From Memory to Record- Musical Notations in Manuscripts From Exeter

8/17/2019 From Memory to Record- Musical Notations in Manuscripts From Exeter

1/17

Anglo-Saxon Englandhttp://journals.cambridge.org/ASE

Additional services for Anglo-Saxon England:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

From memory to record: musical notations in manuscripts fromExeter

Susan Rankin

Anglo-Saxon England / Volume 13 / December 1984, pp 97 - 112

DOI: 10.1017/S0263675100003537, Published online: 26 September 2008

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0263675100003537

How to cite this article:

Susan Rankin (1984). From memory to record: musical notations in manuscriptsfrom Exeter. Anglo-Saxon England, 13, pp 97-112 doi:10.1017/S0263675100003537

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ASE, IP address: 47.16.209.251 on 12 Apr 2016


2/17

From memory to record: musical notations in

manuscripts from Exeter

SUSAN RANKIN

When iElfric wrote that 'every mass-priest should have a mass-book and

epistle-book and song-book and reading-book and psalter and handbook and

penitential and kalendar',

1

there is every possibility that by 'song-book' he

was thinking of a book containing not just chant texts, but also their

melodies.

2

A type of musical notation recognized as Anglo-Saxon appears in

more than one hundred manuscript sources of the late tenth and the eleventh

centuries, many of which may be linked with major ecclesiastical centres such

as Worcester, Exeter, Sherborne, Canterbury, Durham and Winchester.

Whilst it is possible that knowledge of musical notation reached England via

northern France during the ninth century, it was apparently n ot until after the

mid-tenth century, when the Benedictine revival occasioned numerous

contacts between England and the continent, that music-writing became

established in Anglo-Saxon England.

3

Several Anglo-Saxon manuscripts of

the late tenth century have contemporary notation, and they show the use at

this period of two different neum atic systems. One system - closely related to

northern French notations, particularly those of Corbie — was to set the

pattern for the great majority of eleventh-century English notations;

4

the

1

'Mjesse-preost sceal habban msesse-boc and pistel-boc, and sang-boc and rid in g -b oc and

saltere and han dboc , and penitentialem and g erim ', D ie Hirtenbriefe JElfrks in altenglischer und

lateiniscber Fassung, ed. Bernhard Fehr; repr. with a Supplement to the Intro duc tion by Peter

Clemoes (Darmstadt, 1966), p. 126. Fehr's text is from Cambridge, Corpus Christi College

190.

2

In reference not to /Elfric's but to Leofric's list, Max Forster explains the term

sang boc

as

referring to a book of chants for the mass and offices; see 'The Donations of Leofric to

Exeter', The E xeter B ook of Old English Poetry, ed. R. W. Chamb ers, Max Forster and Robin

Flower (London, 1953), pp. 10—32, at 25, n. 80.

3

M. B. Parkes ('A Note on MS Vatican, Bibl. Apost., lat.

3363', Boethius,

ed. Margaret

Gibson (Oxford, 1981), pp . 425-7) reports the presence of neumes in Vatican, Bibliotheca

Apostolica, lat. 3363 (Loire region, s. ix) 'in ink which has the same colour and density as

that of the late ninth-century [Insular] glosses on those pages'. I have not yet been able to

consult this manu script, and canno t com men t either on the type of notation, or on the way

this might relate to that in later Anglo-Saxon sources.

4

The relation of Anglo-Saxon n otations to those of Corbie and information characteristics of

Anglo-Saxon notations are discussed in Susan Rankin, 'Neumatic Notations in Anglo-

Saxon England ' , Musicologie medie'vale. Notations—sequences, Acte s de la Table ro nd e de

97


3/17

Susan Rankin

other type, related to notations of Breton provenance, appears mainly

confined to sources originating in south-west England.

5

The breadth of

notational detail found in one of the so-called Winchester Tropers (Cam-

bridge, Corpus Christi College 473) indicates that the practice of notating

music was well established, at least at Winchester, by the year 1000.

During the second half of the eleventh century, in houses such as those at

Canterbury, Norman neume forms began to infiltrate and sometimes to

dominate Anglo-Saxon notations.

6

Some examples of the Anglo-Saxon and

Norman notations of this period betray attempts to infuse the essentially

adiastematic (that is, of a low pitch content) notation with more exact pitch

characteristics.

7

However, in some centres, such as Worcester, the old

adiastematic A nglo-Saxon neumes continued to be used right up to the end of

the eleventh century.

8

W ithin a period of 150 years or less, English musical practice changed from

one wholly dependent on oral transmission to one of mixed oral and written

transmission. But why, when oral transmission had sufficed for so long, did

people need or want to write melodies down? The earliest surviving musical

notations were written

c.

830 in northern France; it is entirely possible that

understanding of the potential of musical notation, and its manner of use,

changed radically over the century and a half which separates the earliest

continental from the earliest Anglo-Saxon examples. Furtherm ore, those

forces which first motivated the invention of musical notation may not have

sprung entirely from musical considerations. It is therefore unlikely that a

Paleographie musicale d'Orleans

—

La Source, a l'lnstitut de Recherche et d'Histoire des

Textes, 6-7 septembre 1982 (Paris, forthcoming).

5

Ibid, and M. Hu glo, 'Le Dom aine de la notation breton ne', Ada Musicologica 35 (1963),

5

4- 84 (repr. with the same title but w ith additional plates in the series Britannia Christiana 1

(Daoulas, 1981)).

6

See, e.g., Le Ha vre , Bibliotheque Municipale, 330, a missal written in the second half of the

eleven th century for the New M inster at Winchester (plate in

The Missal of

the

New M inster

Winchester,

ed. D . H. Tu rne r, Henry Bradshaw Soc. 93 (Lo ndon , 1962), frontispiece), and

D ur ha m , U niversity Library, Cosin v. v. 6, a gradua l written at Christ Church, C anterbury,

in the late eleventh century (plate in K. D. Hartzell, 'An Unknown English Benedictine

Gradual of the Eleventh Century', ASE 4 (1975), 131—44, pi . il ia ).

7

See Rankin, 'Neumatic Notations'.

8

E.g., a pontifical written at Winchester in the early eleventh century (now Cambridge,

Co rpu s C hristi College 146) has substantial additions m ade at Worcester, which may date

from any time u p to o r dur ing the episcopa te of Bishop Samson (1096—n 12); these

W orces ter additions have notation of the traditional Anglo-Saxon type. For a reproduction

of p. 18 of this manuscript, see Rankin, 'Neumatic Notations', pi. XX.

9

Th e na ture and evolution of the early practice of music-writing and the different purposes

for which notation was usedy>ww the outset are examined in Leo Treitler, 'Th e Early History

of Music Writing in the West', Jnl of the Amer. Musicological Soc. 35 (1982), 237-79, and

'Reading and Singing: on the Genesis of Occidental Music Writing',

Early M usic Hist.

4

(1984, forthcoming).

98


4/17

Musical notations in manuscripts from Exeter

study of Anglo-Saxon material alone could isolate the reasons why notation

was first invented. Nevertheless, evidence suggests that the extant sources do

represent something close to the earliest stage of music-writing in England.

The function of musical notation during this earliest period of its use in

England can only be understood in terms of the interaction of the oral and

written elements in the musical traditions.

10

I intend to examine this question of function by drawing all my evidence

and examples from the production of one centre, Exeter Cathedral. It can be

approached in two ways: first, by looking at the relationship between book

preparation and musical notation; and, secondly, by examining how the

notation works in its various contexts. That there was no over-night change

from purely oral to written transmission is well illustrated by the status

accorded to musical notation in Anglo-Saxon service-books of the tenth and

eleventh centuries; commonly, music was added where it had not been

allowed for by the text-scribe(s), and vice versa, not added where the text-scribe

had prepared his material in such a way that music might be included.

Something in the order of twenty-five extant books can be identified as

having been prepared and/or used at Exeter Cathedral during the third

quarter of the eleventh century.

11

Leofric, bishop of Exeter from 1050 until

his death in 1072, had been educated in Lo tharingia and was appo inted bishop

of Crediton and St Germans by Edward the Confessor in 1046. In 1050 he

moved the bishop's seat to urban surroundings in Exeter; and, after

unceremoniously expelling the Exeter monks from the minster, installed a

community of secular canons, living according to the Rule of Ch rod egang .

12

Most of what we know of Leofric derives from the books he owned and

donated to the cathedral. It is clear that he initiated a scriptor ium: the work of

at least seventeen scribes writing in an Exeter hand has been recognized in

extant manuscripts.

13

Amongst the various music hands in Exeter manu-

1 0

See H. Hucke ('Tow ards a New Historical View of Gregorian Chan t',

Jnl of the Amer.

MusicologicalSoc. 33 (1980), 437—67), who explains the earliest chant-b ooks as touch stones

for reference 'and for regulation of the oral tradition', rather than for use in performance

during services.

1

' Much of my information on the Exeter scriptorium is draw n from Elaine M. Drage, 'Bishop

Leofric and the Exeter Cathedral Chapter 1050-1072: a Reassessment of the Manuscript

Evid ence ' (unpub l. D.Phil, dissertation, Oxford Univ., 1978), without the aid of which my

task of examining all Exeter material would have been greatly increased.

12

See Frank Barlow, The English Church 1000-1066, 2nd ed. (London, 1979), pp. 83-4, and

'Leofric and his Times', F. Barlow

et al., Leofric of Exeter: Essays in

Commemoration

of

the

Foundation of Exeter Cathedral Library in A.D. 1072 (Exe ter, 1972), pp . 1-16.

1 3

Drag e ('Leofric', pp. 145-90) establishes the Exeter origin or connection of

a

chain of book s

by first identifying the work of eleven Exeter scribes in the Leofric Missal (now Oxford,

Bodleian Library, Bodley

5

79) and then by tracing their work (and that of scribes working

close to them) in other manuscripts.

