Peripheral Polyphony of The 13th Century

Peripheral Polyphony of the 13th Century Author(s): Ernest H. Sanders Source: Journal of the American Musicological Society, Vol.
17, No. 3 (Autumn, 1964), pp. 261-287 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the American Musicological Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/830091 . Accessed: 01/06/2013 11:31
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of California Press and American Musicological Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Musicological Society.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Sat, 1 Jun 2013 11:31:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PeripheralPolyphony of the I3th Century

BY ERNEST H. SANDERS
IMPORTANT ASPECT Of the Englishrepertoire containedin the eleventh AN fascicle of MS is its inclusiveness, 677 (W1)
Michel "vers I 70."4 Quite a few such settings have come down to us
liturgical Wolfenbiittel which contrasts with the nearly exclusive concern with responsorial psalmodyshown by the Notre-Dame composersof organaand clausulae. It is an aspect that W1, i i shares to a degree with the Winchester Troper.1The first to discusssome featuresof the eleventhfascicle of W. in great detail was Handschin,who offered a careful analysisof three of its compositions (as well as a fourth from MS Paris, B.N., Lat. i5129) and a comparisonwith the general characteristicsof the Notre-Dame repertoire.2He made it clear that liturgical cantus firmi were, in this type of composition, laid out in unpatternedrhythms; that the design of the other voice (or voices, since the Sanctus from the Paris manuscript is d 3) in relation to the Tenor is strongly reminiscentof conductus technique;and that, as in the conductus, there is in these pieces no such stylistic dichotomy as in Notre-Dame organa (organumpurum vs. discantsections). The common association of this style with the conductus is as untenableas is its designationas insular.3 The pieces are discantsettings of cantus firmi, and there are numerousnon-Englishcounterpartsfrom the i ith century on. Thus, the same parts of the mass that are represented in W1, i i were apparentlysung polyphonically at Mont-Saint-
from German-speaking areas,5and a similarliturgical polyphony seems to have been cultivated in Italy in the 12th century.6 The European dissemination,until the i4th century, of the practice of composing
' See Ernest H. Sanders, "Tonal Aspects of 13th-CenturyEnglish Polyphony," to be published in an early issue of Acta Musicologica.
2 Jacques Handschin, "Eine wenig beachtete Stilrichtung... ," Schweizerisches
English Mediaeval Polyphony," The Musical Times LXXIII (1932), PP. 510-513, and LXXIV (1933), pp. 697-704; idem, . . . ," Kirchen"Gregorianisch-Polyphonisches musikalisches Jahrbuch XXV (i930), pp. 60-76. 8 E.g. idem, "Eine wenig beachtete Stilrichtung.. ..." P. 75. 4Yvonne Rokseth, Polyphonies du siecle, Vol. IV (Paris, 1939), pp. 40-41. 5Arnold Geering, Die Organa und XIII? mehrstimmigen Conductus in den Handschriften des deutschen Sprachgebietes . . . , (Bern, 1952), p. 35; Theodor Gllner, Formen schichte, Vol. VI (Tutzing, 1961), esp. p. 23.
Jahrbuch fiir Musikwissenschaft I (1924), pp. 56-75; also idem, "A Monument of
friiher Mehrstimmigkeit . . . , Miinchner Verdffentlichungen zur Musikge-
6 Handschin, Musikgeschichte im Uberblick (Luzern, 1948), pp. x82f; Giinther Schmidt, "Strukturproblemeder Mehrstimmigkeit im Repertoire von St. Martial,"
262
JOURNAL
OF THE AMERICAN
MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY
polyphonic sequencesand Ordinarytropes has been amply documented by Ludwig and Handschin.7In fact, Handschin uncovered significant correspondencesbetween two compositions of an Agnus trope in the eleventh fascicle of W1 and an Italian manuscript (Assisi 695)," and described a Spanishsource as being related to W,, The most sub1i.g stantial collection of such pieces is, of course, contained in the Las Huelgas codex. Most of these compositions are for two voices'0 and greatly favor the perfect consonances.The rhythm of the pieces preservedin I3thcentury sources generally seems to be pre-modally trochaic.1"Several containinstancesof Stimmtausch,'2 a device easily achievedwhen writing two-part counterpoint in contrary motion for two equal voices.'8 In fact, Handschin noticed an Agnus trope, two phrase sections of which
Die Musikforschung XV (1962), p. 36; cf. also ibid., p. 37; Kurt von Fischer, "Die Rolle der Mehrstimmigkeitam Dome von Siena ... ," Archiv fiir Musikwissenschaft XVIII (I96i), pp. 171-172. ~Friedrich Ludwig, Repertorium ... (Halle, 1910), pp. 12-15 (Ludwig described the style of the compositions discussed by him as analogous to those in W1, fasc. i i; cf. ibid., p. i i); Handschin, "ZurFrage der melodischen Paraphrasierung im Mittelalter," Zeitschrift fiir Musikwissenschaft X (1928), pp. 532ff; idem, "Angelomontana polyphonica," Schweizerisches Jahrbucb .. . III (1928), pp. 72f. Cf. also Albert Seay, "Le Manuscript 695 de la Bibliothique Communale d'Assise," Revue de Musicologie IXL (I957), pp. 10-31; Geering, "Retrospektive mehrstimmige Musik. .. ," Misceldnea en homenaje a Monsehor Higinio Angles (Barcelona, 19581961), pp. 308-309. 8 Handschin, "ZurFrage . . ," p. 533. 9 Ibid., p. 532, n. I. 1oAt the end of the Dupla of some of the pieces in W,, fasc. Ix, a few notes ("Zusatznoten") appear that can be interpreted either as part of the upper voice or as indicating the cadential splitting of the Duplum into two voices. Handschin transcribed the endings in question as consisting of three voices, but granted that the other, less startling, alternative was quite possible ("Eine wenig beachtete Stilrichtung... ," p. 59, n. 7). 11Cf. Sanders, "Duple Rhythm and Alternate Third Mode ... ," this JOURNAL XV (1962), pp. 282ff; cf. also Handschin, "Gregorianisch-Polyphonisches. . .," p. 70; Seay, op. cit., p. 24. 12 Cf. Ludwig, Repertorium ... , p. 12 (the example from the Rouen cited by Ludwig is printed in New Oxford History of Music, Dom A. manuscript Hughes and Gerald Abraham, eds., Vol. II (London, p954),P. 374); Handschin, review of Festschrift fiir Johannes Wolf, Zeitschrift fiir Musikwissenschaft XVI (1934), PP. idem, "Das iilteste Dokument . . . ," Acta Musicologica VII (i935), pp. 67-68; II9f; Die Organa . .. , pp. 55f; Giuseppe Vecchi, "Tra Monodia e Polifonia," in Geering, Collectaneae Historiae Musicae, Vol. II (Historiae Musicae Cultores, Vol. VI) ('957), P. 459; Frank L1. Harrison, "Rondellus-Rota," Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Vol. XI, cols. 884-885; Judith Marshall, "Hidden Polyphony . . . ," this JOURNAL XV (1962), p. 136; Leo Treitler, "The Polyphony of St. Martial," this JOURNAL XVII (1964), p. 31. The pieces discussed by Handschin (cf. also Bruno Stiblein, ed., Monumenta Monodica Medii Aevi, Vol. I (Hymnen [I]), pp. 532ff.) are hymns, which are found mostly in early sources (12th century), though hymn settings continue to appear in German manuscripts (see Geering, op. cit., p. 30). is For details see Leo Treitler, op. cit., pp. 37-38. Cf. also Handschin, "Zur Frage der melodischen Paraphrasierung... In some cases the cantus firmus ," p. 534.
PERIPHERAL
POLYPHONY
OF THE I3TH
CENTURY
263
appearin one manuscriptas cantus firmusand in anotheras counterpoint (and vice versa)l4-a comprehensible scribal error. Only one nonEnglish setting of a cantus firmus-an Agnus trope-is known that is written as a three-voiced rondellus;15 it is preserved in Spanish and Swiss sources."1 Under these circumstancesit is neither necessary nor advisable to posit special stylistic affinitiesbetween Spain and England, which have been suggested by Tischler and Handschin.17 Nor can there be any guaranteethat the date of the compositionsin the eleventh fascicle of W1 is as early-first half of the 12th century-as has been asserted,1s though they may perhapsdate back to the second half of the century.19 It may well be that in musically more sophisticatedcenters such music was improvisedsupra librum,20 since this unassuming style as a rule does not go beyond what a trained discant singer should have been able to
improvise.21
In the internationalrepertoire discussedso far, Stimmtauschover a tenor, and freely composed rondelli are, with one late exception, not
allows only partial Stimmtausch, e.g. two pieces in the Assisi manuscript (cf. Handschin, ibid., p. 534, and Seay, op. cit., p. 25.) 14Handschin, ibid., p. 532; cf. idem, "Angelomontana ... ," pp. 72f and Ex. 3. 15 Las Huelgas No. 40, a Benedicamus Domino in rondellus form, is freely composed. 16 Cf. Handschin, "Zur Frage ... ," p. 535, where he argues convincingly that the three phrases are ingeniously derived from Agnus IX in such a way as to produce the rondellus. (The rondellus features of a concordance of this piece had previously been discussed by Peter Wagner, Geschichte der Messe ...[Leipzig, 1913], PP. 33f.) This is, a few variants apart, the same composition that appears in MS Paris, B.N., Lt. 11411, a source that also contains a motet known from Spanish and "Rhenish" sources (cf. p. 276 below). Dittmer's reasons for considering this are no more than is his of the manuscript English compelling interpretation rhythm of some of its contents (cf. Sanders,"Duple Rhythm .. .," n. 27). 17Hans Tischler, "English Traits in the Early I3th-Century Motet," The Musical Quarterly XXX (1944), P. 465, n. 16, and Handschin, "ConductusSpicilegien," Archiv fiir Musikwissenschaft IX (1952), pp. n. 3. Giinther Schmidt seems on safer ground when he points to "a degree ofII4f, parallelismbetween German, Spanish, and English sources" ("Zur Frage des Cantus firmus . .. '" Archiv fiir MusikwissenschaftXV (I958), p. 233, n. 4). Cf. Geering, Die Organa .. ., PP. 35 and 37. Paul "Messe E. Die Kast, 18s mehrstimmige Messe, I, Bis 16oo," MGG IX, col. 171; he apparently based this opinion on a tentative estimate made long ago by Ludwig in "Die mehrstimmige Musik des i1. und 12. Jahrhunderts,"111.Kongress der InternationalenMusikgesellschaft,Bericht (Wien, 909), p. 10o7. 19That the contrapuntal method applied in this repertoire is older than the Notre-Dame school was already suggested by Handschin himself ("GregorianischPolyphonisches ... ," p. 69), though he had previously indicated that the contents of the eleventh fascicle could hardly be as early as 1225 ("Eine wenig beachtete Stilrichtung ... ," p. 73). 20Rokseth, Polyphonies . . . , Vol. IV, p. 41; Schmidt, "Zur Frage des Cantus firmus . . . ," p. 233. A similar thought had earlier been expressed by Handschin ("Zur Geschichte von Notre Dame," Acta Musicologica IV (1932), p. 54, n. 2). 21 . . . ," p. 69. Handschin, "Gregorianisch-Polyphonisches
264
JOURNAL
OF THE AMERICAN
MUSICOLOGICAL
SOCIETY
to be found; most compositionsare 4 2. Nor do the two voices form the interval of a third with any significantfrequency.22On the other hand, thirds are quite common in many Notre-Dame conductus, especially those of relatively early date and those concerning English matters,23 as well as in a number of three-part compositions at the end of the eighth fascicle of W, (a Gradual,three Sanctustropes, and two Agnus tropes) that Handschinsingled out as English suspects.24 They also crop up, though less frequently, in the two Sanctustropes (P 3) preservedin MS Cambridge,Univ. Lib., Ff. II. 29, which is undoubtedly an English source.25All three-part compositions showing a partiality for thirds is common not only necessarilycontain a good many triads.Stimmtausch in caudae of Notre-Dame conducti,26but also in a number of NotreDame tripla and quadrupla.27 Another feature that aboundsin most of these compositions is regular periodicity, with dance-like phrases28 consisting of multiples of two metric units; many of the phrases,which often overlap among the voices, are robustly foursquare.All these features, typical of most 13th-centuryEnglish polyphony, are prominent in a goodly percentage of the works known or presumed to be by Perotinus, as well as in very early motets." In subsequentFrench polyphony they arerelativelyrare.3o
22Handschin, "Der Organum-Traktatvon Montpellier," in Studien zur Musikgeschichte: Festschrift fuir Guido Adler (Wien, 1930), p. 54. 23 Handschin, "Conductus-Spicilegien," pp. Ii8f.; idem, "The Summer Canon and Its BackgroundII," Musica Disciplina V ('951), pp. 93f. 24 Handschin, "A Monument ... ," (i933), p. 698a. 25 Its two folios are all that remain of a manuscript that well have been one of the most beautifully executed sources of a repertoire may very similar to that of all Harmony, H. E. Woolridge, ed., Vol. I (London, 1897), pls. 37-38, contains facsimiles of the folio on which the tropes appear. 26 Handschin, MGG II, col. 1618;see also Rokseth, Polyphonies ..., "Conductus," Vol. IV, p. 88. 27 Tischler, "English Traits ... ," p. 465; Rokseth, op. cit., Vol. IV, pp. 6of. 28New Oxford History of Music, Vol. II, pp. 334-337. Besseler also points out the dance character of this music. Especially the first mode, he says, "in numerous cases makes a dance-like impression;"Singstilund Instrumentalstil in der europiischen Musik," in Bericht iiber den internationalenmusikwissenschaftlichenKongress Bamberg 1953 (Kassel & Basel, 1954), p. 232. Elsewhere he describes the style of Perotinus's organa as a "coupling of Gregorian tradition with dance music": "Bach und das Mittelalter,"Bericht iiber die wissenschaftliche Bachtagung der Gesellschaft fiir I Dame Motet," Acta Musicologica XXVIII (1956), p. 88. Mme. Rokseth (op. cit., Vol. IV, p. 91 and n. 0) surely went too far in expressing the belief that Perotinus created Stimmtausch. 80Rokseth (op. cit., Vol. IV, p. 2z6) says in effect that the older a motet, the greater the number of thirds it is likely to contain, while Tischler points out that
