Transformations in Music Theory and Musi

. 32 .
Transformations in music theory and music

treatises
EVAN A. MACCARTHY
Around the year 1430, Ugolino of Orvieto (ca. 1380–1452) reiterated an age-
old distinction between musicus and cantor. Advocating a middle road between a
pure practical method and a speculative one, he argues that “those who desire
to be trained a little in the background to such practice require a measure of
speculation.”1 In writings on music, this balance between musica practica and
musica speculativa underwent critical shifts in the fifteenth century, with an
enduring effect on the form and genre of the music theory treatise. The
evolution of the music treatise itself is our object of study here.
Matters of solmization, mode, mensural rhythm and notation, and coun-
terpoint received many theoretical treatments over the course of the fifteenth
century, often as part of ardent polemics. Irreconcilable debates arose over
defining consonances, establishing agreeable tuning systems, and determin-
ing the proper use of musica ficta; these debates fomented yet further invec-
tive.2 Simultaneously, theorists summarized and challenged texts both by
recent writers (Marchetto da Padova, fl. 1305–19 and Johannes de Muris, ca.
1290–after 1344) and the looming authorities of Boethius and Guido of
Arezzo, as theorists sought to reconcile ancient pedagogical texts with
1 Ugolino, Declaratio musicae disciplinae, bk. 3, prologue (ed. Seay, 2:60–61); adapted from the translation in
Gallo, Music of the Middle Ages II, 111–12. Whereas the theorist “understands and demonstrates mode, time
and prolation, alteration, imperfection and perfection, and the rest by means of speculation, the practical
musician only reports these things from his experience.” “Mediocriter affectare hanc musicam praticam
mensuratam est eius secundum viam praticam et non speculativam, quae ad theoricum spectat notitiam
habere. Ipse enim theoricus modum, tempus et prolationem, alterationem, imperfectionem et perfectio-
nem, et cetera, via speculationis intelligit et demonstrat quae praticus solum exercitio suo pronuntiat. Vel
mediocriter affectare est inter puram praticam, quae orationis est expers, et speculativa, quae omnis ratio
est particeps, huius mensuratae musicae notitiam via quadam media velle ratione comprehendere . . .
Indigent enim speculatione quadam qui in huiusmodi pratica plenius desiderant edoceri.” There are echoes
here of the fourteenth-century Speculum musicae of Jacobus: “Si quis autem musicam theoricam simul et
practicam possideret, perfectior esset musicus eo qui solum haberet alteram, dum tamen perfecte ambas
possideret, ut alteram alter possidet” (bk. 1, ch. 3.12).
2 Two excellent surveys that trace the treatment of the major concepts of music theory in the fifteenth
century are Herlinger, “Music Theory of the Fourteenth and Early Fifteenth Centuries,” and Blackburn,
“Music Theory and Musical Thinking.” On notation, see the contributions by Anne Stone and Emily
Zazulia in this volume, Ch. 30 and Ch. 31.
[602]
Downloaded from Cambridge Histories Online by IP 129.67.172.51 on Fri Jul 24 11:20:45 BST 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781139057813.043
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2015
Transformations in music theory and music treatises 603
current musical practice.3 The ideas of composition and the work concept
continued to crystallize during the fifteenth century.4 As musical styles and
genres evolved, so too did the manner in which theorists explained musical
phenomena.
These transformations of emphasis and new modes of thinking about
music and its place in the arts surface in fifteenth-century treatises. One can
trace significant changes in which topics were treated and how they were
divided and organized within a single treatise or between multiple texts by a
single author. Several subgenres of the music theory treatise emerged: we find
encyclopedic approaches as well as topic-by-topic organization, and summa-
ries of and commentaries on earlier theoretical traditions as well as cutting-
edge responses to modern musical practice. In some cases the collected
treatises of one theorist appear to serve as a pedagogical program for music
students (e.g., John Hothby and Johannes Tinctoris); in others, the exhaus-
tive treatment of all musical knowledge in one text gives the appearance of a
reference work (Ugolino’s Declaratio).
This essay explores how this spectrum of subgenres impacted the treatment
of a common set of music-theoretical subjects. To consider this question, I will
survey several Italian treatise subgenres, including the encyclopedic summa, the
notebook and compendium, the dialogue, the laus musicae, and the focused
treatment of notation, counterpoint, and mode. I will also consider how
authors demonstrated their understanding of earlier music theory while also
responding to contemporary musical practice. I conclude by pondering the
readership of these theoretical writings.
Genre and form

