Tomislav Bui, mag. musicol.

University of Zagreb, Academy of Music

Secular monodies of Tomaso Cecchini

Revised version of paper prepared for International Student Symposium in Ljubljana, April
25 26, 2013

Introduction

This paper will offer closer examination of Tomaso Cecchini's secular monodies, but
before the main discussion here are some some general informations about Cecchini, who is
mostly unkonwn to the readers that are not familiar with the Croatian music historiography.
Tomaso Cecchini was probably born around 1583 in Soave near Verona and died in 1644 in
Hvar) came to Dalmatia from Italy in the first decade of the seventeenth century. He stayed
there continuosly (however, with a possible break between 1607 and 1613) until his death,
serving at first as maestro di cappella at the Split Cathedral, and during the 16141644 period,
in the same function and as an organist at the Hvar Cathedral. A very prolific composer,
Cecchini published no less than 27 volumes of different music (one third has been fully
preserved to this day). All published in Venice between 1612 and 1635, they contain both
sacred (canti spirituali, motets, psalms, masses) and secular music (madrigals, canzonette,
arias, sonates). (Tuksar 2008: 376).
In this paper I will take a closer look at his secular monodies because his two collections
are of great importance since they demonstrate how the monodic style spread across the
peripheral regions of the Venetian Republic in the early seventeenth century. He dedicated his
first book of monodic madrigals (Amorosi concetti from 1612 which was possibly his first
published opus) to Nicolo, Giovanni, Agostino and Girolamo Capogrosso, members of a
distinguished merchant family from Split., and [t]he reference in the preface to the
composer's ferma habitatione implies that the Nobilissima Citt is most likely Split,
where the Capogrosso brothers were at home, rather than Venice, where the preface was
wirtten. (Buji 1993: 1416).
The third book of monodic madrigals Amorosi concetti from 1616 (the second book with
the same title has not been preserved) is the first work known to have been signed by Cecchini
as maestro di capella in Hvar with dedication to the Trogirian nobelman Giovanni Mazzerelli.
In the dedication, attention is given to Cecchini's reputation in the house of the Split
Capogroso family, the same family to which the first book was dedicated, and to the music's
reputation in Split (he wrote that his music was performed con applauso di mille orecchi;
this is typical baroque retoric but is historiographically significant because it tells us that
Cecchini's madrigals were actually performed in Split).1

For mentioned and further informations consult Stipevi 2006.

Both books are predominantly comprised of solo songs for canto o tenore and basso
continuo, with the addition of several false duets for one high and one low voice, in which
in the place of the instrumental continuo the bass part was written. This implies that the
instrumental bass is in fact a basso seguente. Two madrigals for two high voices and
continuo, placed in the third book, are the only true duets. The choice of poems is typical for
the ,,age of poesia per musica inaugurated by Giambatistta Marino, and imitated by a myriad
of followers. We can indentify poetic lines by Marino, Chirabrera, Ceba, Strozzi and Torelli
but for most of the texts the author is unknown.

Amorosi concetti (1612)

Original and complete title of the Amorosi concetti (1612), as written on the first page of
only surviving example in Biblioteca nazionale centrale in Florence, is:
AMOROSI CONCETTI | MADRIGALI | VOCE SOLA | FACILI PER CANTARE | ET
SONARE NEL CLAVICEMBALO | CHITARONE O LIVTO. | DI TOMASO CECCHINO
VERONESE. | LIBRO PRIMO | Nuouamente Composti, & dati in Luce. | IN VENETIA, |
APPRESSO RICCIARDO AMADINO | M. DC. XII.
Music is written in common mensural notation, with traditional two-part partitura
scoring and division between first vocal five-line staff which is usually notated in soprano clef
(the exception are madrigals Svegliati pastorela and Ti chiamo e non rispondi) with text
below, and second typical figured bass staff. Altough the vocal line is notated in soprano clef,
all madrigals can be performed with Canto o tenore as was usual in early baroque
performance practice. Figured bass is marked here and there so not to confuse amateur
performers to whom the collection was primarly intended. In continuation, there is a table
with basic information abour each madrigal (see table no.1).

Table 1. Tomaso Cecchini: Amorosi concetti (1612).