"after 1200 the motets give it [Stimmtausch] up almost completely Traits... .," p. 466). ..." ("English Musikforschung (Leipzig, 1950), p. 13. 29 Rokseth, Polyphonies . . . , Vol. IV, pp. 59-61, 88, 215; Tischler, "English Traits . . . ," pp. 464-465; idem, "The Evolution of the Harmonic Style in the Notrebut the last fascicle of W1 (cf. Ludwig, Repertorium .
. .
pp. 228-229). Early English
PERIPHERAL POLYPHONY OF THE I3TH CENTURY
265
that English influence had a considerableshare in the shaping of the musical style of the second Notre-Dame generation. Helmut Schmidt has cited passagesin works by Perotinusor in Perotinianstyle that correspond with phrases in two of the three English estampies in MS Wiora has pointed out that formulassimilar London, B.M., Harley 978.31 to the pes of the Summer canon can be found in Perotinus'scompositions.82Handschin has claimed evidence of English influence in Notre-Dame conducti,38and Tischler describes stylistic aspects of the Notre-Dame repertoireas "due to an extraneousinfluence, active during a limited period of time, possibly that of Anglo-Norman composers connected with the English College at the University of Paris. This College was very large shortly before and after 12oo, but declined soon thereafter with the successive defeats in battle and diplomacy which to King John."34 It should be added King Philipp Augustusadministered even if Husmann's form of first the mode is disregarded,35 that, upbeat
31 Die drei- und vierstimmigen Organa (Kassel, 1933), pp. 24-27 and 58-62. While Handschin's insistence that estampies are not dances ("The Summer Canon . . . , I"
While the evidenceis not unassailable, the indications are strong
forschung, Liineburg 195o, p. 75. 33Handschin, "A Monument . . ." (932), p. 512, and (0933), p. 698. 34 "The Evolution of the Harmonic Style...," p. 9o. Richard L. Crocker evidently
['949], p. 60) is beyond challenge, there can be no question that the music has dance-like qualities. The "dances"in Baroque suites might be said to be analogous. 32 "Der mittelalterliche Liedkanon," in Kongress-Bericht, Gesellschaft fiir Musik-
feels not only that predilection for thirds (and sixths) should not be considered a specifically English trait ("the spirit of Merry Old England"), but that their appearance in English manuscripts is not so common as has been asserted. "All we really know," he says, "after as before, is that certain English pieces at certain times are a little richer than some [!] Continental pieces" (Review of Hans Joachim Moser's Die Tonsprachen des Abendlandes, in this JOURNAL XV [1962], p. Ioz). His formulation, which plainly conflicts with the evidence (before or after), is designed to strengthen an attack on an author whose evidence shows unmistakablesigns of slanting. Crocker points out confidently that "if we could show precisely (and I think we could) how they [these rich sonorities] were partly a derivation from, partly a peripheral response to the central style of 13th-century Parisian music, then we would have explained them on the basis of stylistic development, not national character" (ibid.). But to imply that such were the actual circumstancesbecause "I think we could" bring proof, while in fact adducing no evidence whatever, is surely a procedure that seems risky, even in the context of a book review. Thirds were an English specialty, especially in the free compositions of the i3th and I4th centuries; they were not a response to a central Parisian style (which may not have been quite so central-cf. n. 43 below) and they were anything but a derivation from it. And what purpose is there in downgrading certain localized (in England!) style characteristics as "peripheral?" Crocker uses the term not so much to designate procedures that were unusual, but that were, in a geographic sense, peripheral to Paris. But undeniably, only a small segment of the periphery is involved. That certain musical practices were characteristic of certain English regions had already been observed by There seems no need to allow a righteously vigilant liberalismto push the pendulum from Moser's side all the way to the other extreme of negating or minimizing ethnically conditioned differences in medieval music. 85Cf. Rokseth's criticism of this feature of his transcriptions in "La Polyphonie
Giraldus Cambrensis and Anonymous IV (cf. Sanders, "Tonal Aspects .
.
. ," n. 21).
266
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY
third modes are rhythmsother than those of the first and alternate rarein Perotinus's in those of what relatively compositions, especially mightbe calledhis earlier period.3" The extraordinary greatnessof PerotinusMagnusrests essentially on qualitieshe shareswith the other outstanding "classical" masters Like them he fulfilledthe crucialfuncamongEuropean composers. tion of focussingdiverse"national" influences, creatingwell-organized, that, stylisticallyand formally,are the conlarge-scale masterpieces summate a significant artistic high pointsof the period,andbequeathing with diversified His laterworks-e.g. the Alleluia: heritage potentialities. Posuiandespecially a number of the clausulae--37 openup new stylistic concernwith rhythmicvariety.The territorywith their pre-eminent monumentalism of the Triplaand Quadrupla gives way to an art conceivedon a smaller, moreintimate scale;it is alsolessgivento imperfect consonances andregular periodicity. In view of the circumstance that in Perotinus's time England seems to have exerteda stronginfluence on the style of Parisian music,it is
not necessary to assume that certain Notre-Dame compositions exhibiting "English"features are therefore of English origin. Thus, eight motets listed by Tischler as English suspects38 can safely be considered French. Neither is there any reason to concur with Apfel's surmise that the two troped organa (organal "motets") in MS Florence, Bibl. Laurenz., Plut. 29, Codex i (F)39 are English only because the text of the upper voices is tropically related to that of the cantus firmus.40 It is true that this is a common English procedure (the Worcester Fragments as well as later sources), but Apfel's suggestionreverses chronolgy, since the motets in F are earlier.Moreover,many of the earliestmotets, especially the conductus motets of the eighth fascicle of F, have texts
Parisienne du treizieme siecle," Les Cahiers techniques de l'art I, fasc. 2 (1947), PP. 38-436Rokseth considered his Quadrupla to be works of his youth (ibid., p. 37b). 37 It is, unfortunately, impossible to hazard any guess how many clausulae were composed by Perotinus. On the basis of some of Anonymus IV's remarks (Coussemaker, Scriptorum ... , Vol. I, pp. 342a and, especially, 344a-b) one may well speculate whether the ultimate clarification and systematization of modal rhythm and its notation was achieved by one or more of Perotinus's younger contemporaries (e.g., Magister Petrus, optimus notator). 38 "English Traits . . . ," pp. 462ff.; also Ernst Apfel, "Ober einige Zusammenhinge zwischen Text und Musik
did not consider as English ("The Summer Canon . . . II" ], PP. 95-98), belong to a group of six that appear without tenor as conducti in ['951 Problems of style and W1. provenance of some of these pieces are discussed pp. 283f. below. To cite an English practice of the 15th and i6th centuries as analogous to the omission of tenors in the W1 versions and therefore ("ndmlich") as confirming the English origin of these six compositions (Apfel, op. cit., p. 50) is too far-fetched to merit consideration.
39 Ludwig, Repertorium ...,
40
im Mittelalter . . . ," Acta Musicologica XXXIII (1961), p. 5o, n. 13. Concerning one of these, see note 129 below. Three others that Handschin
Apfel, op. cit., p. 48.
pp. ioo and 105. See also n. 19 below.
PERIPHERAL
POLYPHONY
OF THE I3TH
CENTURY
267
that are tropic elaborationsof that of the cantus firmus, especially at the beginning (assonance)and/or end of the motets. It seems more likely that around I2oo an amalgamation of two practices took place in Paris,of which the older was the art of troping, while the other was the polyphonic elaboration of the solo portions of responsorialchants. The combination of troping and polyphony had already yielded two main types: one usually restricted polyphonic elaborationto the inserted or added tropes (e.g. the Ordinarytropes in W,, fasc. 8, and in MS Cambridge,U.L., Ff. II. 29), while the other placed the textual elaborationin the upper voice(s) over the complete cantusfirmus-or at leastthe completesolo portion-with its text (troped organa).41In the one case the tropes (only) were set polyphonically, while in the other the tropes were in effect superimposed on the chant, a solution that has the twin virtues of greater variety and greater economy. It was this latter procedure that was restricted by the Notre-Dame school to the clausularepertoire (i.e. to the melismaticportions of responsorial chants and the BenedicamusDomino), while the English continued to compose polyphonic (and tropic) settings of entire cantus firmi or, in the case of responsorialchants, of the syllabic as well as the melismaticpassagesof the solo portions. (Their compositionstreat syllabic and melismatic portions essentially alike.) A great many Worcester compositions demonstratethese features; another important aspect of these cantus-firmussettings (elaborateddiscants) is the considerableliturgical variety of chants on which they are based.42 There can be no question that the English technique is a specificallyEnglish elaboration of the type of liturgically inclusive polyphony discussed earlier and that its roots are both less extravagantand more liturgical than are the motets of Notre-Dame and the Ars Antiqua with their sources.43The Worcester Alleluia settings44represent a unique combination of polyphonic tropes (sections i and 3) and troped polyphonic settings of chants (sections 2 and 4). Their freely composed sections
41The beginnings of this practice go back to the St.-Martial repertoire (cf. ," p. 15). The tropic text occasionally Giinther Schmidt, "Strukturprobleme... replaced that of the cantus firmus; cf. the two "motets"in MS Madrid, Bibl. Nac. 20486, fols. 5-13'. For three further specimens, see p. 280 and n. 105 below.
42
193). It is quite likely that in most localities polyphonic settings of choral chants were performed chorally, at least those in simple, functional discant style; cf. Frank Ll. Harrison, Music in Medieval Britain (London, 1958), p. 156; Geering, "Retrospektive Kurt von Fischer, "Die Rolle der MehrstimmigmehrstimmigeMusik .. . ," pp. 30o9f.;
keit am Dome von Siena.
lyphonisches ...
4 Cf. n. 92 below. As early as 193o Handschin tentatively characterized "the Notre-Dame style" as "eine exzessive Sonderausprdgung" ("Gregorianisch-Po," p. 68), an opinion that re-appears in his Musikgeschichte (pp. 191-
Cf. p. 261.
44See Sanders, "Tonal Aspects .. pp. 141-157.
-73 ...," pp.
and
177. ."; also this writer's dissertation, Ch. II B,
268
SOCIETY JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL
to the cantusfirmusthat is characteristic relationship displaya variational in of the Ordinary tropes MS Cambridge,U.L., Ff. II. 29 and in W1, fasc. 8.45
Ex. I
Ho
san - na
in
ex
de-
tasc
- mens
cel
ser
vo
rum
45In the excerpt from the Sanctus trope given in Ex. i the relationship of the final melisma to the preceding texted section is similar to that of many conductus caudae and the syllabic sections they follow. This circumstance lends additional weight to the view that the rhythm of syllabic portions of conducti cannot be assumed automatically to be the same as that of the subsequent caudae, regardless of their melodic similarity or identity (cf. Sanders, "Duple Rhythm . .. ," pp. 283-284).
269
"SS. Ci
61!
It .I A! .v ,!oI
. . . .
sis,
sus - ci - pe
lau ..
e . . I! . "0
des. I I .des.
I = Sanctus IV (L.U., 27); II and III = the two successive sections of the trope following the Osanna in W I, fol. 92' (83v). For II, cf. Besseler,Musik des Mittelaltersund der Renaissance, pp. 90f.
Al -
- le
lu
IIT
-- OPF
"I F '
II
,I
, "
I = WF, No. 55, mm. 49-69 (Section 2 of the setting, i.e., the
cantusfirmus)
II = WF No. 55, mm. 1-16. III = WF No. 55, mm. 17-32. (Section 1, restored) IV = WF No. 55, mm. 33-48. J
Tenor
270
In such compositions as the troped Sanctus from W. in Example I, a twofold paraphrase of the cantus firmus is involved.46 This art of paraphrasing is to be found only in tropes, where logically it can be expected; remnants of it that maintained themselves as late as the i4th century are the numerous English paraphrase settings of the Spiritus et alme trope of the Gloria, though generally "tropes of the Ordinary and Proper of the Mass gave way to settings of the ritual texts of the Ordinary... .".4 In recent years it has become customary to consider English origin probable not only for several of the earliest motets, but for a considerable number of motets of the Ars Antiqua. The tendency to ascribe English provenance to any piece that does not seem quite in conformity with what is thought to be French stylistic tradition has by now reached truly excessive proportions.48 A useful point of departure for the discussion of this complex problem is the fact that all but three49 of the fifteen motets in MS Montpellier, Bibl. de l'fcole de M6decine, H 196 (Mo) discussed by Handschin in chapter VI of his article belong to the fourth or seventh fascicle of the manuscript (Nos. 5I, 53, 58, 62, 65, 68-70, 72; 275, 285, 300). Each of the following "un-French" features, most of them indicated by Handschin, occurs in a number of these motets: i. Use of a sequencefor cantusfirmus (No. 51) More or less free (variational) treatment of the cantus firmus (Nos. 51, 53, 68, 70, 72) 3. No source clausula (all but No. 62) 4. Conductus style (homorhythmic design, phraseparallelism,chordal sound) (Nos. 53-in the version in MS London, B.M., Harley 978-, 62, most of 285)
2.
since a large part of it is based not only on disproved assumptionsmade by Dittmer