Most fifteenth-century music theorists approached their topic with strong
backgrounds in the Quadrivium, having trained as theologians, speculative
philosophers, physicians, or mathematicians. This circumstance produced
texts rooted in the Pythagorean and Boethian traditions, highlighting music’s
relationship with mathematics and tethering music to arithmetic, geometry,
and astronomy. In his Nova musica (first decade of the fifteenth century), for
instance, the singer and composer Johannes Ciconia strung together citations
and paraphrases of late antique and early medieval “auctores” in order to
summarize their teachings on consonances, the modes, intervals, species, and
proportions. The more innovative fourth and final book of the treatise does
3 See Mengozzi, The Renaissance Reform.

4 See Blackburn, “On Compositional Process,” 246–78 and the essays by Laurenz Lütteken and Anna
Maria Busse Berger in this volume, Ch. 3 and Ch. 8.
604 EVAN A. MACCARTHY
delve into connections with the arts of the Trivium, as well as the possibility of
classifying musical works according to how they use elements introduced in
the first three books. Indeed Stefano Mengozzi has recently suggested that
with its call for a renovatio in music education, Ciconia’s treatise is more
humanistically inclined than was previously thought, and as a result is more
directly concerned with practical matters than it might at first appear.5 Overall
the Nova musica reflects a trend toward an intermingling of ancient authorities
with practical and humanistic discussions.
Some writings on music fit into a larger program of quadrivial studies, with
a neat division between speculative and practical treatises. In the case of the
physician Prosdocimus de Beldemandis (d. 1428), his oeuvre constitutes a
complete study of music’s practice and nature. According to the mathema-
tician and Franciscan friar Luca Pacioli (1445–1517), Prosdocimus’s treatises
on subjects like music, astrology, and arithmetic earned him a place among
universal authorities such as Euclid and Boethius.6 Like Ciconia,
Prosdocimus drew upon the writings of earlier authorities – but he also
engaged with fourteenth-century theorists like Muris and Marchetto on
matters of mode, mensural notation, even improvised polyphony, and was
not always in agreement with them.7 While at times hinged to the writings of
Boethius, especially in his Brevis summula proportionum (1409) and his treatise
on the monochord (Parvus tractatulus de modo monacordum dividendi, 1412),
Prosdocimus infused speculative ideas with a keen awareness of musical
practice and contemporary repertory, such as his proposal for a seventeen-
note octave encompassing all the known chromatic pitches; his distilled
observations on contrapuntal practice found in the six rules in his
Contrapunctus (1412) that seem aimed at his academic audience at the
University of Padua; and his rejection of Marchetto’s division of the whole
tone into five equal parts in his Musica speculativa (1425).
Prosdocimus is one of several fifteenth-century theorists who we know
obtained university degrees or held university posts; others include Bartolomé
Ramos de Pareja (ca. 1440–after 1491), Nicolò Burzio (1453–1528), Franchino
Gaffurio (1451–1522), and Johannes Tinctoris (ca. 1435–1511).8 Indeed even as
a concern to address musical practice crept into theoretical writings, the aca-
demic roots of many theorists ensured the continued relevance of a quadrivial
foundation for musical thought.
5 Mengozzi, The Renaissance Reform, 117–30.

