The Rhythm of the Monophonic Conductus in the Florence Manuscript As Indicated inParallel Sources in Mensural NotationAuthor(s): Gordon AndersonReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of the American Musicological Society, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Autumn, 1978), pp.480-489Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the American Musicological SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/831366 .Accessed: 07/10/2012 07:39

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 support@jstor.org.

.

University of California Press and American Musicological Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Musicological Society.

http://www.jstor.org

STUDIES AND REPORTS

The Rhythm of the Monophonic Conductus in the Florence Manuscript

As Indicated in Parallel Sources in Mensural Notation

By GORDON ANDERSON

N AN EARLIER STUDY,1 I established a foundation for the transcription of the basic

rhythm of cum littera sections of polyphonic conductus in the Notre-Dame manu-

scripts from a study of the procedures in some parallel mensural sources. Working on the same hypothesis that later mensural sources represent very accurately the in- tentions of the scribes as transmitted in earlier sources, I have now applied similar

procedures to the monophonic repertory as an aid to transcription of these great works, particularly those transmitted in the Florence MS.2 In doing so, I have been mindful of a current trend in musicological method which finds deliberate variation in outward musical signs that at first glance appear to be identical, and which states that differences in parallel phrases or parallel sources do not necessarily indicate scribal carelessness.3 It has become increasingly clear that each source should be treated

primarily as an individual unit and interpreted according to its own criteria, while

parallel transmissions may be used only to settle the overall general patterns of what is

appropriate for a given repertory and not to establish mandatory interpretations. It is with such qualifications that the following study is offered; for music as fluid as that of the thirteenth century it is impossible to find, and wrong procedurally to look for, a

pure text as notated by the composer which was meant to be retained unaltered for all

performances under all conditions. There are two main sources that transmit Notre-Dame monophonic conductus in

mensural notation: six occur in Las Huelgas and eight in Fauvel.4 In addition, two are based on clausulae whose rhythms are clear, another one is found as a motet in La

Clayette, while Santa Sabina, a source with some mensural properties, gives an indication of the basic rhythms of four more works not included in the above sources.5

'1"The Rhythm of Cum Littera Sections of Polyphonic Conductus in Mensural Sources," this JOURNAL, XXVI (I973), PP- 288-304.

2 I-Fbl Pluteus 29, Codex i. Abbreviations for libraries are those of the Ripertoire international des sources musicales.

SGraham Pont, "A Revolution in the Sciences and Practice of Music," Musicology (Musicological Society of Australia), V (1977), forthcoming.

' E-BUlh without siglum; F-Pn I46. In addition Fauvel transmits in different musical settings texts drawn from KI 7, K25, K27, K3 o, K3 2. (For explanation of these numbers see the notes to Table i below.)

6 F-Pn 13521: I-Rss L 3.

STUDIES AND REPORTS 48 1

Three Notre-Dame monophonic conductus have concordances among French chan- sons notated in mensural sources, and one prosa also occurs in a mensural transmis- sion.6 Las Huelgas and Fauvel also contain a few works not found in the main Notre- Dame manuscripts, and these too can give confirmatory evidence. In all there are twenty-five works (thirty-one percent) of the Florence repertory for which external evidence of rhythmic interpretation is available, and twelve closely related works.

Retaining the nomenclature used in my study referred to above, we find first in these mensural monophonic pieces the basic rhythms of longa-syllabic and longa- fractio styles, with occasional short passages of melismatic-text style. Within pieces combining these styles the insertion of passages in modal-syllabic style is quite rare. In striking contrast to the polyphonic repertory, there are very few pieces set pre- dominantly in modal-syllabic style; and, quite unexpectedly, iambic rhythmic patterns in second and third modes far outnumber trochaic patterns in first mode, a circum- stance which because of the rather early dates of some of these pieces causes one to question the theory that the first rhythmic mode developed earliest.7 More probably two or more modes developed concurrently, while it is unquestionable that the unaltered neumes of plainsong notation retained an iambic interpretation in later mensural notation. The fundamental rhythm of the Notre-Dame monophonic con- ductus in mensural notation is indicated in Table i.

To Group A belong the related conductus: L3 Cum sit omnis; LI i Omnium in te; LI 2 Audi pontus; LI 3 Veni redemptor; LI4 Ihesus clementissime; LI 5 Rex obiit; L 16 Quis dabit; Li 7 0 monialis; LI 8 Plange castella; LI 9 Presum prees; and two works vacillate between Groups B and C: the prosa L2 Inter membra; L21 Gaudet Favellus.

There is little difficulty either in justifying the above classifications or in correlating the remainder of the repertory and placing each piece in one of the above groups because of stylistic considerations. In this latter task, several elements are of consid- erable help: (a) neumatic melismas may clearly outline a mode; (b) a preponderance of neumes or composite groups rather than single notes makes a choice for Group A likely; (c) very few neumes or composite groups and a preponderance of single notes make a choice for Group B likely; (d) occasionally mixed modal groups are indicated by ligatures (Group C); (e) cum littera sections vacillate between styles of (b) and (c) above (Group C). Table 2 groups the remainder of the Florence monophonic conductus into one of the above main groups, and the reasons for their inclusion in a particular group are indicated by a, b, c, d, e, according to the criteria just set out.

Within the pieces in Table 2 the most difficult task is the choice between longa- syllabic and modal-syllabic interpretation when extended groups of simplices occur in Groups A and C, and the choice of the best rhythmic interpretation of ligatures and composite figures where ambiguity exists. The various possibilities in Las Huelgas and Fauvel, two manuscripts in Franconian notation in which the smaller note values are quite clear, are tabulated below. Table 3 indicates all the occurrences of four or more consecutive simplices. The abbreviations refer to notation in the Florence MS, while

6 K52 Quisquis cordis: see Table I, note d. 7W. G. Waite, The Rhythm of Twelfth-Century Polyphony (New Haven, r954), pp. 56-

79, especially p. 59.

482 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

TABLE I Fundamental Rhythms of the Notre-Dame Monophonic Conductus in Mensural Notation

No. Incipit Source No. in MS Mode

Group A. Primarily longa-fractio and longa-syllabic styles in iambic rhythm

Ki Homo natus ad laborem Hu II, 82 166 K5 In hoc ortus occidente Hu II, 78 16o K6 Fontis in nivulum Hu II, 8 165 Kio Adcortuum revertere Hu ll, 77; Sabina 6 I58,I68 K 8 Vanitas vanitatum Fauvel 5 4 K27 Ve mundoa scandalis Hu II, 80 163 K28 Quo me vertam nescio Fauvel io 20 K37 Bonum est confidere Hu II, 79 162 K43 Vehemens indignatio Fauvel 14 26 K45 Anima: iugi lacrima, strophe I La Clayette 3 K48 Christus assistenspontifex Fauvel 9 I 9 K52 Quisquis cordis et oculi Sabina 5

(see also below) K5 3 Homo, vide que pro te patior Sabina i K54 Nitimurin vetituma F-Pn fr. 846, fol. IIoV, I 17r K58 0 Maria, ofelixpuerpera F-Pn f. 24541, fol. 1I8r K59 Crux de te volo conqueri Sabina 4 K6I Pater sancte dictus Lotharius F-Pn f. 846, fol. 40'

Group B. Primarily longa-syllabic style

K3 Aristippe quamvis sero Fauvel 16 65 Ib K45 Anima: iugi lacrima, strophes La Clayette 3 II, III

II, III K56 Homo considera Sabina 3 IV, II K57 O mens cogita Fauvel 21 66 I K62 Verita, equitas, largitas Fauvel 20 52 various K75 Ave, gloriosa, virgmnum

GB-Lbm Harley 978, fol. 7r I K8 I Veste nuptiali melisma of C3 I K82 Minor natusfilius melisma of G ic I

Group C. Abnormal mixture of modes or styles of Groups A and B

K49 Rex et sacerdos prefuit Fauvel I 3 25 I, III K52 Quisquis cordis et oculi F-Pn fr. 846, fol. I 3

(see also above)d

Reference numbers for conductus are drawn from G. A. Anderson, "Notre-Dame and Related Conductus: A Catalogue Raisonne," Miscellanea Musicologica: Adelaide Studies in Musicology, VI (1972), pp. 153-229. The K numbers refer to all the pieces in Fascicule X of the Florence MS, in their manuscript order, and the L numbers to the related monophonic conductus drawn from other sources. The Las Huelgas numbers are those of my edition, The Las Huelgas Manuscript: Burgos, Monasterios de las Huelgas, in Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae 69, 11: Motetti et Conductus, 1978, and the Fauvel numbers are from my edition The Monophonic Music in the Roman de Fauvel, to appear in the same series.