99


5/17

Susan Rankin

scripts, at least three w ro te the music in m ore than on e book . Leofric himself

may well have been able to notate music,

14

but the bulk of the musical

no tation at Exeter was accomplished by a scribe who no tated the who le of a

collectar and a psalter and most of a pontifical, and w hose hand appears in five

other Exeter books;

1 5

a list of his musical work is given in Appendix I.

A list of Leofric's donations to Exeter Cathedral, now attached to the

Exeter B ook of English poetry (Exeter, Cathedral Library, 3 501), records that

on his arrival in 1050 Leofric found in the minster 'no more books than one

capitulary, and one very old nocturnale and one epistulary and two very

old lectionaries much decayed'.

16

Clearly, liturgical books were urgently

required - not only did the bishop and his canons require books to read or

perhaps to sing from du ring the services; even m ore fundamental was the need

to establish what those services should contain. Whatever the old Exeter use

had been, it cannot have been suitable for secular use, nor apparently was it

even available to the new canons. Either the monks owned n o m ore book s, or

managed to remove whatever they valued when they were expelled by

Leofric.

Leofric needed service-books. We can guess something of what he

commissioned or obtained from elsewhere from a donation list which

survives in two contemporary copies,

17

as well as from extant manuscripts

which have a demonstrable Exeter connection

—

because they either bear a

donation inscription or were written in an Exeter text-hand or contain

additions made by Exeter scribes. It should by no means be assumed that the

14

Ne um es add ed above th e Prefaces in the oldest parts of the Leofric M issal can be directly

associated with a second set of marginal annotations in this same section. This marginal

material was written by text-scribe 1 (in D rage 's designation). The same m usic-hand

reappears

passim

on i8r—30V of the missal; these tw o ga thering s w ere added to the

tenth-c entury sacramentary at Exeter, and here the text was again w ritten by scribe 1. Thus

the re is a clear association between scribe I'S text-hand and a recognizable music-hand. This

music-hand also appears on

c/t

of O xford , Bodleian Library, A uct. F. 3. 6, a collection of

Prudentius's poems which bears Leofric's donation inscription. Like his text-hand, scribe

i's music-hand is distinctive, using long thin ascenders, litterae significativae

,

and two forms

of oriscus I/I and '2-. Drage identifies scribe rs hand as probably that of Leofric himself

('Leofric', pp. 140—1).

15

Tex tual and musical additio ns in the first part of the psalter, Harley 863, allow me to identify

this mu sic-scribe as Dra ge's text-scribe 12. Her comm ents on his lack of accomplishment as

a text-scribe ('Leofric', p. 169) place his work as a music-scribe in an interesting light.

1 6

'7 he ne funde on J>am mins tre, f>a he to-feng, boca na ma buto n .i. capitularie 7 .i. for-ealdod

niht- san g 7 .i. pistel-boc 7 .ii. for-ealdode rasding-bec swiSe w ake 7 .i. wac msessereaf'

(Forster, 'Donations', p. 28). The first gathering of the Exeter Book (fols. o, 1—7), which

includes Leofric's d onatio n inscription and a list of his gifts, was originally par t of an Exeter

gospel-book, now Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 11.

17

Exeter, Cathedral Library, 3501 (the 'Exeter Book'), ir-2v; Oxford, Bodleian Library,

Auct. D. 2. 16, ir-2v.

IOO


6/17

Musical notations

in manuscripts

from Exeter

donation list constitutes a catalogue of all books in the cathedral's possession

at the time of Leofric's death,

18

but the list can be used as evidence of his

preoccupations with the performance of the divine service and with the

proper education

of his

canons. Alongside copies

of

Bede

and

Boethius

and

books of Latin and English poetry, are listed thirty-o ne liturgical b oo ks , the

whole totalling sixty-five books.

19

Fig. 2, below, shows the liturgical books,

Mass 2 full song-books [antiphoners?]

2 gospel-books

2

hymn-books

1 gospel-book in English

2

G a l l i c a n

psalters

2 epistle-books '

R o m a n

P

s a l t e r

1 epistle-book*

2

lectionaries for summer

4 benedictionals ' lectionary for winter

[including pontificals?]

2

>e«ionaries*

1 Ad te

levavi

[gradual] '

h

°

mi

lia

r

y> for winter and summer

2 full mass-books ' martyrology

1 troper

Office Other

1 collectar 1 Rule of Chrodegang

1 nocturnale 2 penitentials (Latin, English)

1 nocturnale* 1 capitulary*

FIG.