6 Prosdocimus, Plana musica, Musica speculativa, 5–6; Newsome, “Quadrivial Pursuits,” 167–236.
7 In his Musica speculativa, Prosdocimus sought to correct Marchetto’s Lucidarium after finding “evils, lies,
and mistakes concerning music” (ed. Herlinger, Preface, 158–59).
8 Moyer, “Music, Mathematics, and Aesthetics,” 119.
The Declaratio musicae disciplinae (ca. 1430–35) of the composer and theorist
Ugolino of Orvieto demonstrates a concerted attempt to convey both types of
musica in one systematic and encyclopedic text, divided into five books. The
first two books summarize the Guidonian curriculum: the first book treats
pitches, intervals, mutations, mode, and differentiae, while the second covers
note-against-note counterpoint (N.B., before any discussion of mensuration)
within the hexachordal system, including a passage on using musica ficta to
achieve a “delectabiliorem harmoniam” (“more delightful harmony”).9 The
third book moves to mensural matters, wherein Ugolino continues the com-
mentary tradition on the French Ars nova treatise Libellus cantus mensurabilis.10
The remaining two books turn from practical matters to a comprehensive,
speculative treatment of all musica. With significant reliance on an anony-
mous set of Questiones attributed to the circle of the Italian philosopher,
astrologer, and mathematician Biagio Pelacani, the fourth book offers a
mathematical consideration of proportions as the foundation of intervals.11
The concluding fifth book considers the nature of sound and the traditional
tripartite division of musica instrumentalis, musica humana, and musica mundana
through a Boethian lens. A handful of manuscripts of Ugolino’s Declaratio also
carry an accompanying Tractatus monochordi that relies heavily on
Prosdocimus’s monochord treatise.12 On the whole Ugolino’s treatise is
notable for the way it integrates writings by a host of ancient and recent
theorists into a single, encyclopedic tome.
This preference for a large curriculum treating both the nature and practice
of music continued throughout the century, but with a return to topic-specific
treatises. This trend can be observed in the writings of John Hothby, an
English theorist, composer, and Carmelite monk based in Lucca for much of
his career. Well known as a teacher, Hothby covered the major subjects of
counterpoint, mensuration, proportions, and plainchant theory. Many of his
writings survive in manuscript copies of what appear to be circulated lecture
notes, in either Latin or Italian and in various states of completeness and
quality. (This circumstance has led to some questions of attribution.)
Considering all of these writings together reveals a systematic, if at times
confusing, approach to both speculative and practical music, including both
chant and polyphony.
Hothby’s intellectual ties to older theorists, namely Marchetto, Guido, and
Boethius, stimulated intense, personal debates with his contemporary Ramos.
One treatise resulting from this debate came in the form of a dialogue,
9 Ugolino, Declaratio musicae disciplinae, bk. 2, ch. 162 (ed. Seay, 1:229).
10 On Muris, see the essay by Anne Stone in this volume, Ch. 30.
11 Panti, “Una fonte della Declaratio musicae disciplinae.” 12 See Declaratio, ed. Seay, 3:227–53.
Hothby’s Dialogus in arte musica, a relatively rare subgenre up until this point.13
Precedents for this are Pseudo-Odo’s Dialogus de musica (early eleventh cen-
tury), a text probably taught by Hothby, and Georgius Anselmi’s De musica of
1434. In the latter, Anselmi presents three dialogues between himself and
Pietro dei Rossi of Parma, set at the Bagni di Lucca over three days in
September 1433, that treat both celestial and human harmony with a level of
detail not seen since ancient times (e.g., Macrobius and Martianus Capella).14
The dialogue’s conversational, accessible tone enabled Anselmi to propose
reforms to the Boethian model without the vitriol of other theorists’
ad hominem attacks.
Traditionally minded theorists like Hothby responded to such calls for
reform, reinforcing the defenses of Boethius, Pythagoras, and Guido.
Johannes Gallicus (ca. 1415–73) is a unique case. Employing humanistic
methods developed by contemporary scholars, he maintained the primacy
of Boethius’s De institutione musica as a textbook for learning music, having
learned himself from the humanist educator Vittorino da Feltre with
Boethius as his guide. Johannes’s Ritus canendi (ca. 1458–64) is divided into
two parts: first, a survey of Greek ratios, tetrachords, and the monochord;
second, a treatment of notation, intervals, and modes of chant theory.
Another important defender of earlier theoretical systems was Nicolò
Burzio, whose Musices opusculum (also entitled Florum libellus) was printed in
Bologna in 1487. Citing classical authorities like Pliny, Cicero, Martial,
and Valerius Maximus, he combated Ramos (attacked here as “worthless,”
“arrogant,” and “impudent”) and Ramos’s student Giovanni Spataro with
apologetic defenses of Boethius (“the monarch of musicians”), Pythagoras,
and the established practices of Guidonian solmization and hexachordal
mutation. This precipitated a vituperative response from Spataro in 1491,
the Honesta defensio, aimed directly at Burzio, cataloging what Spataro
considered to be numerous errors.
Tinctoris
Many sixteenth-century musicians engaged with Ramos’s theories, so much
so that a case could be made that he was the most influential theorist of his
time. Still, this distinction must ultimately go to the Brabantine singer,
composer, theorist, and teacher Johannes Tinctoris.15 Both theorists
13 In Tres tractatuli, 61–76; trans. Seay in “The Dialogus Johannis Ottobi.”

