Du Caurroy finished his mass in 1609, the year of his death, but it was most likely performed at the funeral of King Henry IV in 1610, since du Caurroy had served him for twenty years as vice-conductor of the Chapel Royal, composer for the Royal Chamber and Overseer of Music for the French court. The mass text includes some of the texts of the Requiem mass as we know it from earlier and later settings but omits others, instead following that of the Gallican mass; King Henry IV would not accept changes to the liturgy instituted by Pope Clement VIII, widely in use by 1600, in order to assert France’s independence from Rome. This fact answers a question I had had for my entire choral life: why did Fauré — as well as Duruflé and Rutter after him — use texts different from those of the Renaissance composers as well as the Classical and Romantic composers? I also find it fascinating that the text of the Pie Jesu, although set by du Caurroy, was not published as part of the original mass yet appeared in the same 1636 publication as his Requiem. It could be that it was later incorporated into his mass, since that continued to be used in the funerals for the Kings of France up until the French Revolution. As such it may have inspired Fauré, and later Duruflé and Rutter, to include it as a movement in their respective Requiems.

The fact that both the du Caurroy and Fauré Requiems have identical texts that differ from some of those we are used to hearing in most other Requiems suggests to me that Fauré was aware of du Caurroy’s mass; those of Berlioz and Saint-Saëns also follow the more familiar form of Requiems as set by Mozart and Verdi. Three parts of the two French masses we present tonight differ significantly from those we might associate with the Requiem from hearing others in concert. Chief among them is the absence of most of the Dies irae, a special portion of the mass used exclusively in the Rite for the Dead to replace the Gradual, that part of the mass in which the Psalms are read. It became popular for later composers to include the Dies irae, perhaps to showcase their dramatic compositional chops in musically depicting that apocalyptic text. In contrast, Fauré uses only its last couplet, Pie Jesu, which highlights the aspect of Christ as savior rather than judge, as a separate movement, whereas du Caurroy omits it altogether. While Fauré omits the Gradual, du Caurroy uses verse 4 of the 23rd Psalm, which also exists in the earliest composed Requiems we know today: those of Ockeghem and Richafort. Originally the entire psalm was intoned as the Gradual, but by this era, when sung as polyphony by a choir rather than as a monodic* chant by a priest, it would be truncated. Interestingly, Rutter set the entire Psalm in his Requiem.

The second and third significant differences in these French Requiems from those more typical both occur at the end the mass. Whereas most end with a reprisal of the opening prayer of the Requiem chant or the Agnus Dei, a movement occurring in and ending all Catholic masses, du Caurroy and Fauré have as their penultimate movement the Responsory, not itself a part of the mass, but something that would have followed it on solemn occasions, thus emphasizing the personal plea of the supplicant on behalf of all departed souls rather than the lurid descriptions of the fate of those damned. For their final movement, the French composers set the text In paradisum sung during Communion in the original Mass for the Dead as published in the Liber Usualis.* As such I find it curious that most composers omit it and I find it very curious that the French composers position it after the Responsory, although in Fauré’s work, the Libera me is interrupted by the text of the Responsory sung by the entire chorus before returning to the initial plea.

Du Caurroy composed his Requiem eight years after the beginning of the Baroque era as designated by musicologists, in which Italian composers first wrote in a new style of solo voice with basso continuo* known as monody.* It took a while for this new style, the secunda prattica or second practice as they called it, to disseminate throughout Europe, and the last place it took hold in was the naves of the conservative Catholic Church. Therefore du Caurroy’s mass was not old-fashioned but rather exhibited the crowning developments of the prima prattica or first practice. This compositional style reached the apotheosis of its defining trait of polyphony:* the interweaving of individual independent lines in each of the vocal parts resulting in a vertical texture that was not harmonic in the sense of our present-day understanding of that. A composer might alternate polyphony with the more harmonic homophony* as contrast, but in the case of this mass du Caurroy made little use of it. Instead the five voices mostly move independently of one another, with an occasional trio of voices moving as one in contrast to the other two autonomous voices. In only one movement, that of the Benedictus, does du Caurroy reduce his voices to four, and he never contrasts the five voices with sections of trios or duets, a characteristic of the mature prima prattica as developed one hundred years earlier by such composers as Josquin des Pres. Each of du Caurroy’s movements except that of the Sanctus begins with the intonation of the chant that appears in the Liber Usualis.* Some composers might then have continued the chant in one of the voices, but du Caurroy does not do so, rather creating new lines for each phrase of the text and having the voices take up this new line as each declaims it. He ends his mass with the plainchant* setting of In Paradisum from the Liber Usualis* sung by the treble voices.

