No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 September 2017
Though recent discoveries have improved our understanding of big, melismatic hockets from the late thirteenth century, there remains a pervasive uncertainty as to how hockets should be defined and identified on the small scale at which they characteristically manifest in thirteenth-century motets. In revisiting the mensural theorists up to Franco of Cologne, it was found that only Franco defines hockets as multi-voice phenomena: earlier texts define the hocket at the level of a single perfection, and as it reveals itself in the breaking of a single performing voice. Under a revised definition, 138 motet texts that use hockets have been identified in the Ars antiqua repertory. It was also found that another way of hearing the hocket, compatible with the first, is implied by Lambertus and pursued at length by the St. Emmeram Anonymous. These writers acknowledge but depart from the consensus that the hocket is sonically fragmented, also hearing it as a promise of the coordination achievable when musical time is measured. For St. Emmeram especially, the hocket has a dual character: its sonic fragmentation is contrived through integrated planning. To hear hockets integratively is difficult, and requires an effort of will that for this theorist has moral stakes.
The final sections of the article analyse the musicopoetic games of the motet Dame de valour (71)/Dame vostre douz regart (72)/Manere (M5). Similarly to the St. Emmeram theorist, the piece self-consciously highlights the difficulty and worth of close listening (a theme inspired by its tenor’s scriptural source), and does so with a hocket that marks a complementarity of breaking and integration, of a formal sort, several decades before Lambertus and St. Emmeram would reflect on the hocket’s dual character theoretically. The motet poses artfully some of the same questions about the audibility of form that preoccupy modern scholarship. These voices from the thirteenth century might remind us that ethical debates about correct listening are much older than current disciplinary concerns. But recognising the longevity of the debates does not force us to agree with old positions.
Grateful thanks to all who commented on this work, in person or by correspondence, and particularly Sam Barrett, Susan Boynton, Bill Burgwinkle, Ardis Butterfield, Mary Carruthers, Suzannah Clark, Karen Desmond, Jane Gilbert, Elizabeth Eva Leach, Susan Rankin, Owen Rees, and Jeremy Yudkin. Thanks, too, to anonymous reviewers who sharpened the argument, and to Bonnie Blackburn for her razor-sharp eye. Special thanks to Nicolas Bell, Margaret Bent, and Teresa Webber for innumerable forms of intellectual support. The most profound debt of gratitude is the one I owe to Emma Dillon.
The following abbreviations are used:
Ba Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, Lit. 115 (olim Ed.IV.6)
BnF Bibliothèque nationale de France
Cl Paris, BnF, nouvelles acquisitions françaises, 13521 (the ‘La Clayette’ Manuscript)
DMLBS Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, prepared by R. E. Latham and D. R. Howlett et al. (Oxford, 1975–2011), and online at www.brepolis.net
LmLOnline Lexicon musicum Latinum medii aevi, at www.woerterbuchnetz.de/LmL
LoV London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian A XVIII
Ma Madrid, Biblioteca nacional de España, 20486
Mo Montpellier, Bibliothèque Interuniversitaire, Section Médecine, H 196 (Montpellier Codex)
MuA Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, mus. 4775 (gallo-rom. 42)
N Paris, BnF, français 12615 (Chansonnier de Noailles)
OFED A. Hindley, F. W. Langley and B. J. Levy, Old French–English Dictionary (Cambridge, 2000)
OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary, combined edition, ed. P. G. W. Clark (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982)
R Paris, BnF, français 844 (Chansonnier du Roi)
Tu Turin, Biblioteca Reale, Vari 42
W2 Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, Cod. Guelf. 1099 Helmst. (olim 1206)
1 The full motet is Dame de valour (71)/Dame vostre douz regart (72)/Manere (M5). Numbers in parentheses refer to an item’s position in the index by Gennrich, F., Bibliographie der ältesten französischen und lateinischen Motetten (Summa Musicae Medii Aevi, 2; Frankfurt, 1957), andGoogle Scholar van der Werf, H., Integrated Directory of Organa, Clausulae and Motets of the Thirteenth Century (Rochester, NY, 1989).When used as a title, the incipit of a motet voice is standardised to the version given in the latter resource. On the topos of the lover’s look in some fourteenth-century songs, see Desmond, K., ‘Refusal, the Look of Love, and the Beastly Woman of Machaut’s Balades 27 and 38’, Early Music History, 32 (2013), pp. 71–118 Google Scholar.
2 From the witness in Mo, fols. 128v–130r. I discuss the network of sources and related pieces, and the analytical annotations on my score, below. Editions, transcriptions, and translations are my own unless otherwise noted.
3 I identify rhythmic modes according to the Garlandian terminology that has become a scholarly standard. Theorists of the later thirteenth century – notably Lambertus and Franco – construed and numbered rhythmic modes differently.
4 My thanks to an anonymous reader for emphasising that the pairing of ‘aler’ and ‘parler’ implies immobility as well as vocal failure. See also n. 204, below.
5 OFED, s.v. ‘debrisier’ (p. 181).
6 Zayaruznaya, A., ‘Hockets as Compositional and Scribal Practice in the Ars nova Motet—A Letter from Lady Music’, Journal of Musicology, 30 (2013), pp. 461–501 Google Scholar, and Zayaruznaya, A., The Monstrous New Art: Divided Forms in the Late Medieval Motet (Music in Context; Cambridge, 2015).
8 Perhaps most influentially for students of the 1980s and 1990s, Hoppin, R. H., Medieval Music (The Norton Introduction to Music History; New York, 1978), p. 344 Google Scholar: ‘Medieval theorists defined hocket as a “truncation” in which one voice sings while another is silent.’ Ernest H. Sanders (in ‘Hocket’, Grove Music Online, www.oxfordmusiconline.com; acc. 23 Apr. 2016) offers a more encompassing definition: ‘The medieval term for a contrapuntal technique of manipulating silence as a precise mensural value in the 13th and 14th centuries. It occurs in a single voice or, most commonly, in two or more voices, which deploy the dovetailing of sounds and silences by means of the staggered arrangement of rests.’ Sanders’s article considers multi-voice hocket almost exclusively.
9 Mo, fol. 111r; also preserved in Ba, fol. 63v, in which it has the incipit 'In seculum longum’; and in Ma, fol. 122v. The piece is copied again in Ba at fol. 64r, but transformed into the second rhythmic mode; here, its incipit is ‘In seculum breve’. For a list of sources and related pieces, see van der Werf, Integrated Directory, p. 31 (for the melismatic hockets) and p. 35 (for the hockets with associated texted voices).