14 Tomlinson, Music in Renaissance Magic, 74–77. It is worth noting that this text only survives in a
manuscript owned and annotated by Gaffurio.
15 On Tinctoris, see also James Hankins’s essay in this volume, Ch. 13.
contributed to an increased reliance on the judgment of the ear, furthering

the tug of musica speculativa into a more practical realm. But it was Tinctoris
who, despite his rootedness in earlier theoretical traditions, promoted an
empirical approach to music theory, composition, and performance that
changed the face of music theory.
Tinctoris certainly participated in a widespread fifteenth-century tradition
of prescriptive responses to current musical practice. But he also broke new
ground by regularly citing contemporary composers and critically analyzing
their works. To do this, he had to search through and closely examine works
by various composers (“diversorum compositorum opera perscrutans”) in
order to render critical judgments. According to his own testimony, some of
these critical observations earned him rather severe rebuttals.16 Tinctoris’s
comments as well as those of other fifteenth-century writers have received
much scholarly attention; these valuable remarks both offer evidence of the
relative reception of different composers and shed light on changes in musical
style and practice. At times Tinctoris’s meaning is opaque. His discussion of
res facta and cantare super librum, for instance, hints at contemporary practice
but is frustratingly short.17 Further insight on such issues can be gleaned
from the counterpoint and mensuration treatises. These, together with short
treatises on other notational issues, modernized earlier theoretical traditions
(by such writers as Marchetto) by inserting polyphonic examples from
the contemporary repertory, creating specially composed didactic examples,
and citing the titles of works that the reader might have been expected
to know or possess.
In Tinctoris’s writings we can begin to observe moments of interaction
between theorists and leading composers. These can alert us to an active
discourse, as in Tinctoris’s dedication, in 1476, of his treatise on the modes
to Johannes Ockeghem and Antoine Busnoys, asking for their approval or
rejection.18 This same treatise features a model conversation between theorist
and listener in which Tinctoris inserts a brief dialogue that employs direct
speech between himself and a fictive inquirer to demonstrate how to accurately
describe a modally complex song, in this case the treatise’s sole mention of a
polyphonic example: Du Fay’s Le serviteur.19
16 Tinctoris, Tractatus de punctis, Prologue (earlymusictheory.org/Tinctoris/texts/depunctis); Tinctoris,

Liber de natura et proprietate tonorum, Prologue, in Opera theoretica, ed. Seay, 1:65–67.
17 Bk. 2, ch. 20. A summary of this debate, with bibliography, is found in Judd, Musical Theory in the
Renaissance, xviii–xix. See also the essays in this volume by Anna Maria Busse Berger (Ch. 8) and Philippe
Canguilhem (Ch. 9).
18 Tinctoris, Liber de natura et proprietate tonorum, prologue (Seay, 1:65). On this interaction, see
Blackburn, “Did Ockeghem Listen to Tinctoris?” Tinctoris ends by requesting their criticism of his own
works – whether musical or theoretical is unclear.
19 Tinctoris, Liber de natura et proprietate tonorum, ch. 24 (Seay, 1:85–86).
Tinctoris can also be credited with helping advance new subgenres in music
theory treatises. His Terminorum musicae diffinitorium, for instance, composed
amid a new interest in lexicographic texts, was one of the first dictionaries of
musical terms, written in the 1470s and later printed in the early 1490s in
Treviso.20 For all of its usefulness, the Terminorum offers exasperatingly brief
definitions of musical concepts for the layman, here Tinctoris’s dedicatee
Beatrice d’Aragona. He also admits his passion for fields other than music, for
“achieving knowledge in various subjects, not being satisfied with a single art.”21
Texts aimed at enumerating the power and effects of music, or more
generally heaping upon it words of praise, flourished in the fifteenth cen-
tury.22 Again, Tinctoris played an important role in this development, as can
be seen in his Complexus effectuum musices (Treatise on the Effects of Music).
An early version appeared in the early 1460s, before his journey to Italy; a
revised and shortened version, naming just twenty of the many effects of
music, circulated after about 1475.23 In his dedication to Beatrice d’Aragona,
Tinctoris admits that creating such a compilation is “beyond the ability of a
cantor” since it draws on theology, philosophy, and poetry; with this state-
ment he seems to signal that, even though he was also a singer and composer,
he wishes to be considered a musicus, a title he gives himself in his sole
surviving letter written almost twenty years later.24 A much larger project
Tinctoris set for himself but ultimately never completed was his De inventione
et usu musicae (On the Invention and Use of Music), which sought to trace the
origins and history of music from mythological legends up to his day. From
surviving manuscript and print fragments, we encounter Tinctoris remarking
on instrumental music and praising modern-day musicians including
Ockeghem and Pietrobono in an informal tone that gives the impression he
was trying to reach a wider audience.25
Musica theorica versus musica practica

