"Peripheral Polyphony of the 13th Century"

Peripheral Polyphony of the 13th CenturyAuthor(s): Ernest H. SandersSource: Journal of the American Musicological Society, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Autumn, 1964), pp.261-287Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the American Musicological SocietyStable 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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

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 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=amusoc

http://www.jstor.org/stable/830091?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Peripheral Polyphony of the I3th Century

BY ERNEST H. SANDERS

A N IMPORTANT ASPECT Of the English repertoire contained in the eleventh fascicle of MS Wolfenbiittel 677 (W1) is its liturgical inclusiveness,

which contrasts with the nearly exclusive concern with responsorial psalmody shown by the Notre-Dame composers of organa and clausulae. It is an aspect that W1, i i shares to a degree with the Winchester Troper.1 The first to discuss some features of the eleventh fascicle of W. in great detail was Handschin, who offered a careful analysis of three of its compositions (as well as a fourth from MS Paris, B.N., Lat. i5129) and a comparison with the general characteristics of the Notre-Dame repertoire.2 He made it clear that liturgical cantus firmi were, in this type of composition, laid out in unpatterned rhythms; 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 reminiscent of conductus technique; and that, as in the conductus, there is in these pieces no such stylistic dichotomy as in Notre-Dame organa (organum purum vs. discant sections).

The common association of this style with the conductus is as untenable as is its designation as insular.3 The pieces are discant settings of cantus firmi, and there are numerous non-English counterparts from the i ith century on. Thus, the same parts of the mass that are represented in W1, i i were apparently sung polyphonically at Mont-Saint- Michel "vers I 70."4 Quite a few such settings have come down to us from German-speaking areas,5 and a similar liturgical 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-Century English Polyphony," to be published in an early issue of Acta Musicologica.

2 Jacques Handschin, "Eine wenig beachtete Stilrichtung... ," Schweizerisches Jahrbuch fiir Musikwissenschaft I (1924), pp. 56-75; also idem, "A Monument of English Mediaeval Polyphony," The Musical Times LXXIII (1932), PP. 510-513, and LXXIV (1933), pp. 697-704; idem, "Gregorianisch-Polyphonisches . . . ," Kirchen- musikalisches Jahrbuch XXV (i930), pp. 60-76.

8 E.g. idem, "Eine wenig beachtete Stilrichtung.. ..." P. 75. 4Yvonne Rokseth, Polyphonies du

XIII? siecle, Vol. IV (Paris, 1939), pp. 40-41. 5 Arnold Geering, Die Organa und mehrstimmigen Conductus in den Hand- schriften des deutschen Sprachgebietes . . . , (Bern, 1952), p. 35; Theodor Gllner, Formen friiher Mehrstimmigkeit . . . , Miinchner Verdffentlichungen zur Musikge- schichte, Vol. VI (Tutzing, 1961), esp. p. 23.

6 Handschin, Musikgeschichte im Uberblick (Luzern, 1948), pp. x82f; Giinther Schmidt, "Strukturprobleme der Mehrstimmigkeit im Repertoire von St. Martial,"



262 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

polyphonic sequences and Ordinary tropes has been amply documented by Ludwig and Handschin.7 In fact, Handschin uncovered significant correspondences between two compositions of an Agnus trope in the eleventh fascicle of W1 and an Italian manuscript (Assisi 695)," and described a Spanish source as being related to W,,

1i.g The most sub-

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 preserved in I3th- century sources generally seems to be pre-modally trochaic.1" Several contain instances of Stimmtausch,'2 a device easily achieved when 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 Mehrstimmigkeit am 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, "Zur Frage 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, 1958- 1961), pp. 308-309. 8 Handschin, "Zur Frage . . ," p. 533.

9 Ibid., p. 532, n. I. 1o At 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). 11 Cf. 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 manuscript cited by Ludwig is printed in New Oxford History of Music, Dom A. Hughes and Gerald Abraham, eds., Vol. II (London, p954), P. 374); Handschin, review of Festschrift fiir Johannes Wolf, Zeitschrift fiir Musikwissenschaft XVI (1934), PP. II9f;

idem, "Das iilteste Dokument . . . ," Acta Musicologica VII (i935), pp. 67-68; Geering, Die Organa . .. , pp. 55f; Giuseppe Vecchi, "Tra Monodia e Polifonia," in 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 ... ," p. 534.

