have already seen that a melody can differ significantly even
between two regions relatively close to each other. The five versions of Da Jesus an dem
Kreuze stund in MSVI, covering a total of six regions, provide an example of a similar
phenomenon over a wider area.
23
While some of the versions are very similar—Meißen
and Thüringen share almost the same rhythm and only diverge from each other on five
pitches—others are markedly different. For example, Seestädt and Thüringen align in
pitch on fewer than half of their notes, and share the same pitch and rhythm only on about
one third of them. In addition, while four of the melodies use phrygian mode, MSVI: 108
uses a D final with a lowered sixth—essentially transposed aeolian mode. As a result, the
characteristic descending half step at the end of phrases 2, 4 and 5 present in those

represent six total regions, two of them represent seven total regions and two of them represent eight total
regions.

23
These versions (MSVI: 107-111) are for Meißen, Marck, Thüringen, Seestädt, and Schwaben/Francken,
respectively.
291
versions in phrygian mode is missing from the Marck version. Overall, as a group, even
when transposed to the same final, the five versions of the melody converge in both pitch
and rhythm on less than one quarter of their notes.
Example 4.5. Comparison of five versions of the melody for
Da Jesus an dem Kreuze stund

292
Table 4.7. Comparison of five versions of the melody for
Da Jesus an dem Kreuze Stund

Largest amount
of congruence
between any two
versions
Smallest amount
of congruence
between any two
versions
Average amount
of congruence
between any two
versions
Amount of
congruence
among all five
versions
Pitch

87.5% 46% 67% 38%
Rhythm

95% 60% 73% 48%
Pitch and
rhythm
82.5% 34% 53%

24%

Because Praetorius’ Cantional obviously does not include every version of any
melody, a comparison of the soprano lines from all its settings of the same chorale
certainly cannot provide any sort of definitive conclusion as to precisely the amount of
variety in which a chorale was sung across Lutheran Germany in the early seventeenth
century. Nevertheless, comparisons of this sort can supply a dependable indication of the
relative degree to which various chorales tended to mutate as they spread. For instance,
while O Lamm Gottes unschuldig and Da Jesus an dem Kreuze stund apparently were
sung in substantially different guises depending on the location, other melodies evidently
remained fairly constant across wide areas. This seems to be the case for In dulci jubilo.
Praetorius included a setting for Marck, as well as the ones for Preußen/Seestädt and
Schwaben/Francken discussed above. In addition, he printed one as MSV: 83 without
indicating a specific region, although it is plausible to assume it represents the method of
293
singing the melody in Braunschweig.
24
A full two thirds of notes are constant in both
pitch and rhythm between all four settings (see Table 4.8 and Example 4.6, below). That
Praetorius’ versions for Schwaben/Francken and Preußen/Seestädt match precisely their
counterparts in Hassler’s and Eccard’s Cantionale and the Melodeyen Gesangbuch
further supports the conclusion that the melody remained fairly consistent across a wide
area. In addition, the melody in the Cantional of Melchior Vulpius—a composer
working in Weimar, Thüringen—is the same as Praetorius’ Marck version, suggesting
these melodies likely were sung identically between at least parts of these two regions.
Therefore, while analysis of Praetorius’ Cantional by no means conclusively determines
the exact amount of In dulci jubilo that remained stable across the regions in question, it
does suggest strongly that this particular melody underwent change to a far lesser degree
than did many others, and can suggest the portions of the chorale that tended to resist
change.
Table 4.8. Comparison of four versions of the melody for In dulci jubilo

Largest amount
of congruence
between any two
versions
Smallest amount
of congruence
between any two
versions
Average amount
of congruence
between any two
versions
Amount of
congruence
among all four
versions
Pitch 100% 86% 91% 84%
Rhythm 93% 78% 83% 71%
Pitch and
rhythm
93% 73% 81%

67%

24
The version of the melody in MSV: 83 is identical to the one for Preußen/Seestädt in pitch, and differs
from it in rhythm only on four notes. Specifically, the characteristic long-short reversals of the
Preußen/Seestädt melody are absent from the MSV version. The similarity between these two versions of
In dulci jubilo reflects the similarity between the melodies of many of Praetorius’ Seestädt settings and
their Braunschweig counterparts, supporting the assumption that the MSV: 83 version represents the
method of singing in Praetorius’ own chapel.
294

Example 4.6. Comparison of four versions of the melody for In dulci jubilo

In the majority of chorales in this study, pitch tends to be more consistent than
rhythm, both across a wide geographical area, and between two or three regions.

295
Table 4.9. Relative amount of congruence for all versions of a melody:
rhythm vs. pitch

(Total number of melody groups with 4 or more regions represented = 19)
No. of comparisons
Pitch more congruent 14
Rhythm more congruent 4
Rhythm and pitch differ on the same
number of notes
1

Pitch more congruent by at least 10% 8
Rhythm more congruent by at least 10% 3

Average difference between pitch congruence and rhythm congruence = 6.47%

Table 4.10. Relative amount of congruence between any two settings of
the same melody: rhythm vs. pitch

(Total number of comparisons = 144)
No. of comparisons % of comparisons
Pitch more congruent 86 59.72%
Rhythm more congruent 48 33.33%
Rhythm and pitch differ on the same
number of notes
10 6.94%

Pitch more congruent by at least 10% 32 22.22%
Rhythm more congruent by at least 10% 18 12.5 %

We have already witnessed markedly greater distinction between rhythm than between
pitch in the Marck and Thüringen versions of O Lamm Gottes unschuldig. The four
variants of O Herre Gott, dein göttlich Wort—for Braunschweig, Schwaben/Francken,
Meißen, and Preußen—demonstrate the same phenomenon over a larger geographical
area: while eighty-five percent of pitches are identical between the melodies, they
demonstrate a diversity of rhythmic contours. In particular, the Meißen melody uses triple
296
meter for four of the phrases, while the others employ duple meter throughout. Even
between versions in duple meter, divergence in rhythm occurs much more frequently than
divergence in pitch.
Example 4.7. Comparison of four versions of the melody for
O Herre Gott, dein göttlich Wort

297
This tendency for melodies from two locations to vary more in rhythm than pitch
suggests that the rhythmic profile of many chorales was more characteristic to a
particular area than was the succession of pitches.
25

Texture, harmony and voice leading within groups
One might assume that Praetorius’ attempts to imitate locally specific practice
extended beyond melody to texture. There are, however, compelling reasons to reject
such a notion. Firstly, although Praetorius explicitly refers to melodic differences as the
impetus for indicating intended regions for many chorale settings, specific styles of part
writing are not mentioned as a motivation in the relevant passages. In addition, while
melody differs noticeably between regions in many instances, in general, the same is not
true of texture. Indeed, texture was fairly uniform across regions, as most prominent
composers of cantional settings included light decoration in lower voices in most of their
pieces. Because of this, any similarity in texture between a Praetorius setting and a
parallel setting from the indicated region is likely to be a result of common practices in
part writing among most composers, not of any attempt by Praetorius to imitate the
texture used in a specific place. Therefore, although the texture in the majority of

25
Apart from Schwaben and Francken, whose chorale melodies have by far the most similar pitch and
rhythm of any two regions represented in Praetorius’ settings (since Praetorius usually prints one version
for both regions), the regions with the most similar chorale melodies in terms of pitch are Braunschweig
and Seestädt, Preußen and Seestädt, Braunschweig and Preußen, Thüringen and Preußen, and
Braunschweig and Thüringen. The regions with the most similar chorales melodies in terms of rhythm are
Braunschweig and Seestädt, Meißen and Thüringen, Thüringen and Seestädt, and Braunschweig and
Marck. The regions with the least similar chorale melodies in terms of pitch are Seestädt and
Schwaben/Francken, Meißen and Schwaben/Francken, and Marck and Schwaben/Francken. The regions
with the least similar melodies in terms of rhythm are Preußen and Schwaben, Seestädt and
Schwaben/Francken, Preußen and Francken, Braunschweig and Schwaben, and Meißen and
Schwaben/Francken.

298
Praetorius’ harmonizations for specific locations mirrors closely that used in
harmonizations printed in those regions, it would be illegitimate to deduce from this fact
that these textural similarities were a result of a conscious effort to imitate the style of
harmonization in a given region.
Furthermore, there are obvious counter-examples demonstrating that imitation of
texture was not a specific concern for Praetorius, beyond his general use of the common
texture of the day. Most notably, while Praetorius accurately reproduces the melodic
profile used in Preußen, at least as represented in Eccard’s Cantional, he declines to
imitate Eccard’s contrapuntal style of part writing. Although Eccard’s cantional settings
are much more complex than the majority of pieces of this type written around the turn of
the seventeenth century, nearly all of Praetorius’ pieces for Preußen employ the largely
homorhythmic texture typical of his cantional settings. It seems, therefore, that Praetorius
did not try to imitate Eccard’s style of writing when composing pieces for Preußen.
26
At
the level of specific pieces, it is noteworthy that the version of Verleih uns Frieden
intended for Seestädt (MSVIII: 119)—while recording the melody almost exactly as it
appears in the Melodeyen Gesangbuch—uses considerable movement in lower voices,
resulting in a texture in stark contrast to the pure homorhythm of the setting in MG.
Conversely, Praetorius’ version of Gelobet seist du for Seestädt—with three suspensions

26
This by no means indicates a lack of sensitivity on Praetorius’ part to the needs of a local congregation,
because members of a congregation certainly could sing along with settings that were simpler than the ones
usually used in their church services. Since the congregation only sang the melody, as long as that matched
what they knew, and the added parts did not obscure it too much, they would be able to participate. While,
after singing along with Eccard settings for many years, the Königsberg congregation may have found a
more typical setting of the time period to sound quite stark, they would still be able to participate, just as
they would be able to sing along with a unison performance of a chorale.

299
in the second phrase providing the only instances of movement in lower voices against
the soprano—is noticeably simpler than Joachim Decker’s version for Hamburg, which
includes multiple instances of such movement in all but the final phrase. Even if the
Hamburg organists were recording in their Cantional local traditions of part writing for
specific chorales, Praetorius does not reproduce them.
Because most of Praetorius’ cantional settings fall within texture subgroups 1.3
and 2.1 and therefore it is natural that all of his settings of most melodies would utilize
the simple texture—with light movement in lower voices in some or all phrases—
characteristic of these subgroups, nevertheless certain chorales seem to inspire Praetorius
to write with increased complexity. For instance, all of his settings of Jesus Christus
unser Heiland, der von uns (MSVII: 91-95) and of Ein feste Burg exhibit greater than
average movement, for Praetorius at least, in lower voices.
27
Perhaps Praetorius wrote
more activity in these because he expected the familiarity of the chorales would allow
people to follow the melody despite the more complicated texture.
28
In a few cases,
however, the amount of activity in lower voices is not uniform across all settings in a
group, as the three versions of Verleih uns Frieden demonstrate, since, although the
texture of two of the settings is quite standard, that of MSVIII: 119 is far more
complicated than the texture of the majority of Praetorious’ cantional settings.

27
The settings of both chorales include members of the 2.2, 3.1 and 3.2 subgroups.

28
Jesus Christus unser Heiland, der von uns frequently was sung during communion. It is mentioned as
appropriate for this purpose in at least 178 church orders written between 1523 and 1750 (see Herl,
Worship Wars, 61-62). For a discussion of this chorale, see Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music, 153-60.

300
Just as examining and comparing multiple versions of the same melody in Musae
Sioniae VI-VIII designated for particular regions clarifies Praetorius’ thoughts on the
needs of local congregations, and demonstrates his general accuracy in reproducing local
variants, comparing the harmony and voice leading in settings of the same melody yields
even further insight into Praetorius’ approach to composition and his personality.
Table 4.11a. Number of settings compared for harmony
No. of
settings
in group
No. of
groups of
this
magnitude
Total no. of
settings in all
groups of this
magnitude
No. of comparisons
performed for each
group of this
magnitude
Total no. of compar–
isons performed for all
analyzed groups of this
magnitude
2 16 32 1 16
3 9 27 3 27
4 8 32 6 48
5 6 30 10 60
6 1 6 15 15
7 1 7

21 21

total 41 134 187

Table 4.11b. Number of settings compared for voice leading

No. of
settings
in group
No. of
groups of
this
magnitude
Total no. of
settings in all
groups of this
magnitude
No. of comparisons
performed for each
group of this
magnitude
Total no. of compar–
isons performed for all
analyzed groups of this
magnitude
2 15 30 1 15
3 7 21 3 21
4 3 12 6 18
5 3 15 10 30
6 1 6

15 15

total 29 84 99

301
Because the focus in this type of comparison is on part writing rather than specific
regional melodic variants, the candidates for this analysis can be expanded beyond those
settings of a given chorale for which Praetorius indicates appropriate regions, to include
additional settings—and entire groups—for which regions are not listed. In groups of this
latter type, the respective melodies may exhibit much or little variety, or may be
identical.
29

Regardless of the number of cantional settings of a given melody Praetorius
composed, the harmony and voice leading between any two settings of the same chorale
consistently differ significantly more than the versions of the melody (see Table 4.12,
below). Obviously, when the versions of the melody in two settings differ significantly,
this can necessitate even greater discrepancies in harmony and voice leading, since the
accompanying notes preceding and following an altered pitch in the melody line also may
need to be altered to create proper voice leading. However, the fewer the notes that differ
between the melodies, the less there is a necessity to change the accompanying lines for
the sake of correct part writing. Yet, Praetorius continually creates greatly divergent
harmonizations for multiple settings of the same chorale, whether many, few, or no notes

29
Three settings of Also heilig ist der Tag (MSV: 118, MSVI: 132, MSVI: 133) and of Christum wir sollen
loben schon (MSV: 56, MSVI: 19, MSVI: 20) are examples of settings for which regions are not listed and
comprise groups whose melodies exhibit much variety while two versions of Der Töricht spricht (MSVIII:
95 and 96) and of Jam moesta quiesce querela (MSVIII: 164 and 165) form examples of groups whose
melodies exhibit little variety. It is unclear why Praetorius declined to indicate appropriate regions for these
settings. Perhaps he forgot to include them, or knew of different methods of singing a melody but was not
always certain of the locations in which these commonly were used. Additionally, some of the melodies
may have varied so widely even within one region that Praetorius did not think it advantageous to indicate
a setting of one of these melodies as suitable for an entire region. Regardless, undoubtedly Praetorius
expected a music director would pick the given option most suitable for his particular region, assuming one
would work at all.

302
differ between the melodies. This underscores his emphasis on providing multiple
performance options and on variety.