("Binary Rhythm . .
. ,"
46The irregular, but regularlyphrased, modal patternsoften found in the melismatic"caudae" of such pieces are doubtless the prototypesof similarlyfashioned tenorsin the Worcesterrepertory. 4 Harrison, ChurchMusicin the Fourteenth in New Oxford "English Century," some of the preserved History of Music,Vol. III, p. 82. Perhaps polyphonic Kyrie tropes from the early fourteenthcentury (see Apfel, Studienzur Satztechnik der Mittelalterlichen englischen Musik, (Heidelberg,1959),Vol. I, p. 58) are also based on paraphrases of chant tunes. 48 The most cautious discussion and,at the sametime,most searching of a number of casescan be found in Handschin's "TheSummer Canon.. . II" (1951),pp. 66-88. The astonishing list in Apfel'sStudien.. . , Vol. I, p. 3i-further supplemented in his "ObereinigeZusammenhfinge . ," p. 50o, n. I3-is useless andshouldbe disregarded,
Musica Disciplina VII 41-43; cf. Sanders,
['953], PP. "Duple of his listings. Rhythm... ," n. 45), but on a partial misunderstanding S4Mo 8,339-341 (Nos. 340-341 are actually one piece; cf. Harrison,"English Church Music... ," p. 83,n. 6) areconcordances of Englishcompositions, while Mo as regardsits prove8,322,being an unicum,can only be an object of speculation, nance.
PERIPHERAL
POLYPHONY
OF THE I 3TH CENTURY
27 I
5. Ordered phrase structure, including isoperiodicity50(Nos. 51, 65, 69, 70, 6. Liturgicaltexts in upper parts (Nos. 55, 72, 282, 285)51 7. Close textual correspondenceof the upper voices (Nos. 65, 68, 275, 300) 8. Textual interrelationof all three voices (Nos. 69, 70, 72, 285) 9. Melodic repetitionsin one or both of the upper voices (Nos. 58, 285) io. Prominentuse of thirds (Nos. 68,5269, 70) i i. Concludingmelisma(Nos. 69 and 70) A good many years ago Ludwig observed that nearly the entire last third of the fourth fascicle of Mo is distinguished from the other twothirds by the sparse dissemination of its contents.53 Since that time a significant number of these motets have been discovered to exist or to have existed in English concordances, i.e. Nos. 67-70.54 Moreover, Nos. 69 and 70 are the only motets to exhibit the last two of the stylistic features listed above, which are demonstrably English. In addition, Handschin has noted that the motetus of No. 72 contains a short passage (m. 27) in which the first rhythmic mode takes the place of the prevailing third mode.55 This allows the speculation that the (English?) original of No. 72, like the English concordances of Nos. 68, 70 and, presumably, 69, may have been in alternate third mode. Handschin quoted Rokseth as pointing to a degree of stylistic homogeneity in Mo 4, 67-72 and declared that these six motets were "candidates," i.e. for English origin."5 Of the last five motets of Mo 4, Nos. 68-70 are certainly copies or adaptations57of English originals; Nos. 72 and, perhaps, 71 may well be. The other pieces discussed by Handschin are more problematic; especially startling is their scattered appearance in Mo. Handschin claimed that, just as the fourth fascicle seems to end with a group of English pieces, it also begins with such a group, and he adduced as proof Nos. 51 and 53.58 However, no English concordance exists for No. 5 ,59 while the international dissemination of No. 53 (Ave gloriosa mater) is notorious. Moreover, there is the disconcerting intervention
is often no more than barely shifted phrase parallelism. 51Cf. Ludwig, Repertorium . . . , pp. 45 f; Kenneth J. Levy, "New Material on the Early Motet in England," this JOURNAL IV (1951), p. 229, n. 30. 52 In the version of WF No. 95 (cf. p. 286 below). 53Repertorium ... , p. 397. 54Cf. Handschin, "The Summer Canon ... II" (1951), p. 77, where no mention is made of the English concordance of Mo 4,67. 55Ibid. 56 Ibid. He implicitly criticized her, though, for not being specific. The pieces are discussed in detail in chapter II C of the writer's dissertation ("Medieval English Polyphony and Its Significance for the Continent," Columbia University, 1963). 57Cf. p. 286 below. 58 Handschin, "The Summer Canon .. ." (i95), p. 78. 59 WF No. 65, of which one voice is missing, sets the text of the Triplum (and of the Motetus?) of Mo 4,51, but the composition, though probably influenced by the Continental motet, is unquestionably a different piece (cf. Handschin, ibid., pp. 72f).
50 Which
275, 300)
272
JOURNAL
OF THE AMERICAN
of No. 52, which Handschin could not include in this "group." Finally, there is the curious case of Mo 4,57, which is stylistically and structurally related to Mo 4,58; earlier concordances of both pieces (with different Tripla) appear in the same order in MS Cambridge, Trinity Coll., 0.2.1. "Yet," said Handschin, "there are two circumstances which do not seem compatible with English origin: this motet stands in F [as does No. 52] . . . and there are indications that the text of the M. is by a Parisian author .. ."60 Thus, the fact that all these motets (i.e. Nos. 51, 53, 58, 62, 65, 275, 285, 300) have "peripheral" aspects does not necessarily guarantee their Englishness. Therefore, to start with the assumption that they are not English would at least eliminate the embarrassment that of two contiguous and related motets one is designated an English suspect, while the other must be exempted solely because of its appearance in a Notre-Dame manuscript.61 If the contents of the chief non-French sources containing concordances of motets in the fourth and seventh fascicles of Mo are taken into account, a different picture begins to emerge. Table I lists the motets of MS Da with concordances, while Table II lists those contained in two segments of MS Hu62 with their concordances, which in both tables may involve two or three voices.
eoIbid., p. 81. 16 Handschin did not mention that Tenor and Motetus of Mo 4,65 also appear in Ws. 62For the various sigla, see Friedrich Gennrich, Bibliographie der iltesten und lateinischen Motetten, (SunmmaMusica Medii Aevi, Vol. II) franzd'sischen Darmstadt,
1957.
PERIPHERAL
POLYPHONY
OF THE I3TH
CENTURY
273
TABLE I
Da6'
2 3 4
Mo. 4 &7
52 33065 6o
Hu
104 137
123
Other non-French MSS64