2 Liturgical books in Leofric's donation list (an asterisk indicates a book which was at

Exeter on Leofric's arrival in 1050)

divided into categories according to function. It is likely that Adte

levavi

refers

to a gradual (the words constituting the Introit of the first Advent Su nda y),

20

as distinct from the 2 full m ass-b ook s', one of which was probably the Leofric

Missal (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 579)- One or more of the

benedictionals might have been attached to a pontifical; such materials,

specifically intended for the use of a bishop, were often combined. What is

especially interesting

is

that those books needed

for the

musical pa rts

of the

mass, whether with musical notation or not, are included here. Eq ually, of

books for the Divine Office, both for musical and other purposes, the set of

books

is

complete. Even

if in

terms

of

numbers

the

donation list

may not

1 8

Dra ge , 'Leofr ic ' ,

p. 46.

1 9

The list is edited and in te rpre ted by F o rst e r , 'Do n a t io n s ' , and Dr age , 'Leofr ic ' , pp . 4 8 - 6 1 .

2 0

The

earlies t Anglo-S axon gradu al

to

survive intact dates from

th e

la te eleven th cen tu ry

(see

a b o v e ,

n. 6).

Th at this type

of

b o o k

was in use in

E n g la n d

at an

earlier period

is

d e mo n s t ra t e d

by

vario us fragmen ts , som e datin g from

th e

first half

of the

e leven th cen tury .

The te rm Ad te levavi is a lso em ployed in a list of b o o k s o wn e d by the m o n k s of Bu ry St

E d m u n d s

at the

b e g in n in g

of

Leofstan's abbacy (1044—65);

see Anglo-Saxon Charters, ed .

A.

J.

Rob er tson (Cam bridge , 1939) ,

p. 194.

IO I


7/17

Susan Rankin

represent all service-books owned by the Exeter community, it seems that

Leofric o wn ed at least one of every kind of book required for the codification

or perform ance of the divine service. Most importantly for present purposes,

the donation list shows Leofric to have possessed one book of a kind never

encountered without musical notation (a troper) and three others (a gradual

and two antiphoners) which, in addition to including the chant-texts, are all

likely to have been notated.

The oth er source of evidence for the preparation of music-books at Exeter

is the surviving manuscripts. Those of liturgical interest are listed in

Appendix II. With one exception,

21

all these manuscripts can be connected

with entries on the donation list; however, it is likely that some are not really

those once owned by Leofric, but others like them. Unfortunately there is no

gradual or antiphoner extant; nevertheless, substantial parts of the music for

both mass and office have survived. Various fragments of a fully notated

missal written in an Exeter text-hand are now scattered between libraries at

Lincoln, Oxford and London. Spacing of the words for melismatic chants

makes it quite clear that this missal was intended for musical notation from the

first. (PI. IXtf shows a fragment of this book.) A ltho ug h none of its surviving

text can prov e beyond dispute that the missal was prepared/o r use at Exeter , all

of the surviving text agrees with what must be regarded as the central Exeter

source, Leofric's own missal (Bodley 579). For the office two music-books

surv ive: a collectar (Londo n, British Library , Harley 2961; see pis. Xla and

b)

and a psalter (Harley 863). This psalter has a curious closing section, written

and notated by the same scribe who notated the collectar. It begins in the

middle of the last recto of a gathering (nyr), immediately following the

psalter material, and occupies one more gathering, ending incomplete in the

middle of the Office of the Dead. It consists of offices, principally M atins, for a

Saturday, and for six following ferial days. The contents - responsories,

lessons and antiphons for Matins, and antiphons for Lauds

—

are more

wide-ranging than those of a typical antiphoner. They seem to complement

the collectar, which has responsories, lessons, antiphons and collects for the

day offices (Prime, Terce, Sext and None) and for Vespers. Whilst the

make-up of a liturgical book can often be explained accord ing to the function

of one officiant during a service, the Exeter collectar and the last part of the

psalter do not conform to this pattern. Earlier collectars such as that from

Durham (the so-called 'Durham Ritual') tended to concentrate more

2 1

Cam bridge , Co rpus Christi College 41, a copy of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica Gen/is

Anglorum with extensive marginal add itions, includ ing liturgical ma terial, bears Leofric's

don ation inscription , b ut is not included in the donatio n list; see R. J. S. Gra nt, Cam bridge,

Corpus Ch risti College

41:

the Loricas and Missal (Am sterdam , 1979), together with the review

by C. Hohler,

M/E

49 (1980), 275-8.

102


8/17

Mu sical notations in manu scripts from Exeter

exclusively on the collects,

2 2

sometimes including readings a lso;

2 3

by

con trast, th e Ex eter collectar contains a great deal of musical material, which

can hardly be explained as musical cues for the officiant. Gamber describes

H arley 2961 as an early kind of

Liber Ordinarius

o r o r d in a l ,

2 4

and it could also

be likened to a later kind of office-book, the bre viar y. B ut it is neit her of these:

rather, it appea rs as a bo ok in wh ich an attem pt w as made to assemble as mu ch

div erse m aterial as possib le. An d it is easy to speculate tha t such an assem blage

m ight have som ethin g to do with Leofr ic ' s need to pro vid e a new set of boo ks

in a short space of time.