Table 4.12. Relative similarities between melody notes, harmony and voice
leading between two settings of the same chorale

average maximum minimum
% of melody pitches identical between
two settings
87.99% 100% 39%

% of harmony identical between two
settings
48.13% 75% 17%
% of voice leading identical between two
settings
38.74% 59% 15%

Difference between % of melody and %
of harmony identical between two settings
40.27 68 7
Difference between % of melody and %
of voice leading identical between two
settings
50.69 85.28 12

In some instances, Praetorius publishes two dissimilar harmonizations in cantional
style of a single version of a melody, so that the inclusion of both settings is unrelated to
a need to accommodate congregations in different regions with different traditions of
singing the chorale in question. This is the case with two harmonizations of In natali
Domini/Als Christus geboren war (MSVI: 75 and 76). Not only do these two cantional
settings use precisely the same melody, but their textures are equivalent, as well. The one
noticeable stylistic difference between them is that the latter one incorporates voice
crossing above the soprano for a substantial portion of the piece. Despite this, given their
textures and simplicity, both are suitable for accompanying congregational singing. Two
versions of Heut lobt die werte Christenheit (MSVI: 68 and MSVI: 69) also use the same
303
melodic profile, and as with In natali Domini, a minor but significant stylistic difference
exists between the two settings.
30
MSVI: 68 includes brief imitation between alto and
soprano, while MSVI: 69 is especially simple. Nevertheless, most if not all congregations
for whom the version of the melody presented was familiar could sing either setting.
Clearly, Praetorius included two cantional settings of exactly the same melodies
incorporating radically different accompanying voices not because this served a purely
functional purpose but because it provided churches with two options for performance—
between one with standard voicing and alternate voicing with In natali Domini and
between one with some brief imitation and an especially simple one in the case of Heut
lobt die werte Christenheit. Between two settings of Das alte Jahr ist nun vergahn
(MSVI: 3 and MSVI: 4) for which the chorale melodies in the two pieces are identical, no
stylistic differences are apparent; only harmonic and voice-leading discrepancies
differentiate between the two.
31
But these discrepancies are very great indeed. Even with
In natali Domini and Heut lobt die werte Christenheit harmonic and voice-leading
discrepancies between the two versions are so extensive as to rival or even overshadow
the stylistic ones.

30
There are two trivial rhythmic differences between the melodies in the two settings: the sustained pitches
at the ends of the first two phrases are longer in MSVI: 68 than they are in MSVI: 69. These differences,
however, would not necessitate any discrepancy in style, and certainly not any in harmony or voice leading.

31
MSVI: 4 does include a few instances of the alto crossing above the soprano while MSVI: 3 does not, but
these are minimal, so that the use of voice crossing in both settings is within the range of Praetorius’
standard practice.
304
Table 4.13. Discrepancy in voice leading and in chords between settings of
identical chorale melodies

Chorale Settings % of notes in accom–
panying voices identical
in both settings
% of chords
identical in both
settings
Das alte Jahr ist nun
vergahn
MSVI: 3
MSVI: 4
19% 56%
In natali Domini/Als
Christus geboren war
MSVI: 75
MSVI: 76
15% 59%
Heut lobt die werte
Christenheit
MSVI: 68
MSVI: 69
28% 65%

An additional reason for Praetorius’ constructing and printing multiple cantional
settings of the same chorale becomes apparent from comparisons of settings suitable, or
likely suitable, for different regions. Consider MSV: 83 and MSVI: 33, two settings of In
dulci jubilo. The latter one is intended for the regions of Preußen and Seestädt while no
indication of region is printed for the former. Quite likely, MSV: 83 records the version
of the melody used in Braunschweig—since it appears in a volume for which recording
regional variants was not one of Praetorius’ main concerns, it is likely that Praetorius
incorporated the version of the melody most familiar to him and that he used on a regular
basis. Regardless, because they contain two brief but significant rhythmic differences,
these settings seem to be intended for different regions. Nevertheless, the pitches of the
melody are identical in both. Although the same harmonization would, therefore, work
for both settings, Praetorius creates two quite disparate harmonizations. Even if some
changes in phrases 1-2 would be optimal in the second setting to account for the changes
in rhythm in the chorale tune, because all voices are the same in the two settings at the
305
end of phrase 2—later in the setting than the rhythmic discrepancies occur—Praetorius
certainly could have recycled his earlier harmonization of phrases 3-8 for use in
MSVI: 33 without introducing problematic voice leading. Obviously, this would have
been the most efficient, simplest and most pragmatic way to provide the regions of
Preußen and Seestädt with a viable cantional setting of In dulci jubilo. Yet, the
harmonizations of the two settings are quite disparate.
Table 4.14. Comparison of two settings of In dulci jubilo

Settings % of notes in accompanying voices
identical in both settings
% of chords identical in
both settings
MSV: 83
MSVI: 33
37% 51%

Furthermore, the melody of In dulci jubilo includes three repeated phrases. For each one
Praetorius alters the harmony for the subsequent statement of a phrase within the given
setting. In addition, he declines to repeat any of the harmonizations of these phrases from
the first setting in the second setting, or his other two settings of this chorale, which
include minor differences in the melody, for that matter.
If the argument that the settings are intended for different regions stands,
Praetorius’ reason for creating an entirely new harmonization for this melody, instead of
recycling his version from MSV with minor changes for use in MSVI, could not have
been to provide multiple options for performance. Indeed, each of the regions in
question—Preußen and Seestädt on the one hand and probably Braunschweig on the
other—receives only one setting of the chorale and thus has only one performance option.
Instead, it seems to me that Praetorius’ motivation in producing two such disparate
306
harmonizations must have been that he enjoyed developing multiple, viable solutions to
the problem of harmonizing a particular chorale melody in an interesting, artistic way.
Further examples support this conclusion. Recall, for instance, that between the
three versions of Ach Gott, von Himmel, there are only two melody notes for which there
is a pitch discrepancy. Yet, as with In dulci jubilo, the harmonizations are markedly
different, vastly more so than the pitch differences require.
Table 4.15. Comparison of three settings of Ach Gott, von Himmel

Settings
compared
% of melody pitches
identical between the
compared settings
% of notes in
accompanying voices
identical between the
compared settings
% of chords
identical between
the compared
settings
MSVIII: 91
MSVIII: 92
97.5% 40% 55%
MSVIII: 91
MSVIII: 93
97.5% 42% 40%
MSVIII: 92
MSVIII: 93
95% 26% 33%
MSVIII: 91
MSVIII: 92
MSVIII: 93
95%

19% 27.5%

Similarly, while the two simpler cantional settings of Christ lag in Todesbanden in MSV
employ nearly identical versions of this famous chorale tune the harmonizations vary
greatly. Further, as phrase three of both versions attests, setting the same chorale multiple
times in cantional style did not induce Praetorius to renounce his high standards of part
writing (see Example 4.8, below). Notice, for example, the elegant ascent and descent in
the alto voice, the conjunct bass line and the balance between the voices in MSV: 123.
Phrase 3 of MSV: 124 is especially noteworthy, with the descending scalar motion in the
307
bass balancing the general upward thrust of the other voices. In addition, the leaps, jaunty
dotted rhythms and syncopation in the middle voices effectively illustrate the word
“fröhlich.”
Example 4.8. Two versions of phrase 3 of Christ lag in Todesbanden

Table 4.16. Comparison of three settings of Christ Lag in Todesbanden

Settings
compared
% of melody
pitches identical
between the
compared settings
% of notes in
accompanying voices
identical between the
compared settings
% of chords identical
between the
compared settings
MSV: 123
MSV: 124
98% 46% 53%
MSV: 123
MSVI: 131
95% 35% 50%
MSV: 124
MSVI: 131
95% 38% 52%
MSV: 123
MSV: 124
MSVI: 131
95%

26% 37%

308
Yet, despite having already written these two attractive cantional settings of Christ lag in
Todesbanden, when Praetorius published a setting of this chorale with very minimal
melodic changes for a different audience (churches in Schwaben/Francken) in MSVI, he
created an entirely new harmonization, instead of recycling or tweaking slightly one of
his earlier ones (see Table 4.16, above).
Likewise, although there certainly are similarities from one setting to another, the
differences in the voice leading and chords in the three versions of Puer natus in
Bethlehem in MSVI—nos. 34, 35 and 36 for Marck/Thüringen, Seestädt, and
Schwaben/Francken, respectively—are considerably greater than the differences in
melody pitches between them.
Table 4.17. Comparison of three settings of Puer natus in Bethlehem
Settings
compared
% of melody
pitches identical
between the
compared settings
% of notes in
accompanying voices
identical between the
compared settings
% of chords identical
between the
compared settings
MSVI: 34
MSVI: 35
94% 50% 51%
MSVI: 34
MSVI: 36
88% 45% 48%
MSVI: 35
MSVI: 36
88% 58% 56%
MSVI: 34
MSVI: 35
MSVI: 36
85%

37% 33%

MSVI: 34 and MSVI: 36, as well as MSVI: 35 to a lesser degree, incorporate extensive
linear motion in the bottom voices, contributing melodic characteristics to these lines;
most of the specific scalar motives, however, are unique to each setting. In addition, none
309
of these versions is a close recycling of the cantional setting of this chorale Praetorius
published as MSV: 84.
Those groups of settings of chorale melodies—such as In dulci jubilo—that
include two or more statements of the same melodic phrase demonstrate Praetorius’
compositional facility and creativity especially clearly. For instance, in the three versions
of Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland in MSVI (nos. 8-10), phrases 1 and 4 of the melody
are identical, both within a given setting and between the settings.
32
Yet all six of the
harmonizations of this phrase are different, some markedly so (see Example 4.9 and
Table 4.18, below). In addition, all of the harmonizations of this phrase in MSVI differ
from those in MSV: 53, a setting of the same melody.
Example 4.9. Three harmonizations of the recurring phrase in the melody for
Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland

32
The only exception to this is a rhythmic difference at the beginning of the first phrase of MSVI: 10, in
which the first note sustains twice as long as the initial note in the other settings. This rhythmic difference
asserts no effect on the harmonization of the piece, however.

310
Table 4.18. Comparison of the six harmonizations of the recurring phrase in
Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland from MSVI: 8-10

Average Maximum Minimum
% of notes in accompanying voices identical
between two iterations of the phrase

37% 74% 13%
% of chords identical between two iterations
of the phrase

37.5%

75% 12.5%

The same phenomenon is apparent with the settings of Nun freut euch, lieben
Christen gmein in MSVII. In numbers 120-123 of this volume, lines 2 and 5 of the
chorale text use precisely the same melody. Although some of the eight harmonizations
of this melody among the four settings are similar, none are identical, differing by at least
five pitches, and as many as eighteen. An additional version of this melody, set in
MSVII: 119, includes a lower neighbor tone on the penultimate note of phrases 2 and 5,
but the melody in these phrases is otherwise identical to the one found in the other
settings. In all, then, this phrase appears ten times in the five cantional settings in MSVII,
but no two harmonizations are exactly alike and most differ from each other significantly.
Table 4.19. Comparison of the ten harmonizations of the recurring phrase
in the melody for Nun freut euch, lieben Christen gmein from
MSVII: 119-123

Average Maximum Minimum
% of notes in accompanying voices
identical between two iterations of the
phrase
46.5% 80% 18.5%
% of chords identical between two
iterations of the phrase
67.8%

100% 43%

311
Example 4.10. Two harmonizations of the recurring phrase in the melody for
Nun freut euch, lieben Christen gmein

This is especially remarkable considering the relatively limited chord set Praetorius used
in his pieces.
Since harmonic variety within a setting was important to Praetorius—a fact
supported further by the settings of this chorale—it is unsurprising that he would alter the
harmonization of the phrase in question for its second iteration within the same setting.
However, since Praetorius indicates a particular region for each of these settings, and thus
they are not even meant to be sung in the same location, there is little functional benefit
to creating new harmonizations of the phrase for each setting.
33
Praetorius could have
composed two, or even a few, versions of the phrase, and recycled them over and over,
but he chose the much more challenging task of creating a unique harmonization for each
of the ten presentations of the phrase. That Praetorius approached the composition of

33
Two of the settings are for Meißen, but the melodies differ significantly for the fourth phrase of the
chorale, suggesting that these two versions were not meant for the same areas within the general region of
Meißen.
312
chorale settings for different regions in this manner suggests that he found pleasure in
discovering multiple, valid and effective ways to harmonize the same melody.
Quantity of versions, however, did not require that Praetorius sacrifice quality of
part writing. The voice leading in all of the versions of Nun freut euch is logical and
elegant. Even awkward motion in one of the versions—a jarring ascending leap from the
leading tone up to the third in the place of the expected resolution by step—seems
purposeful, as it occurs on the word “springen.” Syncopation further illustrates the
cheerfulness expressed in the text (see Example 4.11a, below). While Praetorius uses
joyful rhythmic syncopation and an effective leap to illustrate the text in one version, the
voice leading in some others is especially refined. In the final phrase of MSVII: 123, for
instance, the stepwise ascending tenor line counterbalances the soprano and alto descents
(see Example 4.11b).
Example 4.11. Two additional harmonizations of the recurring phrase in the
melody for Nun freut euch, lieben Christen gmein

313
Conclusion
Praetorius’ multiple cantional settings of many chorale melodies illustrate aspects
of his views of worship, his approach to composition, and his personality. As he states
within his prefaces and treatises, he viewed congregational singing as an essential
element of worship services, and created means by which laymen from a broad
geographical area could comfortably sing praise to God. To foster such participation
further, he sometimes included multiple harmonizations of the same version of a melody,
in order to provide options for the choir director to use in accompanying congregational
singing. He maintained a high artistic level in these compositions, even though they are
simple and unpretentious. In addition, even when two settings are intended for different
audiences, he declined to take the easy route of reusing the same harmonization for both
pieces. Instead, he consistently constructed multiple, divergent settings of the same
chorale melody—at least partially, I contend, because he relished finding many ways to
solve the same problem.

314
Chapter 5: Troped Magnificats

Around the turn of the seventeenth century, cantional settings constituted a
prevalent and important means of incorporating harmonized congregational singing into
Lutheran church services and of collaboration between choir and congregation.
Performing them as written, or using some means of variation such as alternation
between unison and homophony, Lutheran churches adopted these on a wide scale for the
performance of individual hymns. Additionally, sometimes such settings were
synthesized with liturgical items inherited from the Catholic church, including ones
retaining the Latin text. In particular, the practice of combining Latin Magnificat verses
with German chorales developed in Lutheran circles. Although most of the extant pieces
in this genre are suitable for choral performance only, the three examples in Praetorius’
published works reflect a convention of combining simple chorale settings with elaborate
Magnificat verses, providing an opportunity for the congregation to participate in
performing a piece incorporating not only simple material, but also complex counterpoint
and Latin text.