Two theorists from the second half of the fifteenth century distinguished
between musica theorica and musica practica with unprecedented clarity:
20 Tinctoris, Diffinitorium musice, ed. Panti. See also MacCarthy, “Tinctoris and the Neapolitan Eruditi,”
57–60.
21 Tinctoris, Diffinitorium musice, 4.
22 Holford-Strevens, “The Laudes musicae in Renaissance Music Treatises.”
23 See Woodley, “The Printing and Scope.” For two other humanist treatises on music, see Tractatus de
duplici ritu cantus of Gilles Carlier and Contra vituperatorem musicae of Carlo Valgulio, trans. and ed.
Cullington. On the latter, see the essay by James Hankins in this volume, Ch. 13.
24 See Woodley, “Tinctoris’s Italian Translation,” 194–202 and 236–44.
25 Allan Atlas describes Tinctoris here as “journalistic” (Renaissance Music, 234). See also MacCarthy,
“Tinctoris and the Neapolitan Eruditi,” 55–57.
Ramos and Gaffurio. In stark contrast to Tinctoris and Hothby, Ramos needed
only one book to convey his theoretical precepts. His Musica practica of 1482
treats the theory of music as a performing art. Dividing his treatise into three
parts, covering pitch, chant, and mensuration, Ramos provoked contemporary
theorists with challenges to the authorities of Boethius and Guido. The first
part of Musica practica is ironically dedicated to musica theorica, but is grounded
in empirical conclusions in place of a reliance on older authorities. Ramos
usually reserves citations for points of disagreement.
On the matter of tuning, Ramos challenges the speculative monochord
proposed by Boethius, whose divisions are grounded in precise numerical
measurements, complaining that “although this division is useful and pleas-
ant to theorists, to singers it is laborious and difficult to understand.”26 In
response to the increased use of imperfect consonances in fifteenth-century
music, Ramos proposes a system of just intonation, favoring the purity of
thirds and sixths in his division of the monochord (e.g., replacing the
Boethian ratios of 81:64 and 32:27 for the major and minor third respectively
with pure thirds of 5:4 and 6:5). Ramos also attacks Guido’s hexachordal
solmization system (ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la) as impractical, offering instead an
eight-step sequence of syllables (psal-li-tur per vo-ces is-tas) that begins on C
below gamma-ut and permits mutation on notes an octave apart by replacing
any syllable with psal. These attacks provoked fiery responses from Hothby,
Burzio, and Gaffurio, which in turn inspired a defense from Giovanni
Spataro, who had studied with Ramos in Bologna.27 These debates persisted
for the next four decades, laying the ground for many conceptual discussions
in the sixteenth century.
The theorist, choirmaster, and composer Gaffurio stands as one of the
first theorists to achieve an earnest integration of the campaign of human-
istic endeavors that had already begun to blossom early in the fifteenth
century in other liberal and mechanical arts.28 During an exciting period in
which scholars circulated rediscovered or newly translated ancient texts,
Gaffurio sought to elevate music theory to the position of the other arts
like sculpture, architecture, and poetry, which had more direct links to
their antique heritage, by collecting, copying, and commissioning trans-
lations of Greek music theory and attempting to explicate their contents.
He composed a range of treatises, with the titles Theoricum opus musice
discipline (Theory of the Discipline of Music, 1480), Theorica musice
26 Strunk, Source Readings, 201.