Lyell; Erf LoD Westminster 33327;
Other French MSS

F; W2; Bes; Ca; ArsA; Ch64" ArsA
ArsC; Paris, B.N.,

Lat. 11411
5 6 7
8
59
56
124 125
W2; Cl; Mo; PsAr (different texts) Mo;Bes; Tu; V (different texts) W2; Cl; Mo (different texts)
MiiB; Bes; ArsB; ArsA;
9
I0
Ca; Bol. W2;Mo; Cl; Tu; LoC; Boul (different texts)

Mo; V
12(17)
13(I8)
II(I6)
Io6 53
IoI 142 51 LoD Bes; Fauv.
Lyell; LoHa
This piece (Ave gloriosamater) is found, in various guises, in a great many MSS
21(14) 22(15)
63The numbers in parentheses refer to the list in Die Wimpfener Fragmente (Summa Musicae Medii Aevi, vol. V), Friedrich Gennrich, ed. (Darmstadt, 1958), pp. ioff. Nos. I and 14-19 (19-22, x8, 19) are conductus; No. 2o (13) is an unidentified fragment (Ludwig, "Die Quellen der Motetten filtesten Stils," Archiv fiir Musikwissenschaft V (1923), p. 203). All but Da No. ix (16) are also contained in Ba, whose contents are alphabetically arranged. 64As to MS Oxford, B.L., Lyell 72, cf. Gilbert Reaney, "Some Little-Known Sources . . . ," Musica Disciplina XV (1961), pp. 15-18;it is an Italian codex, erroneously discussedas an English source by Apfel in a number of his publications.Regarding MS Westminster Abbey 33327, see Dittmer, ed., Worcester 68, Westminster Abbey 33327 .. . , in Institute of Mediaeval Music. Publications of Mediaeval Musical Manuscripts, No. 5, Brooklyn, 1959; its contents are discussed--with emendations of Dittmer's edition--in this writer's dissertation, pp. 251-262. Concerning MS Paris, B.N., Lat. 11411, see n. 16 above. See Jacques Chailley, "Fragments d'un nouveau manuscrit d'Ars Antiqua a 464 Chalons sur Marne," in In Memoriam Jacques Handschin (Strasbourg, 1962), pp. 140-150o. 65 Concordance of Mo 7,282, but with a different Triplum.
274
JOURNAL
OF THE AMERICAN
MUSICOLOGICAL
SOCIETY
TABLE II
Hu66
Io
102
Da
13(18)
Mo. 4 &7
53
Other non-French MSS

Lyell; LoHa
Other French MSS

(See Da No. 13(18) in Table I)
103 104 105 io6 107 io8 120

121 122 123
2 11(16)
52
Hu (No. 137); Lyell; Erf
F; W2; Bes; Ca; ArsA; Ch
58
268 284
285
Lyell; Cambridge,
Trinity Coll. o.2.1 MGiC ArsC; MIC Hu (No. 143) Westminster 33327;
ArsB; MEB; CTr; LoC; Boul

PsAr; Bes
W2
60o
ArsC; Paris, B.N.,

Lat. 11411
124 125 126 127 128 129 129 130
7 8
56
283 62 LoD; Flor 122 WF (No. 81)
MiiB; Bes; ArsB; ArsA; Ca; Bol

PsAr; Bes; ArsA F; W2
W2; Cl; Mo
131
132 133 LoD; Trier
Wi (as conductus); F; Ma; W2 (twice)