Latin, Vespers and the Magnificat in the Lutheran church

Even as he supported the use of the vernacular, Luther continued to esteem Latin
highly, encouraging its use in schools. All but the most elementary schools used Latin as
the language of instruction, so these institutions naturally trained the boys in Latin
singing, as well. So critical was the fostering of Latin in Lutheran schools that German
315
chorales were sometimes translated into Latin for use there.
1
Although schoolboys often
sang in German during church services—most notably to assist and encourage the lay
church members to join in on congregational hymns—they might also sing in Latin
during services, particularly in larger cities where more of the population was educated.
Inevitably, some would be present who did not understand Latin, producing a seeming
conflict with the notion that those in attendance should have access to the whole service.
However, there were remedies to this difficulty.
Firstly, for Lutherans it was most critical that those singing understood the text
that they were singing. Since schoolboys and adult choir members would know Latin, use
of this language posed no great difficulties for this fundamental requirement.
Furthermore, lay members without knowledge of Latin were not necessarily left in
complete confusion. Schoolchildren were expected to explain the Latin text to their
parents.
2
Anyone with children at a Lutheran school, then, would at least have
opportunities to learn the substance of texts sung in church, especially those sung weekly.
In addition, German translations existed for many Latin texts, especially for
common elements of the Lutheran service. A lay person who was familiar with such a
translation would only need to know what portion of the Lutheran liturgy was being sung
in order to know the gist of the meaning. For instance, an uneducated church member
who attended Mass weekly would hear the Gloria in the same place in the service many
times. Sometimes Allein Gott in der Höh sei Ehr might serve as a German substitute in

1
Brown, “Devotional Life,” 228-30. Luther also promoted the teaching of Hebrew and Greek.

2
Brown, “Devotional Life,” 228-31.
316
place of the Latin, or at any rate, the church member might be familiar with the
translation from devotional literature or a hymn book. When the Gloria was performed in
the church service, if the lay person recognized what element of the service it was—
something that would not be difficult considering the Gloria was performed weekly
during much of the year—he would then only need to remember to associate it with the
German translation. In this way, at least for ordinary elements of the Lutheran Mass, a lay
person without any training in Latin could, if he put forth the effort, understand the
essence (though probably not the meaning of the individual words) of common Latin
texts.
Of the liturgical hours, Matins and Vespers maintained the most importance in
Lutheran circles.
3
In particular, Luther encouraged his church to retain a morning and
evening service, and approved a mid-day service as the local clergy and church members
desired it, because “it is seemly, nay necessary, that the boys should get accustomed to
reading and hearing the Psalms and lessons from the Holy Scripture.”
4
Luther suggested

3
In some sections in his writings on liturgical matters, Luther encourages an evening and morning service,
and a mid-day one if desired. For example, see Von ordenung gottis diensts ynn der gemeyne, in Luthers
Werke, 12:35-36 (Concerning the Order of Public Worship, translated in Luther’s Works, 53:12-13). In the
Formula missae, however, Luther gives approval for all of the offices: “In reliquis diebus, quas ferias
vocamus, nihil video, quod non ferri possit, modo missae abrogentur. Nam Matutinae trium lectionum et
horae, tum vesperae et completorium de tempore (exclusis sanctorum feriis) nihil sunt nisi scripturae
divinae verba.” In Luthers Werke, 12:219. (“As for the other days which are called weekdays, I see nothing
that we cannot put up with, provided the [weekday] masses be discontinued. For Matins with its three
lessons, the [minor] hours, Vespers and Compline de tempore consist—with the exception of the propers
for the Saints’ days—of nothing but divine words of Scripture.”) Translated in Luther’s Works, 53:37-38.

4
Luther, Formula missae: “Et pulchrum, imo necessarium est, pueros assuescere legendis et audiendis
Psalmis et lectionibus scripturarum sanctarum.” In Luthers Werke, 12:219. Translated in Luther’s Works,
53:38.

317
that the clergy shorten Matins and Vespers. He sought a balance between too much
repetition, which bored the people, and too much change, which confused them.
5

In his Deutsche Messe from 1526, Luther outlined for cities with schools a
satisfactory Vespers service very similar to pre-Reformation Vespers.
Likewise at Vespers they sing a few of the Vesper Psalms in Latin with an
antiphon, as heretofore, followed by a hymn if one is available. Again two or
three boys in turn then read a chapter from the Latin Old Testament or half a
one, depending on length. Another boy reads the same chapter in German.
The Magnificat follows in Latin with an antiphon or hymn, the Lord’s Prayer
said silently, and the collects with the Benedicamus. This is the daily service
throughout the week in cities where there are schools.
6

Luther explained that the reason for repeating in German Scripture already read in Latin
was “to familiarize [the schoolboys] with it and for the benefit of any layman who might
be present and listening.”
7
He also added that a sermon on the Old Testament should be
inserted before the Magnificat.
8

Although the Vespers service remained fairly constant throughout the Lutheran
world, various church orders altered it in minor ways.
9
For instance, they might remove

5
See Luthers Werke, 12:219; Luther’s Works, 53:38.

6
Luther, Deutsche Messe: “Desselbigen gleychen zur vesper singen sie etliche der vesper psalmen, wie sie
bis her gesungen sind, auch latinsch mit eyner antiphen, darauff eynen hymnus, so er fur handen ist.
Darnach lesen sie abermal eyner umb den andern, zween odder drey, latinsch aus dem alten testament eyn
gantzes odder halbes Capitel, darnachs lang ist. Darnach lieset eyn Knabe dasselbige Capitel zu deudsch.
Darauff das magnificat zu latein mit eyner antiphen odder lied. Darnach eyn vater unser heymlich und die
Collecten mit dem Benedicamus. Das ist der Gottis dienst teglich durch die wochen ynn stedten, da man
schulen hat.” In Luthers Werke, 19:80. Translated in Luther’s Works, 53:69.

7
Luther, Deutsche Messe: “Darauff liset eyn ander Knabe dasselbige Capitel zu deudsch, sie zu uben und
ob yemands von leyen da were und zu horet.” In Luthers Werke, 19:80. Translated in Luther’s Works,
53:69. This explanation occurs in Luther’s discussion of Matins, but is nevertheless relevant to the
discussion of Vespers, as well.

8
Luther, Deutsche Messe, in Luthers Werke, 19:79. See also Luther’s Works, 53:68.

9
This paragraph is indebted to Herl, Worship Wars, 62-65.
318
the sermon or collect on weekdays. Places with no choir able to sing in Latin might use a
Vespers service consisting of a German psalm, a chapter reading from the Old Testament,
a Sermon on the catechism, the Magnificat or Nunc dimittis in German, a collect, and a
blessing.
10
Vespers for Sundays and festivals were, unsurprisingly, often more elaborate
than those for weekdays and Saturdays, and attendance of lay parishioners was
undoubtedly higher on at least some of these occasions. Vespers services held on the eve
of a festival, like Saturday Vespers, usually included confession for those planning to
take communion the following morning, and also were more likely than the typical
weekday Vespers service to incorporate German hymns.
The Magnificat, Mary’s song of praise in response to the conception of Jesus and
recorded in Luke 1:46-55, has been the traditional Vespers canticle since the sixth
century, when Benedict established his order. In performance, the canticle concludes with
the Lesser Doxology. Although the text appears as part of the Christmas story, it is
general in nature, referring only indirectly to the events surrounding the birth of Christ,
and its daily use at Vespers for hundreds of years has given it a very broad significance.
Luther valued this portion of Scripture quite highly and wrote a lengthy
commentary on the passage.
11
He considered Mary’s canticle to be applicable to all
people of every station.

10
Herl, Worship Wars, 63. This particular order comes from Veit Dietrich’s agenda for rural pastors,
published in Nuremburg in 1543.

11
Martin Luther, Das Magnificat Vorteutschet und außgelegt, 1521, in Luthers Werke: Kritische
Gesamtausgabe, vol. 7 (Weimar: Böhlau, 1897), 544-604. Translated in Luther’s Works: American Edition,
vol. 21: The Sermon on the Mount and the Magnificat (St. Louis: Concordia, 1956), 297-358. See also A.
T. W. Steinhäuser’s introduction to his translation of Luther’s treatise in Works of Martin Luther: with
Introductions and Notes, The Philadelphia Edition, vol. 3 (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company and The
319
Just as a book title indicates what is the contents of the book, so this word
“magnifies” is used by Mary to indicate what her hymn of praise is to be
about, namely, the great works and deeds of God, for the strengthening of our
faith, for the comforting of all those of low degree, and for the terrifying of all
the mighty ones of earth. We are to let the hymn serve this threefold purpose;
for she sang it not for herself alone but for us all, to sing it after her.
12

In his commentary, Luther discusses lessons gleaned from the Magnificat text he
thinks important for everyone. For instance, the Christian must learn to thank God in
times of plenty and in times of want.
Thus we must refrain, not from the good things of God but from wickedly and
falsely cleaving to them; so that we may use them or suffer the lack of them
with equanimity, and cling, whatever befalls, to God alone.
13

According to Luther, each person must also remember that God, not himself, is the
source of his position and honor, and should respond appropriately.
When men accord us praise and honor, we ought to profit by the example of
the Mother of God and at all times arm ourselves with this verse to make the
proper reply and to use such honor and praise correctly. We should openly
say, or at least think in our heart: “O Lord God, Thine is this work that is
being praised and celebrated.”
14

Castle Press, 1930; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982), 119-22 (page citations are to the
reprint edition).

12
Luther, Das Magnificat: “das gleich das wort ‘magnificat’ wie ein tittel einsz buchs antzeigt, wo von
darynnen geschrieben sey, alszo zeygt sie auch mit dieszem wort an, wa von yhr lobsang lautten sol,
nemlich von grossen thatten und wercken gottis, zu stercken unszernn glawben, zu trosten alle geringe und
zu schrecken alle hohe menschenn auff erdenn. Auff diesze drey brauch oder nutz mussen wir den lobesang
lassen gerichtet seyn und erkennen, denn sie nit yhr allein, szondernn unsz allen gesungen hat, das wir yhr
nach singen sollen.” In Luthers Werke, 7:553. Translated in Luther’s Works, 21:306.

13
Luther, Das Magnificat: “Sihe szo mussen wir abstehen nit von den guttern gottis, szondern von boszem
vorkeretem ankleben der selbenn, das wir yhr mangeln und brauchen kunden mit gelassenheit, das in allem
fall wir an got allein hangen.” In Luthers Werke, 7:582. Translated in Luther’s Works, 21:336.

14
Luther, Das Magnificat: “szo uns yemandt lobt unnd namenn davon gibt, sollen wir hie der Mutter gottis
Exempel fassen, unnd yhe mit dissem versz bereyt sein drauff zuantwortten und die ehre unnd lob recht
brauchen und offentlich sagen odder yhe ym hertzen gedencken: O herr got, das werck ist dein, das da
gelobt und gerumpt wirt.” In Luthers Werke, 7:576. Translated in Luther’s Works, 21:330. See also Luthers
Werke, 7:555; Luther’s Works, 21:308.

320
Luther relates the ideas in Mary’s canticle to the faith needed to trust Christ for Salvation,
a concept clearly relevant to everyone, in his view.
How will it be with you in the hour of death? There you must believe that He
has not only the power and the knowledge but also the desire to help you. For
it requires indeed an unspeakably great work to deliver you from eternal
death, to save you and make you God’s heir.
15

Because of these important ideas encountered in the Magnificat, Luther argues, it is a
worthy text for daily singing and meditation. Yet, like every other aspect of worship, the
mere performing of the Magnificat, the mere ritual of reciting it every evening, is
insufficient. People must understand its meaning and live in light of it.
16

By the middle of the sixteenth century there were three different German versions
of the Magnificat text available for Lutherans to use at Vespers in those locations that
preferred to use the vernacular.
17
It was most common to use one of these German
Magnificat texts on Sunday, when more people were present at Vespers. When the
German Magnificat was performed in unison or using a setting with simple harmony, the
congregation often participated actively.
18
Even in those places that used German

15
Luther, Das Magnificat: “Wie wiltu ynn tods nodten thun? Da mustu yhe nit allein glawben, das er muge
unnd wisse, szondernn auch wolle dir helffen, da doch gar ein unseglich grosz werck geschehen musz, auff
das du vom ewigen todt erloszet, ewiglich selig und gottes erbkind werdist.” In Luthers Werke, 7:554.
Translated in Luther’s Works, 21:306-7.

16
See Luthers Werke, 7:595-96; Luther’s Works, 21:350.

17
The three German versions of the Magnificat found in church orders (1523-1750) were Mein Seel erhebt
den Herren mein (Symphonorianus Pollio, 1524); Mein Seel, o Herr, soll loben dich (Hermann Bonnus,
1547); and the prose version of the text, Meine Seele erhebt den Herren, performed using a canticle tone.
Of these three, Meine Seel erhebt den Herren appeared in church orders most frequently. See Herl, Worship
Wars, 63.

18
Herl, Worship Wars, 64-65.

321
frequently, however, it was quite customary to use the Latin text on important feasts.
19

Polyphony, of course, also was used more frequently on such occasions.
20

Traditionally, a performance of the Magnificat relied on one of the canticle tones,
eight recitation formulas similar to, but more elaborate than, their psalm tone
counterparts. The mode of the antiphon sung directly before and after the canticle text
determined the choice of tone to use. The earliest polyphonic Magnificat setting seems to
be a three-voice English descant version from the fourteenth century. By the sixteenth
century, the standard number of voices in polyphonic Magnificats had increased from
three to four or five, frequently with an expansion to six or more voices on the final
verse. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, composers commonly set only alternate
verses of the Magnificat polyphonically. Most often, they set the even-numbered verses,
especially in the seventeenth century.
21
In performances of such pieces, often the choir
would chant the omitted verses using the appropriate canticle tone. At least by mid-
century, however, sometimes odd-numbered verses were left out altogether, as the

19
Cook, “The German Troped Polyphonic Magnificat,” 296-97.

20
Herl, Worship Wars, 64. For more on Lutheran Vespers services in the seventeenth century, see Robin A.
Leaver, “Lutheran Vespers as a Context for Music,” in Church, Stage, and Studio: Music and its Contexts
in Seventeenth-Century Germany, ed. Paul Walker (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1990), 143-61.

21
David Crook, Orlando di Lasso’s Imitation Magnificats for Counter-Reformation Munich (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1994), 5, 8-14. See also William H. Schempf, “Polychoral Magnificats from H.
Praetorius to H. Schütz” (PhD diss., University of Rochester, 1960), 20-26. Sometimes a composer might
omit verses or provide polyphony for an atypical assortment of verses. For instance, in 1613 Banchieri
published a Magnificat employing polyphony for verses 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11.

322
preface to Johann Crüger’s 1645 Laudes Dei Vespertini, which decries the practice,
attests.
22
Alternatively, organ versets could provide substitutes for the missing verses.
23

Most of the settings from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries are related closely
to one of the eight standard recitation formulas; indeed, in the sixteenth century,
composers customarily assembled collections of eight polyphonic Magnificats, one for
each canticle tone. Although Orlando di Lasso adopted the standard method of
Magnificat composition for two thirds of his settings of this text, he also established a
new approach to this genre, basing forty of his Magnificats on pre-existing polyphonic
models.
24
At least four examples of parody Magnificats predate his pieces, but Lasso was
the first to cultivate the specific genre on a wide scale, developing a tradition of
composing Magnificats using the method commonly employed during the sixteenth
century in the composition of Mass Ordinary settings. Others at the Bavarian court
followed his lead, and his students carried the genre to other courts. As a result,
composers in Austria and southern Germany cultivated the genre through the first four
decades of the seventeenth century. Lutheran composers farther north also adopted
Lasso’s procedure, as Michael Praetorius’ eleven parody Magnificats demonstrate.
25

22
Cook, “The German Troped Polyphonic Magnificat,” 162-63.

23
For a discussion of the use of organ Magnificat verses in northern Germany, see Frederick K. Gable,
“Alternation Practice and Seventeenth-century German Organ Magnificats,” Hamburger Jahrbuch für
Musikwissenschaft 18 (2001): 131-48.