a The two versions show some minor differences, but they indicate the same type of setting. bOnly strophe IV, Vade retro, Sathana, and not the same melody, but quite clearly the same type of

setting. c K8o Associa tecum in patria, which is in the same style as K8 1 and K8 2, it is found associated with

these two texts in a text MS. They are based on melismas and are set in modal-syllabic style, and most probably K8o is based on the melisma of a lost conductus.

d This version differs rhythmically from that in Group A, and is an interesting example of a variable aspect of the repertory; it emphasizes by contrast that when two versions arc similar, they are very close

STUDIES AND REPORTS 483

TABLE 2

Remaining Monophonic Conductus in the Florence MS Grouped as in Table I

No. Incipit Reasons No. Incipit Reasons Mode

Group A Group B

K2 Omnis in lacrimas b K4 Olim sudor a, c I K7 Excuset, que vim a, b K38 Ecce mundus c II K8 Sede Syon a, b K6o Aurelianus c I K9 Divina providentia a, b K64 Inpaupertatis a, c II K1 I Vide quifastu a, b K74 A globo a, c IV, I KI2 Anghiaplanctus a, b K77 O mors que a, c II, I K 3 Soloritur a, b K8o Associa tecum c I K14 Beata viscera b (cf. K81-2)

Ki5 Dum medium/Ten... b KI6 Dum medium/Com... a, b K17 Quid ultra tibi b K2o Beatus qui non a, b Group C K21 O curas a, b K22 Qui seminant a, b

K29 Veritas d, e K26 Excutere b K23 Qui seminant d, e K29 In nova fert a, b K24 Exurge dormis a, e K32 Homo qui semper a, b K25 Quomodo cantabimus a, e K34 Partus semiferos a, b K3o0 Olabilis e III K4o Si vis vera a, b K3I Quo vadis e IV K44 Beata nobis a, b K3 3 Eclypsim passus a, e K46 Iherusalem a, b K3 Adulari nesciens e K47 Non te lusisse b K36 Vitam duxi e K63 Terit Bernardus a, b K39 Cum omne quod a, e K65 Aque vive a, b K4I Turmas arment d, e K67 Exceptivam a, b K42 Venit lhesus e 11, III K68 Homo cur degen... a, b K5o Alabaustrum e K69 Homo curproperas a, b K5I Clavis clavo a, e K70 Si gloriar a, b K55 Homo vide que e K71 O Maria stella a, b K66 Veri solis a, e K72 Fons preclusus a, b K73 Homo qui te a, b K76 Veni sancte b K78 Ad honores a, b K79 Stella maris b K8 3 Sol eclypsim a?, b

the modern notation is its interpretation in terms of the parallel mensural versions. One representative example of each type is given in notation, and all others are listed. The K numbers are followed by the verse-line numbers from the text edition of the Opera Omnia now in the press.8

indeed, but when they differ, it is the result not of corruption, but of deliberate variation. It could also be noted that not all the works assigned to Group C in Table 2 have been transcribed in a mixture of styles of Groups A and C in the edition, G. A. Anderson, Notre-Dame and Related Conductus: Opera Omnia, the Institute of Mediaeval Music (Brooklyn, I977-), VI: IPt Conductus Transmitted in Fascicule X of the Florence Manuscript (1978). It is enough here to stress that the clear possibility of mixed style is present in the general style, but editorial choice may suppress or minimize one style.

8 See Table i, note d.

484 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

TABLE 3

INTERPRETATIONS OF ALL OCCURRENCES OF FOUR OR MORE CONSEcuTIVE simplices

IN THE Las Huelgas AND Fauvel MSS

No. Notation Interpretation Examples

I mel4si 21i 21i si x 7 .JJ. J. *.

.•_

J .

I J 8-syll: Kio, 35; K49, I

7-syll: K5, 3, 6; K37, I, 3, 1 ; K43, 6, 8, 22, 24

6-syll: KI, 6

4-syll: KI, io

2 4si31i si J •. _•_. " "I

7 6-syll: K28,5

3 4si 2li 4cur 3li si J_

_..,

7 8-syll: K49, 6

4 4siIsii 3cur2li 31i * • •F "I 7. .

t 8-syll: K48, 4

5 4si 2li2si 3curI h 1- h 8-syll:K48, 3 6 5si41i 2si .

A .

A . "

m •. A

" 8-syll: K37, Io; K43, I

7-syll: K37, 16, 17; K43, 17

7 5si 3cur21Ai 7-syll: K37, 18a

8 5si4cur2sil f. ..

