The Anonymous Motets of the Chigi Codex*

Edward F. Houghton

Music – Motets: Analysis, Context, and Attribution

Most of the anonymous works transmitted in the Chigi Codex (VatC 234) can be
attributed to specific composers on the basis of the table of contents, added to the
manuscript by the Spanish scribe, or on the basis of concordances with other sources.
Several motets in the original corpus of the codex and in the insertions, added to
blank folios by the Spanish scribe, however, remain anonymous.
This study, a work in progress, will comment on the four remaining anonymous
works: two in the original corpus of the manuscript, the textless work for four and six
voices and Ave rosa speciosa; and two that were added to the codex by the Spanish
scribe, Regina celi and Vidi aquam.

A Textless Work for Four and Six Voices1

In the motet section of the codex, a piece without text follows Isaac’s Angeli archangeli
and precedes the series of tenor motets by Johannes Regis. It is a large, impressive work
of extraordinary quality. Its location in the motet section, its voice designations (con-
tra, tenor, and bassus), as well as the dimensions of its two parts, suggest that it is a
motet with missing text. A generous amount of blank space for an illuminated initial
has been left at the opening of the superius voice (fol. 253v), which in Chigi consistently
presents the initial letter of its text rather than its vocal designation.
Part One calls for four voices, Part Two for six. The tessitura is rather wide, and the
superius is notated throughout with a G clef on the second line. In Part Two, the clefs
and the folio positions of the parts support the view that the superius and contra voices
divide to form the six-voice texture. Part One is written in tempus perfectum with the
occasional use of black coloration. Part Two is in tempus imperfectum diminutum (in-
dicated by X) and ends in a sesquialtera section. X is not common in the codex but
is also found in sections of Barbireau’s Missa Virgo parens Christi and La Rue’s Missa
Almana and Patrem omnipotentem.2 Such notational detail may be significant. Previous
* A preliminary version of this study was presented at the Medieval and Renaissance Music Conference at the
Centre d’Études Supérieures de la Renaissance at Tours, France, 13–16 July 2005. It is part of a larger work in
progress, a critical edition of Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Chigi C VIII 234 (hereafter referred
to as VatC 234 or Chigi Codex), undertaken in collaboration with Herbert Kellman and intended for publication
in Monuments of Renaissance Music under the general editorship of Bonnie Blackburn. Leofranc Holford-Strevens
has recently joined the editorial team to deal with verbal texts in the Codex. A facsimile edition of the Codex was
published (New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1987) with an introduction by Herbert Kellman.
1.  VatC 234, fols.  253v–257r. For a published transcription, see Heinz-Jürgen Winkler, Die Tenormotetten von
Johannes Regis in der Überlieferung des Chigi-Kodex, 2 vols. (Vatican City and Turnhout: Biblioteca Apostolica
Vaticana and Brepols, 1999), 2:58.
2.  A comparison of simultaneous mensurations in Barbireau’s setting indicates that X is commensurate with [.
432 | Edward F. Houghton

study of notational usage in Chigi leads me to infer that the scribe did not adhere to a
consistent practice but followed the notation of the exemplars that he copied.3
Throughout the piece, the texture unfolds in a series of overlapping points of imi-
tation without a structural tenor or recognized paraphrase of pre-existing material.
The opening point of imitation and its counterpoint (see Example 1) are particularly
interesting. While the tenor, contra, and superius conventionally present a point of
imitation (labeled A in Example 1), the bassus does not initially participate in the imi-
tation but introduces and repeats a motive (B) that appears near the end of phrase A.
Both the relationships between A and B as well as the numerous repetitions of B,
sometimes sequential, seem noteworthy. In addition, the B motive is strikingly remi-
niscent of the opening motive in the bassus from Ockeghem’s Je n’ay dueil.4

Example 1. Anonymous, textless motet, VatC 234, fols. 253v–254r, mm. 1–8

One may also hear a reference to Ockeghem’s settings of Fors seulement in Part Two
at the entry of the contra II (m. 84, Example 2) and the beginning of the full six-voice
texture.