Title

Poets and collections (published

Formal sections

up to 1612)

Time signature
change

All' aura d'un dolcissimo sospiro -

Rosa d'Amor. Seconda parte

Vaga suspina ascosa

Gabriello Chiabrera

A Dio Ninfa de fiori. Seconda

[Le maniere de' versi toscani

(1599, Genoa), Rime (Genoa,

parte

Quelle mie vaghe stelle

1599), Rime (Padua, 1604),

Delle rime ... Parte seconda
(Venice, 1610)]
Alessandro Gatti [Madrigali,

(Venice, 1604)]
Caro dolce ben mio

Alessandro Gatti [Madrigali,

(Venice, 1604)]

Temer Donna non dei

Anzi temo che dei. Risposta

Occhi miei poi ch'osaste

Dimi caro ben mio

Giovan Battista Marino [Rime ...

parte prima [e seconda (Venice,
1602), Il gareggiamento poetico
del Confuso Accademico
(Venice, 1611)]
Alessandro Gatti [Madrigali,
(Venice, 1604), Il
gareggiamento poetico del
Confuso Accademico, (Venice,
1611)]
Alessandro Gatti [Madrigali,
(Venice, 1604)]

Nel spuntar dell' Aurora, 2

Non f man che mi strinse

Svegliati pastorella, 2

Ti chiamo e non rispondi, 2

O vaga eterna Aurora

Ardentissimo Amore

Che fai qui Pastorella

Gasparo Torelli

Clori vezzosa e bella

Pargoletto Fanciullo

Era una luce chiara

Vermiglio e vago fiore

Ecco Maggio seren

Giovan Battista Strozzi

[Madrigali (Florence, 1593),

Ghirlanda dell'aurora, scelta di
madrigali ... (Venice, 1609)]
Cosi soletto

Qual Icaro novello

S' io m'avicino voi

Giovanni Battista Massarengo

[Rime (Pavia, 1592)]

Care bendette nere

Issue of style

Well-known tensions beetwen prima and seconda pratica are just one of the major factors
of stylistic dispersion at the begining of the 17th century, therefore any holistic attempt at
systematization is convicted to failure from the beginning. If we apply the term monody to
any seventeenth-century Italian song for solo voice and basso continuo beetwen 1600 and
1635 as Nigel Fortune did (Fortune 1953), we have determined one specific genre, but we
have not solved the issue of style. The key of diversity in early monody is hidden in personal
profiles of each composer. Until about 1620, nearly all the best composers of monodies were
either amateurs or court musicians. [...] Some, like Caccini and Rasi were famous performers,
some - Sigismondo d'India, for instance - held important musical posts; and others belonged
to other professions, like the lawyer Domenico Maria Melli and Desiderio Pecci. Most of
them, however, were wealthy aristocrats with plenty of leisure, eager to dabble in the latest
fashion: Ludovico Bellanda, Bartolommeo Cesana, Claudio Saracini, or the engaging
eccentric, Bellerofonte Castaldi. (Fortune 1953: 176). Furthermore, while the Florentine
stile rappresentativo remained one of the defining styles of the period, emphasis on it by
modern historians has obscured popular music, the continuation and transformation of songs
accompanied by lute or other instruments. (Murata 2005: 394).
It is true that Florentine experiments started a new fashion of printed solo songs, but
Venetian composers were the ones who truly popularized it, one of the first being Cecchini,
together with Marcantonio Negri and Bartolomeo Barbarino. Nigel Fortune abstracts three
major centers of monodic endeavor: Florentine, Rome and Venice (Fortune 1953), and in that
division Cecchini is surely part of the Venetian circle. In the context of Venetian monody,
Cecchini is a fine example of the transitonal style beetwen the early Caccinian monody and
the later division between arie and cantate on the one side (for example Grandi), and popular
strofic songs on the other (for example Milanuzzi's Scherzi per la chitarra alla spagnola).
That transitional Venetian style can be also seen in other Cecchini's works, like his
instrumental sonatas from 1628 that ,[d]eclare their lineage from the patterns exemplified by
Gabrieli and some of his younger felllow-citizens, while his espousal of the variation-type and
of a melodic language [...] denotes the influence of the western hinterland of the Serenissima
Repubblica (Di Pasquale 1998: 123). In compositional practice, we can separate a lighter
canzonetta style with a regular structure, predominantly homophonic writing and dance
rhythm, from a serious madrigal (art-work par exellence) with loose structure, free meter and
polyphonic development. But in the late 16th and early 17th century, Orazio Vecchi, in

particular, extended the subjects and expressive range of the canzonetta, and composers set
strophic canzonetta verse into musical madrigals, just as madrigal texts could be treated as
strophic canzonettas. So, at the begining of the 17th century, collections like Radesca'a
Canzonette, madrigali, et arie alla romana a due voci per cantare et sounare con il chitarone
o spineta were extremly popular in wider circles (it is significant that a copy of his secondo
libro is preserved in Koljun monastery near Krk)2. Therefore when we compare Cecchini
with Caccini, we must remember composers like Vecchi and Radesca because of their greater
availability, and Cecchini, as a professional musician, was probably better acquainted with
their style than Caccini's court music. He certainly studied a copy of Nuove musiche, which
was quite different from studying with a great master. But given the wide variety of
seventeenth-century song, it is useful to keep in mind that alternative genres of performance
may have had more significance than different genres of song per se, or than any one version
of a work. (Murata 2005: 379).
Between provincial and popular
In his article about Cecchini's Amorosi concetti Bojan Buji said: It is not unreasonable to
suppose that the small circle of those who listened to and participated in the performance of
his monodies in Split may have found their melismas a little too demanding and were, on the
whole, less than responsive to the refinements in articulation advocated by Caccini and
attempted by Cecchino. By the time he moved to Hvar he therefore had to adopt a less
demending, simpler syllabic style. (Buji 1993: 1421). Buji noticed very well that
Cecchini's third book is simpler than first, but we have to keep in mind that on the title page
of the first book is already written facili per cantare. Also, [t]he patronage of chamber
singing was an aristocratic activity with multiple motivations the conspicuous consumption
expected of the class,the expectation of having the means for domestic music-making,
concerts or lovers on command, and, in some cases, the desire to foster specific kinds of rare
or modern music (Murata 2005: 394), thus music style was rarely associated with patrons
taste (there are of course some exceptions).
On the other side, many songs in the early 17th century were composed for the amateur to
sing in his own home: some composers (like Cecchini) stated quite openly that they had kept
their songs simple for this reason. The mercantile proto-capitalist strategies of the late
2

For preserved musical sources in Croatia see Katalini 1989.

Renaissance states had fostered an economic environment that granted the nobility and the
merchant classes relatively high levels of disposable income that could be devoted to
conspicuous private consumption in the arts. (Carter 2005: 15). And, the burghers of
Antwerp, Paris, Leipzig, London or even Mexico city were surely no less interested in civic
and domestic music as a sign of urbane accomplishment.(ibid. 17). For instance, North
European sellers and publishers of Italian music made their selection with a keen eye on the
local market music of the avant-garde clearly was not a commercial proposition and thus
appear fairly conservative: the lighter madrigals, canzonettas and ballatas of composers such
as Luca Marenzio, Orazio Vecchi and Giovanni Giacomo Gastoldi found striking favour
through much of the first half of the seventeenth century. (ibid.). I think that Cecchini was
familiar with contemporary market situation when he decided to publish his Amorosi concetti.
Associated with mentioned statment, it is interesting to notice that Cecchini's madrigals
(especially in the first book) are hybrid between aesthetics of old polyphonic madrigal and
new monodic style. While the polyphonic madrigal was destined for performance at
table for the amusement of the singers themselves, early monodist had in mind professional
singers. The isolation of the solo voice allows characterization of the individual actor; the
technique of vocal ornamentation, moreover, necessitates the employment of professional
singers who were practised in the elegant and effective delivery of words and music to a
seperate audience of listeners. At first, monody was the prerogative of a limited numbers of
courts a much-valued and sought-after novelty to be exhibited in public. (Bianconi 1987:
19). So, Cecchini was one of the first composers who tried to adapt new style to old
performance practice, because his monodies were intended for amusement of the amateurs (as
polifonic madrigals) and written in new style (designed by virtuoso singers at the Italian
courts).

Is there any aesthetic value?

I start this chapter with quote from Nigel Fortune pioneer article about Italian secular
monody: Many a would-be composer, beguiled by the prospect of easy fame that the latest
fashion offered him, displayed his utter unfitness for the part. It was so much more profitable,
after all, to offer to a publisher your latest set of 'Amorous Sighs' than to write an opera that
might never be produced, let alone printed. And so for every masterpiece by Saracini or
d'India there are two or three insipid products of 'youthful vanity and dullness'. (Fortune

1953: 178-179). It is pretty obvious to which category would Fortune place Cecchini's
Amorosi concetti. Today, from our postmodern point of view things are a little bit different:
we cannot assume that rapt aesthetic contemplation is the norm in any period (even our own),
or that what historians value in the substance of art is what was valued at the time (Carter
2005: 3) and there is a chance for Cecchini's compositions. In 1658 Tommaso Stigliani said in
his treatise Arte del Verso that wherever refinement of the words and facility of expression
are present, the concept cannot but suddenly sparkle with immediacy. The greater the
conciseness of the style, the better and (so to speak) more delicious and alluring the verse
becomes (quoted from Bianconi 1987: 10). Further, this quality must surely have been
regarded by contemporary musicians as providing the perfect conditions for their reduction of
the composition in popular songs. (ibid.). And, [t]his kind was the simple, unornamented
strophic air, "scherzo" or canzonetta. In these songs the bass usually moved in the same
rhythm as the voice. Composers aimed at writing good, memorable tunes with interesting
rhythms; they often used dance rhythms or stylized rhythms like hemiola. (Fortune 1953:
185). If we take closer look to both Cecchini's collections, we will easily notice obvious
musical links with popular strophic songs. It is true that Cecchini bring to music mainly free
madrigalian poetry, but maybe collision between poetic and musical genres hides specific
value. In my opinion, there are some great examples in first book. On contrary, in third book
Cecchini accepted strophic poetry, unfortunately these monodies are fairly unsuccessful.
Furthermore, as Bianconi has stated, monody of the first two decades of the seventeenth
century, like the polyphonic madrigal, reserves a position of fundamental importance for the
text not, however in terms of the contrived musical reproduction or portrayal of poetic
images or a 'fullness and delicacy of harmony', but rather in the manner of delivery and
recitation, the communication of the poet's every feeling in a style of 'singing that is both
beautiful and graceful'. Thus, while compositional structure of monody is undoubtedly much
weaker and more schematic than that of polifonic madrigal, it can boast nevertheless a greater
versatility of style and ability to adapt to the different forms of 'musical speech'. (Bianconi
1987: 15). Although, Cecchini was not virtuoso performer, his style (especially in first book)
capture Caccinian ideals of diction and ornamentation, even in the concise musical scope.