In some cases the cantus firmus



PERIPHERAL POLYPHONY OF THE I3TH CENTURY 263

appear in one manuscript as cantus firmus and in another as counterpoint (and vice versa)l 4-a comprehensible scribal error. Only one non- English 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 circumstances it is neither necessary nor advisable to posit special stylistic affinities between Spain and England, which have been suggested by Tischler and Handschin.17 Nor can there be any guarantee that the date of the compositions in the eleventh fascicle of W1 is as early-first half of the 12th century-as has been asserted,1s though they may perhaps date back to the second half of the century.19 It may well be that in musically more sophisticated centers such music was improvised supra 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 international repertoire discussed so far, Stimmtausch over 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 manuscript English are no more compelling than is his interpretation of the 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, "Conductus- Spicilegien," Archiv fiir Musikwissenschaft IX (1952), pp. II4f, n. 3. Giinther Schmidt seems on safer ground when he points to "a degree of parallelism between German, Spanish, and English sources" ("Zur Frage des Cantus firmus .

.. '" Archiv fiir Musikwissenschaft XV (I958), p. 233, n. 4). Cf. Geering, Die Organa .. ., PP. 35 and 37.

18s Paul Kast, "Messe E. Die 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 Internationalen Musikgesellschaft, 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 ("Gregorianisch- Polyphonisches ... ," 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 Handschin, "Gregorianisch-Polyphonisches . . . ," p. 69.




to be found; most compositions are 4 2. Nor do the two voices form the interval of a third with any significant frequency.22 On 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 Sanctus tropes, and two Agnus tropes) that Handschin singled out as English suspects.24 They also crop up, though less frequently, in the two Sanctus tropes (P 3) preserved in MS Cambridge, Univ. Lib., Ff. II. 29, which is undoubtedly an English source.25 All three-part compositions showing a partiality for thirds necessarily contain a good many triads. Stimmtausch is common not only in caudae of Notre-Dame conducti,26 but also in a number of Notre- Dame tripla and quadrupla.27 Another feature that abounds in 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-century English 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 subsequent French polyphony they are relatively rare.3o

22 Handschin, "Der Organum-Traktat von Montpellier," in Studien zur Musikge- schichte: Festschrift fuir Guido Adler (Wien, 1930), p. 54. 23 Handschin, "Conductus-Spicilegien," pp. I i8f.; idem, "The Summer Canon and Its Background II," 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 may well have been one of the most beautifully executed sources of a repertoire very similar to that of all but the last fascicle of W1 (cf. Ludwig, Repertorium . . . , pp. 228-229). Early English Harmony, H. E. Woolridge, ed., Vol. I (London, 1897), pls. 37-38, contains facsimiles of the folio on which the tropes appear.

26 Handschin, "Conductus," MGG II, col. 1618; see also Rokseth, Polyphonies ..., Vol. IV, p. 88. 27 Tischler, "English Traits ... ," p. 465; Rokseth, op. cit., Vol. IV, pp. 6of. 28 New 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; "Singstil und Instrumentalstil in der europiischen Musik," in Bericht iiber den internationalen musikwissenschaftlichen Kongress Bam- berg 1953 (Kassel & Basel, 1954), p. 232. Elsewhere he describes the style of Pero- tinus's organa as a "coupling of Gregorian tradition with dance music": "Bach und das Mittelalter," Bericht iiber die wissenschaftliche Bachtagung der Gesellschaft fiir Musikforschung (Leipzig, 1950), p. I 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 Notre- 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.

80 Rokseth (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 ..." ("English Traits... .," p. 466).




While the evidence is not unassailable, the indications are strong that English influence had a considerable share in the shaping of the musical style of the second Notre-Dame generation. Helmut Schmidt has cited passages in works by Perotinus or in Perotinian style that cor- respond with phrases in two of the three English estampies in MS London, B.M., Harley 978.31 Wiora has pointed out that formulas similar to the pes of the Summer canon can be found in Perotinus's compositions.82 Handschin has claimed evidence of English influence in Notre-Dame conducti,38 and Tischler describes stylistic aspects of the Notre-Dame repertoire as "due to an extraneous influence, 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 King Philipp Augustus administered to King John."34 It should be added that, even if Husmann's upbeat form of the first mode is disregarded,35

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" ['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- forschung, Liineburg 195o, p. 75.

33 Handschin, "A Monument . . ." (932), p. 512, and (0933), p. 698. 34 "The Evolution of the Harmonic Style...," p. 9o. Richard L. Crocker evidently

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 formula- tion, which plainly conflicts with the evidence (before or after), is designed to strengthen an attack on an author whose evidence shows unmistakable signs of slant- ing. 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 circumstances because "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 Giraldus Cambrensis and Anonymous IV (cf. Sanders, "Tonal Aspects . . . ," n. 21). There seems no need to allow a righteously vigilant liberalism to push the pendulum from Moser's side all the way to the other extreme of negating or minimizing eth- nically conditioned differences in medieval music.