275 Tu
134 135
136 137 138 Hu (No. 138) (See Hu No. 104 above) Hu (No. 136)
139 14o 141

142 143 21(14)
57
Cambridge,Trinity
Coll. 0.2.1
F;6? W2; Cl; LoB; CTr; Ch
Hu (No. 122)
66Nos. io2, 105, and 134 are conductus. The motets Nos. 129, 131, and 139-143 are d 2. All the motets except Nos. io6, 122, 129-133, 135-136, 138-139, 141, and 143 are also represented in Ba; of the exceptions only Nos. io6, 122, and 133 are not unica. 87 The designation as "zmeistimmig"(Apfel, Studien . . ., Vol. I, p. 25, n. 14) is in error; like all the motets in the eighth fascicle of F it is a conductus motet.
275
and Hu.
2.
The two tables prompt a number of observations: I. Most of the first half of the fourth fascicle of Mo is also contained in Da All the Mo motets from fascicle 4 that occur in Da and Hu also appearin
not contained in Ba. 4. Two motets that are respectively contained in the fourth (No. 58) and
Ba. (In addition, Mo 4,54 is in Ba, while only Mo 4,55 is an unicum.) 3. Of all the motets in Mo 7 that appear in the two tables only No. 275 is
seventh (No. 268) fascicles of Mo appear in contiguity in Hu (Nos. 10o7 and Io8). Similarly, Da Nos. 2, 3, and 4 = Mo 4, 52; 8, 330 (a later version of 7,282); and 4,60. Five motets, two of which are in Mo 4, while the remaining three are in Mo 7, appear in close proximity in Hu; Hu Nos. 120, 121, 123, 125, 127 = Mo 7,284; 7,285; 4,60; 4,56; 7,283.68
with different texts).
Notre-Dame source (W,):Da
5. Apart from the Perotinian Mo 4,62, the only F concordances are the last two motets of the eighth fascicle of that Notre-Dame manuscript, which, together with the one preceding them, are not only particularlywell-known pieces, but are, like the older troped organa, not based on Notre-Dame clausulae. (The first of these three motets is also contained in Hu (No. 89), Ba, the Trinity College MS, etc.) Only four other motets also appear in a
No. 9; Hu Nos.
I22
and 124, and Mo 4,59 (all
sources. "peripheral"70 It follows from these considerations that, apart from Mo 4,62 (Perotinus) and 4,59,71 the motets listed in the two tables are not Notre-Dame material. While they are stylistically peripheral (items 1-9 on p. 270 above),72 they are, with few exceptions, not found in English manuscripts; nor does the stylistic evidence argue convincingly for English provenance. On the other hand, a number of these motets had previously been considered German candidates by Handschin, i.e. Hu
No. (= Ba No. 37), Mo 4,60 (= Ba No. 30; Hu No. 123), Mo 7,284 142 (= Ba No. 98; Hu No. 120), and, significantly, Mo 7,285 (= Ba No. 5; Hu No. I2 1),73 one of his English suspects listed on p. 270 above. In
6. If MS Ba is considered as not purely French,69 Hu Nos. 103, io6, and 126, as well as Mo 4,60; 7,268; and 7,285 must be singled out as appearing only in
suggestionthat Ba might be a Germansource ("Die Rolle der 9 Handschin's ," Schweizerisches Jahrbuch MusikwissenschaftV ['93'1, 23). was three years later retractedby him as fi'r "too bold" ("Erfordensia," Actap. MusiNationen .. significant of German motets. 70 The term "peripheral" will henceforthbe used so as to exclude England. Hence, the only exceptionis the appearance of Mo 4,60in the Westminster MS. 71 Of all motets listedin the two tablesonly Mo 4,59derives from an independent clausula. 72 Handschin had noted this for Hu Nos. 132 and 135 ("TheSummer Canon..." Hu No. and cologica VI [1934], p. io8). But he maintained that Ba contained a share
68 In ArsA the concordances of Mo 4,52 and 4,56 are followed by those of Mo 7,283 and 7,282.
136 p. io6); especially its concordance Hu No. 138 are similar ('95I), to No. 135. 7sCf. Handschin, "Angelomontana... ," p. 87, n. 2, where a specifically German trait of the tenor of Mo 7,284 is mentioned (cf. also Ludwig, Repertorium ...,
276
this connection it must be added that of the pertinent motets in Mo 7, No. 282 is cited only by the Erfurt Anonymous, No. 285 only by the St. Emmeram Anonymous,74 and No. 283 also by the latter (as well as by Lambertus). Thus, the likelihood is that No. 285 is of German origin; to define the possible area of provenance as much as the sparse indications will permit, "German" here stands for most of the nonFrench area west of the Rhine.75 As regards the other two of Handschin's English candidates in Mo 7, the concordance situation of Mo 7,27578 certainly makes a similar geographic origin more plausible than English provenance.77 Mo 7,300 is unfortunately an unicum, but is very similar to Mo 7,275.78 The types of isoperiodicity found in these two motets79 and in Mo 7,283 therefore represent a peripheral phenomenon;80 contrary to Ludwig's and Handschin's conclusions,sl it has little to do with the genesis of isorhythm in French motets of the early fourteenth century.
One of Handschin's German but belongsnot to the seventh, suspects to the fourth fascicleof Mo; it is No. 6o, which existsin no French of the originof Bais left undecided), but on (if the problem manuscript the otherhandis cited only by Francoof Cologne, who may well have
hailed from the Rhineland.In this connection it must be recalled that
in Mo in two manymanuscripts bringmotetsin contiguitythat appear fascicles and have been but to have widely separated 7), (4 recognized a good manystylisticfeatures in common.82 Anothercircumstance to be
p. 445, and Rokseth, Polyphonies ... , Vol. IV, p. 190); Handschin, "Die Rolle ..., p. 2I; idem, "Erfordensia," pp. io8f., where Handschin considered English or German origin for Mo 7,285, but made the latter alternative more likely, since he pointed to similaritiesbetween Mo 7, 284 and 285. Further motets of possibly German origin (Handschin, "Erfordensia,"p. io8): Ba Nos. 31 and 85 (concordances in the "German" manuscriptsDa and LoD, respectively). 74His treatise is "presumably of South-German provenance" (Rudolf Stephan, "Theoretikerzitate,"Die Musikforschung VIII [1955], p. 85). 75 It is in this sense that Handschin's term "Rhenish" ("Angelomontana . . . ," p. 87, n. 2) must be understood.
76
wissenschaft XVI (1959), pp. I2ff. On the other hand, Handschin's suggestion that "motets of English provenance could be looked for" in the Las Huelgas codex ("The composition may have wandered from England to Spain" (ibid., p. 107) need not be considered any longer; cf. also p. 263 above. 78 Not only for Mo 4,5 , but also for Mo 7,275 is English origin contra-indicated by the existence of different settings of their texts in English manuscripts (cf. n. 59
(195i), 79Ibid., pp. 74f. so The isoperiodicity in English motets is much more sophisticated.
alische Beziehungen zwischen Deutschland und Spanien . . . ," Archiv fiir Musik-
77 That
See Hu No. 133 in Table II above.
Spain should be the country of origin is unlikely; cf. also Angles, "Musik-
Summer Canon . . ." (1951), p. Io5) and "that musical material and methods of
above and Handschin, "The Summer Canon ... 8slLudwig, Repertorium