Fauré composed his Requiem for, in his own words, “the pleasure of it.” Its first iteration with smaller instrumentation premiered for a funeral in 1888 but omitted the Libera me — composed independently in 1877 — and also the Offertoire and the Hostias. These were added in the 1890 version, and Fauré made his final orchestration for a performance at the Paris Exhibition in 1900.

The emphasis of compositions of the Catholic Requiem from the Classical Era on vary from composer to composer, each highlighting those parts of the text that most inspires them. In many cases, as noted earlier, those parts emphasize the drama implicit in the day of judgement, when Christ comes down from Heaven to cast the damned into Hell and take the elect into Heaven. Fauré instead chose mostly to emphasize those aspects of the text which focus on the latter, those redeemed on the day of judgement, as evidenced by the separate movement for the Pie Jesu and the inclusion of In paradisum. To my mind he dwells on the lines in the text iterated by the supplicant praying on behalf of the departed; I find it therefore more personal than settings of other composers. He expresses their humility in his setting of the initial text with its falling lines sung by the tenors only. Sometimes though, as heard in this and the Agnus Dei, a sense of panic breaks through the humble request. A section of the opening movement expressing that panic occurs in the setting of Christe eleison. The modest solo petitions for mercy to God the Father, reinforced by their consonance* and piano* dynamic,* are suddenly interrupted by full choir in their entreaty to Christ for mercy in forte* dynamic of much more dissonant chords, allowing us to hear the abject fear and near demand of the supplicant. This makes sense from a theological perspective, Christ being the intermediary between God the Father and the believer. Fauré also sets the Agnus Dei largely for solo tenors except in its second iteration, when we experience that panic again. In the Libera me Fauré employs a baritone soloist to plead to be spared from eternal death at judgement day, while using the chorus to describe the horrors of that day.

The Offertory contains Fauré’s most extensive musical depiction of the humility of the supplicant with two and then three voices in reiteration of the same musical motif. Only the rising harmonic sequence* of each supplication with brief interludes of a louder dynamic allude to a suppressed worry that the dead and the petitioners will not be spared. In all my knowledge of settings of the text ne cadant in obscurum I have never found one so affecting in its abject plea for mercy. Fauré interrupts this thematic material by interjecting the text of the Hostias sung by a baritone in a predominantly major tonality,* triple meter,* and faster tempo* to declaim the text describing the gifts and prayers of the faithful to God. When the introductory thematic material then returns, now four voices limn a major* harmony followed by one of the most gorgeous “Amens” in the choral repertory.

These choral interjections of terror are absent from the Sanctus, Pie Jesu, and In paradisum; instead the first quotes the Seraphim and Cherubim in their infinite praise of God, and the third describes the tranquility of paradise. The consistent forte* dynamic of the Sanctus represents the effusive praise of the angels, while the In paradisum, with its static harmonies and melody expressed in the sopranos — those with the highest tessitura* of the choir — alludes to the serenity of this state. The Pie Jesu reveals only a hint of suppressed worry with a brief section of a louder dynamic and slightly higher tessitura* for the soloist.

Over my 50 years of choral conducting I have often performed Requiems with various choruses to the extent that some singers consider me to have a morbid fascination with death. On the contrary, I do it because composers rise to the challenge of the text, whether it be from the Liber Usualis or sections of the Bible, to express in music their deepest feelings about the journey through life and its end, thereby letting all of us experience our thoughts and feelings about the human condition. ▣

© 2025 Mary Beekman. All rights reserved. No portion of this document may be quoted or reproduced without the author’s permission.