MICHAEL PRAETORIUS

Dances from Terpsichore

from Syntagma III (1612)
In modernized notation for flexible ensembles of all types

XXXII. à 4
La Bouree
(The Bourée)
Three dances for 4-part Ensembles
by Michael Praetorius
 About this Terpsichore Edition:
This new edition is based on the original version of the complete Syntagma
Musicum by Möseler Verlag Wolfenbüttel, edited by Friederich Blume.
The Terpsichore section was edited by Gűnther Oberst (1931). The actual
score was created from the original part-books (typeset in old notation with
no meters) complete with copious editorial notes on discrepancies etc.
It faithfully retained Praetorius’ clefs, meters, time signatures, key signatures
& repeat markings even though some were confusingly inconsistent.
This edition has retained the original keys but modernised the meters &
time signatures and rationalised the accidentals. Repeats and da capos have
been written out in full, in some cases containing suggested ornamentation
for variety.
The various dances have been assembled into ‘suites’ in much the same
order as the Möseler edition but are available individually by catalog
number. Likewise the parts (in a variety of clefs & transpositions for mixed
ensembles). Ensembles are free to construct their own favourite suites.

Listening resources: (YouTube)

Collegium Terpsichore; Fritz Neumayer
Early Music Consort of London; David Munrow
New London Consort; Philip Pickett
Praetorius Consort: Christopher Ball
Voices of Music: van Proosdij
Ricercar Consort; Pierlot/Fernandez
La Fenice; Jean Tubery
La Bande des Luths; Philippe Mayleet
Accademia del Ricercare; Pietro Busca.
Westra Aros Pipers: Bertil Farnlof
The Toronto Consort
Renaissance d’un Orgue; Jean-Charles Ablitzer
Doulce Mémoire; Denis Raison Dadre
Hammered Dulcimer; Carole Koenig
 XXXII. à 4
La Bouree (the Bourée)
Three dances for 4-part ensembles by Michael Praetorius
Terpsichore was a massive project undertaken by Praetorius (M.P.C.) in 1612 to publish a collection of
popular French courtly music, mostly from the famous French Dancing Masters at Versailles whom M.P.C.
respectfully acknowledges in the titles.
Praetorius described La Bouree on the title-page as one of ‘13 other dances with strange names’ (‘13. Andere
Däntze mit sonderbaren Namen’). Peter Holman, in his comprehensive essay for the VDGSA, explsins:
“These seem to be what we might call one-tune dances. Popular social dances, such as the pavan,
galliard, courante and volta, had many tunes that fitted their dance steps. But when new dances were
first developed there would presumably at first have been only one tune that fitted the steps. If the dance
subsequently became popular then new tunes would be written to fit it, but those that never took off
would have remained as one-tune dances. I suggest that we have a selection of dances in this section that
were new in France in the first decade of the seventeenth century (which is why Praetorius described them
as having ‘strange names’), and were therefore still at the stage of being associated with only one tune.”
This Bourrée was probably later included in a typical ball at the court of Henry IV. Ballet at the royal court
(the ‘Ballet de cour’) was one of the glories of French cultural life. A typical ballet included dance, tableaus,
decor, costune, song, music and poetry. They were extremely extravagant and often included participants
& actors wearing all sorts of strange and exotic costumes representing deities, spirits, mytholgical heroes,
peasants, etc.
Erika Schneiter, renaissance dance expert (notes for the excellent Ricercar recording), says of the courtly ball:
“As a rule, balls lasted for eight hours or more. The beginning followed a set ceremonial pattern: the
senior person present opened the ball with his partner, and the next in line gradually joined in the dance.
To start with, they would dance a Branle-suite. Bransles, or Branles are round dances from various
parts of France. The pairs danced in rows or in a circle with a basically sideways movement through the
ballroom. Praetorius describes the motion as: “not as brutal as the Galliard or the Courrante, but very
gentle, with but a slight movement of the knees.” The Branles doubles and the Branles simples, so called
because of their double-pace to the left followed by a double or a single pace respectively to the right,
were just the thing for the veterans in the ballroom. They were absolved from the more lively “Branles
gay”, such as the running and jumping peasant dances, the Branle de Bourgogne, de Village, de Poictou
and de Montirande, in which the younger generation indulged. There were lots of Branle-dances, varying
from region to region. Of the Branle de Montirande or du Haut Barrois, Arbeau says, “It is danced by
young ladies and gentlemen of noble descent, who dress up as sheep and farmers for masques to amuse
themselves with their peers.”
Erika Schneiter, says of the Bourrée in particular:
“When they danced a Bourrée, which Praetorius liked for its rural freshness, the couples would glide across
the room with flowing nimble steps. The zapateado-like tapping of toes and heels of the Canarie dancers,
dressed in their colourful plumes, clattered livelily and at times pretty loudly. It was originally danced at
masque-ballets by the king and queen of Mauritania.”
The parts for this edition are available in a variety of keys and clefs so that (e.g.) C, B flat, E flat, & F
instruments so they can all play together in user-friendly registers & keys.
The score & parts have all the repeats and da capos written out in full according to Praetorius’ plans to avoid
rehearsal confusion. Each section has its own rehearsal number for rehearsal purposes.