(8951), p. Ioo. 82 Cf. p. 27o
pp. 75f).
p. 444; Handschin, "The Summer Canon ...
,"
above.
PERIPHERAL
POLYPHONY
OF THE 13TH CENTURY
277
considered here is the significant rarity of motets in Mo 4 derived from Notre-Dame clausulae. In fact, apart from No. 59, only Nos. 62 and 63 derive from Notre-Dame compositions,83 while, contrariwise, Mo 4,51-58 all have unusual or unknown tenors, or treat the known cantus firmi in a The conclusion becomes increasingly clear that free, variational manner.8s4 the "Rhenish" motets represent a development of a style that had its beginnings in Perotinian times85 and was, to all appearances, peripheral to the Notre-Dame school,86 though originally it also seems to have been practiced by at least some of its composers. Its considerable dissemination, however, again contributes to the impression that the Notre-Dame school initiated a rather esoteric and specialized style and repertoire87 that entered the "peripheral" sources to varying degrees. It is significant that there are considerable stylistic affinities between this peripheral style and the earlier phase of Perotinus;88 the subtilization of the rhythmic element, begun in the corpus of independent clausulae, weakened the cosmopolitan stylistic homogeneity that prevailed around I2oo. The intrusion of the vernacular was a French specialty, while elsewhereincluding, surely, large areas of France-Latin as well as some degree of tropic textual relationship between Tenor and the upper part(s) were generally retained.
83Mo 4,62 and 63 are based on discant sections of Notre-Dame organa, not on independent clausulae. Mo 4,61 derives from a St.-Victor melisma. The fact that No. 63 follows in Mo a textually troped composition by Perotinus allows the speculation that the source for No. 63 is also an except from a Perotinian organum (Alleluia: Pascha), though Anonymus IV does not list the composition as Perotinus's. The two motets not only stand next to each other in Mo, but are also strikingly similar. Moreover, concordances of Mo 4,63 likewise appear next to Perotinian compositions in Ma and W,. (Husmann considers the Alleluia: Pascha a closely related to the Alleluia: Nativitas; cf. his Die Drei- und Vierstimmigen Notrecounterpart in Publikationen
Dame-Organa,
XXIb f.)
84 As
ilterer Musik, I I. Jahrgang (Leipzig,
I940), pp.
peripheral graphically expressed in the relegation of three of the oldest and most famous of these motets to the end of the eighth fascicle of F. 87 Cf. n. 43 above. 88This is why peripheral and Perotinian pieces can often be found in close proximity, e.g. Hu Nos. 125-128. It is also interesting that the third fascicle of Mo contains not only three motets on unusual or unidentified cantus firmi (Nos. 40, 46, and 48), but also two motets on famous Perotinian (cf. Husmann, Die Drei- und Vierstimmigen Notre-Dame-Organa, p. XXII) tenors (Nos. 36 and 42) and one (No. 44) based on a discant section from the version of the Magnus Liber in F. No. 36 opens the fascicle with the most extensively known of all motets (Ludwig, Significantly, it contains no other Notre-Dame material. Finally, the contents of ArsA are particularly revealing: seven of its eight motets occur also in Mo: 3,4o;
Repertorium
. .
to the Tenors of Mo 4,52 and 57, see Rokseth, Polyphonies ... , Vol. IV, n. I; of pp. 178 and 204; of Mo 4,55, see ibid., p. 4,58, see ibid., p. 184; Mo -55, of Mo 4,53, see pp. 279ff below. 85 Ludwig referred to the "conductus style" of Mo 7,275 and 300 as indicating an "(unconscious?) resumption of the oldest motet form" (Repertorium. . . , p. 424). 86 Its nature is
p. 399), which goes back to Perotinian times (ibid., p. 404).
4,52; 4,56; 7,283; 7,282; 3,46; 3,38. There is no reason to go beyond the word "periph-
278
JOURNAL
OF THE AMERICAN
The chronology of Mo 4,51-58 is highly problematic.Ludwig singled out Nos. 51, 54, and 58 as relativelyyoung, even though two of them are cited in the Discantus positio vulgaris.89 But the fact that these motets are not in the style of what Ludwig called the oldest Latin motets does not therefore necessarilycompel the assumptionthat they are younger. Not only do Mo 4,52 and 57 "supplant the old tripla of these famous,old motets with new ones,"90 but the same applies to Mo 4,58.91Probably, this was also the case with Mo 4,5 I;92 in that event, the author of the Discantus positio vulgaris is likely to have known all these motets in earlierconductus-motetversions. Some of the motets cited by him may also have originated as two-voiced compositions.93Significantly, no theorist prior to Franco mentionsthe double motet. While the evidence seemsto indicatethat the cultivationof peripheral compositionalpracticeswas for some decadesafter I250 concentratedin area west of the Rhine, the English were parts of the German-speaking not so insular musically as to disregardtheir import. From the very beginning, isolated concordances of motets in continental manuscripts are to be found in English sources.Not only do Mo 4,57 and 58 appear as conductus motets in MS Cambridge, Trinity Coll. o.z.I, but Mo 4,60
is also found in MS Westminster Abbey 33327, and Mo 4,67 appears-
with a texted tenor-in MS London, B.M., The most perHarley 5958.94
eral" in the designation of its final, much-discussed unicum; cf. Handschin, "The SummerCanon..." ('951), pp. 82-88. 89Repertorium . .., pp. 391, 393, 394, 397. That the author of the Discantus positio vulgaris was close to the peripheral schools is clear from the motets he cites: Mo 4,58; 4,52; 3,37; 3,39; 4,5I; Da No. 9 (= Ba No. 76). 90 ..., p. 397. Ludwig, 91 Cf. its Repertorium concordance in MS Cambridge,Trinity Coll. o.z.i. 92Apfel's claim that "the use of excerpts from sequences etc. [sic] [as cantus firmi] was at first an English practice" ("Zur Entstehung des realen vierstimmigen Satzes in England," Archiv fiir Musikwissenschaft XVII p. 96) is unsubstantiated by the evidence. The relatively great variety of [i960], cantus-firmussources in the peripheralrepertory is related to the liturgical inclusiveness of the non-motet-like polyphony discussed pp. 26iff above; cf. also p. 267 above. There is thus no need to concur with Ludwig's assumptionthat Mo 3,40 and 46 (cf. n. 88 above) are younger than most of the motets in the third fascicle of Mo (Repertorium . . . 405). In ,p. spite of Handschin'sreservations ("The Summer Canon . . ." (1951), p. 73), Ludwig's opinion that WF No. 65 is younger than Mo 4,5i is strongly supported by the circumstances described; on the other hand, Ludwig left himself very little room, considering his estimate of the age of the Mo motet. 93For instance, Mo 3,37 and 3,40 occur as two-voiced motets in a number of sources, including Hu. The conductus-motet version of Mo 3,40 in MS Oxford, B.L., Rawlinson G. i8 is not listed by Gennrich (Bibliographie . . .); cf. Apfel, "tVbereinige Zusammenhfinge. . . ," p. 52. Mo 4,57 and 58 appear as conductus motets in MS Cambridge,Trinity Coll. o.z.x (the version of the former differs from that in F); the Trinity College manuscript also contains (No. 5) an otherwise unknown conductus motet whose first tenor pattern is the same as in Mo 3,40.At the same time, the motet possesses features reminiscent of the somewhat later Worcester repertoire. 94 Mo 4,67 is not an English composition; see p. 286 below.
PERIPHERAL
POLYPHONY
OF THE 13TH CENTURY
279
plexing case is that of Mo 4,53 (Ave gloriosa mater).9eThere is general agreementthat the conductus-likeversion in MS London, B.M., Harley 978 is one of the oldest. Now, it is intriguing that, apart from the Ave gloriosa mater, the remaining compositions in that manuscriptare all cantilenaeor related to that species;" for instance, Handschin described No. VII of the manuscriptas in "regularsequenceform (aa bb cc dd ee) yet, as to text contents, it is a spiritualsong in a wider sense (something like conductus or cantio) . . ."97 It is tempting to consider the Ave gloriosamateras a polyphonic cantilena,especiallyas the middlevoice has a freely repetitiveform.98 An assumption that it carriesa pre-existing tune is perfectly plausible,99 since W. uses it as the bottom voice of a conductus,100 while, though not a sequenceitself, it appearsamong a number of sequencesin anothermanuscript.Moreover,the poem Duce creature, which is given as an alternatetext in MS London, B.M., Harley 978, appearsin a collection of French sacred poems (in Anglo-Norman diaIn view of these circumstances, Ave gloriosamatermight well be lect.101 a cantilenathat startedout as a two-part composition,to which someone later added a Triplum. (There are a few other compositionsthat seem to have had a similarcareer.)102 The instrumental tenor addedat the end of the piece in the Harleianmanuscriptnot only rectifies a considerable numberof mistakesin the tenor of the score, but is also a reliableindication of the rhythm for the second half of the This apparently the earliest years of the signifies that the composition must date from piece.10 I3th century, when ligaturewriting, whose rhythmicmeaningwas rather
95Handschin has summarized the knownfacts as well as some surmises regarding thispiece ("TheSummer Canon.. ." [1949],pp. 6off). the use of the term Cantilenae for 98Regarding many of the Latinsongs of the medievalEnglishrepertoire, see Sanders, "Medieval EnglishPolyphony. . . ," Ch. IV A, pp. 265-274.
Handschin, "The Summer Canon..." (1949), p. 65. Handschin's analysis ("The Summer Canon . ." [I949], pp. 6if) is perhaps a bit more fussy than necessary; the form of the middle voice could be described as
97 98
nube caliginosa 99Cf. the settingsof Angelusad virginemand of Includimur (see "The Gymel ... ," Musicand LettersXVI (1935),p. 82, and Bukofzer, idem,"English ChurchMusic of the FifteenthCentury," in New OxfordHistory III, pp. I 17 I4100 The versionin Ws is hardlylikely to be the oldest,Ludwig'srepeatedassertions to the contrarynotwithstanding; "TheSummer cf. also Handschin, Canon..." ('949), pp. 61-65. 101 Cf. Ludwig, "Die Quellen der Motetten .. .," p. 276. 102 See the two in Bukofzer, "The Gymel ... " pp. 8I-82. piecesreprinted Additional indications of the rhythm are: (I) The first few longae of the 1's as per the instructions Tenor, which obviouslymustbe interpreted of the Discantus Englishbreve (see the beginning of pl. 2z in EarlyEnglishHarmony, vol. I).
sporadic attempts to indicate the first mode by means of alternation of longa and
positio vulgaris (cf. Sanders, "Duple Rhythm . .. ," pp. 282-284);
(2)
follows (each letter or letter combination stands for a phase of four measures, i.e. eight longae): a b a, cb, d c' e (a2) dc, da da' d' b', e f e' fc.
the scribe's
280
new, might well have been added as an explanatory novelty to syllabic pieces notated in score. Nevertheless, the tenor, in view of the manner in which its first few phrases are written in the score, may contain a cantus firmus after all, though a rather fanciful version of it. While the upper voices have mainly trochaic rhythms, the tenor, as in the motet in WF No. 8 ,104 proceeds in longae, which for purposes of text declamation were undoubtedly split into repeated notes in performance.105 As is often the case in English manuscripts, the tenor is unlabeled in the Harleian manuscript and was undoubtedly labeled Domino only subsequently (e.g. in Mo). The lack of tropic connection between the text of the Duplum (the original poem) and this cantus firmus has been argued away by Handschin, who pointed out that the composer probably had the identical "eius" from "flos filius eius" in mind.106The wisest approach is likely to be that taken by Huswho considers the original form of the Ave gloriosa mater to mann,?07 have been a monophonic sacred song, with the subsequently added tenor designed to consist primarily of motives taken from Domino (or, for that matter, eius). On the face of it, it seems impossible to say whether the piece is of English origin. However, not only do the tenors of a few motets in Mo, fasc. 4 that are certainly or probably English also treat their respective cantus firmi rather freely,s08 but an English Alleluia composition is preserved on two flyleaves of MS Cambridge, Jesus Coll., Q.B. i, in which the Duplum determined the rhythm and phase design of the tenor109 and even seems to have prompted pitch changes in the cantus firmus.110 The first fifteen measures of the respond and of the verse were equalized by the composer, and Tenor and Duplum (and, to a lesser extent, the Triplum) very nearly constitute a double versicle.
104 Dittmer's edition is misleading, inasmuch as he the identical text under both Duplum and Triplum. Actually, however, the prints manuscript supplies the text only once, not "under the two upper voices," as Handschin put it ("The Summer
prosula. 105 Cf. Finscher, "Motette," MGG IX, col. 639; a further case in which a new text is applied not only to the Duplum of a motet, but also to its cantus firmus is the concordance of Mo 3,40 in MS Oxford, B.L., Rawlinson G. I8, fol. Io6' (cf. Apfel,
"Ober einige Zusammenhainge ...," p. 52). 106 "The Summer Canon ..." (1949), p. 61. 107 "Bamberger Handschrift," MGG I, col. I205. 1os Nos. 68, 69, 70, and 72. These and related pieces are discussed in chapter II C of
Canon . . ." [19511, p. 69), but under the Tenor, which therefore turns out to be a
184; Usualis, p. 1265. The tenor of the other Alleluia setting partly preserved in the manuscript (Alleluia: Hodie Maria) also differs considerably from the liturgical melody.
No. 42, and a precursor of WF No. 28. 110Cf. MS W,, fol. I98' (18i'); Graduale Sarisburiense,Walter Frere, ed., pl. Liber
the writer's dissertation. 109 Both the notation and the text arrangement (including assonancesin the two texts) show this piece to be related to early Worcester compositions, such as WF
PERIPHERAL POLYPHONY OF THE 13TH CENTURY
28I
Ex.z
[A]
Sx
lau- dan- da
le - gi- o x
ne
mis - sus est

