John Ruggero wrote:
However, when we look at a Monteverdi original autograph, we see that the composer did something different: he uses what to me looks like a Iong(us) rest, which differentiates it from the breve and whole-note rest that follow. Judging from a few other examples, Monteverdi's practice seems to make the long rest the equivalent of our whole measure rest, possibly because it is used less frequently than the other rests at its true value. (But see measure 3.)
I don't think there are any "whole measure rests" in the Monteverdi manuscript example. It looks like Monteverdi is trying to notate all rests with their true value. To understand how and why, we have to know the state of development of notation at that time.
Firstly, bar lines, at that time, were a rather new invention. (Earlier renaissance vocal polyphony was normally written without any barlines.)
Barlines were initially used only as a courtesy to indicate where some heavy beats fall, but it was not required to use barlines consistently or at regular intervals. Barlines at irregular intervals are so common in this era that it cannot have been considered to be wrong (at that time).
If you look at the Monteverdi example, there are 2 measures of 6/1, followed by one measure of 9/1, then again 6/1.
Because measure lengths are not constant (or indicated by changing time signatures), the entire concept of a "whole measure rest" was impossible in Monteverdi's time. One
had to notate all rests with their true value.
There is also a remnant of a much earlier notational practice at play here. In earliest mensural notation, dotted notes were not yet used in the same way as we do today. Instead, (to simplify a bit)
in triple time, a note or rest could equal three of the next smaller subdivision. Eventually, dotted notes came to be used as we do today, but for some reason this practice was not extended to rests. In triple time, an undotted rest could still equal the value of the corresponding dotted note. This practice can be observed until long into the Baroque period, and this is what we can see in the Monteverdi manuscript.
In measure 5: one breve rest = 3/1 (one beat).
In measures 1, 3 and 6: one longa rest = two breve rests = 6/1 (two beats).
In measure 2, the first rest equals a dotted breve, while the second rest is a regular whole rest.
(In measure 4 there seems to be some mistake.)
Well, I haven't analyzed other Monteverdi manuscripts, so I might be jumping to conclusions here, but this is what it looks like to me.
John Ruggero wrote:
It would seem that if the choice were between preserving the old note values vs. preserving the rest relationships, the latter would be a better course. To achieve that, the music would be presented in modern note values, which would give the impression of something potentially vital and not something to be relegated to library shelves.
It is highly surprising to hear such an opinion from you, John. Elsewhere, you have been strongly demanding that modern editions must preserve the original notations of the old masters such as Beethoven. Why should we treat Monteverdi differently from Beethoven?
I'd think that entirely changing all note values is much more invasive than the occasional modification of some rests. In fact, the Monteverdi example in question could be made to comply with modern standards of notation simply by adding editorial dots to some of the rests.
And can you explain why a 3/1 meter, like here, could not possibly be vital? (It was a very common meter in the 16th century.)