24
Crook, Orlando di Lasso’s Imitation Magnificats, 8-16.

25
Crook, Orlando di Lasso’s Imitation Magnificats, 26-29, 147-48.

323
Troped Magnificats
The troped polyphonic Magnificat, a setting of the Magnificat text with motets or
chorale arrangements added between verses or within them, apparently was a genre
particular to Lutheranism.
26
The earliest known example dates from between 1525 and
1550, while the latest extant troped Magnificat is Johann Sebastian Bach’s Magnificat in
Eb of 1723. Although the troped Magnificat seems to have been most popular in Saxony
and in the cities of Frankfurt an der Oder and Breslau, its use spread beyond these areas,
for instance into the city of Hamburg, as the example by Hieronymus Praetorius
demonstrates.
In keeping with common practice, in almost every case the composers of these
pieces set only the even-numbered verses polyphonically, although Hieronymus
Praetorius also set verse 11, and Bach set all of the verses. The interpolations of any
given troped Magnificat focus on a specific feast or celebration; most extant troped
Magnificats are for Christmas, while a few are for Easter or Pentecost. Composers
borrowed pre-Reformation religious songs, chorales and Latin hymns to create their
tropes. In most cases the interpolated pieces were common in Lutheran circles of the
period and therefore familiar to Lutheran parishioners.

26
Cook, “The German Troped Polyphonic Magnificat,” 1. Larry Cook uses the designation “troped
Magnificat” in this dissertation on the genre. He cites several German writers who used the term before
him. Most of the following discussion of the historical background, use and characteristics of troped
Magnificats is indebted to Cook’s dissertation, especially pages 10-17, 20-152, 196-97, 298-318, 349-52,
361-62.

324
Some twenty examples of Magnificats provided with tropes survive, three of them
by Michael Praetorius.
27
References to lost troped Magnificats exist, as well, including
ones for feasts other than Christmas, Easter and Pentecost. For instance, Heinrich Schütz
directed two very elaborate troped Magnificats during the three-day celebration in
Dresden of the Reformation centennial. Based on the description by the Dresden court
preacher Matthias Hoe von Hoenegg, neither of these pieces corresponds to any surviving
troped Magnificats.
28

In the Lutheran church, Kindleinwiegen, a Christmas tradition in German-
speaking regions dating back at least as far as the fourteenth century, sometimes
accompanied performances of troped Magnificats during the Christmas season.
Kindleinwiegen, or “child rocking,” consisted of church members gathering around a
cradle and enacting rocking of the Christ child, and was sometimes accompanied by other
dramatic scenes or dancing. The practice developed alongside German religious plays, in
which rocking the baby Jesus almost always played a part.
29
Lutherans adopted this

27
Six anonymous pieces, one by Johannes Galliculus and the one by Johann Sebastian Bach survive in
manuscript. Three troped Magnificats by Andreas Finolt, three by Samuel Scheidt, and two by
Bartholomäus Gesius, in addition to the one by Hieronymus Praetorius and three by Michael Praetorius,
survive in prints. A fourth example by Finolt is no longer available. For one of the surviving anonymous
examples, Kirsch 287, only the alto and tenor voices survive. These voices include a trope only for verse 6,
although the missing voices may have troped some of the other verses, as well (see p. 84 of Cook’s
dissertation). For the names, and the manuscript and print sources for the known extant troped Magnificats
see pages 13-17 of Cook’s dissertation.

28
Cook, “The German Troped Polyphonic Magnificat,” 29-30. Christhard Mahrenholz discusses the
Reformation centennial in Dresden in “Heinrich Schütz und das erste Reformationsjubiläum 1617,” in
Musicologica et Liturgica; gesammelte Aufsätze von Christhard Mahrenholz, als Festgabe zu seinem 60.
Geburtstag am 11. August 1960, ed. Karl Ferdinand Müller (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1960), 196-204. A
reproduction of the portion of Hoe von Hoenegg’s account that relates to the order of the services for the
three days appears on pages 196-99 of this article.

29
Convents in particular seem to have embraced the practice wholeheartedly. In the Catholic church, in
addition to performing the actual rocking actions, worshippers often danced around the cradle, kissed the
325
Christmas ceremony, particularly the rocking and sometimes the dancing, as well. They
usually performed it at Vespers, often in conjunction with a troped Magnificat, although
Kindleinwiegen does not seem to have possessed a particular association with Vespers or
the Magnificat in other branches of the Christian faith.
Certain songs traditionally accompanied Kindleinwiegen. At least as early as the
beginning of the fifteenth century, Joseph, lieber Joseph mein, sung to the tune of
Resonet in laudibus, accompanied rocking actions. The association of both of these songs
with Kindleinwiegen remained in Lutheran circles after the Reformation. The popular
Christmas song In dulci jubilo also frequently accompanied Kindleinwiegen in the
Lutheran church. The lilting, triple meter characteristic of these pieces is especially
appropriate as a complement to rocking motions and dancing. Because of this, and
because of the connection between the troped Magnificat and Kindleinwiegen, it is
certainly no coincidence that composers frequently used these songs as Magnificat tropes.
Of the twenty extant examples of the genre, eight of them include interpolations of
Joseph, lieber Joseph mein, six incorporate In dulci jubilo, and three use Resonet in
laudibus. Kindleinwiegen and other related actions remained popular in Lutheran regions
throughout the seventeenth century, although the practice also sparked some controversy
and opposition, as some thought it idolatrous, foolish, or both.
Congregational participation in performance of troped Magnificats at Christmas
Vespers ceremonies was not necessarily limited to rocking a cradle or dancing. The 1579

doll representing Jesus and sang. Between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, “rocking” songs and
Kindleinwiegen remained popular. Kindleinwiegen was usually practiced at Compline or Matins in Catholic
circles. See Cook, “The German Troped Polyphonic Magnificat,” 299, 304-8.
326
church order for Annaberg, for instance, dictated that congregational singing be a part of
the performance of the Magnificat. In this case, the piece incorporated two intertwined
troped Magnificats, one for the choir and one for the congregation.
After the organ plays, the choir sings one verse in figural style, and after or
before sings a Christmas song. The children then stand up in the lower choir,
with the entire Church, and sing the German verse of the Magnificat, sexti
toni, and immediately afterward a Christmas cradle song to honor the new-
born Child; and so on with all the verses of the Magnificat.
30

Larry Cook divides the extant troped Magnificats into two basic types. In
Magnificats with interior tropes, the interpolated items sound either simultaneously with
the Magnificat verses, so that the verses and tropes form a single polyphonic complex, or
between two sections of a single Magnificat verse. Based on stylistic elements of the
tropes—such as independence of voices, text repetition and echoes—as well as on the
structure of the pieces that incorporate them, Magnificats with interior tropes
accommodate purely choral singing only.
In Magnificats with exterior tropes, the interpolations consist of distinct entities
separate from the Magnificat verses and sounding between them. According to Hoe von
Hoenegg’s account, the Magnificat performed during the first day of the centennial
celebration of the Reformation in Dresden was of this type.
After the sermon a Magnificat, with six choirs, with timpani and trumpets
[was performed]. Between each verse a stanza from the German song of Herr
Luther, Erhalt uns Herr bei deinem Wort. At the end, Verhleih uns Frieden
gnädiglich, and Gib unsern Fürsten, all with choirs, [followed by the]
benedicamus.”
31

30
Transcribed in Enoch Zobel, Weihnächtliche Vesper-Stunden . . . . (Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1691).
Translated in Cook, “The German Troped Polyphonic Magnificat,” 315.

31
Matthias Hoe von Hoenegg, “Chur Sächsischen Evangelischen Jubel Freude . . . Leipzig 1618.”
Transcribed in Mahrenholz, “Heinrich Schütz und das erste Reformationsjubiläum 1617,” 197: “Nach der
327
Many of the extant examples of this type of structure incorporate tropes that
match prominent musical elements of the contrapuntal verses, making them, like the
Magnificats with interior tropes, appropriate for performance only by trained singers. For
instance, both the verses and tropes in Scheidt’s three examples of the genre are in
concertato style, featuring virtuosic vocal duets and trios accompanied by basso
continuo.
32
However, troped Magnificats could include congregational singing if the
interpolations were relatively simple, as must have been the case with the congregational
tropes described in the 1579 Annaberg church order. Almost certainly these tropes either
were unison presentations of Christmas songs, or in cantional style.
33

A music director in a Lutheran church wanting to lead a troped Magnificat could
use a complete setting by a single composer. Alternatively, he could compile a troped
Magnificat by inserting appropriate motets or chorale arrangements between the verses of
an independent polyphonic Magnificat, apparently a procedure used frequently during the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Indeed, in defining the term “intermedio” within
Syntagma musicum III, Praetorius refers to this procedure in relation to Magnificats, as

Predigt. Magnificat, mit 6. Choris mit Heerpauken und Trommeten / zwischen jeden Verß / ein Gesetz / aus
dem deutschen Liede Herrn Lutheri / Erhalt uns Herr bey deinem Wort / zum Beschluß / Verleih uns
Frieden gnediglich / &c. Gib unsern Fürsten / &c. alles per Choros. Benedicamus, &c.”

32
Samuel Scheidt, Werke, ed. Gottlieb Harms and Christhard Mahrenholz (Hamburg: Ugrino Verlag,
1964), vol. 10, pt. 3, pp. 78-98 (troped Magnificat for Christmas); vol. 11, pt. 3, pp. 24-42 (troped
Magnificat for Easter); vol. 11, pt. 3, pp. 55-69 (troped Magnificat for Pentecost).

33
Similarly, although Hoe von Hoenegg does not indicate the specific voice-leading traits of the troped
Magnificat for the first day of the Reformation Centennial, Robin Leaver surmises that the congregation
sang along on the tropes (see Leaver, “Lutheran Vespers as a Context for Music,” 155), implying they were
in cantional style. This conclusion is plausible, although it is not certain, since Hoe von Hoenegg does
make a point to indicate the participation of the congregation on many other elements of the services but
fails to do so in the description of this Magnificat.
328
well as Masses and motets, and indicates that it was used very commonly.
34
To assist
directors in this process, some composers published collections of pieces suitable for use
as interpolations between verses of pre-existing Magnificat settings. For instance,
Ambrosius Profe published two anthologies of Christmas songs (1644 and 1646) that
could function as Magnificat tropes. Similarly, Joachim a Burk intended five of the
pieces in his Dreißig geistliche Lieder auff die Feste durchs Jahr (1585) to be used as
Magnificat tropes. Each of these pieces includes six stanzas, the precise number required
for troping a polyphonic Magnificat.

Background to Megalynodia
Michael Praetorius published his Megalynodia Sionia—one of his five volumes of
Latin liturgical music, consisting of fourteen polyphonic Latin Magnificats—in
Wolfenbüttel in 1611.
35
In the preface to Megalynodia, Praetorius explained that he had
written these Magnificat settings while in Regensburg for the Reichstag a few years
earlier, and had since corrected them.
36
Arguing that Praetorius’ statement refers to the

34
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum III, 112 (page number misprinted as 132). For a transcription and
translation of the relevant passage, see footnote 40, below.

35
Praetorius’ other volumes of Latin music are Musarum Sioniar: Motectae et Psalmi Latini (Latin motets
and Psalms, 1607), Missodia Sionia (Latin Mass movements, 1611); Hymnodia Sionia (Latin hymns,
1611); Eulogodia Sionia (benedictions, 1611).

36
Praetorius, Megalynodia, X: SCiat benevolus Musicus, me haec Magnificat, quae ante annos aliquot in
Comitijs Ratisbonensibus, super quasdam Cantiones Latinas & Italicas compusueram, & iam revidens
correxeram, in hãc MEGALYNODIAM studio posuisse.” (“Let the kind musician know that I have placed
in this Megalynodia with enthusiasm these Magnificats, which I had composed a few years ago at the
Reichstag in Regensburg upon certain Latin and Italian songs, and now have revised and corrected.”)
329
Reichstag of 1608, Forchert places the composition of the Magnificats in that year,
although Blume suggested a composition date a few years before that.
37

Most of the Magnificat settings in Megalynodia are based on pre-existing models;
four are parodies of Lasso motets, while one is a parody of a Sweelinck chanson, five are
parodies of madrigals by Marenzio and Wert, and one parodies a work—likely also a
madrigal—yet to be located.
38
In keeping with the practice of the time, in all of these
Praetorius sets only the even-numbered verses polyphonically. The three completely
original Magnificats—one exploiting the fifth Magnificat tone, one based on the tonus
peregrinus, and one using the solmization Ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la as a unifying device—
contain polyphonic settings of all verses of the Magnificat text.
39
Praetorius provides

37
Forchert, “Musik zwischen Religion und Politik,” 115-117. Assuming an early composition date for
these pieces, Friedrich Blume argued that Praetorius composed the Magnificat settings during his 1601-2
visit to Regensburg, and added the tropes much later. See Blume, “Das Werk des Michael Praetorius,” 246-
50, 262-63. As Forchert explains, however, this date is not tenable, as there was no Reichstag in either of
those years. In their article in Grove Music Online, Walter Blankenburg and Clytus Gottwald note that
Praetorius was recorded as an organist in Regensburg in February of 1603 when he was there on business
for Duke Heinrich Julius. (Blankenburg and Gottwald, "Praetorius, Michael.") If Praetorius was still there a
month later at the beginning of the 1603 Reichstag, it is possible that he was referring to that year for the
composition of his Magnificats. However, Forchert argues that Praetorius probably went to Regensburg on
business for the Duke in 1608 and therefore, likely was there for the 1608 Reichstag. He also notes that
Praetorius probably became familiar with Marenzio’s motet Cantai già lieto, the model for his Magnificat
4, from a 1608 Nuremburg print, indicating a composition date of 1608 or later for that Magnificat at least.

38
Magnificat 8 is a parody of a French chanson by Sweelinck (Elle est à vous), Magnificats 4, 7 and 10 are
based on madrigals by Marenzio (Cantai già lieto, Dolorosi martir, and Mentre qual viva pietra,
respectively), and Magnificats 5 and 6 are based on the same Wert madrigal (Valle che de lamenti miei). Se
‘l disse mai, the source for Magnificat 9, has not been located. See Samuel Bruce Spears, “A Study of
Michael Praetorius’ Megalynodia Sionia: An Historical and Stylistic Analysis and Selective Modern
Performing Edition,” (DMA diss., University of Miami, 2009), 81-82.