X
de
[A]l
le
-
ce - lis
ser- mo ga- bri-
e -
lis
ut
sa- lu - tet
vir -
gi-.nem
per
or
di- nem
vir
go pa
vet
x Kx
()
..lu
ia.
282
[A] - ve ma - ter x [A] -
ve - ri - ta - tis e ve omitted:.
dul -
cis
et
a-
me
x
na
ge -
ni- trix
se - re
I
na
pi xx
e-ta
te
ma - nans ve x
na
pe x
pe- ris -
ti
ma
-.
si - ne pe-
na
vir -
go
ma- ri
a.
- a. -ri x = cantus firmus (W I, IIth fasc., fol. 198' (18v1); Gr. Sar., pl. 184; L.U., p. 1265).
(x) = This noteappears only in W i.
PERIPHERAL POLYPHONY OF THE 13TH CENTURY
283
organal setting(WF No. 81). That, however,is evidentlyonly half the story. The case of the F versionof Latexsiliceis relatedto that of the Ave gloriosa mater,since the internal evidenceof the musicleaveslittle doubtthat here a cantus firmuswas addedto a pre-existing conductus"1 to producea motet."6
1x Eduard Graninger, Repertoire-Untersuchungen zum mehrstimmigen NotreDame Conductus, in Kdlner Beitrdge zur Musikforschung, vol. II (Regensburg, 1939), p. 1oo, n. 83. 112 Ibid., pp. 55 and 57; cf. also Ludwig, Repertorium . . . , pp. 35, 39, and 99.
It is of great significancethat anotherset of flyleaves from the same containsseven Notre-Dame conductus,two of them complete. manuscript One of the fragmentarily preservedconductus (Crucifigatomnes), which is in lai form, is demonstrablyan early piece, dating from 1188.111Its concordancein MS F follows the motet Latex silice, which in MS W, appearsas a conductus (without the cantus firmus), followed there by another of the conducti also preservedin the Jesus College manuscript (Leviter ex merito). Moreover,the latter appearsa second time in W1, preceded by two other conducti and the motet Serenavirginum,which, like Latex silice, is stripped of its cantus firmus."l2 It would appearthat the conductus versions of these as well as of four other motets in WI, which contains no motets, prove that in the first half of the thirteenth century the English did not favor the method of elaboratingmelismatic sections of responsorialchants."18 Their sense of liturgical propriety seemsto have preventedEnglishmusicians from acceptingthe Continental of in order to compose independent practice dismemberingplain songs clausulaeor motets. Two further motet texts that together with two of the six, appear in MS Oxford, B.L., Rawlinson C 510,114 a manuscript containingconductus texts, are additionalwitnessesto the English reluctance to accept the concept of the motet. The one early Latin motet to appearin an English source is there insertedin a liturgicallyappropriate
Gr6ninger (pp. 96-97 and ioo-ioi) lists only three of the seven Notre-Dame conducti as contained in the Jesus College manuscript. 113 Cf., in addition to the references cited in the preceding note, Ludwig, Reper115 In the Rawlinson manuscript it is designated as "Prosa de passione dominica" (Gr6ninger, op. cit., p. 99), while Dreves (Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi XXI, p. 17) includes it among a group labeled "cantiones Quadragesimales." Handschin has pointed out "that the lai-like close with tone repetition occurs several times" in
torium. ..., pp. 40-41, 103-104. 114 Gr6ninger, op. cit., p. 27.
Summer Canon .
piece "are added further strophes to be sung with the same music; thus it is, as far as form is concerned, quite like a Conductus" (ibid., p. 96). 116 The piece therefore demonstrates how conductus rhythm may have come to be "modalized,"i.e. changed from pre-modal isochronism with trochaic subdivision to the varied rhythms of the modal system, since it is the tenor, "which gives the key for a correct rhythmical interpretation of the upper voices" (Handschin, "The
.
its Motetus ("The Summer Canon . . ." [1951],
p. 98) and that at the end of the
version of the Ave gloriosa mater (cf. p. 279 above) seem to reflect a related aspect of the process.
. ," [I951],
p. 96). The curious notational features of the LoHa
284
The cantus firmus fits poorly,nearthe endit differs fromthe proper and usual andits lastthirteen notesmustbe repeated, unless the motet version, wasintended to endwith a tenorless melisma. The corresponding clausula is defective,17 whereas the threeuppervoicesof the motet soundtypiconductus. the give-and-take between cally like a Perotinian Apparently, Englandand Francensand the generalstylisticand technicalferment around1200or a littlelaterbrought aboutnot only the various combinationsandamalgamations referred to on p. 267above, but alsoa rapprochement and interpenetration of conductus and cantus-firmus polyphony, in the production of a number of hybrids."9 resulting motetsappear in English13th-century sources. Very few Continental in the TrinityCollegemanuMo 4,57 and58 andBaNo. 6 areincluded in MSLondon, Mo 4,67appears script; B.M.,Harley5958(withthe tenor
texted) and Mo 4,60 is preservedin MS WestminsterAbbey 33327.These
are all peripheral motet appears in an compositions. Only one Parisian

117Handschin, ibid., pp. 95-98; it is, at any rate, one case where the term "source clausula"seems inappropriate.
118s Cf.
Musicologiques I (1953). The birth of the Latin motet was accompanied by a marvellous tangle of manifestations.Thus, it is noteworthy that the text distribution in WF No. 9, one of the oldest chant settings of the WF, is similar to that in the two troped organa (with one added text for the two upper voices) in MS F (fols. 250 and 390'). The second may well be younger than the first; at any rate, it is not exact "an counterpart"to the Beatis nos adhibe (Ludwig, Repertorium .. , p. 1o5), since the latter contains no discant passages, but only organum purum. The discant section in Veni doctor previe represents the style in West England. See developed also Georg Reichert, "Wechselbeziehungen zwischen musikalischer und textlicher Struktur ... ,", in In Memoriam Jacques Handschin [Strasbourg, 1962], p. 154. The majority of the motets discussed by him are peripheral. A marginal and short-lived phenomenon was to lay the new (tropic) text under the lowest, i.e. cantus-firmus-bearing,voice, thus in effect fashioning a conductus with cantus firmus, e.g. the troped organa (one of the two Perotinian quadrupla troped) in MS Ma, fols. 5 and 5, the "motet" (troped clausula) in WF No. 81, two motets in MS LoA, one of them Serena virginum (tenors in ligatures--cf. Ludwig, Repertorium .. . , p. 242), the motets in Ch (see Chailley, "Fragments.. . ," p. 140), and the Ave gloriosa mater, the latter thus representing a mixture of techniques. It is interesting that the Dupla of the Perotinian compositions in Ma are also contained in Ws (fols. 168' ff), where they are preceded by two further texted Dupla, belonging to the other Perotinian organum quadruplum.These are in turn preceded by (fol. 164') the famous motet on the tenor Mors that may well be Perotinus and (fol. 165') by Duplum (with different text) and Tenor of one by of the two pieces (Serena virginum) that appear as four-voiced motets in the sixth fascicle of F, but as three-voiced conducti without cantus firmus in W1. Serena virginum turns up in W, (as similarly in W,) in the vicinity of a famous Perotinian composition. It might be added that Latex silice is another version of a clausulawithin an organum probably composed by Perotinus (see note 83 above), and that Serena virginum and Latex silice are the only Continental four-voiced motets of the thirteenth century, apart from those later specimens in Mo, fasc. 2 (with one concordance in W, and several in CI); the latter were "by no means always successful" (Ludwig, Repertorium ... , p. 390). Apart from the Ave gloriosa mater, which is probably of English origin, and from the two troped organa in F, all of the pieces
pp. 264f above. 119Cf. also Bukofzer, "Interrelationsbetween Conductus and Clausula,"Annales
PERIPHERAL
POLYPHONY
OF THE I3TH
CENTURY
285
Englishsource (as part of the organumWF No. 81), and this is a famous Perotinianwork in a style that has a good bit in common with peripheral practices. On the other hand, MS WestminsterAbbey 33327, which preserves a limitedrepertoirewith a relativelyContinental stylistic outlook,contains a concordancenot only of Mo 4,6o, but also of WF No. 70, whose Tenor, called "pes"in the Worcester version, is properly labeled in the Westminstermanuscript.WF No. 71, which is preservedon the verso of the folio containing WF No. 70, concordswith LoHa 7,45. LoHa 7,40, however, appearsin Mo (4,69).120 These interrelationships reflect a situation that accounts for the inclusion of a piece like WF No. 70 in the Westminstermanuscript(with a significantchange at the end of the one upper voice preserved there), of two evidently English motets in the Fauvel which also preservesMo 4,51 and Hu No. 124, and of a manuscript,121 numberof English motets at the end of Mo 4. The varied international contents of Mo 4 make one wonder how the scribe put the fascicle together. A tentative guess might be based on the curious fact that he left the Duplum of No. 6 incomplete. Perhapsthe codex from which he had been copying Nos. became 51-61 suddenly unavailable, which might well causinghim to turn to anothermanuscript, have begun with a famous Perotinian composition like Mo 4,62. Since the latter appearsin an English fragment and since, further, several of the last motets of the fourth fascicle are definitelyEnglish,it may be that Nos. 62-72 were copied from an Englishsource. Alternatively,the source was a peripheral some manuscript containing Englishpieces. This assumption could be supportedwith the cases of Mo 4,64, 65, and 67. While the first of these is the only Latin motet in the entire whose upper manuscript voices begin with an upbeat-a common in fairly procedure England-, it also exists as a Provengaldouble motet (Mo 5,169), whose Motetustext is a rondeau;since the form of the music (ab bb ab ab) is almostthat of a
in question and some of the conductus in the vicinity of which they generally appear are either by Perotinus (earlier period) or one of his colleagues (cf. Sanders, "Duple Rhythm .. .," n. 150). 120Cf. Dittmer, "An English Discantuum Volumen," Musica Disciplina VIII ('954), Pp. 44f. MS Cambridge, Corpus Christi Coll. 65 is later than the few extant concordances of the list in LoHa. 121 Fauvel Nos. 20 and 32. The former is apparently a reduced version of an originally English motet, since it is listed as one of the motets "cum duplici littera" in the index of LoHa (Ludwig, Repertorium . . . , p. 277), while the melismas in the upper voices of the latter (Besseler, "Studien zur Musik des Mittelalters," Archiv VIII [1926], p. 17o) are a familiar fiir Musikwvissenschaft idiosyncrasy of English style (Apfel, Studien . . . , Vol. I, p.56; idem, "Zur Entstehung . . . " p. 98); this is also true of its upbeat beginning (idem, "England und der Kontinent in der Musik des spiten Mittelalters,"Die Musikforschung XIV [19611, p. 283), considered "striking, as well as rare" by Schrade (Polyphonic Music of the Fourteenth Century, Comto Vol. mentary I [Monaco, 1956], p. 97).
286
JOURNAL
OF THE AMERICAN
rondeau, an assumptionthat the motet comes from England is risky.122 In Nos. 65 and 67 the two upper voices exhibit phraseparallelism, which is a feature of peripheralContinentalratherthan English motets.123 No. 65 occurs in two other French sources;in one of these, which preserves only five motets-Boul-, it precedes a peripheralmotet (Mo 3,40), while in the other (W,), which is alphabeticallyarranged,it standsout because it is not derived from a clausula.No. 67, the Motetus of which contains a number of slightly varied refrains,is also one of the motets listed in the index to the lost collection Bes, which is relatedto Ba;124in Bes it is surroundedby peripheral in an English motets.125Its appearance thereforebespeaksits importationinto Englandratherthan manuscript'26 English provenance.On balance,then, the second alternativeseemsmore likely, as regards the provenance of the source for the latter part of Mo 4. (It is, of course, possiblethat one peripheralmanuscriptservedas source for the entire fascicle.) Evidently, the scribe of Mo 4 tried more or less successfullyto adjust the more incompatibletraitsof the model(s) to French convention.Thus, his conversionof alternatethird mode to the regularvariety left tell-tale traces of trochaic rhythms not only in No. 72,127 but also in No. 65,128 which may therefore be considered as evidence of the persistence of alternatethird mode in peripheral (It is more compositionsand sources.129 than likely that not only the English Nos. 68 and 7o, but all of the last five motets were originally in alternate third mode.) In addition, the primus tenor of WF No. 95 (= Mo 4,68) was omitted by him or his predecessor,undoubtedly "becausetextless supporting voices were unp. 396). 123Handschin's assertion of the contrary ("The Summer Canon . . . ," [95x], p. 99) is not corroboratedby the evidence. 124 Cf. Ludwig, "Die Quellen . . ," p. 200; Besseler, "Studien . . ." (1926), p. 141. 125 Cf. P. Meyer, "Table d'un ancien recueil . . . ," Bulletin de la Socie'td des Anciens Textes FranpaisXXIV (1898), p. ioo. It precedes a motet cited by Odington, who in his treatise refers to three motets, all of them peripheral. 126 Cf. p. 271 above. 127 Cf. pp. 271f above. 128 Handschin, "The SummerCanon..." (195I), p. 80. 129 That the scribes of the old corpus of Mo were aware of the occurrence of this mode in such compositions is further indicated by the case of Mo 3,5o (cf. Sanders, "Duple Rhythm . . . ," n. 147); its concordance in the ninth fascicle of F (cf. Ludwig, Repertorium . .. , p. i16) opens the last group of compositions in that fascicle (ibid., pp. 121f), which, with one exception, are not based on known clausulae; one of them is included in a group of motets considered by Tischler to "deviate from the norm" ("English Traits . . .," pp. 46if). There is no reason to consider these pieces English. Evidently, both motet fascicles of F conclude with a few peripheral pieces (cf. n. 86 above, as regards the last motets of fascicle 8 of F), and any speculation regarding possible English origin of some of the motets in F (Handschin, "The Summer Canon . . ." [I951], pp. 91-98) should be abandoned.
122Ludwig considered Mo 4,64 a contrafactum of Mo 5,169 (Repertorium ...,
PERIPHERAL POLYPHONY
OF THE I3TH
CENTURY
287
known on the continent."'13 This may also have been the case with Mo The only other English compositionsin Mo are 8,339-341.They are also the only specimensof English Stimmtauschcompositionsto survive in a Continentalmanuscript. It is one techniqueof the thirteenthcentury that is decidedly English and not peripheral.131 Columbia University
130Apfel, "ZurEntstehung ... ," p. 86. 131The comparison of Da No. 21(14) (Brumas e mors) with the Summer canon (Giinter Birkner, "Zur Motette fiber 'Brumansest mors,'" Archiv fiir Musikwissenschaft X [19531, PP. 74f) is a strained and unconvincing attempt to relate disparate practices.
4,71 and 72, if the existence of English originals is assumed.

Peripheral Polyphony of The 13th Century

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Peripheral Polyphony of The 13th Century

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Peripheral Polyphony of the 13th Century Author(s): Ernest H. Sanders Source: Journal of the American Musicological Society, Vol.

PeripheralPolyphony of the I3th Century

friiher Mehrstimmigkeit . . . , Miinchner Verdffentlichungen zur Musikge-

pp. 228-229). Early English

PERIPHERAL POLYPHONY OF THE I3TH CENTURY

While the evidenceis not unassailable, the indications are strong

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Apfel, op. cit., p. 48.

pp. ioo and 105. See also n. 19 below.

44See Sanders, "Tonal Aspects .. pp. 141-157.

-73 ...," pp.

177. ."; also this writer's dissertation, Ch. II B,

SOCIETY JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL

PERIPHERAL POLYPHONY OF THE I3TH CENTURY

SOCIETY JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL

since a large part of it is based not only on disproved assumptionsmade by Dittmer

OF THE I 3TH CENTURY

Other non-French MSS64

Other French MSS

ArsC; Paris, B.N.,

Ca; Bol. W2;Mo; Cl; Tu; LoC; Boul (different texts)

Other non-French MSS

Other French MSS

103 104 105 io6 107 io8 120

Hu (No. 137); Lyell; Erf

F; W2; Bes; Ca; ArsA; Ch

ArsB; MEB; CTr; LoC; Boul

ArsC; Paris, B.N.,

124 125 126 127 128 129 129 130

MiiB; Bes; ArsB; ArsA; Ca; Bol

Wi (as conductus); F; Ma; W2 (twice)

139 14o 141

F;6? W2; Cl; LoB; CTr; Ch

PERIPHERAL POLYPHONY OF THE I3TH CENTURY

with different texts).

Notre-Dame source (W,):Da

and 124, and Mo 4,59 (all

SOCIETY JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL

See Hu No. 133 in Table II above.

above and Handschin, "The Summer Canon ... 8slLudwig, Repertorium

p. 444; Handschin, "The Summer Canon ...

OF THE 13TH CENTURY

ilterer Musik, I I. Jahrgang (Leipzig,

p. 399), which goes back to Perotinian times (ibid., p. 404).

with a texted tenor-in MS London, B.M., The most perHarley 5958.94

OF THE 13TH CENTURY

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

PERIPHERAL POLYPHONY OF THE 13TH CENTURY

mis - sus est

ser- mo ga- bri-

SOCIETY JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL

[A] - ve ma - ter x [A] -

(x) = This noteappears only in W i.

PERIPHERAL POLYPHONY OF THE 13TH CENTURY

its Motetus ("The Summer Canon . . ." [1951],

p. 98) and that at the end of the

p. 96). The curious notational features of the LoHa

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

are all peripheral motet appears in an compositions. Only one Parisian

4,71 and 72, if the existence of English originals is assumed.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen