"Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam": Charpentier's Psalm Settings and the Use of Opera Singers at l'Église de St Louis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the 1680s and I690s Marc-Antoine Charpentier was maitre de musique at the Jesuit Church of 5t louis in Paris where he benefited from the Jesuits' liberal approach to the arts and religious education.Free from the artistic constraints of Court, Charpentier was able to develop a style of vocal composition distinct from that of his contemporaries.With particular reference to Charpentier's use of bass singers, this paper examines the context in which opera singers were employed by the Jesuits at the church of 5t louis.In his Comparaison de la Musique Italienne et de la Musique Fran~oise of 1704-1706, le Cerf, who was educated by the Jesuits, states that a motet should be: "the expression of the feelings of a Christian who speaks to his God" (p.158) and that "the music of a motet ... must be expressive, simple and pleasing" (p.168).le Cerf adds that "singers of motets must be expressive, know how to pronounce what they say, be sure of their part, be simple and be modest.Instrumentalists must also play with expression, knowledge and modesty"(p.188).1According to le Cerf, a composer should mirror in his sacred music the general sentiments expressed in the psalm.The author does, however, acknowledge that certain words, such as t'uuius (stream) and tulgar (lightning), demand special attention.He also notes that certain changes in mood or changes in the form of narration should be mirrored by a change of style in the music. 2 The leading seventeenth-century French thinker Marin Mersenne, who like le Cerf was educated by the Jesuits and was in holy orders, had recommended in 1636 a similar treatment of the text: "One must consider the text in its entirety and the design and intention of what it contains ... so that being sung it has at least as much power over listeners as if it were recited by an excellent orator" (Duncan, 1989, p. 154).Mersenne argues that the composer, like the orator, must address an intended audience.Both le Cerf and Mersenne expect their "harmonic orators", as Mersenne terms them, to compose and perform music according to the expectations and needs of a specific audience.In Von der Singe-Kunst, oder Maniera, which was written c.1649, the German theorist Christoph Bernhard comments on how a singer should approach a text.According to Bernhard, a singer must take care over pronunciation and have a sound understanding of the meaning of the text.He adds that:The anger of learned listeners is . . .all too frequently aroused by singers who apply passage-work to a word like contirmatio (establishment), or place an ascending run on one like abyssus (hell), bringing their ignorance to the light of day.The words, once understood, suggest what affects, occurring therein, should be elicited.(Bernhard, 1649, p.20)3 Bernhard makes it clear that it is not just the composer's responsibility to set the text in an appropriate manner; it is also the singer's responsibility to convey the meaning of the text to the listener.4 A singer's choice of ornamentation, for example, should not be based solely on musical considerations, but should also be dictated by the syntax and semantics of the text.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".