3.  Edward F. Houghton, “Ockeghem’s Scribes, Then and Now,” in JOA 228.
4.  Johannes Ockeghem, Motets and Chansons, ed.  Richard Wexler with Dragan Plamenac, vol. 3 of Collected
Works, American Musicological Society Studies and Documents 7 (Philadelphia: American Musicological Society,
1992), 67.
The Anonymous Motets of the Chigi Codex | 433

Example 2. Anonymous, textless motet, VatC 234, fol. 255v, contra II, mm. 84–88

The imitative texture in Part Two contains an extended descending sequence that
is reminiscent of, or more likely prefigures, the wonderful moment in Josquin’s
Nymphes des bois: 5
Josquin, Brumel, Pierson, Compère…Perdu avez votre bon pere.

As in Josquin’s setting, the sequence is repeated but, in the textless piece, with some
variation.

Example 3. Anonymous, textless motet, VatC 234, fols. 255v–256r, mm. 106–17

The layout of musical phrases is so clear throughout that it is possible to adduce

much about the structure of the missing text and to consider texts that match the
5.  See Edward E. Lowinsky, ed., The Medici Codex of 1518: A Choirbook of Motets Dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici,
Duke of Urbino,  3 vols., MRM 3–5 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), 2:338–46, mm.  118–26 and
134–43.
434 | Edward F. Houghton

music. Part One, for example, presents eight distinctive melodic ideas in successive
points of imitation. Most would appropriately carry four or eight syllables.
Why does this piece appear in the codex without text? The possibilities are several:
it is an instrumental piece; the original text was inappropriate for a sacred collection
or for the donor or intended recipient of the codex; the copying was incomplete. A
hasty termination of work on the codex is evident in several places. Recall, for exam-
ple, the void clearly intended for an illuminated initial in the opening of this piece.
Another fascinating question: who composed it? Its position, directly following
Isaac’s Angeli archangeli and before the retrospective works of Regis, points to Isaac as
a possibility. Its melodic vocabulary is very similar to Isaac’s Missa Salva nos domine.
The expanded voices, high superius, use of X, imitative texture, and use of sequences
might suggest Barbireau. Some of these same characteristics and the striking descend-
ing sequence mentioned above might imply a connection with Josquin des Prez.
While the mensural usage of the work locates it not far from Ockeghem and Regis or
even Isaac, its rich and varied imitative structure is at least a generation away from the
retrospective works of the codex and contrasts sharply with the motets of Regis that
follow it in the manuscript. Indeed, it joins Compère’s Sile fragor among the most
forward-looking motets in the original corpus.
Several characteristics of the piece point to Pierre de La Rue as a possible author.
None are conclusive. Most by themselves are weak and would admit consideration of
a number of composers. Taken together, however, they form a more persuasive body
of evidence. This evidence includes the following: the absence of attribution in a
Habsburg-Burgundian manuscript; the use of the mensural sign X; the expansion of
the texture to six voices; the quotations of Ockeghem; and striking similarities of
construction between the textless piece and La Rue’s Missa Almana.
The absence of attribution is among the weakest indicators and would not nor-
mally have any significance. It becomes noteworthy only in view of the other evidence
and in relation to Honey Meconi’s observation that many of La Rue’s works in the
Habsburg-Burgundian manuscripts, with which the composer had a close connec-
tion, are without attribution.6
The use of the mensural sign X is a stronger indicator. As Meconi has noted, both
Joshua Rifkin and Jaap van Benthem cite the use of X as evidence for the attribution
of Absalon fili mi to La Rue rather than to Josquin.7 While the use of X by Josquin
is quite rare, Rifkin observes that La Rue seems to have had a predilection for it.8 In
the readings of La Rue’s Missa Almana, Chigi, BrusBR 9126, and VienNB 1783 dis-
tinguish between [ in Kyrie I and X in Christe I.9
The expansion of the texture from four voices to six in Part Two is unusual in a
motet. The original layer of the Chigi Codex exemplifies the use of five voices in the