10 A broad consensus holds that fascicle 1 of Mo was (along with fascicle 7) a later addition to the manuscript’s core, now fascicles 2–6 (probably of the 1270s); fascicle 8 was added later still. For discussion, see Everist, M., Polyphonic Music in Thirteenth-Century France: Aspects of Sources and Distribution (Outstanding Dissertations in Music from British Universities; New York, 1989), pp. 110–134 Google Scholar. For an alternative perspective (holding that fascicles 1–7 were created together in the 1260s or 1270s; and that fascicle 8 may, among other possibilities, have been broadly contemporaneous with them), see Wolinski, M. E., ‘The Compilation of the Montpellier Codex’, Early Music History, 11 (1992), pp. 263–301 Google Scholar. The most recent work considers Ba to be a Parisian manuscript of the last quarter of the thirteenth century. See Everist, Polyphonic Music in Thirteenth-Century France, pp. 149–53, and Norwood, P., ‘Evidence concerning the Provenance of the Bamberg Codex’, Journal of Musicology, 8 (1990), pp. 491–504 Google Scholar.
11 Mo, fols. 1v–3r.
12 Mo, fols. 2v–4r. Another motet version survives, which shares three of the four voices of fascicle 1’s versions, but omits their triplum and supplies a French text for the duplum, to build a three-part motet: Ja n’amerai autre que cele (211)/Sire dieus (212)/In seculum (M13), preserved in Mo, fols. 187v–189r, and Cl, fol. 387r–v.
13 Two more melismatic hockets in Ba share music, but set it in long- and short-mode versions: an ‘In seculum d’Amiens longum’ is found on fol. 64r–v, followed on fol. 64v by its short-mode twin (whose incipit is simply ‘In seculum’).
15 Ruiz Torres, S., ‘Reconstructing the Past: The Documentary Context of the Sigüenza Ars antiqua Fragment’, Studi Musicali, ns 5 (2014), pp. 83–90 Google Scholar; and Catalunya, D., ‘Medieval Polyphony in the Cathedral of Sigüenza: A New Identification of a Musical Example Quoted in the Anonymous Treatise of St. Emmeram (1279)’, ibid., pp. 41–82 . The source is Sigüenza, Archivo de la Catedral, MS 83.
16 See Wolinski and Haggh, ‘Two 13th-Century Hockets’, p. 44.
17 So suggests Catalunya: see ‘Medieval Polyphony in the Cathedral of Sigüenza’, p. 57 n. 43. For the other example, see Jeffery, P., ‘A Four-Part “In Seculum” Hocket and a Mensural Sequence in an Unknown Fragment’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 37 (1984), pp. 1–48 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the theoretical references, see Jacobi Leodiensis Speculum musicae, ed. R. Bragard, 7 vols. (Corpus Scriptorum de Musica, 3; Rome, 1955–73), vii, p. 24 and p. 89.
18 De musica mensurata: The Anonymous of St. Emmeram, ed. and trans. J. Yudkin (Music: Scholarship and Performance; Bloomington, 1990); the citation of Ave Maria hoquetato is found (with the incipit ‘Amen’) at p. 226 (Latin) and p. 227 (English translation). The two Manere citations are at pp. 228/229.
19 Rokseth, Y., Polyphonies du XIIIe siècle: Le manuscrit H 196 de la Faculté de Médecine de Montpellier, 4 vols. (Paris, 1935–1939)Google Scholar, iv, p. 83. The motets are nos. 39, 78, 134 and 137 of that edition.
20 For instance, having edited the Latin contrafact of Dame vostre douz regart (72), Jhesu Christi sedulus (73), from W2, Gordon A. Anderson writes: ‘The hocket passage in the motetus … is an interesting use of this device, and comes at a point of climax both in the music and in the text of both voices. The tenor, too, reaches its point of climax at this section.’ See The Latin Compositions in Fascicules VII and VIII of the Notre Dame Manuscript, Wolfenbüttel, Helmstadt 1099 (1206), 2 vols. (Musicological Studies, 24; Brooklyn, NY, 1968), ii, p. 299. Anderson does not elaborate; I will argue that the hocket indeed marks an important moment in the motet’s design.
21 Mathiassen, F., The Style of the Early Motet (c.1200–1250): An Investigation of the Old Corpus of the Montpellier Manuscript (Studier og Publikationer fra Musikvidenskabeligt Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 1; Copenhagen, 1966), p. 77 Google Scholar.
22 Ibid. The three motets, cited at p. 77 n. 83, are nos. 39, 73 and 137 in Rokseth, Polyphonies du XIII e siècle, ii–iii. Mathiassen put perfections 33–7 of our motet on the extreme end of a normal spectrum of motet-voice phrase lengths (The Style of the Early Motet, p. 75). There is no sign he considers the passage a hocket.
23 Rokseth, Polyphonies du XIII e siècle, iv, p. 226. Indeed, Rokseth finds hockets an exception to the general rule that ‘expressive’ relationships between music and textual image did not concern the composer of early motets: ‘Nous serions déçus pourtant si nous pensions y trouver une correspondance expressive entre le sens des paroles et les images musicales. Aucune intention de ce genre ne paraît avoir occupé le compositeur. Tout au plus semble-t-il que le procédé du hoquet ait très tôt révélé son aptitude à traduire les soupirs, les sanglots’ (ibid.)
24 Sanders, ‘Hocket’.
25 Kügle, K., ‘Hoquetus’, Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 2nd edn, ed. L. Finscher, Sachteil, 14 (Kassel and Stuttgart, 1996)Google Scholar, cols. 355–61, at 356.
26 Harbinson, D., ‘The Hocket Motets in the Old Corpus of the Montpellier Manuscript’, Musica Disciplina, 25 (1971), pp. 99–112 Google Scholar, at 99. The pieces are nos. 2, 3, 5, 73 and 137 in Rokseth, Polyphonies du XIII e siècle, ii.