27 These debates are considered in detail in Mengozzi, The Renaissance Reform.
28 Adam of Fulda’s Musica (1490) is also strongly influenced by his humanistic training.
(The Theory of Music, 1492), and De harmonia musicorum instrumentorum

opus (On the Harmony of Musical Elements, 1518), following in the
tradition of earlier theorists by treating intervals, proportions, consonan-
ces, and modes while also enlarging discussions of celestial, earthly, and
human harmonies. Direct and indirect quotations in Gaffurio’s writings
confirm that he had read Ugolino, Prosdocimus, and Tinctoris, among
others, even though he treated many topics very differently, especially
dissonance treatment and proportions. These citations of contem-
porary theorists contrast strikingly with the Liber musices of Florentius
de Faxolis, written probably in the late 1480s, which only cites ancient
Greek and Roman authors, as well as early medieval theorists.29
Gaffurio’s greatest renown came from the Practica musicae (The Practice
of Music, 1496; repr. 1497, 1502, 1512), with its dozens of polyphonic
examples. Although Gaffurio’s attempts to reconcile the ancient Greek
modes with the more modern system did not pan out, his efforts spurred
succeeding generations to pursue study of ancient Greek music, as seen in
the writings of Henricus Glareanus, Nicola Vicentino, Gioseffo Zarlino,
and Vincenzo Galilei.
Reading audiences
The corpus of fifteenth-century music theory treatises prompts questions
about their intent, function, and readership. Why were these treatises
written? Who was the intended audience? How widely did they circulate?
Even if hundreds of manuscripts were copied, how many treatises were
actually read? In a period of evolving structures of music education and
training, there is good reason to consider the audiences for these impor-
tant texts.
Beyond named dedicatees, it is hard to determine how widely treatises
circulated. As is often the case, dedications signify gratitude for patronage or
other support in completing or publishing the text. Tinctoris dedicated
several treatises to two members of the Aragonese court in Naples, King
Ferrante and his daughter Beatrice. Gaffurio dedicated his Theoricum opus
musice discipline to Giovanni Arcimboldi, the Cardinal of Novara (1480), his
Theorica musice and Practica musicae to Lodovico Maria Sforza, the first as
Duke of Bari (1492), the second as Duke of Milan (1496), and his De harmonia
musicorum instrumentorum opus to Jean Grolier, who finally supported the
text’s publication in 1518.
29 Florentius de Faxolis, Book on Music.
Several treatises are dedicated to fellow musicians, clerics, or scholars, often

local to the author. Ciconia dedicated his De proportionibus (1411) to the singer
Giovanni Gasparo da Castelgomberto. Prosdocimus dedicated several books to
colleagues and fellow scholars: his treatise on the monochord to a colleague at
Padua, Nicholas de Collo of Conegliano; his Musica speculativa to Lucas de
Lendenaria, Ciconia’s successor at the cathedral of Padua; and his Plana musica
to Antonio de Pontevico from Brixen. Tinctoris offered treatises to singers
( Johannes de Lotinis, Jacob Frontin, Guglielmo Guignandi, and Martin
Hanard) as well as composers (Ockeghem and Busnoys). Gaffurio extended
his Extractus parvus musicae to the priest Filippo Tresseni, while Adam of Fulda
presented his Musica to the lawyer Joachim Lüntaler.
Beyond dedications to individuals, it is clear that many treatises were
written for other theorists, in dialogue with existing scholarship. Whether
in response to earlier writings or to contemporary ones, theorists made use of
direct and indirect citation, wholesale borrowing, commentary, and line-by-
line critical invective. Such engagement denotes a circle of readership com-
prised of well-informed and invested scholars.
For all of this, there is considerable evidence that a much wider audience
read and studied music theory in the fifteenth century. We find references to
copying, collecting, and reading manuscripts of treatises in surviving corre-
spondence and archival documents; citations of and reference to ancient and
modern music theory by poets and scholars in non-musical texts; library
inventories at courts, cathedrals, and monasteries holding music theory
volumes; the maintenance and establishment of new choir schools across
Europe; the hiring of music teachers and dancing masters; and the circulation
of lecture notes and the compilation of commonplace books and zibaldone
(notebooks), as encouraged in humanistic pedagogical treatises. Such trea-
tises probably contributed to the production of miscellanea of music theory
containing summaries, redactions, and compendia of older and contempo-
rary theoretical writings. Perhaps the ultimate aim of all of this scholarship
and study was the greatest skill developed by Tinctoris’s student Beatrice
d’Aragona: her ability to “proffer the most correct judgment of all types of
musicians.”30
Bibliography
Bibliographic information for editions and translations of fifteenth-century
theoretical writings can be found in David Russell Williams and C. Matthew
30 Tinctoris, Liber de natura et proprietate tonorum, ch. 1 (Seay, 1:69).
Balensuela, Music Theory from Boethius to Zarlino: A Bibliography and Guide,