6.  MeconiP 164.

7.  Honey Meconi, review of Pierre de La Rue, Opera Omnia, vols. 1–3, ed. Nigel St. John Davison, J. Evan Kreider,
and T. Herman Keahey, CMM 97 (Neuhausen-Stuttgart: AIM, Hänssler-Verlag, 1989–92), in JAMS 48 (1995):
289.
8.  Joshua Rifkin, “Problems of Authorship in Josquin: Some Impolitic Observations with a Postscript on Absalon
fili mi,” in Proceedings of the International Josquin Symposium, Utrecht 1986, ed. Willem Elders (Utrecht: Vereniging
voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1991), 49.
9.  Of the Habsburg-Burgundian readings, only JenaU 22 uses [ in Christe I.
The Anonymous Motets of the Chigi Codex | 435

motets of Regis, Ockeghem, Josquin, and Gaspar and six voices in La Rue’s Patrem
omnipotentem, Isaac’s Angeli archangeli, and the anonymous Ave rosa speciosa.10 The
use of six voices in combination with the relatively new technique of systematic imita-
tion and a mensural organization that was characteristic of the final decades of the
fifteenth century narrows the field of likely authors to contemporaries of Josquin,
Isaac, and La Rue who used six-voice texture.
References to Ockeghem’s music are not uncommon among the generation of
composers that followed him. Meconi summarizes a number of borrowings by La
Rue, including Fors seulement and Je n’ay dueil, that establish Ockeghem as a major
influence in his works.11
To these I would add the repeated use of the bassus motive from Ockeghem’s Je n’ay

Music – Motets: Analysis, Context, and Attribution

dueil, noted above in the opening of the textless piece, that may also be seen in the
Hosanna of La Rue’s Missa Almana.12 In Missa Almana the motive is treated similarly.
It is repeated in the bassus (mm. 129 and 131) and superius (mm. 133 and 135), each time
a step higher, and is finally heard in the contra at m. 137. The same motive appears
again slightly varied in Agnus dei III, beginning in the bassus at m. 116, prefigured in
the contra at m. 115, repeated and imitated in bassus, superius, and contra.
Similarities between the textless piece and Missa Almana, both transmitted in the
Chigi Codex, strengthen the indicators for possible attribution to La Rue. The con-
struction of the opening phrases of the Sanctus of Missa Almana resembles the con-
struction of the opening of the textless piece noted above. While the bassus, superius,
and tenor present the motto of the mass in conventional imitation, the contra begins
with a contrapuntal motive that is related to and perhaps derived from the extension
of the motto phrase (superius, mm.  7–9).13 The motive is repeated and imitated
among the voices many times and at various pitch levels, sometimes with variation.
The derivation, imitation, and repetition of the contrapuntal motive, and indeed the
contrapuntal construction of the opening section of the Sanctus, resemble those at
the beginning of the textless setting.
Thus, a number of indicators that are insignificant or unconvincing by them-
selves, when taken together, point to La Rue as the author of the textless motet.

Ave rosa speciosa

I will not recapitulate the indicators that suggest attribution to Johannes Regis, pre-
sented in the Tijdschrift in 1983.14 For some time before and after my article was

10.  The expansion of Agnus dei to six voices may be seen in masses by Josquin and his contemporaries. Josquin’s
Missa L’ homme armé sexti toni expands to six voices in Agnus dei III, but this movement is missing and the mass is
incomplete in Chigi, possibly because the mass may not have been finished when Chigi or its exemplar was
copied.
11.  Meconi, “Patterns of Influence: Ockeghem,” in MeconiP 169–72.
12.  Pierre de La Rue, Missa Almana, ed. T. Herman Keahey, in vol. 1 of Opera Omnia, CMM 97 (Neuhausen-
Stuttgart: AIM, Hänssler-Verlag, 1989).
13.  The tenor presents the imitated motto in mensural augmentation.
14.  Edward F. Houghton, “A ‘New’ Motet by Johannes Regis,” TVNM 33 (1983): 49–74. The article includes a
transcription of the motet. Ludwig Finscher may have been the first to argue against attribution to Regis in his
paper given at the conference organized in connection with the Library of Congress exhibition “Rome Reborn: The
Vatican Library & Renaissance Culture” in 1993. Finscher pointed out that the dissonant semiminims in the su-
perius (mm. 4 and 12) and contra (m. 7), approached by an upward step and followed by a downward leap of a third,
a figure sometimes called an échappée, are prominent in Ave rosa but are not characteristic of Regis’s known music.
Sean Gallagher echoes Finscher’s argument and expands it in his dissertation “Models of Varietas: Studies in Style
436 | Edward F. Houghton