As I suggested above, the distinction between books intended to receive

music, and those not intended for music is not always clear. Something of a

text-scribe's intentions as regards music, and his understanding of it , can be

deduced from his presentation of chant-texts, in particular the word-spacing

and use of abbreviations. In this respect the Exeter text-scribes do not have a

common practice. Some leave no space for melismatic passages, others

attempt to space words but do not leave enough room, still others can do it

just r ight. In a pontifical written at Exeter (now L on do n, British L ibrary,

Add. 28188), the chant words are well spaced, as if for music, but the words

are often abbreviated, somewhat confusing the issue. In fact, this book never

received notation, despite the efforts of its text-scribe. An example of how the

work of two scribes collaborating closely may differ comes from the Leofric

Missal. The core of this book is an early-tenth-century continental sacramen-

tary, with addit ions made in the la te tenth century, probably a t Glas tonbury,

and further extensive additions and alterations made at Exeter during

Leofric 's episcop ate. I t is believed to have been Leofric 's ow n person al m issal,

since, inter alia, it incorporates pontif ical material. PI. YKb shows part of 22r,

from a vo tiv e mass for a bi sh op , and pi. IXf pa rt of 31 v, from a vo tive m ass for

faithful friends. The text-scribe of 2r was possibly Leofric

himself.

That on

3 ir may be designated scribe 2.

2 5

Both scr ibes emp loyed the usual co nven tion

of wr iting chant-tex ts in smaller script than that used for praye rs and reading s.

O the rw ise , they w ork ed entirely differently. Scribe 1 w ro te out the w hol e

chant-text, throughout the whole of the section he prepared (unless the chant

had already appeared), and also took care to space the words so that they

m igh t eventually allow roo m for melism atic m elodic passages. Scribe 2, on the

other hand, rarely wrote out the whole chant- text (a l though on 3ir he has

The Durham

Ritual,

ed. T. J. Brown, EEMF 16 (Copenhagen, 1969).

See P.-M. Gy, 'Collectaire, rituel, processionnaF, Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologique

44 (i960), 441 -69.

4

Klaus Gam ber,

Codices Liturgici l^atini Antiqu iores,

2 vo ls., 2nd ed. (Freib urg, 1968) 11,5

5

5—6

(no. 1525).

2 5

I follow Dra ge's num bering here; see 'Leofric', pp . 150-4.

103


9/17

Susan Rankin

written out

Alleluia

and its verse Domine rejugium in full; see pi. IXr); he never

spaced the words for music. The Exeter scribe who continued the work of

scribe 2 had a similar habit of ignoring musical possibilities. Whilst the two

approaches I have characterized might ultimately depend on different

exemplars, I think they are also explicable in terms of these scribes' musical

awareness or lack of it: an impression deepened by the further evidence that

the music-hand on zzt and elsewhere can be shown to be that of text-scribe 1,

probably Leofric.

26

Here the practice of word-spacing is associated with the

ability to notate music. The fact that Leofric eventually notated only incipits

and cadences can be understood in terms of oral traditions; he knew the

chants, and since this was his own book, he needed only to remind himself of

melodic beg innings and changes of pattern. In this case, the writing down of

music cannot have been intended as a memory-substitute, but as a simple

aide-memoire.

A d em onstration of a text-scribe's uncertainty as regards musical m atters,

in a case where he probably had no musical exemplar to copy from, occurs on

339V of the missal, part of a mass for Mary Magdalene (pi. X). This time

text-scribe 2 wro te the text, and the principal Exeter music-scribe whose work

was men tioned earlier (above, p. 100) wrote the music. Th is mass appears in a

part of the m anuscrip t where almost no provision has been made for m usical

notation; most chants are recorded by incipit only. But text-scribe 2 seems to

have made the effort on this occasion to allow for musical notation;

unfortuna tely, he canno t have known where melismas came in the chant, and

his spacing was not entirely successful, forcing the notator to write two lines

of neumes abo ve

auferetur,

and continue the closing melisma on

eternum

in the

inner margin. It seems that even within one scriptorium the right hand did no t

necessarily know what the left was doing.

The page illustrated in pi. X is interesting from several points of view, and

encourages questions about how this adiastematic or semi-diastematic

notation worked

in situ,

how the no tation may have been used, and what kind

of information it conveys. Th ere is a conspicuous degree of variation in the

manner of presenta tion of different musical items. The introit Gaudeamus omnes

in domino was written out in full, without music, and without spacing; the

abbreviation of domino and dei implies that this was prob ably no t intended for

notation.

27

The gradual has an incipit only: line 10,

Adiuvabit

earn deus. Then

the alleluia and its verse were written out in full, with spacing (even if

inappropriate), and music. Th e sequence has an incipit with n otes; lastly, both

2 6

S ee a b o v e , n. 14.

2 7

B y c o n t r a s t , t h e u n a b b r ev i a t e d w o r d

Domino

h as e leven no tes in the

Graduate Triplex

sen Graduate Romanum Pauli

PP. VI, ed . the m o n k s o f Solesmes (Solesmes, 1979) ,

P-

545-

104


10/17


the Offertory

Diffusa

estgratia

and

Comm union

Dilexisti

iustitiam have incipits

only. Although the Magdalene feast on 22 July is entered in kalendars from

the late tenth century

on, it is

only

in

books

of

the second half

of

the eleventh

century that liturgical forms

for the

celebration

of the

feast begin

to

appear.

Saxer says

of

the mass that

it has no

archetype

and

that each church composed

its

own

version, using

a

combination

of

available

and new

material.

28

But one

particularly common form, probably from Vezelay, has the same prayers and

readings

as

this comparatively early Exeter source,

as

well

as the

same introit

and alleluia.

29

Other parts

of the

Exeter mass

- the

Gradual, Offertory

and

Communion

-

differ from

the

common model,

but all

three

are

w ell-known

chants, often used for Marian feasts. Thus none of the chants on 339V was

unique to Exeter. The intro it must have been written out in full to show the

substitution

of

the name

M aria

magdalena

for

Maria

or

Agatha;

its

melody

was

far

too

well known

to

need musical no tation,

in a

context (that

is, of

this missal

itself) where

the

norm was

for

chants

to be

copied witho ut

it.

What

is

different

about

Alleluia

V. Optimatn

partem

is that it was known elsewhere, but

not

at

Exeter;

it is the

only chant

in

this mass which

was not

already used

as

part

of

another mass

at

Exeter.

30

That explains

the

presence

of

musical notation

for

this

one

item only.

But I

think

we can go

even further,

to

enquire into

how

this

notation might be understood by an average cantor. Although alleluias form

one of the more freely composed and non-formulaic Gregorian repertories,

their melodies

are

often repe titive

in

another sense: certain melodies

are

used

over

and

over again

for

more than

one

verse-text,

the

most popu lar example

being

the

Dies

sanctificatus melody, recorded

for

forty-three other verses.

31

The melody to which Optimam partem is set is the fifth most frequent alleluia

melody, appearing usually with

the

verses Laetabitur

iustus for the

feast

of a

martyr,

or

Concussum est

for St

Michael; most examples

of its use for

other

verses come from France.

32

As a

highly melismatic melodic genre ,

the

alleluia

melodies hardly needed alteration when

set to a new

text:

all

that needed

arranging was which parts of the melodic arabesque should belong to which

syllables.

Fig. 3

sets

the

Exeter neumes

for

Alleluia

V.

Optimam partem above

the melody

of

Alleluia V. Laetabitur iustus, showing

how

Optimam partem

relates

to its

model .

33

It is

likely that

the

Exe ter no tato r's object was simply

to

2 8

Vic tor Saxer, Le

Culte

de

Marie-madeleine

en

Occident:

Des

origines

a la fin du

m qyen age, 2

vo ls .

(Paris ,

1959) I, 169.

2 9

Ibid.

3 0

See

The

Leofric Missal,

ed. F. E.

W arren (Oxfo rd , 1883).

He

pr in ts

all the

marg ina l cues

for

mass-chan ts .

3

'

See

Karl -H e inz Sch lager ,

Thematischer Katalog der dltesten Alleluia-Melodien

(Munich , 196

5),

32

P

3

°

Ibid. pp. 196-7.

This version of

Laetabitur

iustus is taken from the Graduate

Triplex,

p. 479.

105


11/17

Susan Rankin

Pi-it/ W MA,

Exeter j>

J

j

f -

p i

I

1

J

1

} r-

^

V.

W sirbl urukrYV-O/ CM*

J f j J

non

A IV

q

J J^

1

A / i j

J

. J . f j . J . / f-

»*v Oo

m o w

J J/

1

f- r- ii J f-- f j js j

/ i M

m

~

m

~ j *s* kit /m * j ' _f* v y*_ l # * ' ^ ^ _

m

^j i #

T bfc wv v— o eb Uuvbv— bvuvtti

vuitur*

t—-0/ in- fc — tcr—nmn

^V'/T* .̂ 3=

FIG. 3 Exeter neumes for

Alleluia

V Optimam

partem

1 0 6


12/17

Musical notations in

manuscripts

from Exeter

/,

ft- mor tb

trztnor \t/—tw-m*ft/ jumper

>**

i

i i i

r>*i

J • . o

J •

J* )

l ^

l J •

. . N i

1

"- I

i r> - \ \ J • • • • P

J

J t- i

Susjer tt nuhts fUuutto \us

—

ftm\

.

J

.

. f ' j

I i'

h

-

J

-4i —

\l U*M

J I J ) I I P P :' ^

:

' P

\f it'—nc—vw


13/17

Susan Rankin

Hu n

woo

tUwn

do

homin&n aerfUv-i^

—

et

WOO

W\j-Vv

— -t2v

f

7

1

7

1

•

'/>

1 1

J

J

.

jaactb cndimus i

L •

j

,-*Us-bescab

FIG.

5. Ne um es from Lo nd on , British L ibrary , Harley 2961, 2c>r, with stave-version from a

Sarum antiphoner

1 0 8


14/17


show how the old melody, already known in another context, fitted this new

text. There is no question of written transmission having taken over from

oral; the singer had first to recognize a melodic model, and then the written

record would show him how to use it.

Another example of this Exeter music-scribe's use of neumes to indicate

how different words may be adapted to the same melody comes from the

responsory verses. Fig. 4 shows Exeter notations for five first-mode

responsory verses, taken from bo th the Ex eter collectar (Harley 2961; see also

pi. XI£ ) and the Exeter psalter (Harley 863). Mos t re spo nso ry verses are sung

to responsorial tones corresponding to the eight modes, in exactly the same

manner as psalm tones, except that those of the responsories are more

elaborate.

34

In each tone certain notes or groups of notes must always

correspond to the stress pattern of the words; thus, at the beginning of the

first tone, the first strong word accent would always be su ng to the last single

note before the descending six-note melisma; for example,

Timor

or

Et

perfecisti.

Equally the next strong accent will go with the rising

pes

J, and so

on through the melody. In notating the responsorial tones the Exeter scribe

made little or no use of various possibilities for greater pitch precision;

between the neumes on the page there is almost no contrast of heighting. In

fact, given the familiar nature of the melody, he had no need to be any more

precise. For the responsorial tones, the point at which the oral and written

traditions meet is easily distinguished; the user of the book must recognize a

melodic contour. After that the process differs slightly from the Alleluia

melody, since the number of notes in the responsorial melody depends on the

number of syllables in the text and their stress pattern. Still, what the

manuscripts illustrate is how one melodic contour could fit different sets of

words.

In marked contrast to the two previous examples is the responsory Gaude

Maria

and its verse Gabrielem archangelum from Harley 2961, 29r (pi. XIa and

fig.

5).

Here, for one reason or another, the Exeter scribe has used what

techniques he had to lend a greater degree of precision to the essentially

imprecise pitch notation. He had two ways of doing this: first, by spacing or

heighting the neumes in relation to one an oth er, as at heteses and tetemisti [sic]

(lines 14 and 15). But this was a difficult system to maintain th ro ugho ut an

elaborate chant with so many complex neum es. Instead of relying on spacing,

he also used an alphabetic system of the sort found frequently in the

Winchester books. In all those situations where one neume ends on the same

pitch as another begins, and where he felt it necessary to record this fact, he

added e for

equaliter,

'at the same pitch'; likewise 1 stands for levare (line 15:

3 4

See Paolo Fer retti, Esthetiquegregorknm (Solesmes, 1938), pp .

248-51.

109


15/17

Susan Rankin

archawgeli), indicating a rise, m for

mediocriter

(line 21: iosepb), a fall, an d iv for

iusum

valde,

a greater fall.

35

Prolonged examination of this and the m an y other

cases of this scribe's use of the litterae significativae suggests that none has an

absolute value; each depends on its context.

What then are the differences between this melody and those of the

respon sorial tones? First, it is a melody of fairly late co m pos itio n,

36

and hence

does not have deep roots in oral traditions. Secondly, unlike the responsorial

tones, the melody is neither formulaic nor based on a model. It is a unique

composition and was described by Frere as 'exceptionally independent'.

3 7

The extent of variation between this version and that notated two centuries

later in a Sarum antiphonal betrays the difficulties musicians had in coping

with what at best seems a rather odd melody.

38

The different notational

practice seen in Gaude

Maria

is indicative of a new balance be tween oral and

written traditions: the melody's uniqueness and its relatively recent composi-

tion put greater pressure on the musician's memory. Hence the notation is

required no t just as a reminder of a melodic conto ur bu t in a m ore de tailed way

to guide the singer through the melody.

Th e contras t between this variety of practice within the w ork of one scribe,

and evident confusion on the part of others who lacked musical training,

shows the unders tanding and use of musical notation in m id-eleventh-ce ntury

Exeter, and by extension (perhaps) England, to hav e been in a state of flux. It

wo uld be simplistic to describe this situation as musical 'literacy ' or 'illiteracy';

in truth, some people appear highly literate, others not at all, not unlike

nowadays. For those who did have the ability to write and read music — pro-

bably a very small num ber - neumatic notation had a su pp or tiv e role,

functioning in relation to a primarily oral tradition; th ou gh the balance

between reliance upon oral memory and upon written directions might vary,

depending on the type of melody to be notated.

Th e rap por t between melodic repertory and n otational practice indicates a

degree of flexibility not present in systems which define pitch and rhythm in

absolute terms (in the way that most modern notations do). Once notational

practice had altered to allow a greater degree of pitch definition by placing

notes on a Guidonian stave (as happened in England during the first half of

the twelfth century ), all melodic repertories had to be notat ed acc or din g to the

3 5

T h e l e t te r m m o r e c o m mo n ly imp l i e s a

r ise .

T h e litterae significativae w e r e e x p l a i n e d b y

N o t k e r of St Ga l l ; s ee J a c q u e s F ro g e r , 'L 'E p i t r e d e N o t k e r s u r l es l e t t r e s s ign i f i ca t i ve s :

E d i t i o n

c r i t i q u e ' ,

Etudes Gregoriennes

5

(1962) , 2 3 - 7 1 .

T h e i r u s e i n t h e t w o W i n c h e s t e r

T r o p e r s is d iscussed in A. Holschne ider , Die Organa von Winchester ( H i l d e s h e i m ,

1968) ,

p p .

8 4 - 6 .

3 6

W a l t e r H o w a r d

F r e r e ,

Antiphonale Sarisburiense, 6 v o l s . ( L o n d o n , 1 9 0 1 - 2 5 ; r e p r .

1 9 6 6 ) ,

p .

42.

3 7

Ibid.

3 8

T h e vers io n on l ines in f ig . j i s t ran sc r ib ed f rom

F r e r e , Antiphonale,

p . 4 0 2 .

HO


16/17

Musical notations in

manuscripts

from Exeter

same criteria, with a consequent loss of detail. In the case of books such as

those from Exeter and the two Winchester Tropers, this flexibility should be

considered as characteristic of a sophisticated notational system, rather than

indicative of a primitive system which would eventually evolve towards

greater precision. Whilst the new stave notation must have made the

performance of music more accessible to a wider group of people with less

musical training than that possessed by cantors at an earlier period, the

versatility and richness of melodic art communicated by the older system

disappeared.

39

3 9

This article is based on papers read to the thirteenth an nual Conference on Medieval and

Renaissance Music, Oxford, July 1983, and the first Conference of the International Society

of Anglo-Saxonists, Brussels, August 1983.1 should like to thank Professor Peter Clemoes,

Mr Malcolm Parkes and Professor Leo Treitler for their invaluable help during the

preparation and writing of these papers.

APPENDIX 1

W O R K O F T H E P R I N C I P A L E X E T E R M U S I C - S C R I B E , C. I O 5 O X I O 7 2

London, British Library, Harley 2961 (collectar): main notator

London, British Library, Harley 863 (psalter): main notator

London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. vii (pontifical): main notator

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 579 (missal): notation on 76r (margin), 339V and

364r

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. D. 2. 16 (Breton gospel-book): notation for

genealogy, 29r— 3or

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. F. 1. 15 (Boethius, De Consolatione Philosophiae):

notation on 12V and some of that on 45 V and 57V.

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. F. 3. 6 (Pruden tius,

Psychomachid):

notation on 7r and

i24r and some of that on jv—6r

Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 190 (penitentials, Latin and English): some

notation

passim

1 1 1


17/17

Susan Rankin

APPENDIX II

EXTA NT LITUR GIC AL BOOKS ASSOCIATED WITH EXETER

DURING L E OF RIC 'S E P IS COP AT E

Sigla

A = kn ow n to have been given by Leofric; B = written in an Exeter text-hand;

C = containing additions made by Exeter scribes

Books for the mass

Gospel-book (A, C): Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. D. 2. 16

Gospel-book (B): Oxford, Bodleian Library, Lat. bib. d. 10

Go spel-bo ok in English (A, B): Cam bridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 11*

+ Exeter, Cathedral Library, 3501, fols. 0-7*

Pontifical and benedictional (B): London, British Library, Add. 28188

Pontifical (B): London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. vii

Pontifical (C): London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius E. xii

Missal and pontifical (A, B, C): Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley

5

79

Missal (fragments) (B): London, Westmister Abbey Library, CA 36/17-19

London, British Library, Harley 5977, no. 59

London, British Library, Add. 62104

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Lat. liturg. e. 38

Lincoln, Cathedral Library, V. 5. 11

Miscellaneous liturgical matter (A): Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41

Books for the office

Collectar and hymnary (B): London, British Library, Harley 2961

Gallican psalter (B): London, British Library, Harley 863

Hom iliary (B): Cam bridg e, Corpus Christi College 419 +C am br idge , Corpus Christi

College 421

Homiliary (B): London, British Library, Cotton Cleopatra B. xiii, fols.

1—58*

Homiliary (B): London, Lambeth Palace Library, 489*

Martyrology (B): Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 196*

Homiletic matter (B): Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 201, fols. 1-178*

Other books with some bearing on liturgical practice

Rule of Chrodegang (B): Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 191

Pen itential , Latin (C): Cam bridge , Corpus Christi College 190, pp . iii-xii and 1-294

( = I

9

O A )

Penitential, English (C): Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 190, pp. 295-420

( = I

9

O B )

Penitential (C): Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 718

Amalarius De Ecclesiasticis Officiis (A, C): Cam bridge, T rinity College B . 11. 2

* There is at present no evidence for the use of English texts in the liturgy.

1 1 2

Documents

From Memory to Record- Musical Notations in Manuscripts From Exeter