Alan Bonds, [[email protected]]

Perth, Western Australia (2021)
 Modernizing Terpsichore for Modern Players
Terpsichore (part of Syntagma III) was a massive project undertaken by Praetorius (M.P.C.) in 1612
to publish a comprehensive collection of popular French courtly music, mostly from the famous
French Dancing Masters at Versailles whom M.P.C. respectfully acknowledges in the titles.
In some cases the pieces were given complete in both 4 and 5 parts (e.g. Caroubel), some just the
melody line plus bass (labelled Incerti), some just the melody which M.P.C. harmonized himself. His
inventive part-writing shows why he was regarded as one of the finest composers in Europe.
The article by Peter Holman on the whole project [Terpsichore at 400. Journal of the Viola da Gamba
Society of Great Britain, Vol. 7 (2013) ] is essential reading.
So too is the Translation of the Preface to Terpsichore by Bruce R. Carvell. [Journal of the Viola da
Gamba Society of America, Vol. 20 (1983)].
What M.P.C. was attempting is very similar to the work of modern musicologists transcribing
folk-music - i.e. to faithfully reproduce the pieces as they were given him, not editing or arranging
them. The later accepted conventions of meter & mode were not yet established but being rapidly
developed in late 16th C. Italy.
They were presented as part-books not scores.[see IMSLP369232-PMLP176492]
The work by the editors of the complete Syntagma III in the 1930’s by the Möseler Verlag
Wolfenbűttel in the same spirit as M.P.C. himself is remarkable - faithfully transcribing the part-
books into score form without attempting to edit or ‘correct’ anything. [see IMSLP342801-
PMLP176492]
As a result the modern musician confronts a bewildering array of anomalies and inconsistencies:
1 time signatures - e.g. the Courantes are notated variously as 6/4, 3/2, 3/1, etc;
1 clefs - give a clue to which instruments preferred. e.g. the tenor/alto part is in either treble and
alto clef;
1 key signatures - are modal not tonal;
1 accidentals - literally given to every note (not within the bar), no cautionary corrections next bar;
1 slurs and ties - very inconsistent both within and between pieces
In ‘modernizing’ the score I have:
1 transcribed time signatures to more familiar modern equivalents;
1 attempted to spell out the hemiolas using beaming or altered barlines;
1 not altered key signatures, but regularized repeated accidentals and added cautionary accidentals;
1 chosen alto clef for the alto/tenor part, but parts in treble and tenor clefs will be available;
1 slurs & ties are standard - but suggested added slurs & ties are dotted;
1 labelled the parts simply as S,A,A,T,B - not instr. names;
1 written out all repeats & Da Capos in full to avoid confusion and train-wrecks;
1 provided a transposed version for strings when playing with BH instruments (who don’t like
sharps);
- this is not really satisfactory for the C instr’s, but the only workable solution
- better for C instruments (alone) to play in the original key, likewise BH instr’s (alone).
ORIGINAL
XXXII. à 4.
1 1. La Bouree La Bouree
Vivace = ca 100 M.P.C.

ur31aa

ur31ab

ur31ba

ur31ca

ur31bb

ur31cb
TRANSPOSED XXXII. à 4.
1 1. La Bouree La Bouree
Vivace = ca 100 M.P.C.

ur31aa

ur31ab

ur31ba

ur31bb

ur31ca

ur31cb
5 2. La Bouree 6

ur31da

ur31ea

ur31eb

9 3. 10

ur31fa

11

ur31ga

12

ur31gb
5 2. La Bouree 6

ur31da

ur31ea

ur31eb

9 3. 10

ur31fa

11

ur31ga

12

ur31gb
13 4.

ur31ha

14

ur31hb

ur31hc
13 4.

ur31ha

14

ur31hb

ur31hc