published, I looked for the origins and other appearances of the text without success.
It was only while browsing through the incomplete works of Josquin that the familiar
phrases of Ave rosa speciosa leaped to my eyes in his setting of Ave mundi spes Maria.
The text of Ave rosa is essentially identical to the medieval sequence Ave mundi
spes Maria, sometimes ascribed to Adam of St. Victor and proper to liturgies associ-
ated with the Annunciation, Nativity, and Assumption of the Virgin. In Ave rosa
speciosa the first double strophe is omitted.  This realization allows us to trace the
provenance of the text and to relate the reading in Chigi to other settings of the same
material in chant and polyphony, in anonymous settings as well as those by Dunstable,
Josquin, La Fage, Gaffurius, and Clemens non Papa.
Those settings that share the full text with Ave rosa include the following: the
medieval chant sequence found in many manuscripts and printed in the Variae preces
and the polyphonic settings by Josquin and Jean de La Fage.15 The setting by
Dunstable repeats only the first strophe in its isorhythmic tenor. The settings in the
Lambeth Choirbook (LonLP 1) and in MunBS 3154, as well as those by Gaffurius and
Clemens non Papa diverge after the initial textual phrases and do not relate to the
chant sequence cited above. The settings by Dunstable, Josquin, and La Fage do
quote or paraphrase the chant. Ave rosa speciosa does not. Ave rosa and the settings of
Ave mundi by Josquin and La Fage not only share the same full text but even begin
the secunda pars at the same point in the text, at the words Ave gemma celi
luminarium.
Only the initial lines of Ave mundi, absent from Ave rosa, are common to most
settings. The texts of many diverge after the opening lines:
Ave mundi spes Maria
Ave mitis, ave pia,
Ave plena gratia.

A more pertinent question for the motet at hand: why omit the first two strophes
of a well-known sequence? It seems unlikely that these strophes were sung in chant.
Ave rosa makes no reference to the chant, and its use of a B  signature throughout
argues against modal compatibility despite the shared finals on G. Indeed, the omis-
sion of the opening strophes, the change of mode, the absence of the chant, and the
new cantus firmus (Beata mater et innupta virgo) may signal an intention to disassociate
the material from an established context and adapt it for a special occasion. In F-CA 38,
a thirteenth-century antiphoner from Cambrai Cathedral, Beata mater is proper to the
Nativity of the Virgin. The other references in Ave rosa, the L’ homme armé tune and
the text of Ave regina celorum, provide ample material for speculation.
In practical terms, other settings of Ave mundi provide the textual underlay for a
major lacuna in the Chigi reading of Ave rosa in the secunda pars:
Ave gemma celi luminarium
ave sancti spiritus sacrarium
O quam mirabilis
et quam laudabilis

and Attribution in the Motets of Johannes Regis and His Contemporaries,” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1998),
269–81.
15.  Variae preces ex liturgia tum hodierna tum antiqua collectae aut usu receptae (Solesmes, 1901), 44–46.
The Anonymous Motets of the Chigi Codex | 437

hec est virginitas

in qua per spiritum / semper spiritus
…
O quam sancta, quam serena…

In my initial transcription of this passage I tried to complete the idea of the verbal
text and fill the musical lacuna in mm. 109–17 with the words [concipis dominum].16
My solution may now be seen as rather wide of the mark. Other settings of Ave mundi
provide the missing words following in qua per spiritum:
<facta paraclitum
fulsit fecunditas>

The verbal text missing in Chigi will be reconstructed in the critical edition of the

Music – Motets: Analysis, Context, and Attribution

Chigi Codex. The rediscovered words seem to fit only in the bassus (I) and contra
voices, perhaps the reason they were omitted in the first place. Textual problems fre-
quently occur when the scribe of Chigi or of an exemplar in the line of transmission
is uncertain. Details of the reading encourage speculation that the scribe was most
familiar with the superius, which is without problems. The problems appear in the
other voices when the superius shifts from the text of the sequence to the text and
melody of the cantus firmus Beata mater. The sequence text in the contra becomes first
distorted (semper spiritus) and then lost. Perhaps the attention or recollection of sing-
ers and listeners was captured by the statement of Beata mater in the superius or by
what the bassus part, without written text at this point, was doing. What were the
basses doing? Were they singing the words of the sequence, the text of Beata mater
like the superius, or, even more strikingly, the words of the L’ homme armé tune that
reappears here? Is it any wonder that the moment is somewhat confused? The cer-
tainty of the scribe clearly returns when the sesquialtera proportion reintroduces the
words of the sequence in the four non-canonic voices:
O quam sancta, quam serena,
quam benigna, quam amena.