. A . "I

8-syll: K 8, 6

9 5si 3cur si si-21i I J . _ L . . .l 7 8-syll: K28, 24

Jo 5si 2li-si-pli3iOI h oh . .l F _

•. 7-syll: K48, 7

I 3sil 2simel2sil ~ I "

_7-syll:K48,io 12 6ci3cursi .

•. % .

. • 8-syll: KI o, 33

7-syll: KI, 7; K43, 19

13 6si 3cursi-21iI ..?

. ~ I 8-syll: K28, 9

i4 si 21i 6si I . % .

. "I

8-syll: K62,i5b

15 7si(siil 3si) " "

I . "

7-syll:KIo, 31

cur = currentes, including the simplex "head-note" li = ligatura mel = melisma, indicated by cross note-heads in the examples pli = plicata si = simplex, simplices syll = syllable A barline indicates a pause; si-21i, si-3li are equivalent to 3li, 41i respectively, but have the second note repeating the first; other units joined by a hyphen are composite groups.

a It would probably be better for the F version not to be transcribed in the equivalent set out here, but as in no. 4 or 12 in this table. The modal-syllabic figure is listed in Table 4, no. 52.

b The remainder of K62 is in modal-syllabic style, in various modes.

STUDIES AND REPORTS 485

All except two of the relevant works (K6, K2 7) have at least one phrase using four or more simplices in a group, and two-thirds (twenty-two out of thirty-three) are longa-syllabic settings; yet the use of modal-syllabic style is quite significant, although its use demonstrates a multiplicity of possibilities which are sometimes extended throughout the whole phrase (Table 3, nos. 3, 5, I I), or exclude the cadential figure (Table 3, nos. 4, 9); more often a careful mixture obtains (Table 3, nos. 2, 7, 8, Io, 13, 14). The number of syllables in a verse-line and rhythmic stress makes no significant difference, although the small passages in modal-syllabic setting observe correct prosody. One would like to draw a distinction between the predominant method of setting in Las Huelgas (longa-syllabic) and that of Fauvel, with its greater use of modal-syllabic setting, but the number of pieces in each codex is too small for adequate comparison, while the Fauvel selection includes several pieces in simple strophic setting (K3, K57, K6 2), a style not found in Las Huelgas. When considering sections in non-mensural notation that are similar to those in Table 3, a choice of the above solutions, or others consistent with them, will be stylistically appropriate, but one must observe the tendency to allow longa-syllabic style to predominate; nor should one try to keep a rigid consistency within a single piece, as a comparison of the different solutions for K28, K37 and K49 will show. It is unlikely that we shall ever have certainty in these sections, but at least we may keep as close as possible to the known models and avoid transcriptions that are stylistically inappropriate.

Table 4 lists all the interpretations of the non-melismatic ligatures and composite figures in Las Huelgas and Fauvel when they are also found with parallel figures in. Florence. An approximate number of incidences is given in parentheses.9 The con- ductus are identified only when that interpretation is found in three or less works. From the table some broad generalizations and recommendations for transcription may be drawn. None of the proposals may definitely be asserted for any given case, but guidelines for appropriate and stylistically balanced interpretations are possible, and moreover, the transcriber may be sure that a sensitive performer, using an edition based on these guidelines as a flexible and not unalterable score, will produce a performance that would not have surprised Perotin, Chancellor Philippe or their contemporaries. It may be noted that simplices groups of two or three notes are far more prone to expand than to contract, while the simplex-plicata and 2-ligature, with the fewest exceptions, mostly in modal-syllabic contexts, occupy a ternary long. In general there is little or no difference in the interpretation of currentes and ligatures, so that in many cases they must be considered identical in meaning, the scribal difference being that the very common groups of three or four falling notes are almost universally notated in currentes, whereas other shapes take the ligature form.

Only two or three groups show any marked tendencies: in ternariae the extended

interpretation-I9, 25, 26, 27 (57 times)-is only slightly above the total of the combined instances of the contracted

form-21• , 30 (28 times) and 20, 28, 29 (26

times)-the latter two themselves being about equal; and although the table does not indicate this, many pieces contain two or more interpretations of identical figures within close proximity. There is no guide for a transcriber's choice, but one should try

9 "Approximate" because occasionally an equivalent and not exact figure is counted, and some others are omitted as being too disparate for a reasonable parallel identity.

486 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

TABLE 4

INTERPRETATIONS OF NON-MELISMATIC LIGATURES AND COMPOSITE FIGURES IN

Las Huelgas AND Fauvel FOUND WITH PARALLEL FIGURES IN Florence

No. Notation Interpretation Number of incidences

NOTAE SIMPLICES

si . (except in the few cases

indicated below)

2 si-plih _

(_.

in Mode I) very numerous

3 si-pli common in modal-syllabic,

particularly Modes I, II

NOTAE BINARIAE

4 2si 45

5 2si 3 (K18)

6 2Si I (K48; cadential in

Fauvel, not in F)

7 2si I (K48)

8 21i (_ at 2 cadences, K57) very numerous

9 2li 2 (K62)

10 si si-pli 4 (KI, K5, K43)

i si si-pli 48

NOTAE TERNARIAE

12 3i . . 20 13 3si I (K28)

14 3si .

2 (K48)

i5 3si i. •

2(K18)

16 3si 5 (KI8) 17 3cur 2 (KI8)

I8 3cur 2• (Ki o)

19 3cur 30

20 3cur 3 (KI8, K43)

21 3 cur 24

22 3cur = 18, 20 or 21? 5

STUDIES AND REPORTS 487 Table 4 continued

No. Notation Interpretation Number of incidences

23 3li I (Kio)

24 si-2li j .I 2 (Mode l: K49, K62)

25 3li 24

26 si-21i _ 2 (Kio, K18)

27 si-2li . I (K28)

28 3li 7

29 Si-2li 6

30 3i 4(KIo, K27)

31 3li 4 (Mode I: K57)

32 2li-si-pli J (K48)

NOTAE QUATERNARIAE

33 4cur 0T;J j. 12

34 4cur j . I (K6)

35 4cur 3 (KI, K27, K37)

36 4cur = 3, 34 or 46? I (KI8)

37 4li . I(K28)

38 3li-si-pli (K6)

39 41i 7

40 si-3/li j

.

2 (K43)

4I si-3li i (KI)

42 41i

.

(K43)

43 4li 5

44 4li = 36? 1 (K49)

45 si 2lii Si.

...

. (Mode 1, 3-syll: K62)

46 2li-2cur I (K27)a

47 si-2cur-si . I (K28)

48 2li-2cur J 7I(K48)

49 si-2li-si (K49)

50 2li-2cur I (K27)a

51 2li-2cur I(K27)a

488 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Table 4 continued

No. Notation Interpretation Number of incidences

Exceptional 2-syllable figures:

52 si 3cur (Mode I: K37)b

53 si 3i 31i(Mode II: K48)

54 3cUr [si

] [ 7 i (Mode II: Kio)b

NOTAE QUINARIAE

55 4li-si-pli 1. .(K6) 56 5cur 3(Ki)

57 5cu0r •

; I (KIo, in melisma)

58 21i-2cur-si

, .

J • 7 (K28)

59 3li-2lic .

7 (KI)

60 si 41i i . I (Mode II, 2-syll: 62)

6i 51i(31i-21i) . 2 (KI, K5)

Abbreviations as in Table 3. a The question arises whether identical figures in the MS F in the same piece should have such different interpretations as 46, So and 51 in K27. I believe they may have the intcrpretations suggested here, but also they could consistently have any one of them, or even a dififrcent rhythm altogether.

b These figures are better transcribed from F as an extension: see Table 3, note a. c

Equivalent to 51i, as the middle note is repeated.

to attain the proportions indicated above, and rely on context to maintain an artistic balance, with these interpretations as well as with some of the less frequently used figures, or with others not found in the two main manuscripts.

The only significant figures among the quarternariae are the two groups, 3 3 and 3 9, giving the most common interpretation and confirming the very common rhythm associated with these two figures in Notre-Dame organa and clausulae. The other figures may be sparingly used, but the extended and equal triplet interpretation must be predominant. Quinariae are all extended, and only context will aid the transcriber.

This study leaves ambiguities, but it does provide a framework within which the great Notre-Dame repertory of monophonic conductus may be transcribed. No longer should we see these grand and majestic compositions locked into strict modal rhythms, with stereotyped and even phrase lengths, and predominant first-mode rhythmic dispositions: rather, the opposite tendency should prevail. Modal-syllabic pieces are few, and distinguish themselves from the greater part of the repertory by an observ-

STUDIES AND REPORTS 489

able style, while the larger remaining group of pieces is to be transcribed in broad iambic rhythms, in an ever-changing mixture of longa-syllabic and longa-fractio styles, with many ternariae and quarternariae groups occupying two ternary longs. It should then be understood that the resultant transcriptions are only the basic perform- ance material from which a solo singer may exercise individual variation within the known stylistic framework offered by a close study of the parallel mensural sources.

The University of New England Armidale, New South Wales