Conclusion

We could say that Croatian music historians are mostly convicted to deal with Croatian
music history, whereas beginning of the seventeenth century is especially rich in preserved
musical artifacts. Also, it's interesting that the majority of Croatian historians somehow
avoided to deal with Cecchini's works, in favor of Lukai and Jeli (exceptions are Dragan
Plamenac and Bojan Buji who have worked abroad). It is possible that national ideology was
major reason, but it is also reasonable to assume that there were some aesthetic reasons. It is
specialty of Croatian historians to say that most of music before 1961 (year of the first Music
biennale Zagreb) was out of step with imaginary development of European music, and the
main task is to find works that are closer to ideal model of development. There is absolutely
nothing wrong with finding resonances between past and present this is, after all, one of the
crucial functions of history, which serves to increase our own sense of belonging to a broader
culture of humanity. But this should not be confused with a notion of the past anticipating the
developments of the future. This, usually called, Whiggish approach also tends to undervalue
aspects of the past that do not conform to its particular model of progress; it may well render
us ignorant of alternative concepts, events, styles or pieces from which we might be able to
learn. (Butt 2005: 39).
Today, the postmodern historians tendency is to prefer alienation to celebrate the
otherness of our historical pasts (Carter 2005: 3), and my work on Cecchini's monodies is
definitely part of such approach. Main reason why I choosed to deal with this topic was last
year (2012) 400 anniversary of first Cecchini's published opus when Ensemble Responsorium
performed whole first book of madrigals from inappropriate transcriptions. So in my
bachelors degree thesis (Bui 2013), I have made professional transcriptions which may be
published probably next year, and following task is to find prominent ensemble that will
perform selected pieces. After all, that is the most important thing for music as sound art.

Bibliography

BIANCONI, Lorenzo (1987): Music in the Seventeenth Century, Cambridge, Cambridge

University Press.
BUJI, Bojan (1993): Patronage and Taste in Venetian Dalmatia: The Case of Tomaso
Cecchinos 'Amorosi concetti', Revista de Musicologa , XV, 3, str. 1416 1422.
BUI, Tomislav (2013): Tomaso Cecchini: Amorosi concetti (1612): transcription and the
context of creation, Bachelors degree thesis, Zagreb: Academy of Music.
BUTT, John (2005): The seventeenth-century musical work, in: Carter, T., Butt, J. (eds.):
The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Music, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 27-54.
CARTER, Tim (2005): Renaissance, Mannerism, Baroque, in: Carter, T., Butt, J. (eds.): The
Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Music, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 1-26.
DI PASQUALE, Marco (1998): Tommaso Cecchinis Sonate per glistrumenti, bassi, &
soprani from His Opus 23 (1628), in: Tuksar, S.: Zagreb i glazba 10941994, Zagreb: HMD,
Zagreb 1998, pp. 105-125.
FORTUNE, Nigel (1953): Italian Secular Monody from 1600 to 1635: An Introductory
Survey, The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 39, br. 2, pp. 171-195.
KATALINI, Vjera (1989): Pregled izvora o glazbenoj kulturi baroknog razdoblja na tlu SR
Hrvatske (A Review of Sources of Music Culture in the Baroque Period in the S. R. of
Croatia), in: Stipevi, E. (ed.): Glazbeni barok u Hrvatskoj, Osor: OGV, pp. 2047.
MURATA, Margaret (2005): Image and eloquence: secular song, Carter, T., Butt, J. (eds.):
The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Music, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 378-425.
STIPEVI, Ennio (ed.) (2006): Tomaso Cecchini: Amorosi concetti, il terzo libro
de'madrigali a una, et due voci (Venetia, 1616), Zagreb: Music Information Centre
TUKSAR, Stanislav (2008): The Presence of Italian Music in the Croatian Lands in the 16001800 Period A General Survey, Early Music Context and Ideas II, Krakw: Jagiellonian
University, Institute of Musicology, pp. 372-388.