Work on all these issues in Ave rosa is not yet finished and questions about its
authorship remain, but this unique motet may now be seen as a piece in a much larger
historical and liturgical complex.

Regina celi
The reading of Regina celi was for some time regarded as unique. BarcBC 454, how-
ever, transmits a Regina celi for four voices that includes the three voices of Chigi and
adds a contratenor altus.17
The three-voice Regina celi draws heavily on the well-known Marian antiphon,
which may be seen in Antiphonale monasticum.18 Paraphrases of salient motives from
the chant permeate all voices in a series of points of imitation, most recognizably at the

16.  See my transcription cited above, “A ‘New’ Motet by Johannes Regis,” 68.
17.  I reported the concordance in BarcBC 454 to the Renaissance Manuscript Archives at the University of Illinois
in the early 1980s, and Emilio Ros-Fábregas noted the same in his dissertation, “The Manuscript Barcelona,
Biblioteca de Catalunya, M. 454: Study and Edition in the Context of the Iberian and Continental Manuscript
Traditions,” 2 vols. (PhD diss., The City University of New York, 1992), 1:356. For a transcription of Regina celi,
see 2:458–64.
18.  Antiphonale monasticum pro diurnis horis (Paris, Tournai, Rome: Desclée, 1934), 176.
438 | Edward F. Houghton

beginning of the principal phrases with their distinctive chant gestures: “Regina celi,”
“Alleluia,” “Quia quem meruisti,” “Resurrexit,” “Sicut dixit,” “Alleluia,” and “Ora pro
nobis.” The imitation invariably involves all voices in the order low, middle, and high
at the pitch interval of octave or unison and often at the rhythmic interval of one
brevis. Besides the series of imitative points, several repetitions strengthen the unity of
the setting. The point of imitation at m. 11 (“alleluia”) is recalled at m. 38 (“alleluia”).19
Similarly the point beginning at m. 25 (“alleluia”) returns at m. 50 (“alleluia”) at a
higher pitch. The last reminiscence leads into a striking, hocket-like rhythmic frag-
mentation which adds rhythmic tension before the final cadence. The construction of
this rhythmic section is so transparent that two errors of haplography, which make the
Chigi reading unperformable, could be corrected before the concordance with
BarcBC 454 was discovered. One of these is the omission of material equivalent to six
semibreves in the middle voice (beginning with the second half of m. 57).
The most notable characteristic of the reading in BarcBC 454 is the addition of a
voice that occupies the position of contratenor altus in the musical texture and in the
manuscript. The added voice does not participate in the imitation or rhythmic move-
ment of the other voices. It is much more active melodically and rhythmically, some-
times exhibiting an angular character that contrasts rather sharply with the other
voices and occasionally introducing parallel fifths. While the added voice somewhat
obscures the imitative texture of the other three voices, it does add considerable con-
trapuntal interest and variety. The disparity of its vocal character suggests, however,
that it is an addition rather than an original part of the setting.
In terms of source filiation, it is unlikely that Chigi was copied from BarcBC 454
because it does not transmit the contratenor altus of BarcBC 454. Similarly, it is un-
likely that BarcBC 454 was copied from Chigi because it transmits minor variants in
the three original voices but not the errors of haplography in Chigi.
Of the numerous Regina celi settings from the late fifteenth century found in
sources such as VatS 15 and VatS 42, the setting in Chigi is relatively unsophisticated
and provincial in its simplicity. At the same time, it manifests the skills and contra-
puntal control of a musician trained in the Franco-Burgundian style of the late fif-
teenth century as well as the emergence of the relatively new style based on the sys-
tematic imitation of pre-existent material in all voices.
In terms of attribution, one might speculate on the identity of the composer, who
must have been active near the turn of the century. Hasty speculation by the modern
editor, however, is not encouraged by the inscription above the setting in BarcBC 454:
Dixit insipiens in corde suo (“The foolish man has said in his heart…”), whatever the
original reason for its appearance here.
One may also be tempted to propose a Spanish provenance for Regina celi based on
the Tabla de missas y motetes provided by the Spanish scribe and the concordance in
BarcBC 454. Details in the formation of letters in the Tabla, particularly the distinctive
g in “Okeghem,” and in the texts of the added motets support the argument that the
same scribe entered the motets and provided the Tabla. Five motets (Regina celi, Sancta

19.  Measure numbers refer to the transcription of Emilio Ros-Fábregas, “The Manuscript Barcelona, Biblioteca
de Catalunya, M. 454,” 2:458–64.
The Anonymous Motets of the Chigi Codex | 439

trinitas, Ave Maria, Ave Maria…virgo serena, and Quis dabit oculis) were added to
blank folios in the gatherings of masses in the codex. Asperges me and Vidi aquam were
added to blank folios at the end of the codex. The position of Regina celi in the codex
suggests that it was the first motet added. Of the five motets in the mass gatherings,
four are attributed to composers with French rather than Spanish connections (Févin,
Ockeghem, Compère, and Mouton). Hence, it seems more likely that the provenance
of Regina celi is northern. All five motets are listed in the Tabla and must have been
copied into the codex before the Tabla was executed. Curiously, the last two pieces in
the codex, Asperges me and Vidi aquam, the first ascribed to “Madrid,” present the
strongest evidence for Spanish provenance but are not listed in the Tabla.

Music – Motets: Analysis, Context, and Attribution

Vidi aquam
Vidi aquam is the last piece in the Chigi Codex, and with the preceding Asperges me
is probably the last piece added to the manuscript. Neither work appears in the table
of contents, the Tablas de Missas y Motetes, added to the beginning of the manuscript.
The table does include the other pieces that were added to the original collection with
one other exception, the textless motet.
A number of characteristics lead us to view Asperges me and Vidi aquam as relat-
ed. They have much in common: liturgical function, structure, and style. Both are
used for the ritual of Aspersion before the principal mass on Sundays, as directed in
the decrees of Pope Leo IV and Archbishop Hincmar of Reims in the late ninth cen-
tury. The Asperges was customary in many places during most of the liturgical year;
Vidi aquam is proper to Paschal time, from Easter Sunday until Pentecost.
Both pieces present a similar relationship between chant and polyphony. The
chant intonations of both relate to the widespread medieval chants in modes 7 and 8
respectively that are associated with each text. The intonations of the versicle and
doxology in Asperges clearly indicate the alternation of chant and polyphony for
Psalm 50 Miserere mei deus before the antiphon is repeated. One may infer a similar
usage for Vidi aquam, though it is not overtly specified in the codex. Psalm  117
Confitemini domino quoniam bonus is widely associated with Vidi aquam. Its absence
in the Chigi reading suggests several possibilities: the antiphon stands alone without
versicle, the setting is incomplete, or most probably, the versicle and doxology were
performed in the customary psalm tone before repeating the antiphon.
The contrapuntal style of both settings is also similar: four voices, finals on G,
some limited imitation, no obvious chant paraphrasing, competent but not extraor-
dinary musical conceptions. Vidi aquam differs from Asperges me in its mensuration,
tempus perfectum rather than tempus imperfectum. The similarities between the two
pieces, however, are numerous and suggest that both may have been written by the
same composer.
Since Asperges me bears an attribution to “Madrid,” the similarities in Vidi aquam
suggest a similar attribution. Tess Knighton summarizes the views of scholars concern-
ing the identity of Madrid: Juan de Madrid, Juan Fernández de Madrid, or Juan Ruiz
de Madrid, all active at the courts of Ferdinand or Isabella in the 1480s or 90s.20

20.  Tess Knighton, “Madrid, Juan Fernández de,” NG 2 15:544–45.

440 | Edward F. Houghton

Regina celi and Vidi aquam are probably the first and last works added to the codex
by the Spanish scribe. Both present liturgical texts used frequently in office and mass
during the Easter season. Along with Asperges me, their character seems more utilitar-
ian than distinguished in comparison to the extraordinary works in the codex.
Asperges me and Vidi aquam provide music for the rite of Aspersion throughout the
liturgical year. These additions do not approach the musical achievements contained
in the codex’s collection of Ockeghem masses, the more recent masses by Barbireau,
Agricola, and La Rue, the collection of L’ homme armé masses, the tenor motets of
Regis, or the more recent motets of Josquin, Gaspar, Isaac, Févin, Mouton, and
Compère. Despite the anonymity of their composers, Ave rosa speciosa and the textless
motet merit their inclusion among the motets of the Chigi Codex.