Hillsdale, NY, Pendragon Press, 2007. Online editions of many treatises may
also be found at Thesaurus Musicarum Latinarum, www.chmtl.indiana.edu/tml.
A new digital edition of the complete theoretical writings of Johannes
Tinctoris is appearing online, under the direction of Ronald Woodley, at
earlymusictheory.org.
Adam of Fulda, Musica, in Scriptores ecclesiastici de musica sacra, ed. Martin Gerbert, 3
vols., Saint-Blaise, 1784; repr. Milan, 1931, 3:329–81
Anselmi, Georgius, De musica, ed. Giuseppe Massera, Florence, 1961
Atlas, Allan, Renaissance Music: Music in Western Europe 1400–1600, New York, 1998
Bernhard, Michael, ed., Quellen und Studien zur Musiktheorie des Mittelalters 3,
Veröffentlichungen der Musikhistorischen Kommission 15, Munich, 2001
Blackburn, Bonnie J., “Did Ockeghem Listen to Tinctoris?,” in Johannes Ockeghem: Actes
du XLe colloque international d’études humanistes, Tours, 3–8 février 1997, ed.
Philippe Vendrix, Paris, 1998, 597–640
“Music Theory and Musical Thinking after 1450,” in Music as Concept and Practice, ed.
Strohm and Blackburn, 301–45
“On Compositional Process in the Fifteenth Century,” JAMS 40 (1987), 210–84
Burzio, Nicolò, Florum libellus, ed. Giuseppe Massera, Florence, 1975; trans. Clement
A. Miller as Musices opusculum, MSD 37, Neuhausen, 1983
Carlier, Gilles, Tractatus de duplici ritu cantus ecclesiastici in divinis officiis, in “That liberal
and virtuous art”, trans. and ed. Cullington, 31–57
Ciconia, Johannes, Nova musica and De proportionibus, ed. and trans. Oliver B. Ellsworth,
Lincoln, NE and London, 1993
Cullington, J. Donald, trans. and ed., “That liberal and virtuous art”: Three Humanist
Treatises on Music, Newtownabbey, 2001
Faxolis, Florentius de, Book on Music, ed. and trans. Bonnie J. Blackburn and
Leofranc Holford-Strevens, I Tatti Renaissance Library 43, Cambridge, MA, 2010
Gaffurio, Franchino, De harmonia musicorum instrumentorum opus, trans. Clement
A. Miller, MSD 33, n.p., 1977
Extractus parvus musicae, ed. F. Alberto Gallo, Bologna, 1969
Practica musicae, trans. Clement A. Miller, MSD 20, n.p., 1968
Theorica musice, trans. Walter Kurt Kreyszig, ed. Claude V. Palisca, New Haven,
1993
Gallicus, Johannes, Ritus canendi, ed. Albert Seay, Colorado Springs, CO, 1981
Gallo, F. Alberto, Music of the Middle Ages II, trans. Karen Eales, Cambridge, 1985
Herlinger, Jan, “Music Theory of the Fourteenth and Early Fifteenth Centuries,” in
Music as Concept and Practice, ed. Strohm and Blackburn, 244–300
Holford-Strevens, Leofranc, “The Laudes musicae in Renaissance Music Treatises,”
in Essays on Renaissance Music in Honour of David Fallows: Bon Jour, Bon
Mois et Bonne Estrenne, ed. Fabrice Fitch and Jacobijn Kiel, Woodbridge, 2011,
338–48
Hothby, Johannes, La Calliopea legale, ed. and trans. Timothy L. McDonald, CSM
42, Neuhausen, 1997
De arte contrapuncti, ed. Gilbert Reaney, CSM 26, Neuhausen, 1977
Opera omnia de musica mensurabili, ed. Gilbert Reaney, CSM 31, Neuhausen, 1983
Opera omnia de proportionibus, ed. Gilbert Reaney, CSM 39, Neuhausen, 1997
Tres tractatuli contra Bartholomeum Ramum, ed. Albert Seay, CSM 10, Rome, 1964
Jacobus Leodiensis, Speculum musicae, ed. Roger Bragard, 7 vols., CSM 3, Rome,
1955–73
Judd, Cristle Collins, ed., Musical Theory in the Renaissance, Farnham, 2013
MacCarthy, Evan A., “Tinctoris and the Neapolitan Eruditi,” JAF 5 (2013), 41–67
Mengozzi, Stefano, The Renaissance Reform of Medieval Music Theory: Guido of Arezzo
between Myth and History, Cambridge, 2010
Moyer, Ann, “Music, Mathematics, and Aesthetics: The Case of the Visual Arts in the
Renaissance,” in Music and Mathematics in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, ed.