39
Praetorius, Megalynodia, XIII–XV.

330
tropes for the first three Magnificats of the volume, two for Christmas and one for
Easter.
40

In the dedication to the volume Praetorius examines significant themes within the
Magnificat text, comparing this canticle to the songs of Moses and Miriam in Exodus
15.
41
In introducing this comparison, Praetorius refers to the procedure of adding
responses to the verses of a canticle, a practice similar to placing German interpolations
between Magnificat verses. He implies that this procedure provides a means for all
members of the church to praise God, a theme he emphasizes repeatedly in his writings,
and one relevant to his troped Magnificats, as performances of them can include both
choir and congregation.

40
According to Syntagma musicum III, page 214, Praetorius intended to publish a volume of Masses and
Magnificats in the Italian style entitled Polyhymnia Leiturgica. The volume was to have two Magnificats,
both of them troped (the first for Christmas and the second for Easter). Praetorius says nothing about the
style of the intended tropes. In defining “intermedio” within Syntagma musicum III (p. 112, but misprinted
as 132), Praetorius refers to his intention to compose further troped Magnificat settings, and implies that the
process of troping Magnificats (and even masses and motets) was quite common: “Intermedio, do ohne /
oder mit Texten / mit Instrumental: oder Vocal-Stimmen / oder mit beyderley zugleich / in Comoedien
zwischen eim jeden Actu, oder in Missen, Magnificat, Moteten, allzeit andere Cantiones und Gesänge
interponirt werden; Inmassen in meiner Megalynodia zufinden / und in Polyhymnia VIII. geliebts Gott /
deren Art mehr herfürkommen werden.” (“An intermedio is inserted between the acts of comedies—with or
without text, instrumental or vocal, or both together—as other songs are always inserted in Masses,
Magnificats, and motets, as can be found in my Megalynodia, and more of which will be forthcoming, God
willing, in Polyhymnia VIII.” Translation adapted from Syntagma musicum III, trans. and ed. Kite-Powell,
122.)

41
Exodus 15:1-18 records the song of Moses and the Israelites in response to their escape from Pharaoh’s
army. Beginning in verse 20, Miriam replies with a dance, accompanied by timbrel and a repeat of the
opening portion of Moses’ song. Praetorius compares the Magnificat of the New Testament Mary to the
song attributed in the Exodus passage to Moses. However, he repeatedly credits the entire song to Miriam,
to whom he refers as the “Old Testament Mary” in order to create a parallel between the authors as well as
the content of the songs. Likely, Praetorius assumes that, because her response in Exodus 15:20 begins
exactly like Moses’ song in Exodus 15:1, Miriam actually repeated all of Moses’ song but the entire
repetition is not recorded. Like Luther, Praetorius also compares Mary’s song to the song of Hannah in 1
Samuel 2 (see Luther, Das Magnificat, in Luthers Werke, 7:574, 593; translated in Luther’s Works, 21:328,
347).

331
For . . . Mary . . . first composed and sang this song in the New Testament, to
designate the constant task of the choir and the church, to praise God together
in chastity and integrity. Likewise, Miriam . . . was the first in the Old
Testament to raise an ode to God, [singing] with the other women and the
virgins, in reply to the choir of men, which sang first. For it is agreed that the
ancients added antiphons and antichoruses to the strophes. For it is fitting that
God should be praised by all people, of both sexes, and of every rank.
42

Praetorius must have been pleased with this comparison in the dedication, as he
repeats almost the entire section nearly verbatim in his discussion of the Magnificat in
Syntagma musicum I. To the repeated material, Praetorius inserts a quotation from a set
of sermons by Simon Musaeus explaining how the text of the Magnificat applies to
everyone and advising that everyone study and repeat it frequently.
“And his mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation. He
has shown strength with his arm, he has scattered the proud (heretics) in the
imagination of their hearts.” Let these words be affixed on church doors and
in schools. Those [words] which follow: “He has put down the mighty
(tyrants) from their thrones, and has exalted those of low degree,” should be
hung up in princely apartments and courts. Finally: “He has filled the hungry
with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away,” should be written on
the gates of houses, on storerooms and bedrooms.
43

42
Praetorius, Megalynodia, VII: “Nam ad Chori Ecclesiaeque; Deum collaudantis sedulam in castitate &
integritate operam designandam, Almah sive illibatae virginitatis Sponsa MARIA, Christi mater, in novo
Testamento prima huius carminis conditrix fuit & praecentrix: Sicuti olim Miriam Mosis soror Almah sive
virgo praecentrix prima fuerat in veteri Testamento, ubi omnium primam Oden DEO celebravit, cum
foeminis reliquis & virginibus priori virorum Choro respondens; ceu veteres constat !"#$%&!' subiunxisse
"(")!"#$%#' & "(")*$#+&'. Par enim est ab omnibus cuiuscunque sexus & conditionis celebrare Deum.”
Much of the preface to Megalynodia was reprinted in Syntagma musicum I, with one correction to this
specific passage (“celebrare” is changed to “celebrari”). The above is David Fleming’s translation of the
parallel passage in Syntagma musicum I. See Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 170.

43
Praetorius, Syntagma musicum I, 72-73: “Et Misericordia ejus à progenie in progeniem timentibus eum.
Fecit potentiam in brachio suo, dispersit superbos (Haereticos) mente cordis sui: Haec verba templorum
valvis & Scholis affigantur. Quae sequuntur: Deposuit potentes (Tyrannos) de sede, & exaltavit humiles:
aulis & curijs appendantur. Denique: Esurientes implevit bonis, & divites dimisit inanes: domesticis januis,
cellis penuarijs & cubiculis adscribantur.” This is a quotation from Simon Musaeus, Potilla, das ist,
Auslegung der Epistlen und Evangelien . . . durchs ganze Jar (Frankfurt am Main, 1579), 111. Translation
from Fleming, “Michael Praetorius,” 169-70.
332
Praetorius’ Latin settings provided scholars and schoolboys with material to help
them learn the Magnificat text and meditate on it. Furthermore, although Praetorius’
settings of the German text in volumes other than Megalynodia would have been more
accessible to lay church members than his Latin settings, and especially effective in
helping them to internalize the Magnificat text, listening to Latin settings could have been
valuable for them, as well. Uneducated members of the congregation would likely know
the gist of the meaning, either because their sons had explained it to them as they were
supposed to do, or by association from the German text, so that listening to even a Latin
setting of the Magnificat could help them to ponder its meaning and significance.
In addition, tropes can illustrate, provide commentary on, and apply the
Magnificat text to specific doctrines universal for all Lutherans. A troped Magnificat with
such interpolations, especially ones in German, would encourage church members to
meditate on the principles within the Magnificat and how they relate to the Christian life.
Because the text of the Magnificat is general in nature, praising God for his mighty deeds
and mercy, the texts of chorales and other songs proper to a particular holiday fit well
with it, providing specific examples of these deeds and this mercy. The fourth trope of
Praetorius’ first Magnificat for Christmas, for instance, connects the gift of Jesus at
Christmas to God’s mercy.
Today worthy Christendom praises
with all the angels
God’s gratuitous mercy
to us poor worms
shown in his son, the Lord Jesus Christ
from whom we have for all time

333
joy and delight
as from the right sun.
44

Similarly, the fourth trope of his Easter Magnificat describes God’s great deeds in
connection with the events of Easter.
45

Some of the tropes expand on ideas within the verses they immediately follow
making their connections to the Magnificat text stronger. Coming after the words “my
spirit rejoices in God my savior,” the first trope of Praetorius’ second Magnificat for
Christmas alludes to what, in his worldview, is one aspect of God’s saving work for
mankind, namely that one result of his sending his Son is that heaven is now available to
fallen men.
All you Christians praise God together,
on his highest throne
today he unlocks his kingdom of heaven,
and gives you his son
today he once more unlocks the door,
to his beautiful paradise
the cherub no longer stands before it,
praise, thanks and glory to God.
46

The language of some tropes relates them explicitly to the preceding Magnificat
verse; the final trope of the first Christmas Magnificat provides an example of this.

44
“Heut lobt die werte Christenheit / mit allen Engelein / Gotts grundlose Barmherzigkeit / uns armen
Würmelein / erzeigt in seinem Sohne / dem Herren Jesu Christ / von dem wir Freud und Wonne / als von
der rechten Sonne / haben zu aller Frist.”

45
“Zu dieser österlichen Zeit / laßt fahren alle Traurigkeit / ihr mühseligen Sünder / Gott hat getan groß
Wunder / sprecht im Glauben mit Freuden / Ja / Ja / Ja / und singet Alleluia.” (“At this time of Easter / let
all sadness leave / you wearisome sinner / God has done great wonders / speak in faith with joy / yay, yay,
yay, and sing Alleluia.”)

46
“Lobt Gott ihr Christen alle zugleich / in seinem höchsten Thron / der heut aufschleußt sein Himmelreich
/ und schenkt euch seinen Sohn / Heut schleußt er wieder auf die Tür / zum schönen Paradeis / der Cherub
steht nit mehr dafür / Gott sei Lob / Ehr und Preis.”

334
When performed in Catholic and Lutheran services the Magnificat concludes with the
doxology, “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the
beginning, and now, and always, and forever. Amen.” Although Praetorius set
polyphonically only the second half of this text, in performance the choir probably sang
the missing text to an appropriate canticle tone. At the very least, the text would be
implied. Following the statement of the second half of the doxology is a two-verse trope
that begins with the words “Today God’s son triumphs / he is risen from the dead /
alleluia, alleluia / with great splendor and magnificence / for this we will thank you in
eternity.”
47
The trope, then, not only explicitly states the Lutheran doctrine that Christians
will glorify (or in this case, thank) God forever, as the doxology states, but also that the
resurrection is one of the reasons why they will do so.
48

The Magnificat text can also illuminate the trope text. For instance, consider the
relationship between verse four of Praetorius’ first troped Magnificat for Christmas and
the text that follows. The fourth Magnificat verse focuses on God’s might, holiness, and
the great deeds he has done for the speaker. The trope that follows this verse exclaims
“At the birth of Christ, the pure angels rejoice; the joyous crowd sings ‘glory to God. God

47
“Heut triumphieret Gottes Sohn / der vom Tod ist erstanden schon / alleluia / alleluia / mit großer Pracht
und Herrlichkeit / des dankn wir dir in Ewigkeit.”

48
The final trope of Magnificat 1 also relates closely to the doxology. This trope is printed in both Latin
and German, and the Latin version is comprised of the text “Parvulus nobis nascitur, de virgine progreditur,
ob quem laetantur angeli, gratulemur nos servuli, Trinitate gloria, in sempiterna saecula.” (“A child is born
to us, come forth from a virgin, for which the angels rejoice, let us servants give thanks, to the glorious
Trinity, forever and ever.”) The Latin text, in particular, provides a clear expansion of the doxology, and
relates it to the events of Christmas, suggesting one of the things for which Christians will thank the Trinity
forever is Christ’s birth. The German text is slightly different and lacks the reference to the Trinity,
although it still relates to the general theme of the doxology.

335
has become a man. God has now been reconciled to us sinners.’”
49
Lutheran theology
viewed the incarnation as a great and benevolent act of God toward man, an idea
highlighted by placing the Magnificat verse and trope text together. Similarly, while the
trope text implicitly refers to God’s holiness by assuming he must be “reconciled to us
sinners,” the combination of the trope with the fourth verse of the Magnificat makes the
reference explicit.
In addition to providing stimulus for meditation on the doctrines of their faith, the
troped Magnificats in Megalynodia present opportunities for church members attending
the Vespers service to participate in the performance of the Magnificat. Although this
participation would not include the Magnificat text itself, these troped Magnificats would
allow church members to respond in praise to specific deeds of God, as they believed
Mary had before them. Being able to participate by singing on familiar interpolations
between Magnificat verses likely also would encourage a church member’s active mental
engagement, and might thus encourage him to meditate on the principles in the
Magnificat verses that he did not sing, instead of letting his mind wander until another
part of the service that he more readily understood or that required his active
participation.

49
The trope is printed in Latin, as well as in German, with a few slight differences in meaning. The Latin
version, upon which the above translation is based, is as follows: “In natali Domini, casti gaudent angeli,
laeta cantant agmina, jam Deo sit gloria, Deus homo factus est, Deus jam placatus est, nobis peccatoribus.”
The German version is as follows: “Als Christus geboren war / freuten sich der Engel Schar / und sungen
mit Haufen schon / Ehr sei Gott im höchsten Thron / Gottes Sohn is Mensch geborn / hat versöhnt des
Vaters Zorn / freu sich dem sein Sünd ist leid.”
336
The Magnificat verses
Table 5.1. Motet models for the verses in Praetorius’ troped Magnificats

Lasso motet Angelus ad
Pastores
Ecce Maria Sidus ex claro Surrexit
Pastor bonus
Feast Christmas Christmas Christmas Easter
Liturgical function
50
Antiphon for
the third Psalm
of Christmas
Lauds
Antiphon for the
fifth psalm of
Vespers for the
Feast of
Circumcision
Sequence for
Epiphany
Third
responsory for
the third
nocturn of
Easter Matins
Magnificat in which it is
used

1

2

3
No. of parts 1 2 2 1
Time signature in
modern edition
51

4
2
4
2
2
2
4
2
No. of measures in
modern edition
58 65
(31 | 34)
130
(63 | 67)
66

Volume and page nos.
in modern edition
Vol. 3
pp.139-141
Vol. 5
pp. 15-17
Vol. 3
pp. 153-157
Vol. 5
pp. 57-59
Approximate % of piece
used in the Magnificat
setting

100% 67%
(85% | 50%)
35%
(30% | 39%)
100%
52

Michael Praetorius’ three troped Magnificats appear as the first, second and third
pieces in Megalynodia. Each is a parody Magnificat and appropriately, given Lasso’s role
in the development of such pieces, uses as its musical source for the verses one or two

50
The information regarding the liturgical functions of the texts of the motet models for Praetorius’ troped
Magnificats comes from Cook, “The German Troped Polyphonic Magnificat,” 164, 171, 177.

51
Orlando di Lasso, Sämtliche Werke, ed. Franz Xaver Haberl and Adolf Sandberger (Leipzig: Breitkopf &
Härtel, 1894-1926, vols. 3 and 5; reprint, New York: Broude Brothers, 1973).

52
Measures 43-53 of Surrexit Pastor bonus differ from measures 54-64 only on the first beat of the
passage, and in the interchange of the cantus 1 and cantus 2 lines. As in the motet, Praetorius uses most of
the material in these measures twice. However, he uses the material in measures 50b-53a and 61b-64a only
once.

337
Lasso motets for five voices related to the feast being celebrated, and thus the general
topic of the accompanying tropes (see Table 5.1, above). All four of the motet models
employ a loosely imitative texture, with imitation of a given motive usually remaining
exact for only a few notes. Praetorius transposes Ecce Maria down a perfect fifth for use
in his second Magnificat, but uses all of the others at pitch.
For all three of the troped Magnificats, the majority of the material in the verses
comes from the relevant Lasso model or models.
53

Table 5.2. Degree of reliance on model motets in the verses in Praetorius’ troped
Magnificats

Magnificat Magnificat 1 Magnificat 2 Magnificat 3 Total
No. of measures

90 85 85

260

Approximate no. of
measures for which the
model provides a majority
of the pitch content
59 71 63 193
Approximate % of
measures for which the
model provides a majority
of the pitch content

66% 84% 74%

74%

Approximate no. of
measures restating all
voices from the model
with minimal changes
38 7 11

56
Approximate % of
measures restating all
voices from the model
with minimal changes

42% 8% 13%

22%

53
For tables showing the derivation of Praetorius’ material for each subsection of the three Magnificats, as
well as Praetorius’ methods of manipulating his models, see the appendix.
338
Each of the three Magnificats opens with a quotation of material from the beginning of
the relevant model. In Magnificats 1 and 3, these quotations are almost exact—in the
former case Praetorius only alters the rhythm as necessary to fit the Magnificat text, and
in the latter, in addition to minor rhythmic modifications, he interchanges the two cantus
voices mid-verse and alters a few pitches over the course of the twelve-measure passage.
Praetorius adapts slightly the initial measures of Ecce Maria for the opening of
Magnificat 2, yet the reference to the source material is clear. Indeed, the incorporation of
the beginning of the model into the initial measures of the Magnificat is a hallmark of all
of Praetorius’ parody Magnificats, one he borrowed from Lasso.
54

Praetorius rarely uses a single passage from a source motet more than once in the
same troped Magnificat. The most obvious exception occurs in Magnificat 3, in which he
not only quotes the beginning of Surrexit Pastor bonus in the initial measures of verse 2,
but again draws on this material at the beginning of verse 12. In the latter section
Praetorius modifies the source material significantly, a technique Lasso invariably used in
his parody Magnificats for subsequent appropriations of the beginning of his models.
55

Nevertheless, with the extensive original material Praetorius combines distinctive
quotations from the model so that the relationship to the beginning of the Magnificat
remains clear. In referring in verse 12 back to the beginning of the Magnificat, Praetorius

54
Spears, “A Study of Michael Praetorius’ Megalynodia Sionia,” 84-85. As a minor exception, the
quotation opening Magnificat 8 begins with measure 4 of the model, rather than with measure 1. Since its
source has remained elusive, whether Praetorius used his usual strategy to begin his ninth Magnificat
currently cannot be verified, although it is extremely likely that he did. For a discussion of the opening of
Lasso’s parody Magnificats, see Crook, Orlando di Lasso’s Imitation Magnificats, 157-63.

55
Crook, Orlando di Lasso’s Imitation Magnificats, 158.

339
represents the text “sicut erat in principio” (“as it was in the beginning”), another strategy
he inherited from Lasso, who employed it in about half of his parody Magnificats.
Praetorius’ incorporation of the end of his motet models to conclude the final verses of
Magnificats 1 and 3 also parallels the practice of his renowned predecessor.
56

In Magnificat 1 nearly exact quotations of the model are not limited to the
opening of the Magnificat but occur in subsequent verses as well, for instance in the final
verse. In this case the rhythmic adjustments needed to accommodate the text are
significant and alter the character of the passage (see Example 5.1, below). Rhythmic
alterations are not always related to the requirements of text setting, however. In a few
instances in the troped Magnificats Praetorius places a few beats of a section in
augmentation or diminution while the remaining portions of the passage retain the pace
of the model. An especially noteworthy example of this appears in the eighth verse of
Magnificat 1. During measures 7-10 Praetorius divides in half the rhythm for a motive
appearing multiple times, but not simultaneously in all voices, while leaving the
remaining notes alone. As a result, the diminution process occurs in a staggered rather
than a uniform fashion.

56
Crook, Orlando di Lasso’s Imitation Magnificats, 163. Lasso incorporated the conclusion of his models
into the end of approximately three fourths of his parody Magnificats.
340
Example 5.1a. Angelus ad Pastores, end of m. 46-m. 58

341

Example 5.1b. Magnificat 1, verse 12, end of m. 6-m. 18

342
Although in some instances, especially in Magnificat 1, Praetorius does import
into his verses the entire structure of passages from his model, perhaps with only a few
minor changes in pitch and the requisite rhythmic alterations, more frequently he
modifies the material significantly for use in his settings. Most consistently, while usually
leaving the bass line intact, to form the upper voices he breaks the individual lines from
the model into segments and then reassembles them—sometimes these segments are
sizeable and undergo only minimal redistribution, but many times they are remarkably
short.
57
Praetorius’ procedure results in a complex tapestry of lines from the source
material, sometimes so fragmented and interwoven that the original lines are no longer
clearly discernible, as one voice from the Magnificat may draw from multiple voices of
the model in rapid succession within one or two phrases or even a few notes.
In the most extreme cases Praetorius involves the usually unaffected bass line in
the process, forms a single note from two voices in the model or, alternatively, distributes
portions of a single note from the model between two of his voices. In the latter half of
the final verse of Magnificat 3, a splendid example of the interweaving procedure,
Praetorius incorporates all three of these techniques, leaving none of the lines from his
model entirely intact, and distributing most of them between three or four different voices
of his Magnificat verse.
58

57
Examples of only minimal change include Magnificat 1, verse 10 and Magnificat 3, verses 2 and 6 in
which Praetorius merely interchanges two voices; and Magnificat 1, verse 4 and Magnificat 2, verse 12 in
which he weaves one Lasso voice among two or more of his own voices.

58
Another example of involving the bass in the interweaving process arises in measures 2-3 of Magnificat
2, verse 6, in which Lasso’s tenor 1 voice appears momentarily in the bass. Although the transposition of
source material from Ecce Maria for use in Magnificat 2 is a relevant factor determining how Praetorius
redistributes the voices when he uses the interweaving technique, the fact that he employs this procedure
343
Example 5.2a. Surrexit Pastor bonus, mm. 53-66

extensively outside the context of transposition, both within Magnificat 2 and in the other Magnificats,
indicates he rearranges the source material, at least in these instances, out of choice rather than necessity.
344
Example 5.2b. Magnificat 3, verse 12, mm. 7b-20

Frequently Praetorius relies heavily on the pitches from his model when using the
interweaving procedure. Sometimes, however, he incorporates substantial original
345
material of his own, either replacing pitches from the model or filling in rests. For
instance, in verse 6 of Magnificat 2 he uses this strategy to expand a three-voice texture
from his model into a full five-voice texture.
In the middle section of Magnificat 2, verse 2, Praetorius uses the interweaving
process to shift abruptly, yet smoothly, between sections based on material from one
passage of a model and adjacent sections based on material from another. Although he
draws from Ecce Maria (for m. 7), the beginning of part 1 of Sidus ex claro (for mm. 8-9)
and part 2 of Sidus ex claro (for mm. 10ff.) he requires no transitional material to
maintain logical voice leading. Additionally, within this same passage Praetorius expands
on Lasso's imitative structure. Measures 9 and 10 of Sidus ex claro feature imitation of a
short motive, complete only in the cantus and tenor 1 voices; the altus also incorporates
part of the relevant motive and the tenor 2 the initial portion of it. Praetorius completes
the truncated statements of the motive, realizing the imitative potential of these voices, by
reassigning pitches already present within the texture, even while switching immediately
to a new passage of his model for the final note of the motive in the tenor 2 voice.
Passages such as this demonstrate Praetorius’ imaginative cleverness and facility in
manipulating musical material (see Example 5.3, below).
Expanding on Lasso’s imitative structure occurs elsewhere in the verses of
Praetorius’ troped Magnificats, as well. For instance, at the beginning of Magnificat 2,
verse 2, Praetorius uses the interweaving procedure, although sparingly in this case, and
realigns the voices from his model slightly, stating explicitly two additional imitative
voices (tenor 2 in m. 2 and cantus in m. 4) hidden just below the surface in the Lasso
346
motet. Praetorius also produces brief instances of imitation out of motives derived from
his sources combined with original material (e.g., Magnificat 2, verse 4, mm. 1-3), and
creates voices in fore-imitation of source material (e.g., Magnificat 3, verse 4, mm. 1-2).

Example 5.3a. Source material for Magnificat 2, verse 2, mm. 6-11

347
Example 5.3b. Magnificat 2, verse 2, mm. 6-11

The resulting eighteen verses in Praetorius’ troped Magnificats are a combination
of some new material, some direct quotations, and large portions of the models
manipulated skillfully in minor and significant ways.
59
They incorporate a style
approximating the contents of the Lasso motets on which they are based, that is a five-
voice contrapuntal texture and loosely imitative structure appropriate for choral singing.

59
For additional examples of Praetorius’ use of his models within his parody Magnificats, including those
without tropes, see Spears, “A Study of Michael Praetorius’ Megalynodia Sionia,” 82-100.
348
The verses of Magnificats 2 and 3, in particular, contrast sharply with their
accompanying tropes, which rely heavily on the elements of cantional style.
In constructing the verses of Magnificat 1, Praetorius both reshapes his source
material less than he does for the verses in the other troped Magnificats, and incorporates
more original material. Additionally, while the verses of Magnificats 2 and 3 are almost
entirely contrapuntal, all of those in Magnificat 1 include, alongside the imitative sections
that incorporate portions of the model with minimal or moderate alterations, homophonic
sections. Although some of these homophonic passages also conform closely to the
model, most of them either use only one voice from the model, or consist mostly of new
material with a motivic or subtle melodic relationship to the source motet.
Invariably, Praetorius places these homophonic sections at the beginnings and at
or near the ends of verses. In those verses that conclude contrapuntally, many of the
voices line up for the final few beats, so that these approach a homophonic texture at their
conclusion. Additionally, many of the homophonic sections use reduced forces: verse 10
begins with two-voice homophony, three of the verses begin with four-voice
homophony—in one instance Praetorius removes one of the voices from the source
material to achieve this texture—and three homophonic sections near the ends of verses
use only four voices. The placement and voicing of these homophonic passages suggest
that they function to create a smooth transition between the imitative portions of the
verses for five voices and the homophonic tropes for four voices.
A performance of the Magnificat consisting only of the printed polyphonic verses
alternating with the tropes would emphasize most clearly this textural accord between the
349
tropes and the endpoints of verses. However, although the practice of omitting altogether
odd-numbered Magnificat verses did exist, it seems that Praetorius assumed a
performance would include not only the even-numbered verses and the tropes, but also
the odd-numbered verses sung using a canticle tone, as well. A passage in the preface to
Urania providing instructions on combining polyphonic Magnificats and German
chorales to form troped Magnificats alludes to this practice:
Thus, one selects the loveliest German songs that are suitable for each
celebration, and between each verse of the Magnificat . . . one or two stanzas
from the German song are performed with four singers and the organ . . .
However, one must select . . . a Magnificat that accords well in tone or mode
with the German songs. . . . Here, concerning untransposed hypoionian mode,
one must observe, since there is no corresponding [canticle] tone, that in its
place the Magnificat octavi toni must be used, and the German songs
transposed by fourth. . . . If one should transpose the German songs by fifth,
which is rather lethargic, then the sixth tone is more suitable.
60

The lack of a canticle tone corresponding to hypoionian mode could only create a
difficulty for performances incorporating the odd-numbered verses, implying that
Praetorius assumed these would be included. Thus, it seems Praetorius did not expect the
homophonic tropes to adjoin the homophonic sections of subsequent verses in

60
Urania, XV: “Also dz die lieblichste deutsche Lieder / so sich auff ein jedes Fest schicken / außerlesen /
und zwischen jeden Verß des Magnificats, so auff dem Chor mit Cantoribus und Instrumentisten gesungen
würden / ein oder zwey Gesetz und Verß aus denselben deutschen Liede mit vier Cantoribus in die Orgel
(weil doch ohne daß der Organist allzeit zwischen jedem Verse des Magnificats auff der Orgel respondiren
muß) musiciret und gesungen wurden. Allein daß man außm Orlando, Collectaneis Casparis Hasleri,
Hieronymo Praetorio, Vulipo, Demantio, und andern Autoribus ein Magnificat auffsuche / daß im Tono
oder Modo mit solchem deutschen Gesange accordire. . . . Allhier ist vom Hypo Ionico § zu observiren /
weil kein Thon im Choral / der ihme respondire, verhanden / daß an dessen stadt das Magnificat octavi
Toni müsse genommen werden / wenn die deutsche Lieder per quartam (welches dann vor die Instrumenten
zum besten / und an sich selbsten also eine Lieblichere Harmony von sich gibt /) transponiret werden. Solte
man aber die deutsche Lieder per quintam, do es dann etwas schläfferig / transponiren, So bequemet sich
alßdann sextus Tonus darzu / etc.” Because Praetorius’ wording is confusing, the exact meaning in the
second half of this passage is unclear. However, based on the context of the passage and the characteristics
of the specific German songs to which he is referring, the phrase “Thon im Choral” does seem to be
referring to a unison reciting tone (as in the above translation) rather than a pitch in a German chorale.
Accordingly, on p. 29 of his dissertation on Troped Magnificats, Larry Cook translates “Thon im Choral”
as “Magnificat tone.”
350
performance. Still, the homophonic sections create a clear conceptual link with the
tropes, generating some unity between these two types of passages, although, even in this
Magnificat the verses, with their ample passages of loose imitation, contrast markedly
with the tropes.

The printed tropes
Disregarding the distinction between authentic and plagal modes, with one
exception the tropes Praetorius chooses for each Magnificat match the mode of that
Magnificat—G dorian for the first, F ionian for the second, and C ionian for the third.
The melodies of the tropes begin and end on the pitch center of the piece as a whole and
Praetorius harmonizes the endpoints with triads built on that pitch. However, although the
verses of the third Magnificat clearly use C-ionian mode, and five of the tropes do, as
well, the remaining trope concludes in E phrygian. The melody of this trope begins on C,
and indeed the entire first phrase fits well in C-ionian mode, so that Praetorius could have
harmonized the first note with a C-major triad. Additionally, although the remaining
phrases of the melody depart from ionian mode, because its final two notes are D and E,
Praetorius could have concluded the trope with a V-I cadence on C, so that the endpoints
of the trope, at least, would match the harmonic behavior dominant in the remaining
tropes and the verses.
Yet Praetorius chose not to heed the pitch center and mode of the rest of the
Magnificat when harmonizing this trope. The harmonization begins with an A-minor
triad, although a C-major triad is eminently feasible. Furthermore, to harmonize the final
351
two pitches of the melody he uses a D-minor and an E-minor triad, respectively, and then
adjoins a tag in the bottom three voices, concluding the trope with a iv-I cadence on E.
Example 5.4. Magnificat 3, trope 6, phrases 1-2, 5-6

Thus, for this trope Praetorius appropriates a melody that, while relying mostly on
the same set of pitches as the mode for the rest of the piece and thus not clashing
blatantly with the other tropes and the verses, does not conform closely to the modal
characteristics of these other portions of the work. Moreover, instead of using at the
endpoints of the trope chords that would minimize the distinctions between the melody of
this trope and the other trope melodies, as well as the individual voices of the verses, he
352
emphasizes these distinctions. Praetorius’ approach is especially noteworthy because the
anomalous trope is the sixth trope and therefore constitutes the conclusion of the entire
piece. This Magnificat in C-ionian mode, then, with five tropes in C-ionian mode each
incorporating the expected V-I cadence on C in the final phrase, with verses that begin
and end on C (or include a G-major triad at one of the endpoints in a couple of instances),
concludes on an E-major triad. Because of this, apart from adding harmonic variety to
this Magnificat, the anomalous trope attests to the flexibility with which a composer in
the first decades of the seventeenth century could approach the harmony of a work. Just
as Praetorius, like other composers of his generation, was not constrained in his part
writing for cantional settings by a necessity for complete agreement between the initial
and final chords, he could compose the conclusion of a lengthy work with multiple
sections so that it did not match harmonically the preceding ninety percent of the work.
61

Praetorius included in MSVI settings of all of the chorales used as tropes in
Megalynodia. Many of the tropes display close similarities to these parallel settings in
MSVI, and five of the Magnificat 2 tropes are nearly identical to their respective parallel

61
Four of the tropes of this Magnificat use high clefs. The resulting high tessitura—the soprano line
ascends as high as an A5—matches the high tessitura of the Magnificat verses. Based on the use of
chiavette, Cook suggests transposition down a fourth for the entire Magnificat (see Cook, “The German
Troped Polyphonic Magnificat,” 180-81). However, tropes 2 and 4 use the standard clef combination and a
much lower tessitura, so that transposition down a fourth would place these tropes in an extremely low
range—for example, forcing the soprano voice regularly down to a G3, and as far down as F#3 in one
instance. Cook’s solution is for only the lower four sections of the choir employed on the verses to sing the
low tropes. This solution is plausible, although Praetorius’ suggestion (discussed below) that a solo voice
and instruments perform the verses while the full choir sings the tropes raises some difficulties.
Specifically, using Praetorius’ suggestion requires only a four-voice choir, so that all four parts would need
to sing all of the tropes, requiring for each of them a very large range. Transposing down the portions of the
Magnificat using high clefs while leaving the others intact would create a similar tessitura for all sections,
but simultaneously create a conflict between the Bb in the resulting F-ionian sections and the B§ in the
untransposed C-ionian ones.

353
settings. In the case of these Magnificat 2 tropes, clearly Praetorius either adapted the
MSVI settings for use as tropes or, perhaps having already constructed his troped
Magnificats when publishing MSVI, extracted the tropes and printed them, with slight
revisions, in the relevant volume of Musae Sioniae. Thus, while generally avoiding the
reprinting or obvious reuse of material when composing cantional settings for different
regions, Praetorius did not eschew repurposing a chorale setting for use in a new
context.
62
Three of the repurposed settings appear a fifth lower in Megalynodia than they
do in Musae Sioniae, mimicking the relationship between Ecce Maria and the material
derived from this motet as it appears in Magnificat 2.
63

Thirteen of the eighteen tropes employ a text entirely in German. For four
additional ones, Praetorius included both Latin and German versions of the text.
Presumably he expected a director to choose the most appropriate language based on the
people present. Alternatively, a director could have performed these tropes twice, once in
Latin and once in German. The remaining trope employs Latin almost exclusively, and
Praetorius declined to include a German translation. This trope, the initial one of
Magnificat 1, actually consists of two chorales. Each one begins with the text of the
famous Christmas song Puer natus in Bethlehem, although Praetorius uses German for
this phrase in the second chorale. However, neither uses the tune usually associated with
this poem, and each incorporates a chorus with additional Latin text. The tune of the first
piece appears in MSVI: 38, with the indication of an origin in Catholic circles. The

62
Similarly, Praetorius reused pieces from Musae Sioniae when writing a few of the settings in Urania and
quite a few of the ones in Polyhymnia.

63
The settings transposed for use in Megalynodia are MSVI: 41 (Magnificat 2, trope 2), MSVI: 58
(Magnificat 2, trope 4), and MSVI: 72 (Magnificat 2, trope 6).
354
chorus of the second portion of the trope, a purely syllabic section consisting almost
exclusively of a series of quarter notes and using a pace twice as fast as the verse of this
song, seems suitable to a lively performance. All of these factors suggest that uneducated
members of Lutheran congregations may not have understood this trope readily.
Some of Praetorius’ Christmas tropes include features typical of chorales used for
Kindleinwiegen, and Praetorius may have chosen them partly because of these features.
In particular, two of the tropes in Magnificat 2 seem especially related to the
Kindleinwiegen tradition. The third trope of this Magnificat is in triple meter and includes
the text, “Geborn is Gottes Söhnelein / zu Bethlehem ein Kindelein / und liegt in einem
Krippelein.”
64
Much of the text and some of the music of the fifth trope are drawn from
parts of Resonet in laudibus, securely connecting this trope to the oldest practice of
Kindleinwiegen.
65
Despite this connection to the performance tradition of Magnificats
troped for Christmas, however, for the most part the chorales Praetorius chose as
interpolations for his Magnificats are outside the norm. Of the eighteen tropes in all, only
four appear in any of the extant troped Magnificats by other composers.
66
Additionally, at
least two of the chorales used as tropes seem to be quite rare, apparently originating with
Praetorius in at least one instance, and likely appearing only in Praetorius’ own

64
God’s little son is born as a child in Bethlehem, and lies in a cradle.

65
The trope uses the structure ab
1
cb
2
deef ghgh. Phrases b
1
, c and d incorporate the text and melody from
sections of Resonet in laudibus. Phrases a, e and f quote text from the popular Christmas song, but set it
with a new melody. Conversely, the melody but not the text of phrase b
2
comes from Resonet in laudibus.

66
Gesius incorporates Lobt Gott ihr Christen alle zugleich (Magnificat 2, trope 1) and a version of Uns ist
ein Kindlein heut geborn (Magnificat 1, trope 6). Galliculus and Gesius both use Der Spiegel der
Dreifaltigkeit, (Magnificat 2, trope 2) and Finolt and Scheidt both use versions of Erstanden ist der heilig
Christ (Magnificat 3, trope 1). See Cook, “The German Troped Polyphonic Magnificat,” 331-67.

355
publications in another.
67
Thus, although the troped Magnificat was a common genre in
Lutheran churches, most of the specific tropes appearing in Praetorius’ pieces probably
would have surprised many Lutheran congregants who may not have recognized some of
the tropes, or even understood the predominantly Latin one.

Table 5.3. Magnificat tropes in textbook cantional style

Magnificat Trope Text Nearly identical
setting in MSVI
Other cantional
settings of this
chorale in MSVI
1 2 In natali Domini/Als
Christus geboren war
MSVI: 75
MSVI: 76
1 5 Vom Himmel kömmt ein
neuer Engel geflogen
MSVI: 50
68

1 6 Parvulus nobis nascitur/
Uns ist ein Kindlein
MSVI: 42
2 6 Dem neugebornen
Kindelein
MSVI: 72 MSVI: 73
3 1 Erstanden ist der heilig
Christ
(3 verses)
MSVI: 139
3 4 Zu dieser österlichen Zeit MSVI: 148
69

3 5 Allelujah ist ein fröhlich
Gesang

MSVI: 140

67
Zahn indicates that Praetorius probably wrote Herz, Sinn und unser Gmüte (Magnificat 1, trope 3). See
Johannes Zahn, Die Melodien der deutschen evangelischen Kirchenlieder (Gütersloh, 1889-93; reprint,
Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1963), volume V, no. 8448. Cook was unable to find settings of Allelujah ist ein
fröhlich Gesang (Magnificat 3, trope 5) outside of Praetorius’ publications. See Cook, “The German
Troped Polyphonic Magnificat,” 182-83.

68
As printed in MSVI: 50, the form of this chorale is abab ca’ca’. The trope omits the second iteration of
phrase b. It seems most likely that this is an unintentional omission. It is possible, though unlikely given the
structure of the text and melody, that the trope represents an alternative manner of singing the chorale.

69
This chorale is in triple meter. While the setting printed in MSVI incorporates the expected long-short
lilting rhythm throughout, in the trope the penultimate note of the second phrase is twice as long as
expected, adding an extra beat to the phrase and distorting the otherwise predictable rhythmic pattern. Most
likely this is a typographical error, although it is possible that Praetorius purposefully altered the rhythm in
this place to create rhythmic variety and surprise.
356
Almost all of the tropes are in cantional style, with seven of them incorporating
all of the elements characteristic of Praetorius’ typical settings in this style—namely, the
melody stated from beginning to end in the highest of four voices, a prevailingly
homorhythmic texture with clear breaks between phrases and mild or moderate
decoration in the lower voices, and minimal or no voice crossing above the melody voice
(see Table 5.3, above). Nine of the tropes employ cantional style, but deviate from
Praetorius’ typical cantional settings in at least one area.

Table 5.4. Magnificat tropes diverging from textbook cantional style in at least
one area

Magnificat Trope Text Nearly identical
setting in MSVI
Other cantional settings
of this chorale in MSVI
1 1 Puer natus in
Bethlehem
MSVI: 38 (trope, part 1)
MSVI: 39 (trope, part 2)
1 3 Herz, Sinn und
unser Gmüte
MSVI: 66
MSVI: 67
1 4 Heut lobt die werte
Christenheit
MSVI: 68
MSVI: 69
2 2 En Trinitatis
speculum/Der
Spiegel der
Dreifaltigkeit
MSVI: 41 MSVI: 40
2 4 Freut euch ihr lieben
Christen
MSVI: 58 MSVI: 57
2 5 Magnum nomen
Domini/Gross und
Herr ist Gottes Nam
MSVI: 54
3 2 Wir wollen alle
fröhlich sein
MSVI: 144
3 3 Freu dich du werte
Christenheit
MSVI: 145
3 6 Heut triumphieret
Gottes Sohn

MSVI: 142

357
In most instances, these divergences from Praetorius’ typical cantional style are minor,
only trivially affecting the clarity and presentation of the melody (see Table 5.5, below).
For instance, the pace slows down at the end of five of the tropes, in each case resulting
in a ritardando in the final phrase. Although such a feature is almost entirely absent from
the settings in Praetorius’ Cantional, its effect on the accessibility of a setting would be
negligible, if present at all. Additionally, it very well could reflect customary
performance practice, at least in some locations. Similarly, the acceleration of the pace
within a setting, as occurs for the second half of Magnificat 1, trope 4, might temporarily
confuse a layperson attempting to follow along with the melody, but such confusion
probably would only last for a few notes.
Table 5.5. Tropes in cantional style diverging from textbook cantional style in
at least one area

Magnificat 1 Magnificat 2 Magnificat 3
Trope Trope Trope

Element that diverges from
textbook cantional style
1a 1b 3 4 2 4 5 2 3 6

Written-out ritardando at
end
x x x x x
Affects
pace
Doubles pace mid-chorale x

Crossing above more than
five notes of the soprano
x x x x x
Involves
location
of melody
Melody migrates to tenor
voice in the final phrase
x

Some sections use only
three voices
x
Affects
overall
texture
Increased decoration in
lower voices

x

358
The third trope of Magnificat 1 consists of two sections. The use of three voices in
the first of these sections, though atypical for cantional style, would in no way conceal
the melody. In contrast, while the second section uses the four voices standard in
cantional style, the alto voice fails to line up with the other voices for nearly the entirety
of the section. Not only are the text, and in some cases the rhythm, in the alto not aligned
with that of the other voices in the middle of phrases, but the breaks between phrases in
the alto voice also are out of phase with those of the other voices. As a result, every
phrase break is concealed in this section, reducing the structural clarity of the melody.
However, since three of the voices do line up vertically throughout the section, the effect
on the prominence of the melody would be modest at most, and would be negligible if the
alto voice were performed softly in relation to the other voices (see Example 5.5, below).
Frequent crossing of the alto voice above the soprano, of course, would tend to
conceal the melody somewhat. All of the tropes of Magnificat 3 incorporate some voice
crossing above the soprano, but only in two of these does the crossing occur on more than
a few notes. Even in these two cases, namely tropes 2 and 6, the vast majority of the
melody remains on top so that the voice crossing that does occur would not mask the
melody noticeably. Similarly, although the melody migrates to the tenor voice at the end
of Magnificat 3, trope 3, it sounds there only for the final four notes of the piece, so that
the effect on the prominence of the melody is trivial.
In five of the tropes of Magnificat 2 the melody fails to sound on top for a
significant portion of the trope. The fourth trope is least affected, with only twenty-five
percent of the melody notes sounding below the alto voice, likely not enough to conceal
359
the melody, especially since almost all of the voice crossing arises after the second
phrase. In trope 5 almost half of the melody sounds below the alto voice, and in trope 2
more than sixty percent of the melody does. As discussed in Chapter 3, however, in both
of these instances the extreme simplicity of the texture and other mitigating factors help
to assure that the melody remains audible despite the voice crossing.
Example 5.5. Magnificat 1, trope 3, phrases 4-7

Thus, sixteen of the eighteen tropes incorporate either all of the salient features of
cantional style, or enough of them such that the melody remains prominent enough for
anyone to follow without much difficulty. In contrast, in presenting their respective
360
chorale melodies in multiple guises the remaining two tropes, both from Magnificat 2,
include sections not in accordance with the essential properties of cantional style,
although both also are related to settings in MSVI, employ homophonic textures, and
incorporate cantional style in some portions.
Table 5.6. Tropes in Magnificat 2 incorporating styles other than cantional style

Trope Chorale Verse No. of
voices
Nearly identical
settings in
MSVI
Other cantional
settings of this
chorale in
MSVI
1 2; 4 MSVI: 70
1
Lobt Gott ihr
Christen alle
zugleich
2 4 MSVI: 71

1 2
2 3

3

Geborn ist Gottes
Söhnelein
3 4

MSVI: 61
MSVI: 62

In all of the verses of Magnificat 2, trope 3, the melody migrates between voices.
In verse 1, it is in the bottom voice for three phrases, then moves to the top voice. In
verse 2, it switches between the top two voices multiple times, often in the middle of a
phrase. Usually the melody remains in a particular voice for five or more notes, but in
one instance it transfers from one voice to the other for only one note. Twice when the
melody switches voices it also changes octaves, decreasing its clarity, already
compromised by the irregular and unpredictable placement of the melody within the
texture (see Example 5.6, below). The final verse employs a similar procedure, with the
melody beginning and ending in the top voice, resulting in cantional style in these places,
361
but moving to the alto and then the tenor in between. The treatment of the melody voice
in this trope resembles the interweaving technique featuring prominently in the verses of
this Magnificat.
Example 5.6. Magnificat 2, trope 3, verse 2

The second verse of trope 1 is a typical cantional setting, nearly identical to one
published in MSVI. The first verse, however, employs an interlocking structure with each
phrase of the melody appearing in duple meter on top of a two-voice texture, as well as in
triple meter in the tenor voice of a four-voice texture. The presentation of each phrase of
the melody in both duple and triple meters and the movement of the melody voice create
variety, but also would create challenges for anyone trying to follow the progress of the
melody.
362
Alternate tropes
Praetorius includes in Megalynodia, as in many of his other publications,
instructions pertaining to the performance of its contents; these appear in a list of items
entitled “note to the musical reader.” The seven comments and instructions pertaining to
the volume as a whole or related specifically to Magnificats without tropes are in Latin,
matching the language of the volume’s dedication. However, Praetorius writes those
items pertaining specifically to troped Magnificats in German, a sign that this language is
important in such pieces and also an indication that Praetorius intends them, or at least
certain portions of them, to be more widely accessible than the other Magnificat settings
could be. Four of the notes relate to substituting alternate tropes for those printed in the
volume. Amidst suggestions of chorales and specific settings to use, and details relevant
to incorporating these pieces into performances of the troped Magnificats, Praetorius
especially emphasizes including congregational singing into these performances.
7. One may, however, replace the German songs included in the first
Magnificat with a stanza from the Christmas song Christum wir sollen loben
schon (in Clave GbMoll, in which the Magnificat stands) between each verse
of the Magnificat; the Christian congregation singing in unison and the choir
in parts. Thus a verse of the Magnificat alternates with a stanza of the chorale
until they are completed. Or the settings of Puer natus in Bethlehem from
Musae Sioniae V, no. 84 or 86, may be sung between the Magnificat verses,
joined by the organ.
8. Likewise in the second Magnificat, one may replace the German songs
given here with the following: after “Et exultavit,” the entire congregation
may begin simultaneously either with Allein Gott in der Höh sei Ehr (the first
stanza), or Ein Kindelein so löbelich, or Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ (first and
last stanzas). And immediately the organ and entire musical forces join in
parts on the following lines of the chorale (“Und dank für seine Gnade,” “Ist
uns geboren heute,” or “Das du Mensch geboren bist,” respectively) and
continue to the end of the stanza.
After “Quia fecit” the first stanza of In dulci jubilo may be used. After
“Fecit potentiam,” the second stanza of In dulci jubilo, (“O Jesu parvule”);
363
following the “Esurientes,” the third stanza, “O Patris charitas;” and after
“Sicut locutus,” the fourth stanza, “Ubi sunt gaudia.” Thus the entire
congregation continues together with the organ, and choir and instruments.
After “Sicut erat,” either, Joseph, lieber Joseph mein, or Resonet in laudibus
Numbers 29 and 30 (à7) in Eulogodia Sionia in which I have shown the
manner of arranging it. Or if one prefers, he may use Singt, ihr lieben
Christen all (no. 91 in Musae Sionia V) since it has the same melody as the
Resonet. Or Numbers 88, 92, 93, 94, etc. may be used.
9. I like to begin the first line of German hymns in unison (as I have also
explained in Musae Sioniae V, third paragraph of the preface) and continue
the following lines in parts. The reason for this is to attract the congregation
with the beginning of the chorale and incite them to sing along; otherwise they
assume that all the music will be elaborate, and for that reason remain
absolutely silent, and do not wish to sing along.
10. Furthermore, in the third Magnificat, instead of the German songs
given here, between each verse, Numbers 132, 133, and 135 from Musae
Sioniae V may be used. Two or three verses, one after the other, of Erstanden
ist der heilig Christ may be sung with the congregation. It is very lovely and
charming to hear when the complete assembly is joined by choirs and organ,
dramatizing, as it were, how it will be in Heaven when all the angels and
saints of God will join with us in intoning and singing the “Sanctus, Sanctus,
Sanctus, Gloria in Excelsis Deo.”
70

70
Praetorius, Megalynodia, X-XI: “7. Man kan aber auch an Stadt deroselben darbey gesetzten Deutschen
Lieder / in dem I. Magnificat zwischen jedern Verß / entweder ein Gesetz aus dem Weihnacht Gesang /
Christum wir sollen loben schon / in dem Clave Gbmol, darinn das Magnificat außhelt / mit der
Christlichen Gemein choraliter und figuraliter anfangen / unnd also einen Verß umb den andern / aus dem
Magnificat unnd Deutschem Gesange / biß zum ende desselben außführen. Oder aber außm V. Theil der
deutschen Musarum Sioniarum, das 84. oder 86. Puer natus in Bethlehem &c. darzwischen singen / unnd
zugleich auff der Orgel mit einstimmen.
8. So mag man in dem II. Magnificat an Stadt der auch dabey gesetzten deutschen Lieder / es also
halten / daß nach dem Et exultavit &c. mit der gantz! Gemeine zugleich angefang! werde / entwed’ Allein
Gott in der Höhe sey Ehr / das erste Gesetz: Oder Ein Kindelein so löbelich: Oder aber / Gelobet seystu
Jesu Christ / das erste und letzte Gesetz / und also bald mit der Orgel und gantzem Choro Musico
figuraliter, die folgende Reyen (Und danck für seine Gnade:) Oder (Ist uns geboren heute) &c., und fürder
biß zum ende desselbigen einigen Gesetzes vollführen. Nach dem Quia fecit aber stehet zugebrauchen das
I. Gesetz außm In dulci jubilo &c. auff den versicul Fecit potentiam das 2. Gesetz O Iesu parvule: Auff das
Esurientes das 3. Gesetz / O Patris charitas: Nach dem Sicut locutus, das 4. Gesetzt / Vbi sunt gaudia: also
daß allzeit mit dem gantzen Volck die Orgel und Figuralis Musica zugleich mit einander fortgehe. Nach
dem Sicut erat aber / Joseph lieber Joseph mein: Oder aus der Evlogodia das 29. 30. Resonet in laudibus à.
7. wie ich daselbsten die Art / solches anzuordnen verzeichnet: Oder auch wehme es gefelliger / aus dem
V. Theil der deutschen Musar. Sioniar. das 91. Singt ihr lieben Christen all: damit es gleicher Gestalt als
mit dem Resonet &c. zuhalten: Oder das 88. 92. 93. und 94. etc. gebrauchet werden kan.
9. Das Ich aber in den deutschen Psalmen / die erste Reyen oder Zeit choraliter gern anfahen / (wie
im V. Theil paragrapho tertio Notae ad lectorem auch admoniret) und die folgende Reyen fürter biß zum
ende figuraliter fortfahren lasse; ist die Ursache / damit man also das gemeine Volck / mit dem Anfang deß
Chorals gleichsamb zum mitsingen anlocke und incitire, sonsten sie vermeinen / es wehre alles Figural, und
derwegen gantz und gar stille schweigen und nicht mitsingen möchten.
364
In addition to specific references to congregational singing for many or all of the
alternate tropes in each Magnificat, the general advice to begin chorales in unison as well
as the description of corporate worship as a foretaste of worship in heaven underscore the
importance of encouraging congregational singing in the context of performances of
troped Magnificats. In each instance in which Praetorius mentions the text of a chorale
without indicating specific suitable settings in Musae Sioniae, he refers to the
congregation singing in unison accompanied by a choir in parts, a clear allusion to
singing in cantional style. For any one of these chorales a choir director could appropriate
any cantional setting of the relevant melody as sung in his particular location, as long as
its mode is compatible with that of the verses of the relevant Magnificat.
Considering that Praetorius concluded Magnificat 3, in untransposed ionian mode,
with a trope in untransposed phrygian, it seems that for him modal compatibility hinges
more on the set of pitches—specifically on a consistent use of B§ or Bb throughout—or
modal transposition than on the final of the melody. For instance, when untransposed,
Christum wir sollen loben schon begins on a D but ends in phrygian mode. Praetorius
suggests using this chorale for the tropes of Magnificat 1. However, since this Magnificat
is in G dorian, and thus uses a Bb, in order to use Christum wir sollen for the tropes a
director would need to choose a setting of the chorale also using a Bb—that is, a setting

10. Ferners kan auch im III. Magnificat an Stadt der deutschen Lieder / zwischen jedem Verse /
aus dem V. Theile das 132. 133. 135. Erstanden ist der heilig Christ / zween oder drey Verß auff einander
mit der Gemeine gesungen werden: Sintemahl es sehr lieblich und anmuthig zu hören ist / wenn die ganze
Versamblung also mit dem Chor und der Orgel zugleich einstimmet / und gleichsamb ostendiret und
vorstellet / wie es im Himmel / da alle liebe Engel und Heiligen Gottes mit uns / das Sanctus, Sanctus,
Sanctus, Gloria in Excelsis Deo intoniren und anstimmen sollen / zugehen werde.” Translation adapted
from Cook, “The German Troped Polyphonic Magnificat,” 159-61.
365
beginning on G but ending in A-phrygian mode. Of course, in such a case the final of the
tropes would not match the final of the mode of the Magnificat verses, but the pitch set
would match. In contrast, a setting of the melody in G-phrygian mode incorporates Ebs
and Abs, and thus is not compatible harmonically with the Magnificat verses, despite
adopting their pitch center. If necessary, a director could transpose a setting to create
modal compatibility with the verses—a solution Praetorius mentions in the discussion in
Urania of a similar situation regarding combining polyphonic Magnificats and German
chorales to form a compiled troped Magnificat. Praetorius certainly would have thought
his own cantional settings of the specified chorales to be suitable options for the tropes.
In many cases, these settings could be used without transposition, although in others
transposition would be necessary (see Tables 5.7 and 5.8, below). The settings of Gelobet
seist du and In dulci jubilo from MSVI incorporate regional versions of melodies,
providing musical directors from a variety of areas appropriate material to use as tropes
for Magnificat 2.

Table 5.7. Cantional settings suitable for alternate tropes in Magnificat 1

Mode of Magnificat = G dorian

Chorale Setting Mode of melody Viable
transposition
MSV: 56 E phrygian P4 up
MSVI: 19 E phrygian P4 up
Christum wir sollen
loben schon
MSVI: 20 E phrygian P4 up

366
Table 5.8. Cantional settings suitable for alternate tropes in Magnificat 2

Mode of Magnificat = F ionian

Trope
number(s)
Chorale Verse(s) Setting Mode of
melody
Optimal
transposition
MSVI: 168 F ionian None required
MSVI: 170 F ionian None required
Allein Gott
in der Höh
sei Ehr
71

1
MSVI: 169 C ionian P5 down
Ein
Kindelein
so löbelich
1
(implied)
MSV: 78 C ionian P5 down
MSV: 63 G mixolydian
MSVI: 21 G mixolydian
MSVI: 22 G mixolydian
MSVI: 23 G mixolydian

1

Gelobet
seist du,
Jesu Christ

1; 7

MSVI: 24 G mixolydian

P4 up or
P5 down
MSV: 83 F ionian None required
MSVI: 31 F ionian None required
MSVI: 32 F ionian None required

2-5

In dulci
jubilo

1-4

MSVI: 33 F ionian None required

Praetorius obviously intends that the congregation will sing along with the tropes
for Magnificat 3, regardless of the given option the director chooses. Accordingly, both
MSV: 132 and MSV: 133 are cantional settings in C-ionian mode, matching the mode
and pitch center of the Magnificat verses. Executing Praetorius’ suggestion to use two or
three stanzas of the chorale for each trope would require between twelve and eighteen
stanzas, assuming no stanzas of text are repeated for subsequent tropes. With nineteen

71
MSV: 21 is an additional cantional setting of Allein Gott in der Höh sei Ehr. The melody is in G ionian,
but the harmony has more in common with mixolydian than ionian mode. A transposition down a major
second would put the melody in the correct mode, but the harmony would then include a number of Ebs.
Transposition up a perfect fourth would result in harmony compatible with the Magnificat verses, but a
melody with B§s at the end of both the A and B sections. Therefore, given the uncommon transposition of
this melody (an ionian melody ending on G), this particular setting would not work well as a trope for
Magnificat 2.

367
German stanzas of text presenting the resurrection story as narration (stanzas 1-6),
dialogue between the angel and Mary (stanzas 7-17) and an appropriate response to the
events (stanzas 18-19), MSV: 133 includes ample text to furnish such tropes. Using this
setting would create a consistent narrative over the course of the troped Magnificat. In
contrast, apart from its second stanza MSV: 132 uses different text from MSV: 133.
Because it consists of alternations of verses in Latin with the German translations of these
verses, although it includes twelve stanzas altogether, only six of these are in German.
Thus, in order to formulate all six tropes, it would be necessary for a director employing
this setting either to use only one stanza per trope, include in the performance the Latin
stanzas along with the German ones, or include additional stanzas of text not printed with
this setting.
In contrast to these simple cantional settings, MSV: 135, which uses the same text
as MSV: 133, actually includes five total arrangements of two tunes (one of which is a
version of the tune used in MSV: 132 and MSV: 133), as discussed in Chapter 2. Recall
that Praetorius indicates reduced forces for some of the arrangements and expanded
forces for others, and that the melody in one of these arrangements is in the middle of the
texture while another arrangement consists of a duet combining both melodies. That
Praetorius mentions this setting in Megalynodia in the context of congregational singing
might indicate that he considered all five arrangements, including the one with the
melody in the middle of the texture, suitable for congregational singing. However, since
it is possible that he means to imply that a director should use as tropes only the most
appropriate arrangement or selection of arrangements, and disregard the one or two least
368
conducive to congregational singing, his view about the best use of these latter
arrangements remains unclear. Regardless, whatever selection of arrangements in this
piece the director chose to use, he would need to transpose them down a fourth, as the
melodies in this setting are in F-ionian mode.
72

The specific suggestions from Musae Sioniae for use as tropes in Magnificat 1,
both of which are settings of Puer natus est in G-dorian mode and thus match
harmonically the relevant Magnificat verses, are similar to those for Magnificat 3.
Specifically, MSV: 84 is a simple cantional setting alternating Latin verses with their
German counterparts, while MSV: 86 consists of multiple arrangements of the melody,
some in cantional style for more than four voices but others for fewer voices with the
melody in the middle of the texture. Although the instruction regarding inserting verses
from either of these settings between the verses of Magnificat 1 does not refer to
congregational singing explicitly, the wording certainly allows for such an interpretation,
and even seems to imply it. Furthermore, the simple style of MSV: 84 and the similarity
of both settings to those suggested for use as tropes in Magnificat 3 indicate that
Praetorius did, indeed, intend tropes created from these settings to incorporate
congregational singing.
Praetorius’ suggestions for incorporating substitute tropes into Magnificat 2 are
more complicated than those for the other Magnificats. While inserting alternate tropes
into Magnificats 1 and 3 requires one chorale setting, performance of Magnificat 2 with

72
Alternatively, since the verses of this Magnificat use high clefs, a director might leave the chorale at
printed pitch and transpose the Magnificat verses down a fifth.
369
alternate tropes requires three settings, and Praetorius gives multiple options for the first
and last tropes.
Table 5.9. Suggested alternate tropes for Magnificat 2

Trope
number
Chorale Specific setting Style
Allein Gott in der Höh sei
Ehr
None given cantional (implied)
Ein Kindelein so löbelich None given cantional (implied)

1
Gelobet seist du, Jesu
Christ, stanzas 1 and 7
None given cantional (implied)
2-5 In dulci jubilo, stanzas 1-4 None given cantional (implied)
Joseph, lieber Joseph mein None given ?
Eulogodia Sionia: 29 contrapuntal
Eulogodia Sionia: 30 contrapuntal

Resonet in laudibus