85 Cf. Rokseth's criticism of this feature of his transcriptions in "La Polyphonie




rhythms other than those of the first and alternate third modes are relatively rare in Perotinus's compositions, especially in those of what might be called his earlier period.3"

The extraordinary greatness of Perotinus Magnus rests essentially on qualities he shares with the other outstanding "classical" masters among European composers. Like them he fulfilled the crucial func- tion of focussing diverse "national" influences, creating well-organized, large-scale masterpieces that, stylistically and formally, are the con- summate high points of the period, and bequeathing a significant artistic heritage with diversified potentialities. His later works-e.g. the Alleluia: Posui and especially a number of the clausulae--37 open up new stylistic territory with their pre-eminent concern with rhythmic variety. The monumentalism of the Tripla and Quadrupla gives way to an art con- ceived on a smaller, more intimate scale; it is also less given to imperfect consonances and regular periodicity.

In view of the circumstance that in Perotinus's time England seems to have exerted a strong influence on the style of Parisian music, it is not necessary to assume that certain Notre-Dame compositions ex- hibiting "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 Frag- ments as well as later sources), but Apfel's suggestion reverses chronolgy, since the motets in F are earlier. Moreover, many of the earliest motets, 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. 38-43-

6 Rokseth 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 (Cousse- maker, Scriptorum ... , Vol. I, pp. 342a and, especially, 344a-b) one may well specu- late 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 im Mittelalter . . . ," Acta Musicologica XXXIII (1961), p. 5o, n. 13. Concerning one of these, see note 129 below. Three others that Handschin did not consider as English ("The Summer Canon . . . II" ['951 ], PP. 95-98), belong to a group of six that appear without tenor as conducti in W1. Problems of style and 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 ..., pp. ioo and 105. See also n. 19 below. 40 Apfel, op. cit., p. 48.




that are tropic elaborations of 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 responsorial chants. The combination of troping and polyphony had already yielded two main types: one usually restricted polyphonic elaboration to the inserted or added tropes (e.g. the Ordinary tropes in W,, fasc. 8, and in MS Cambridge, U.L., Ff. II. 29), while the other placed the textual elaboration in the upper voice(s) over the complete cantus firmus-or at least the complete solo portion-with its text (troped organa).41 In 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 clausula repertoire (i.e. to the melismatic portions of responsorial chants and the Benedicamus Domino), while the English continued to compose polyphonic (and tropic) settings of entire cantus firmi or, in the case of responsorial chants, of the syllabic as well as the melismatic passages of the solo portions. (Their compositions treat syllabic and melismatic portions essentially alike.) A great many Worcester compositions demonstrate these features; another important aspect of these cantus-firmus settings (elaborated discants) is the considerable liturgical variety of chants on which they are based.42 There can be no question that the English technique is a specifically English elaboration of the type of liturgically inclusive polyphony discussed earlier and that its roots are both less extravagant and more liturgical than are the motets of Notre-Dame and the Ars Antiqua with their sources.43 The Worcester Alleluia settings44 represent a unique combination of polyphonic tropes (sections i and 3) and troped polyphonic settings of chants (sections 2 and 4). Their freely composed sections

41 The beginnings of this practice go back to the St.-Martial repertoire (cf. Giinther Schmidt, "Strukturprobleme ...

," p. 15). The tropic text occasionally 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 Cf. p. 261.

4 Cf. n. 92 below. As early as 193o Handschin tentatively characterized "the Notre-Dame style" as "eine exzessive Sonderausprdgung" ("Gregorianisch-Po- lyphonisches ... ," p. 68), an opinion that re-appears in his Musikgeschichte (pp. 191- 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 mehrstimmige Musik .. . ," pp. 30o9f.; Kurt von Fischer, "Die Rolle der Mehrstimmig- keit am Dome von Siena. ...," pp. -73 and

177. 44See Sanders, "Tonal Aspects .. ."; also this writer's dissertation, Ch. II B,

pp. 141-157.




display a variational relationship to the cantus firmus that is characteristic of the Ordinary tropes in MS Cambridge, U.L., Ff. II. 29 and in W1, fasc. 8.45

Ex. I

Ho - san - na

O

in ex

de- - - i -

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).




Ci "SS.

sis, 61! A! , .v !oI It .I sus - ci - pe lau -

"0 e I! . I I des.