Philippe Vendrix, Turnhout, 2008, 111–46
Newsome, Daniel, “Quadrivial Pursuits: Case Studies in the Conceptual Foundation of
the Mathematical Arts in the Late Middle Ages,” Ph.D. diss., The City University of
New York, 2012
Panti, Cecilia, “Una fonte della Declaratio musicae disciplinae di Ugolino da Orvieto:
Quattro anonime ‘Questiones’ della tarda Scolastica,” Rivista italiana di musicologia,
24 (1989), 3–47
Prosdocimus de Beldemandis, Brevis summula proportionum quantum ad musicam pertinet
and Parvus tractatulus de modo monacordum dividendi, ed. and trans. Jan Herlinger,
Lincoln, NE and London, 1987
Contrapunctus, ed. and trans. Jan Herlinger, Lincoln, NE and London, 1984
Plana musica, Musica speculativa, ed. and trans. Jan Herlinger, Urbana and Chicago,
2008
Ramos de Pareja, Bartolomé, Musica practica, ed. Johannes Wolf, Leipzig, 1901; trans.
Clement A. Miller, MSD 44, Neuhausen, 1993
Seay, Albert, “The Dialogus Johannis Ottobi Anglici in arte musica,” JAMS 8 (1955),
86–100
Spataro, Giovanni, Honesta defensio in Nicolai Burtii parmensis opusculum, Bologna,
1491
Strohm, Reinhard, and Bonnie J. Blackburn, eds., Music as Concept and Practice in the Late
Middle Ages, The New Oxford History of Music 3/1, Oxford, 2001
Strunk, Oliver, Source Readings in Music History, New York, 1965
Tinctoris, Johannes, Complexus effectuum musices, in “That liberal and virtuous art,” trans.
and ed. J. Donald Cullington, 58–86
De inventione et usu musicae, excerpts ed. Jeffrey Palenik in “The Early Career of
Johannes Tinctoris: An Examination of the Music Theorist’s Northern Education
and Development,” Ph.D. diss, Duke University, 2008
Dictionary of Musical Terms (Terminorum Musicae Diffinitorium), ed. and trans.
Carl Parrish, New York and London, 1963
Diffinitorium musice, ed. Cecilia Panti, Florence, 2004
Opera theoretica, ed. Albert Seay, 2 vols. in 3, n.p., 1975–78
Tomlinson, Gary, Music in Renaissance Magic: Toward a Historiography of Others, Chicago,
1993
Ugolino of Orvieto, Declaratio musicae disciplinae, ed. Albert Seay, 3 vols., CSM 7, Rome,
1959–62
Valgulio, Carlo, Contra vituperatorem musicae, in “That liberal and virtuous art”, ed. and
trans. Cullington, 87–101
Woodley, Ronald, “The Printing and Scope of Tinctoris’s Fragmentary Treatise
De inventione et usu musice,” EMH 5 (1985), 239–68
“Tinctoris’s Italian Translation of the Golden Fleece Statutes: A Text and a (Possible)
Context,” EMH 8 (1988), 173–244

Transformations in Music Theory and Musi

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

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

Transformations in Music Theory and Musi

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

. 32 .

Transformations in music theory and music

Genre and form

3 See Mengozzi, The Renaissance Reform.

5 Mengozzi, The Renaissance Reform, 117–30.

13 In Tres tractatuli, 61–76; trans. Seay in “The Dialogus Johannis Ottobi.”

contributed to an increased reliance on the judgment of the ear, furthering

16 Tinctoris, Tractatus de punctis, Prologue (earlymusictheory.org/Tinctoris/texts/depunctis); Tinctoris,

Musica theorica versus musica practica

26 Strunk, Source Readings, 201.

(The Theory of Music, 1492), and De harmonia musicorum instrumentorum

29 Florentius de Faxolis, Book on Music.

Several treatises are dedicated to fellow musicians, clerics, or scholars, often

30 Tinctoris, Liber de natura et proprietate tonorum, ch. 1 (Seay, 1:69).

Balensuela, Music Theory from Boethius to Zarlino: A Bibliography and Guide,

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen