Divers Nations have divers fashions, and differ in habite, diet, studies,
speech and song. Hence it is that the English doe carroll; the French sing;
the Spaniards weepe; the Italians . . . caper with their voyces; the others
barke; but the Germanes (which I am ashamed to utter) doe howle like
wolves.
—Andreas Ornithoparcus, Musicæ active micrologus (1515),
translated by John Dowland, 1609
speech and song. Hence it is that the English doe carroll; the French sing;
the Spaniards weepe; the Italians . . . caper with their voyces; the others
barke; but the Germanes (which I am ashamed to utter) doe howle like
wolves.
—Andreas Ornithoparcus, Musicæ active micrologus (1515),
translated by John Dowland, 1609
As to the Italians, in their recitatives they observe many things of which
ours are deprived, because they represent as much as they can the passions
and affections of the soul and spirit, as, for example, anger, furor, disdain,
rage, the frailties of the heart, and many other passions, with a violence so
strange that one would almost say that they are touched by the same emotions
they are representing in the song; whereas our French are content to
tickle the ear, and have a perpetual sweetness in their songs, which deprives
them of energy.
—Marin Mersenne, Harmonie universelle, 1636
Although one might assume that the human voice has not changed over the centuries, many elements of seventeenth-century vocal performance practice differed considerably from modern singing. There was no single method of singing seventeenth-century music; indeed, there were several distinct national schools, each of which evolved during the course of the century. The differences between French and Italian singing were widely recognized in this period, and the merits of each were debated well into the eighteenth century.1 There were also distinctive features in German, English, and Spanish singing.