. . . . .. . . .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 Mittelalters und der Renaissance, pp. 90f.

Al - - le - - lu -

IIT

-- OPF i "I F ' I I ,I , " :

I = WF, No. 55, mm. 49-69 (Section 2 of the setting, i.e., the cantus firmus)

II = WF No. 55, mm. 1-16. Tenor III = WF No. 55, mm. 17-32. (Section 1, restored) IV = WF No. 55, mm. 33-48. J




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 Mont- pellier, 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 sequence for cantus firmus (No. 5 1) 2. 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, phrase parallelism, chordal sound)

(Nos. 53-in the version in MS London, B.M., Harley 978-, 62, most of 285)

46The irregular, but regularly phrased, modal patterns often found in the melismatic "caudae" of such pieces are doubtless the prototypes of similarly fashioned tenors in the Worcester repertory. 4 Harrison, "English Church Music in the Fourteenth Century," in New Oxford History of Music, Vol. III, p. 82. Perhaps some of the preserved polyphonic Kyrie tropes from the early fourteenth century (see Apfel, Studien zur Satztechnik der Mittelalterlichen englischen Musik, (Heidelberg, 1959), Vol. I, p. 58) are also based on paraphrases of chant tunes.

48 The most cautious and, at the same time, most searching discussion of a number of cases can be found in Handschin's "The Summer Canon .. . II" (1951), pp. 66-88. The astonishing list in Apfel's Studien .. . , Vol. I, p. 3 i-further supplemented in his "Ober einige Zusammenhfinge . ," p. 50o, n. I3-is useless and should be disregarded, since a large part of it is based not only on disproved assumptions made by Dittmer ("Binary Rhythm . . . ," Musica Disciplina VII ['953], PP. 41-43; cf. Sanders, "Duple Rhythm ... ," n. 45), but on a partial misunderstanding of his listings.

S4Mo 8,339-341 (Nos. 340-341 are actually one piece; cf. Harrison, "English Church Music ... ," p. 83, n. 6) are concordances of English compositions, while Mo 8,322, being an unicum, can only be an object of speculation, as regards its provenance.



PERIPHERAL POLYPHONY OF THE I 3TH CENTURY 27 I

5. Ordered phrase structure, including isoperiodicity50 (Nos. 51, 65, 69, 70, 275, 300)

6. Liturgical texts in upper parts (Nos. 55, 72, 282, 285)51 7. Close textual correspondence of the upper voices (Nos. 65, 68, 275, 300) 8. Textual interrelation of all three voices (Nos. 69, 70, 72, 285) 9. Melodic repetitions in one or both of the upper voices (Nos. 58, 285)

io. Prominent use of thirds (Nos. 68,52 69, 70) i i. Concluding melisma (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 two- thirds 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 pas- sage (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

adaptations57 of 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

50 Which is often no more than barely shifted phrase parallelism. 51 Cf. 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). 53 Repertorium ... , p. 397. 54 Cf. Handschin, "The Summer Canon ... II" (1951), p. 77, where no mention

is made of the English concordance of Mo 4,67. 55 Ibid. 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 Po- lyphony and Its Significance for the Continent," Columbia University, 1963). 57 Cf. 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).




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.

eo Ibid., 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

franzd'sischen und lateinischen Motetten, (Sunmma Musica Medii Aevi, Vol. II)

Darmstadt, 1957.




TABLE I

Mo. Da6' 4 & 7 Hu Other non-French MSS64 Other French MSS

2 52 104 Lyell; Erf F; W2; Bes; Ca; ArsA; Ch64" 137

3 33065 LoD ArsA 4 6o 123 Westminster 33327;

ArsC; Paris, B.N., Lat. 11411

5 59 W2; Cl; Mo; PsAr (different texts)

6 Mo;Bes; Tu; V (different texts)

7 124 W2; Cl; Mo (different texts) 8 56 125 MiiB; Bes; ArsB; ArsA;

Ca; Bol. 9 W2; Mo; Cl; Tu; LoC; Boul

(different texts) I0 Mo; V

II(I6) Io6 12(17) 13(I8) 53 IoI Lyell; LoHa This piece (Ave gloriosa mater)

is found, in various guises, in a great many MSS

21(14) 142 22(15) 51 LoD Bes; Fauv.

6 3The 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 Musik- wissenschaft V (1923), p. 203). All but Da No. ix (16) are also contained in Ba, whose contents are alphabetically arranged.

64 As 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, errone- ously discussed as an English source by Apfel in a number of his publications. Regard- ing 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.

464 See Jacques Chailley, "Fragments d'un nouveau manuscrit d'Ars Antiqua a Chalons sur Marne," in In Memoriam Jacques Handschin (Strasbourg, 1962), pp. 140-150o.

65 Concordance of Mo 7,282, but with a different Triplum.




TABLE II

Mo. Hu66 Da 4 & 7 Other non-French MSS Other French MSS

Io 13(18) 53 Lyell; LoHa (See Da No. 13(18) in Table I) 102

103 104 2 52 Hu (No. 137); Lyell; Erf F; W2; Bes; Ca; ArsA; Ch 105 io6 11(16) 107 58 Lyell; Cambridge, ArsB; MEB; CTr; LoC; Boul

Trinity Coll. o.2.1 io8 268 MGiC 120 284 ArsC; MIC PsAr; Bes 121 285 122 Hu (No. 143) W2

123 4 60o Westminster 33327; ArsC; Paris, B.N., Lat. 11411

124 7 W2; Cl; Mo 125 8 56 MiiB; Bes; ArsB; ArsA;

Ca; Bol 126 127 283 LoD; Flor 122 PsAr; Bes; ArsA 128 62 WF (No. 81) F; W2 129 129 130 131 Wi (as conductus);

F; Ma; W2 (twice) 132 133 275 LoD; Trier Tu 134 135 136 Hu (No. 138) 137 (See Hu No. 104 above) 138 Hu (No. 136) 139 14o 57 Cambridge, Trinity F;6? W2; Cl; LoB; CTr; Ch

Coll. 0.2.1 141 142 21(14) 143 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.




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 and Hu. 2. All the Mo motets from fascicle 4 that occur in Da and Hu also appear in 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 not contained in Ba. 4. Two motets that are respectively contained in the fourth (No. 58) and 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 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 particularly well-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 Notre-Dame source (W,):Da No. 9; Hu Nos. I22 and 124, and Mo 4,59 (all with different texts). 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 "peripheral"70 sources.

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. 142 (= Ba No. 37), Mo 4,60 (= Ba No. 30; Hu No. 123), Mo 7,284 (= 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

68 In ArsA the concordances of Mo 4,52 and 4,56 are followed by those of Mo 7,283 and 7,282.

9 Handschin's suggestion that Ba might be a German source ("Die Rolle der Nationen .. ," Schweizerisches Jahrbuch

fi'r Musikwissenschaft V ['93'1, p. 23). was three years later retracted by him as "too bold" ("Erfordensia," Acta Musi-

cologica VI [1934], p. io8). But he maintained that Ba contained a significant share of German motets.

70 The term "peripheral" will henceforth be used so as to exclude England. Hence, the only exception is the appearance of Mo 4,60 in the Westminster MS. 71 Of all motets listed in the two tables only Mo 4,59 derives from an independent clausula. 72 Handschin had noted this for Hu Nos. 132 and 135 ("The Summer Canon..."

('95I), p. io6); Hu No. 136 and especially its concordance Hu No. 138 are similar to No. 135.

7s Cf. Handschin, "Angelomontana ... ," p. 87, n. 2, where a specifically German trait of the tenor of Mo 7,284 is mentioned (cf. also Ludwig, Repertorium ...,




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 non- French 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 con-

trary 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 cen-

tury. One of Handschin's German suspects belongs not to the seventh, but

to the fourth fascicle of Mo; it is No. 6o, which exists in no French manuscript (if the problem of the origin of Ba is left undecided), but on the other hand is cited only by Franco of Cologne, who may well have hailed from the Rhineland. In this connection it must be recalled that many manuscripts bring motets in contiguity that appear in Mo in two widely separated fascicles (4 and 7), but have been recognized to have a good many stylistic features in common.82 Another circumstance 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 similarities between Mo 7, 284 and 285. Further motets of possibly German origin (Handschin, "Erfordensia," p. io8): Ba Nos. 31 and 85 (concordances in the "Ger- man" manuscripts Da and LoD, respectively). 74 His 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 See Hu No. 133 in Table II above. 77 That Spain should be the country of origin is unlikely; cf. also Angles, "Musik-

alische Beziehungen zwischen Deutschland und Spanien . . . ," Archiv fiir Musik- 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 Summer Canon . . ." (1951), p. Io5) and "that musical material and methods of 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 above and Handschin, "The Summer Canon ...

(195i), pp. 75f). 79 Ibid., pp. 74f. so The isoperiodicity in English motets is much more sophisticated. 8slLudwig, Repertorium . . . , p. 444; Handschin, "The Summer Canon ... ,"

(8951), p. Ioo. 82 Cf. p. 27o 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 free, variational manner.8s4 The conclusion becomes increasingly clear that 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 in- trusion of the vernacular was a French specialty, while elsewhere- including, 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 counterpart to the Alleluia: Nativitas; cf. his Die Drei- und Vierstimmigen Notre- Dame-Organa, in Publikationen ilterer Musik, I I. Jahrgang (Leipzig, I940), pp. XXIb f.)

84 As to the Tenors of Mo 4,52 and 57, see Rokseth, Polyphonies ... , Vol. IV, pp. 178

and 204; of Mo 4,55, see ibid., p. -55, n. I; of Mo 4,58, see ibid., p. 184; 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 peripheral nature is 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. 88 This 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, Repertorium . . . , p. 399), which goes back to Perotinian times (ibid., p. 404). 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; 4,52; 4,56; 7,283; 7,282; 3,46; 3,38. There is no reason to go beyond the word "periph-




The chronology of Mo 4,51-58 is highly problematic. Ludwig singled out Nos. 51, 54, and 58 as relatively young, 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 necessarily compel the assumption that 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 4,58.91 Probably, 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 earlier conductus-motet versions. Some of the motets cited by him may also have originated as two-voiced compositions.93 Significantly, no theorist prior to Franco mentions the double motet.

While the evidence seems to indicate that the cultivation of peripheral compositional practices was for some decades after I250 concentrated in parts of the German-speaking area west of the Rhine, the English were not so insular musically as to disregard their 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., Harley 5958.94 The most per- eral" in the designation of its final, much-discussed unicum; cf. Handschin, "The Summer Canon..." ('95 1), pp. 82-88.

89 Repertorium . .., 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 Ludwig, Repertorium ..., p. 397. 91 Cf. its concordance in MS Cambridge, Trinity Coll. o.z.i. 92 Apfel'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 [i960], p. 96) is unsub- stantiated by the evidence. The relatively great variety of cantus-firmus sources in the peripheral repertory 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 assumption that Mo 3,40 and 46 (cf. n. 88 above) are younger than most of the motets in the third fascicle of Mo (Repertorium . . . ,p. 405). In spite of Handschin's reservations ("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.

93 For 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, "tVber einige 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.




plexing case is that of Mo 4,53 (Ave gloriosa mater).9e There is general agreement that the conductus-like version 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 manuscript are all cantilenae or related to that species;" for instance, Handschin described No. VII of the manuscript as in "regular sequence form (aa bb cc dd ee) yet, as to text contents, it is a spiritual song in a wider sense (something like conductus or cantio) . . ."97 It is tempting to consider the Ave gloriosa mater as a polyphonic cantilena, especially as the middle voice has a freely repetitive form.98 An assumption that it carries a pre-existing tune is perfectly plausible,99 since W. uses it as the bottom voice of a conductus,100 while, though not a sequence itself, it appears among a number of sequences in another manuscript. Moreover, the poem Duce creature, which is given as an alternate text in MS London, B.M., Harley 978, appears in a collection of French sacred poems (in Anglo-Norman dia- lect.101 In view of these circumstances, Ave gloriosa mater might well be a cantilena that started out as a two-part composition, to which someone later added a Triplum. (There are a few other compositions that seem to have had a similar career.)102 The instrumental tenor added at the end of the piece in the Harleian manuscript not only rectifies a considerable number of mistakes in the tenor of the score, but is also a reliable indica- tion of the rhythm for the second half of the

piece.10• This apparently

signifies that the composition must date from the earliest years of the I3th century, when ligature writing, whose rhythmic meaning was rather

95 Handschin has summarized the known facts as well as some surmises regarding this piece ("The Summer Canon.. ." [1949], pp. 6off). 98 Regarding the use of the term Cantilenae for many of the Latin songs of the medieval English repertoire, see Sanders, "Medieval English Polyphony . . . ," Ch.

IV A, pp. 265-274. 97 Handschin, "The Summer Canon..." (1949), p. 65. 98 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 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.

99 Cf. the settings of Angelus ad virginem and of Includimur nube caliginosa (see Bukofzer, "The Gymel ... ," Music and Letters XVI (1935), p. 82, and idem, "Eng- lish Church Music of the Fifteenth Century," in New Oxford History III, pp. I4- I 17

100 The version in Ws is hardly likely to be the oldest, Ludwig's repeated asser- tions to the contrary notwithstanding; cf. also Handschin, "The Summer Canon..." ('949), pp. 61-65.

101 Cf. Ludwig, "Die Quellen der Motetten .. .," p. 276. 102 See the two pieces reprinted in Bukofzer, "The Gymel ... "

pp. 8I-82. 1's Additional indications of the rhythm are: (I) The first few longae of the

Tenor, which obviously must be interpreted as per the instructions of the Discantus positio vulgaris (cf. Sanders, "Duple Rhythm . .. ," pp. 282-284); (2) the scribe's sporadic attempts to indicate the first mode by means of alternation of longa and English breve (see the beginning of pl. 2z in Early English Harmony, vol. I).




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.106 The wisest approach is likely to be that taken by Hus-

mann,?07 who considers the original form of the Ave gloriosa mater to

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 prints the identical text under both Duplum and Triplum. Actually, however, the manuscript supplies the text only once, not "under the two upper voices," as Handschin put it ("The Summer Canon . . ." [19511, p. 69), but under the Tenor, which therefore turns out to be a 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 the writer's dissertation. 109 Both the notation and the text arrangement (including assonances in the two

texts) show this piece to be related to early Worcester compositions, such as WF No. 42, and a precursor of WF No. 28.

110Cf. MS W,, fol. I98' (18i'); Graduale Sarisburiense, Walter Frere, ed., pl. 184; Liber 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.



PERIPHERAL POLYPHONY OF THE 13TH CENTURY 28I

Ex. z

[A] lau- dan- da le - gi- o - ne mis - sus est de Sx x X

[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 x () Kx

..lu - ia.




[A] - ve ma - ter ve - ri - ta - tis dul - cis et a- x e

omitted:.

[A] - - - ve

me - na ge - ni- trix se - re - na x I

pi - e-ta - te ma - nans ve - na pe - pe- ris - ti

xx x x

ma - - - . - .

si - ne pe- na vir - go ma- ri - - a.

- - - - - - -ri - - - a. x = cantus firmus (W I, IIth fasc., fol. 198' (18v1); Gr. Sar., pl. 184; L.U.,

p. 1265). (x) = This note appears only in W i.




It is of great significance that another set of flyleaves from the same manuscript contains seven Notre-Dame conductus, two of them complete. One of the fragmentarily preserved conductus (Crucifigat omnes), which is in lai form, is demonstrably an early piece, dating from 1188.111 Its concordance in MS F follows the motet Latex silice, which in MS W, appears as a conductus (without the cantus firmus), followed there by another of the conducti also preserved in the Jesus College manuscript (Leviter ex merito). Moreover, the latter appears a second time in W1, preceded by two other conducti and the motet Serena virginum, which, like Latex silice, is stripped of its cantus firmus."l2 It would appear that 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 elaborating melismatic sections of responsorial chants."18 Their sense of liturgical propriety seems to have prevented English musicians from accepting the Continental practice of dismembering plain songs in order to compose independent clausulae or motets. Two further motet texts that together with two of the six, appear in MS Oxford, B.L., Rawlinson C 510,114 a manuscript containing conductus texts, are additional witnesses to the English reluc- tance to accept the concept of the motet. The one early Latin motet to appear in an English source is there inserted in a liturgically appropriate organal setting (WF No. 81).

That, however, is evidently only half the story. The case of the F version of Latex silice is related to that of the Ave gloriosa mater, since the internal evidence of the music leaves little doubt that here a cantus firmus was added to a pre-existing conductus"1 to produce a motet."6

1x Eduard Graninger, Repertoire-Untersuchungen zum mehrstimmigen Notre- Dame 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. 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, Reper- torium. ..., pp. 40-41, 103-104.

114 Gr6ninger, op. cit., p. 27. 115 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 its Motetus ("The Summer Canon . . ." [1951], p. 98) and that at the end of the 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 Summer Canon . . . ," [I951], p. 96). The curious notational features of the LoHa version of the Ave gloriosa mater (cf. p. 279 above) seem to reflect a related aspect of the process.




The cantus firmus fits poorly, near the end it differs from the proper and usual version, and its last thirteen notes must be repeated, unless the motet was intended to end with a tenorless melisma. The corresponding clausula is defective,17 whereas the three upper voices of the motet sound typi- cally like a Perotinian conductus. Apparently, the give-and-take between England and Francens and the general stylistic and technical ferment around 1200 or a little later brought about not only the various combina- tions and amalgamations referred to on p. 267 above, but also a rapproche- ment and interpenetration of conductus and cantus-firmus polyphony, resulting in the production of a number of hybrids."9

Very few Continental motets appear in English 13th-century sources. Mo 4,57 and 58 and Ba No. 6 are included in the Trinity College manuscript; Mo 4,67 appears in MS London, B.M., Harley 5958 (with the tenor texted) and Mo 4,60 is preserved in MS Westminster Abbey 33327. These are all peripheral compositions. Only one Parisian motet appears in an

117 Handschin, ibid., pp. 95-98; it is, at any rate, one case where the term "source clausula" seems inappropriate.

118s Cf. pp. 264f above. 119 Cf. also Bukofzer, "Interrelations between Conductus and Clausula," Annales

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 "an exact 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 developed in West England. See 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 by Perotinus and (fol. 165') by Duplum (with different text) and Tenor of one 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 clausula within 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




English source (as part of the organum WF No. 81), and this is a famous Perotinian work in a style that has a good bit in common with peripheral practices.

On the other hand, MS Westminster Abbey 33327, which preserves a limited repertoire with a relatively Continental stylistic outlook, contains a concordance not only of Mo 4,6o, but also of WF No. 70, whose Tenor, called "pes" in the Worcester version, is properly labeled in the West- minster manuscript. WF No. 7 1, which is preserved on the verso of the folio containing WF No. 70, concords with LoHa 7,45. LoHa 7,40, however, appears in Mo (4,69).120 These interrelationships reflect a situation that accounts for the inclusion of a piece like WF No. 70 in the West- minster manuscript (with a significant change at the end of the one upper voice preserved there), of two evidently English motets in the Fauvel manuscript,121 which also preserves Mo 4,51 and Hu No. 124, and of a number of 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. Perhaps the codex from which he had been copying Nos. 51-61 became suddenly unavailable, causing him to turn to another manuscript, which might well have begun with a famous Perotinian composition like Mo 4,62. Since the latter appears in an English fragment and since, further, several of the last motets of the fourth fascicle are definitely English, it may be that Nos. 62-72 were copied from an English source. Alternatively, the source was a peripheral manuscript containing some English pieces. This assumption could be supported with the cases of Mo 4,64, 65, and 67. While the first of these is the only Latin motet in the entire manuscript whose upper voices begin with an upbeat-a fairly common procedure in England-, it also exists as a Provengal double motet (Mo 5,1 69), whose Motetus text is a rondeau; since the form of the music (ab bb ab ab) is almost that 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 fiir Musikwvissenschaft VIII [1926], p. 17o) are a familiar 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 "strik- ing, as well as rare" by Schrade (Polyphonic Music of the Fourteenth Century, Com- mentary to Vol. I [Monaco, 1956], p. 97).




rondeau, an assumption that the motet comes from England is risky.122 In Nos. 65 and 67 the two upper voices exhibit phrase parallelism, which is a feature of peripheral Continental rather than English motets.123 No. 65 occurs in two other French sources; in one of these, which preserves only five motets-Boul-, it precedes a peripheral motet (Mo 3,40), while in the other (W,), which is alphabetically arranged, it stands out 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 related to Ba;124 in Bes it is surrounded by peripheral motets.125 Its appearance in an English manuscript'26 therefore bespeaks its importation into England rather than English provenance. On balance, then, the second alternative seems more likely, as regards the provenance of the source for the latter part of Mo 4. (It is, of course, possible that one peripheral manuscript served as source for the entire fascicle.)

Evidently, the scribe of Mo 4 tried more or less successfully to adjust the more incompatible traits of the model(s) to French convention. Thus, his conversion of alternate third mode to the regular variety 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 alternate third mode in peripheral compositions and sources.129 (It is more 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 "because textless supporting voices were un-

122 Ludwig considered Mo 4,64 a contrafactum of Mo 5,169 (Repertorium ..., p. 396).

123 Handschin's assertion of the contrary ("The Summer Canon . . . ," [95x], p. 99) is not corroborated by 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 Franpais XXIV (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 Summer Canon..." (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.




known on the continent."'13 This may also have been the case with Mo 4,71 and 72, if the existence of English originals is assumed.

The only other English compositions in Mo are 8,339-341. They are also the only specimens of English Stimmtausch compositions to survive in a Continental manuscript. It is one technique of the thirteenth century that is decidedly English and not peripheral.131

Columbia University

130 Apfel, "Zur Entstehung ... ," p. 86. 131The comparison of Da No. 21(14) (Brumas e mors) with the Summer canon

(Giinter Birkner, "Zur Motette fiber 'Brumans est mors,' " Archiv fiir Musikwissen- schaft X [19531, PP. 74f) is a strained and unconvincing attempt to relate disparate practices.



Documents

"Peripheral Polyphony of the 13th Century"