27 Tischler, H., The Style and Evolution of the Earliest Motets (to circa 1270), 4 vols. (Musicological Studies, 40; Ottawa, Ont., 1985), p. 93 Google Scholar n. 40; he lists nos. 14b, 47, 57, 129, 142, 145, 214, 234 and 2401 of The Earliest Motets (to circa 1270): A Complete Comparative Edition, ed. H. Tischler, 3 vols. (New Haven, and London, 1982). With one exception (no. 145, in which I find no hocket), all these pieces are also on my list; Tischler’s nos. 214, 234 and 2401 are from Cl, and thus appear in the portion of my appendix dedicated to that manuscript, and compiled from Motets of the Manuscript La Clayette: Bibliothèque Nationale, Nouv. Acq. F. Fr. 13521, ed. G. A. Anderson and (French texts) E. A. Close (Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae, 68; Neuhausen-Stuttgart, 1975), in which they are nos. 10, 46 and 54 respectively.
28 Schmidt-Beste, ‘Singing the Hiccup’, pp. 269–75.
29 Ibid., p. 229.
30 Ibid. The thirteenth-century portion of Schmidt-Beste’s search was conducted on the basis of The Montpellier Codex, ed. H. Tischler (Recent Researches in the Music of the Middle Ages and Early Renaissance, 2–3, 4–5, 6–7, 8; Madison, Wis., 1978–85) and Compositions of the Bamberg Manuscript: Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, Lit. 115 (olim Ed.IV.6), ed. G. A. Anderson (Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae, 75; Neuhausen-Stuttgart, 1977). By default, both editors render the long of three tempora as a dotted crotchet, and group them into bars of 6/8. To appear on the list, a hocket passage must therefore last for at least four perfections.
31 Schmidt-Beste, ‘Singing the Hiccup’, p. 229.
32 Ibid., p. 270. They are nos. 2, 39, 134, 180, 194, 211, 215, 234, 267, 277 and 332 in The Montpellier Codex, ed. Tischler; and nos. 36, 52 and 57 in Compositions of the Bamberg Manuscript, ed. Anderson. (Because of shared repertory between the manuscripts, Tischler’s no. 39 is also Anderson’s no. 36.) All of these pieces appear in my new list, offered in Appendix 2.
33 Wolinski, M. E., ‘Hocketing and the Imperfect Modes in Relation to Poetic Expression in the Thirteenth Century’, Musica Disciplina, 58 (2013), pp. 393–411 Google Scholar.
34 Ibid., p. 393.
35 The literature on the motet’s problems of audibility is vast. A catalyst for this sort of work was provided by Christopher Page’s spirited polemic against the study of intertextual references in polytextual motets, based on the claim that the sonic difficulty of the genre renders them imperceptible. See Page, C., Discarding Images: Reflections on Music and Culture in Medieval France (Oxford, 1993), pp. 65–111 Google Scholar; and Page, ‘Around the Performance of a 13th-Century Motet’, Early Music, 28 (2000), pp. 343–57. Much work was stimulated by Pesce, D. (ed.), Hearing the Motet: Essays on the Motet of the Middle Ages and Renaissance (New York and Oxford, 1997)Google Scholar. Important recent contributions for the thirteenth century (each reviewing the state of scholarship) include Clark, S., ‘“S’en dirai chançonete”: Hearing Text and Music in a Medieval Motet’, Plainsong and Medieval Music, 16 (2007), pp. 31–59 Google Scholar, and Dillon, E., The Sense of Sound: Musical Meaning in France, 1260–1330 (The New Cultural History of Music; New York and Oxford, 2012).
36 Frobenius, W., ‘Hoquetus’ (1988), in Handwörterbuch der musikalischen Terminologie, ed. H. H. Eggebrecht (Wiesbaden, 1972–2005)Google Scholar.
37 S. Pinegar, ‘Textual and Conceptual Relationships among Theoretical Writings on Measurable Music of the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries’ (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1991), pp. 552–7.
38 Pinegar (ibid., p. 552) observes that the Discantus positio vulgaris has a ‘description of ochetus as an untexted voice over a tenor employing modal rhythm’, but she proceeds to a discussion of Lambertus and ‘the earliest extant independent hocket’, the In seculum setting in Ma (fol. 122v), also found in Mo and Ba, which I discussed above. The style of that piece, rife with pitch repetitions and alternations between the parts, thus stands in for a general definition of the hocket. Frobenius is unambiguous: ‘hoquetus’, he writes, is ‘d[ie] Bezeichnung einer Mehrstimmigkeit, bei der sich die Stimmen in der Hervorbringung von Tönen schnellstens abwechseln und die eine Stimme pausiert, wenn die andere Töne hat’. See Frobenius, ‘Hoquetus’, p. 1.
39 LmL Online, s.v. ‘hoquetus –i m’ (acc. 26 May 2016). The English definition reads: ‘“hocket” (term for a compositional technique that is characterized by rests alternating between voices in compositions with more than one organal voice, or by repetitive use of rests in compositions with a single organal voice)’ (ibid.)
40 Wolinski, ‘The Medieval Hocket’, in The ORB: On-Line Reference Book for Medieval Studies, 2003, www.bestmusicteacher.com/download/wolinski_the_medieval_hocket.pdf (acc. 23 Apr. 2016), and Wolinski and Haggh, ‘Two 13th-Century Hockets’, pp. 43–4.
41 This, a move inspired by recent studies that compare literary representations of sensory experience with theorists (medieval and/or modern) of perception and the aesthetic. Particularly influential on my thinking have been Carruthers, M., The Experience of Beauty in the Middle Ages (Oxford–Warburg Studies; Oxford, 2013)Google Scholar; Johnson, E., Practicing Literary Theory in the Middle Ages: Ethics and the Mixed Form in Chaucer, Gower, Usk, and Hoccleve (Chicago and London, 2013); and Nolan, M., ‘Medieval Sensation and Modern Aesthetics: Aquinas, Adorno, Chaucer’, Minnesota Review, 80 (2013), pp. 145–158 .
42 A locution indebted to Mary Carruthers’s study of the concept of ductus as developed from Classical rhetoric by medieval thinkers. Carruthers writes: ‘Ductus is the way by which a work leads someone through itself: that quality in a work’s formal patterns which engages an audience and then sets a viewer or auditor or performer in motion within its structures, an experience more like travelling through stages along a route than like perceiving a whole object.’ See Carruthers, M., ‘The Concept of Ductus, or Journeying through a Work of Art’, in Carruthers (ed.), Rhetoric beyond Words: Delight and Persuasion in the Arts of the Middle Ages (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature, 78; Cambridge, 2010), pp. 190–213 Google Scholar. I make much use of this and related metaphors throughout the current article; all should be understood to allude to Carruthers’s work, made so particularly germane to the case of hocket because of the frequency with which notions of vocal pathway appear in mensural theorists’ accounts of the device.
43 This extends to their music what Sylvia Huot has taught us about the texts of motets: ‘the vernacular motet reflects … [an] impulse to study the vernacular corpus, to experiment with both the codification and the transformation of its generic paradigms’. Huot, S., Allegorical Play in the Old French Motet: The Sacred and the Profane in Thirteenth-Century Polyphony (Figurae; Stanford, Calif., 1997), p. 10 Google Scholar.
44 The dating of the Discantus positio vulgaris is uncertain and contested. Sandra Pinegar suggests that it is unlikely to represent a stable text at all, but rather a distillation of teaching lore that circulated in the first half of the thirteenth century (‘Textual and Conceptual Relationships’, p. 55). As she explains (ibid., p. 51), the text is uniquely preserved as the first of four positiones on mensural music compiled in the Tractatus de musica of Hieronymus de Moravia, itself surviving only in one manuscript (Paris, Bnf, latin 16663). Recent research clarifies that Jerome’s Tractatus cannot have been written before 1275, and that the most secure terminus ante quem for latin 16663 is 1306: see introduction to Hieronymi de Moravia: Tractatus de Musica, ed. C. Meyer and G. Lobrichon with C. Hertel-Geay (Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Medievalis, 250; Turnhout, 2012), pp. xiv–xvi. As Pinegar observes, ‘since the Discantus positio vulgaris was edited for inclusion in Jerome of Moravia’s Tractatus, its description of ochetus as an untexted voice over a tenor may not reliably be said to be the earliest theoretical description’ (‘Textual and Conceptual Relationships’, p. 552). These cautions notwithstanding, I suspect the comment on the hocket in the Discantus positio vulgaris indeed reflects early thinking. But whatever the text’s vintage, its claim that the hocket is textless was evidently incorrect.
45 My translation. The authoritative edition of the Latin text is now Hieronymi de Moravia: Tractatus de Musica, ed. Meyer and Lobrichon, pp. 176–81. There, this passage reads: ‘Item ochetus est super tenorem uniuscuiusque modi mothetorum absque prosa diuersus et consonus cantus’ (p. 181). For a translation of the whole text, see J. McKinnon’s revised translation of O. Strunk (ed.), Source Readings in Music History, rev. edn by L. Treitler (New York, 1998), pp. 218–23.
46 OLD, s.v. ‘dīuersus’ (pp. 562–3). This definition is §1.
49 DMLBS, s.v. ‘divertere’ (i, pp. 705–6). Diversus is not treated as a separate headword in the DMLBS.
50 Hans Tischler suggested that diversus in this passage ‘refers to the alternate sounding of notes or note groups of the one part by two performers’. See Tischler, Style and Evolution, i, p. 19. This idea about hockets has now been categorically dismissed by David Catalunya. See Catalunya, ‘Medieval Polyphony in the Cathedral of Sigüenza’, pp. 62–3.
51 This, the second positio on measurable music incorporated into Jerome’s Tractatus: Paris, BnF, latin 16663, fols. 66v–76v. Two manuscripts transmit another, shorter version of the treatise, which does not mention hocket. The first is Bruges, Stadsbibliotheek, MS 528, fols. 54v–59v, which C. Meyer et al. date ‘XIIIe s. ou première moitié du XIVe s.’, in The Theory of Music: Manuscripts from the Carolingian Era up to c. 1500, Addenda, Corrigenda: Descriptive Catalogue (Répertoire International des Sources Musicales, B III, vol. 6; Munich, 2003), p. 110. The second is Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. Lat. 5325, fols. 12v–30v, variously dated between 1260 and the early fourteenth century: see ibid., pp. 571–2. For discussion of the sources and issues presented by the shorter versions of Garlandia, see Pinegar, ‘Textual and Conceptual Relationships’, pp. 78–92.
52 Roesner, E. H., ‘Subtilitas andDelectatio: Ne m’a pas oublié’, in E. Doss-Quinby, R. L. Krueger and E. J. Burns (eds.), Cultural Performances in Medieval France: Essays in Honor of Nancy Freeman Regalado (Gallica, 5; Woodbridge, 2007), pp. 25–43 Google Scholar; on hocket as a color, see pp. 34–5.
53 English translations of Garlandia are adapted from Johannes de Garlandia, Concerning Measured Music/De mensurabili musica, trans. S. Birnbaum (Colorado College Music Press Translation Series, 9; Colorado Springs, 1978), p. 55 (henceforth ‘Birnbaum, trans.’); Latin: ‘Copula duplex est, una, quae est medium inter organum purum et discantum, altera est, quae fit in abscisione sonorum aut sumendo tempus post tempus et tempora post tempora. Et iste modus sumitur flaiolis. Et aliqui vocant oquetum modum istum’; Johannes de Garlandia: De mensurabili musica: Kritische Edition mit Kommentar und Interpretation der Notationslehre, ed. E. Reimer (Beihefte zum Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 10–11; Wiesbaden, 1972) (henceforth ‘Reimer, ed.’), p. 96.
54 OLD, s.v. ‘abscīdō’ (p. 10).
55 DMLBS, s.v. ‘abscidere’ and ‘abscisio’ (i, p. 8).
56 OLD, s.v. ‘abscīsiō’ (p. 10). The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘aposiopesis’ as ‘A rhetorical artifice, in which the speaker comes to a sudden halt, as if unable or unwilling to proceed.’ OED Online, www.oed.com, s.v. ‘aposiopesis, n.’ (acc. 5 Jan. 2016).
57 OLD, s.v. ‘significātiō’ (p. 1758).
58 Ad C. Herennium. De ratione dicendi (Rhetorica ad Herennium), trans. H. Caplan (Loeb Classical Library, 403; Cambridge, Mass., 1954), p. 403. Latin (ibid., p. 402): ‘per abscisionem, si, cum incipimus aliquid dicere, deinde praedicamus, et ex eo quod iam diximus satis reliquitur suspicionis, sic: “Qui ista forma et aetate nuper alienae domi – nolo plura dicere.”’
59 Again see Roesner, ‘Subtilitas and Delectatio’, pp. 33–5.
60 Yudkin, J., ‘The “Copula” according to Johannes de Garlandia’, Musica Disciplina, 34 (1980), pp. 67–84 Google Scholar, at 68–71. In Yudkin’s interpretation, Garlandia’s copula is ‘inter discantum et organum’ both because it is the style logically placed between the two (having a sustained tenor note and an upper voice in modal rhythm), and because such passages are never found at the beginning of Notre Dame organa, only embedded within them (ibid., pp. 80–1). I suspect that one way to integrate Garlandia’s general definition of the copula (which in Yudkin’s reading is a substantial section of a piece, ‘characterized by modal rhythm over a held tenor-tone, by sectionalization, and by melodic sequence’, p. 84) with the theorist’s thoughts on hocket would be to observe that Garlandia finds copula sections to be marked by the frequent use of tractūs (rests) that separate puncti (pitches or groups of pitches). (On the meaning of punctus and tractus in this passage, see ibid., pp. 76–8.) An alternative view rejects without clear reason the connection of copula with hocket in Garlandia as the mark of late redaction by Hieronymus de Moravia, and asserts that the two species are essentially unrelated; see Reckow, F., Die Copula: Über einige Zusammenhänge zwischen Setzweise, Formbildung, Rhythmus und Vortragsstil in der Mehrstimmigkeit von Notre-Dame (Mainz and Wiesbaden, 1972), pp. 54–58 Google Scholar, at 55.
61 Yudkin convincingly defends as authorial (rather than scribal) the colophon given in the final three verses of St. Emmeram, which dates the treatise to the Feast of St Clement (23 November) 1279. See De musica mensurata, ed. and trans. Yudkin, pp. 32–3.
On the sources for Lambertus’s treatise, see The ‘Ars musica’ Attributed to Magister Lambertus/Aristoteles, ed. C. Meyer and trans. K. Desmond (Royal Musical Association Monographs, 27; Farnham, 2014), pp. xi–xvi (henceforth ‘Lambertus, Ars Musica’).
62 On the modes, see Lambertus, Ars musica, ed. Meyer and trans. Desmond, pp. 100–13 (Latin on the even-numbered pages, English on the odd); and on hocket, ibid., pp. 112–15. For commentary on Lambertus’s modes, see Meyer’s editorial introduction, pp. xxx–xxxiii; and Anderson, G. A., ‘Magister Lambertus and Nine Rhythmic Modes’, Acta Musicologica, 45 (1973), pp. 57–73 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Meyer discusses the passage on hocket in Lambertus, Ars musica, pp. xxxiii–xxxiv. I agree with his characterisation that the phenomenon ‘consists of cutting a given note by a fraction of its duration’ (ibid., p. xxxiii); otherwise our interpretations of the passage differ.
63 My translation. Cf. Lambertus, Ars musica, ed. Meyer and trans. Desmond, p. 113. Desmond’s translation renders with laudible clarity prose whose Latin is clunky and often opaque, and which sometimes permits other interpretations. I have retranslated from scratch all quotations from Lambertus so as to bring out the points of connection with other theorists, and without smoothing in English the rough edges of his Latin. However, I have always taken Desmond’s choices into account. My renditions overlap with hers, and sometimes diverge. (Corresponding pages of her translation will be one page number higher than the reference given for a Latin quotation.) The Latin reads: ‘Cum dictum sit superius de diversitate multiplicium figurarum et de modis et multis aliis precedentibus, nunc autem dicendum est de quadam armonia resecata, que quantum ad nos “hokettus” vulgariter appellatur’ (ibid., p. 112). Lambertus’s vulgariter may mean ‘in the vernacular’; on which, see Schmidt-Beste, ‘Singing the Hiccup’, pp. 246–7. I prefer Desmond’s ‘commonly’ (Lambertus, Ars musica, ed. Meyer and trans. Desmond, p. 113), which would not rule out that other interpretation. ‘Figura’ in this context means something like ‘notational grapheme’.
64 Latin: ‘Unde notandum est quod resecata musica, id est ipsa hoccitatio, est illa que fit secundum rectam vocem et omissam, videlicet quando ab aliqua perfectione tempus sit resecatum. Et hoc dico dupliciter: nam aliquando a parte principii fit resecatio, aliquando a parte finis, prout in scriptura plane sub breviloquio per tractus et figuras declaratur’ (Lambertus, Ars musica, ed. Meyer, p. 112).
65 DMLBS Online, s.v. ‘resecare’ (acc. 6 Oct. 2016).
66 OLD, s.v. ‘resecō’ (pp. 1627–8).
67 Ibid., §1b, where the cited example comes from a letter of Pliny the Younger to Lupercus, concerning a speech sent in written copy along with it. The speech has grown long through zealous patriotism (no bad thing); but Pliny bids Lupercus ‘Nevertheless, prune even these bits back as much as prudence demands’ (my translation). Latin: ‘Tu tamen haec ipsa quantum ratio exegerit reseca.’ See Pliny the Younger, Letters, Volume I: Books 1–7, trans. B. Radice (Loeb Classical Library, 55; Cambridge, Mass., 1969), bk. 2, letter 5, para. 4; p. 92.
68 DMLBS Online, s.v. ‘breviloquium’ (acc. 14 May 2017).
69 Lambertus, Ars musica, ed. Meyer, p. 112.
70 Though Lambertus does not use this presumed verb directly. Schmidt-Beste’s translation of hoccitatio as ‘hocketation’ is wonderful (‘Singing the Hiccup’, p. 246 n. 65), and I borrow it gratefully.
71 ‘Whence it is to be known that a tempus comes about in three ways: sometimes in straight voice, sometimes in hollow voice, sometimes in relinquished voice.’ Latin: ‘Unde sciendum est quod tempus habet fieri tripliciter: aliquando enim voce recta, aliquando cassa, aliquando omissa.’ Lambertus, Ars musica, ed. Meyer, p. 112. The same threefold division is drawn by Garlandia and the St. Emmeram Anonymous (as identified by Meyer, ed., p. 96), but their definitions of the terms differ from Lambertus’s and from one another. Cf. Garlandia, De mensurabili musica, ed. Reimer, i, p. 38; and Anonymous of St. Emmeram, De musica mensurata, ed. Yudkin, p. 102.
72 A use with deep historical roots. See Atkinson, C. M., The Critical Nexus: Tone-System, Mode, and Notation in Early Medieval Music (AMS Studies in Music; Oxford and New York, 2009), p. 21 and passim Google Scholar.
73 Its primary sense. See DMLBS Online, s.v. ‘vox’, §1 (acc. 6 Oct. 2016). See also Leach, E. E., Sung Birds: Music, Nature, and Poetry in the Later Middle Ages (Ithaca, NY and London, 2007), p. 25 Google Scholar.
74 Latin: ‘Voce enim recta, ut vox humana procedens a pulmone’. Lambertus, Ars musica, ed. Meyer, p. 96.
75 DMLBS Online, s.v. ‘rectus’, §1 (acc. 6 Oct. 2016).
76 Ibid., §2.
77 On magis et minus as ‘variation in degree’, see te Velde, R. A., Participation and Substantiality in Thomas Aquinas (Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters, 46; Leiden and New York, 1995), p. 37 Google Scholar.
78 Latin: ‘Omissa autem vox est illa proportio sive mora, in qua quelibet figura superius prenominata secundum magis et minus proportionaliter habet fieri, et hoc tacite rectam mensuram excogitando secundum quod quelibet figura pro sua parte continet in se.’ Lambertus, Ars musica, ed. Meyer, p. 96.
79 DMLBS Online, s.v. ‘omittere’, §1 (acc. 6 Oct. 2016).
80 DMLBS Online, s.v. ‘mora’, §3 (acc. 6 Oct. 2016).
81 Ibid., §1.
82 Fittingly, his emphasis on vox omissa as proportion and object of reason introduces his system of seven rests, each with its own name and its own form (based on its length) by which it may be distinguished. See Lambertus, Ars musica, ed. Meyer, p. 98.
83 LmL Online, s.v. ‘harmonia –ae f.’ (acc. 6 Oct. 2016).
84 DMLBS Online, s.v. ‘harmonia’, §1 (acc. 6 Oct. 2016).
85 Supporting the claim that armonia (as used by Lambertus) need not imply the simultaneous sounding of multiple pitches is its use in the first half of the treatise, on musica plana. There, Lambertus distinguishes three species of musica instrumentalis: armoniaca (into which category fall both musica plana and musica mensurabilis), ritmica, and metrica (the latter two being properties of verse). (See Lambertus, Ars musica, ed. Meyer, p. 10.) The armonia which characterises musica armoniaca essentially describes any property of numerical proportion displayed between two or more musical phenomena: it may manifest between pitches (whether they are articulated together or successively), and/or between long and short notes. Thus: ‘Armoniaca vero est illa que discernit inter sonum gravem et acutum, vel armoniaca est illa que consistit in numeris dupliciter et mensuris: una localis secundum proportionem sonorum et vocum, alia temporalis secundum proportionem longarum breviumque figurarum’ (ibid.) English: ‘Harmonic music is that which distinguishes between a low sound and a high, or harmonic [music] is that which consists in numbers in a twofold manner and in measures: one kind is based on location, according to the proportion of sounds and pitches; the other is temporal, according to the proportion of long and short figures.’ Armonia is explicitly the object of correct, rational musical perception: ‘The duty [of the musical artifex] is one thing in practice, another in theory. In practice it is to put together harmonies [armonias componere] according to the art. In theory it is to comprehend in its entirety the knowledge of the harmonic species, and that out of which they are put together, and that for which they are put together. And this, insofar as it pertains to plana musica’ (my emphasis). Latin: ‘Officium vero aliud practice, aliud theoretice. Practice vero est armonias componere secundum artem. Theorice officium est in summa comprehendere cognitionem specierum armoniarum, et id ex quo componuntur, et id ad quod componuntur. Et hoc quantum ad planam musicam’ (Lambertus, Ars musica, ed. Meyer, p. 18). The final sentence makes quite clear that our own notion of ‘harmony’ is not identical with Lambertus’s armonia, for his can manifest in one voice alone.
86 Latin: ‘Circa quam considerandum est quod unam et eandem retinet mensuram sicut in predictis modis continetur, sed in opere sonoque diversificatur.’ Lambertus, Ars musica, ed. Meyer, p. 112.
87 DMLBS Online, s.v. ‘considerare’, §3 (acc. 6 Oct. 2016).
88 J. Marenbon describes the quaestio as a ‘technique’ in Later Medieval Philosophy (1150–1350): An Introduction (London and New York, 1987), p. 10 and passim. For a study of quaestiones in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century music theory, and quaestiones on music in scholastic texts more broadly, see G. Rico, ‘Music in the Arts Faculty of Paris in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries’ (D.Phil. diss., University of Oxford, 2005), pp. 187–237.
89 Marenbon, Later Medieval Philosophy, pp. 10–14.
90 Ibid., pp. 19–31.
91 Ibid., p. 19.
93 DMLBS Online, s.v. ‘quaerere’, §1 (acc. 21 May 2017), gives ‘to search for, seek, try to find’ as the verb’s first definition; the technical scholastic sense in which I perceive Lambertus to be using it is better captured by ibid., §6, ‘to ask for, demand (something)’ or §9, ‘to question, interrogate (a person)’.
94 Of the senses reported in DMLBS Online, s.v. ‘respondere, [CL], responderi’ (acc. 21 May 2017), §3 best matches Lambertus’s usage here: ‘to reply to an argument, put forward an opposing point of view. b. (acad.) to defend a thesis against an opponent in a disputation.’ Meanwhile, though DMLBS Online, s.v. ‘responsio’, §1 (acc. 21 May 2017), gives ‘act of responding. b. (spoken or written) reply, answer’ as its first definition, again, a subsequent one better captures Lambertus’s technical reference: §2 ‘response to argument, refutation’ (which I use here).
95 Latin: ‘Unde si querat aliquis cuius <modi> sit talis armonia, ad quod respondendum est, quod in genere cuiuslibet modi referre tenetur equipollentialiter, et illius esse modi possit, in quo mensurari videtur.’ Ibid., p. 112.
96 Latin: ‘quoniam si medium teneret, tunc fieri posset ambiguitas utrum tempus sumeretur a precedenti figura vel a subsequenti.’ Lambertus, Ars Musica, ed. Meyer, p. 112.
97 DMLBS Online, s.v. ‘sumere’, §1 (acc. 21 May 2017).
98 Ibid., §4.
99 DMLBS Online, s.v. ‘aequipollenter’ (acc. 6 Oct. 2016).
100 Yudkin, ‘The “Copula” according to Johannes de Garlandia’, p. 71. For a conspectus of uses, see LmL Online, s.v. ‘aequipollentia –ae f.’ (acc. 20 May 2017). Its primary English definition is given as ‘equipollence’; the lion’s share of thirteenth-century citations are presented under the second offered distinction: ‘of notes, rests, or mensural value’.
101 Though see n. 152 below.
102 Lambertus, Ars musica, ed. Meyer, p. 114.
103 Latin: ‘Deinde querendum est qualiter se habet in opere sive in cantu. Responsio: quod a duobus cantatur vel saltim a tribus propter consonantiam perficiendam. Sed a duobus tantummodo fit truncatio alternando unusquisque vocem suam tam rectam quam omissam, ita quod inter eos pausula vel aliquod suspirium maius et minus non remaneat vacuum, sicut in sequentibus patebit exemplis’ (ibid., p. 114).
104 Lambertus, Ars musica, ed. Meyer, p. 114. That layout is not unheard of in repertory manuscripts, though. For example, the parts of the In seculum hocket that opens Mo fascicle 5 (fol. 111r) are copied in sequence rather than score.
105 Latin: ‘Exemplum secundum ordinem et mensuram primi modi.’ Ibid., p. 114.
106 Latin: ‘Patet altrinsecatio contra eundem.’ Ibid.
107 Lewis, C. T. andC. Short, , A Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1879)Google Scholar, s.v. ‘altrinsecus’, p. 99. In medieval use, it can also mean ‘on both sides, at both ends’: see DMLBS Online, s.v. ‘altrinsecus’ (acc. 6 Oct. 2016). But the Classical definition is the one borrowed by Lambertus for his new confection: it is, after all, used to introduce only one of the two, strikingly disaggregated voice-parts.
108 The St. Emmeram Anonymous gives the only other attestation of altrinsecatio. It describes for St. Emmeram what truncatio seems to have captured for Lambertus: the phenomenon of pitch repetition achieved by interleaving the sounds of one part with the silences of the other. Thus St. Emmeram writes: ‘If such [a hocketation] is perfect [rather than imperfect], then it is made through the continually alternated exchange of cuttings-up [altrinsecationem resecationum] from one part to the other’ (Anonymous of St. Emmeram, De musica mensurata, ed. and trans. Yudkin, p. 229, adapted). Latin: ‘Si sit perfecta, tunc talis hoquetatio fit per altrinsecationem resecationum ab uno cantu in alterum continue mutuatam’ (ibid., p. 228). But see again that the resecationes belong to one part or the other; they are distinct from altrinsecatio, which here describes the process by which the resecationes alternate. So though the relation of altrinsecatio to resecatiofor St. Emmeram does not map precisely onto their relation for Lambertus (for Lambertus uses altrinsecatio to designate a voice-part, whereas St. Emmeram uses it to designate the phenomenon of voice-exchange itself), nevertheless both authors use the two terms in a contrastive manner that retains a one-voice aspect for two-voice hockets. The three other appearances of the word altrinsecatio in St. Emmeram’s text are ibid., p. 224 (lines 33 and 39), and p. 228 (line 34).
109 On which, see Wolinski, ‘The Medieval Hocket’, and Wolinski and Haggh, ‘Two 13th-Century Hockets on Manere Recovered’, pp. 43–4. The treatise survives uniquely in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 14523, fols. 134–59. For a description, see Anonymous of St. Emmeram, De musica mensurata, ed. Yudkin, pp. 44–57.
110 Ibid., pp. 226–35. Cf. Munich, Clm 14523, fol. 153r–v; the imperfect hocket is the first example on fol. 153v.
111 For a complete English translation, see O. Strunk, rev. by McKinnon, Source Readings in Music History, rev. edn by Treitler, pp. 226–45; this passage at 228. Rob C. Wegman has also rendered the whole treatise in English, presented alongside the Latin, and has kindly made it available online: ‘Franco de Colonia, Ars cantus mensurabilis/Franco of Cologne, The Art of Measurable Song (c. 1280)’, trans. Wegman, available at www.academia.edu/2080505/Franco_of_Cologne_The_Art_of_Measurable_Song_c.1280; this passage at p. 2. Both translations are very good; I have consulted each when adapting the English reported here, and gratefully acknowledge their models. Latin: ‘Discantus sic dividitur: discantus alius simpliciter prolatus, alius truncatus qui oketus dicitur, alius copulatus qui copula nuncupatur’; Franco of Cologne, Ars cantus mensurabilis, ed. G. Reaney and A. Gilles (Corpus Scriptorium de Musica, 18; [Rome], 1974), pp. 23–82, at 26.
112 Adapted from Strunk/McKinnon trans., p. 243, and Wegman trans., p. 21. Latin: ‘Truncatio est cantus rectis obmissisque vocibus truncate prolatus.’ Franco, Ars cantus mensurabilis, ed. Reaney and Gilles, p. 77.
113 Latin: ‘truncatio, vel oketus quod idem est’ (ibid.).
114 DMLBS Online, s.v. ‘truncare’ (acc. 6 Oct. 2016).
115 Adapted from Wegman trans., p. 21. Latin: ‘Et sciendum quod truncatio tot modis potest fieri quot longam, brevem vel semibrevem contingit partiri. Longa partibilis est multipliciter, primo in longam et brevem, et brevem et longam; et ex hoc fit truncatio, vel oketus quod idem est, ita quod in uno brevis obmittatur, in alio vero longa.’ Franco, Ars cantus mensurabilis, ed. Reaney and Gilles, p. 77.
116 Adapted from Wegman trans., p. 21. Latin: ‘Brevis vero partibilis est in tres semibreves vel duas; et ex hoc cantatur oketus, unam semibrevem obmittendo in uno, et aliam in alio proferendo’ (ibid., p. 78).
117 Adapted from Wegman trans., p. 2; cf. Strunk/McKinnon trans., p. 244. Latin: ‘Et notandum quod ex truncationibus dictis cantantur oketi vulgares ex obmissione longarum et brevium et etiam prolatione. Et notandum quod in omnibus istis observanda est aequipollentia in temporibus, et concordantia in vocibus rectis. Item sciendum quod quaelibet truncatio fundari debet supra cantum prius factum, licet sit vulgar[em] et latinum’. Franco, Ars cantus mensurabilis, ed. Reaney and Gilles, p. 79. They report ‘vulgaris et latinum’; masculine accusative vulgarem, to agree with cantus prius factum, is to be preferred.
118 To be clear: I see no reason to presume that such planning required notation, at least in that earlier period. The literature on the balance of orality and literacy in the Notre Dame repertory is enormous; but as I am making no argument about the notation of the hocket per se, it is not necessary to review that literature here.
119 Judith A. Peraino has pointed out that ‘hocket-like fracturing of melody’ is a striking feature of the monophonic descorts in R (see Peraino, Giving Voice to Love: Song and Self-Expression from the Troubadours to Guillaume de Machaut (New York and Oxford, 2011), p. 113 and one among several devices by which descorts ‘bring the principle of discord into the body of the singer’ (ibid., p. 114). My analysis of the theorists here lends further weight to Peraino’s insightful claim. Likewise, Roesner evidently permits hockets to appear in a single voice, identifying some while analysing the motetus of Ne m’a pas oublié (169)/(IN SECULUM M13); see Roesner, ‘Subtilitas and Delectatio’, pp. 35–7.
120 In a passing but perceptive comment, Mary E. Wolinski describes the voice-exchange effects between the motetus and tenor in In Bethleem Herodes iratus (98)/IN BETHLEEM as ‘interlocking hocketing between the two voices’ (‘Hocketing and the Imperfect Modes’, p. 396). Thus she seems to hold a similar position to mine.
121 I take no position in the debates about the origin and etymology of the word ‘hocket’ (let alone the origins of the practice) other than to say that all the pertinent evidence has been combed over thoroughly, and it seems to me to permit no final determination. For full discussion and a history of scholarly positions adopted, see Schmidt-Beste, ‘Singing the Hiccup’, pp. 246–51, who argues for an Old French etymology deriving from hoquet meaning ‘hiccup’, but acknowledges that no unambiguous evidence for that usage survives before the fifteenth century; and Wolinski, ‘The Medieval Hocket’, pp. 2–4, who finds the Old French and Latin possibilities suggested by previous scholars ‘competing and viable hypotheses’ (at p. 4).
122 This raises the question of whether similarly isolated notes in tenor parts are also hockets. Probably so. However, our interest here is in texted parts of motets, so in the new list of motets with hockets offered in Appendix 2, I only include a piece whose tenor has rest-flanked notes when the tenor also has a text underlaid to the whole part, and not just a chant incipit.
123 See Everist, M., French Motets in the Thirteenth Century: Music, Poetry, and Genre (Cambridge Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Music; Cambridge, 1994)Google Scholar, esp. ch. 8, ‘The Motet and Genre’, pp. 148–80. This would also correspond to the ‘incidental hocket’ as delineated by W. E. Dalglish in his ‘three-fold classification’ of hockets: that is, one ‘used in a manner incidental to the general style of the piece’. See Dalglish, , ‘The Hocket in Medieval Polyphony’, Musical Quarterly, 55 (1969), pp. 344–363 Google Scholar, at 349. But Dalglish works with a definition of the hocket very different from mine: for him, hocket is the ‘truncation of a melodic line with rests and the distribution of its tones between two or more alternating parts’ (ibid., p. 344).
124 The tally was reached by counting the incipits listed in van der Werf, Integrated Directory, pp. 178–87.
125 See Anonymous of St. Emmeram, De musica mensurata, ed. and trans. Yudkin, pp. 212–41, of which the portion on hockets is pp. 224–37. On St. Emmeram contra Lambertus, see Yudkin’s introduction, pp. 7–10; and Yudkin, ‘The Anonymous Music Treatise of 1279: Why St. Emmeram?’, Music & Letters, 72 (1991), pp. 177–96, esp. 177–9. For details about the theoretical rudiments upon which the two theorists disagree, see Pinegar, ‘Textual and Conceptual Relationships’, pp. 161–70.
126 His passage on the modes is Lambertus, Ars musica, ed. Meyer, pp. 100–13. For further commentary, see Anderson, ‘Magister Lambertus and Nine Rhythmic Modes’.
127 Anonymous of St. Emmeram, De musica mensurata, ed. and trans. Yudkin, p. 213, adapted. Latin: ‘perfectus cantus non potest fieri nisi per perfectum modum, et perfectus modus nisi <per> perfectas figuras seu voces’ (ibid., p. 212). As Yudkin reports (ibid., p. 334), this is not a direct quotation from Lambertus.
128 Ibid., p. 103, adapted. Latin: ‘semibreves, quae de semus, sema, semum, quod est imperfectus, imperfecta, imperfectum, dicuntur, quasi imperfectae breves’ (ibid., p. 102).
129 This agrees with Pinegar, ‘Textual and Conceptual Relationships’, p. 163.
130 Trans. Yudkin, p. 225, adapted. Latin: ‘de hoquetis, per quos omnis aequipollentia sive convenientia figurarum … perfecte dignoscitur et habetur’. Ed. Yudkin, p. 224. I share the enthusiasm Yudkin voices when, offering an overview of the treatise’s structure, he writes: ‘In Chapters 2 and 3 … the author presents fascinating evidence as to why he considers the theory of hockets and rests crucial to the understanding of musica mensurabilis as a whole’ (‘The Anonymous Music Treatise’, p. 179). It is that connection I pursue here, and I am most grateful to Professor Yudkin for his permission to cite at length from his edition of St. Emmeram while doing so.
131 Some ground is covered by Pinegar, ‘Textual and Conceptual Relationships’, pp. 395–404; but the interpretations I offer here are largely incompatible with her (expressly preliminary) findings. For an overview of uses, see LmL Online, s.v. ‘convenientia –ae f.’ and s.v. ‘aequipollentia –ae f.’ (acc. 27 Apr. 2016).
132 ‘Here the author wants to show briefly the accords of the species, saying that there are six modes or species, out of which every genus of composition is put together and occurs. And note that just as one body is brought about out of the four elements or humours by means [respectively] of the music of the universe or music of man, so, by means of the accords of species of this kind, one song, or indeed several which press on toward the same end, may beget a melody of songs as if within one body’ (trans. Yudkin, pp. 215–17, adapted). Latin: ‘Hic vult actor breviter specierum convenientias declarare dicens sex esse modos sive species, ex quibus omne genus cantuum conficitur et habetur. Et nota, quod quemadmodum ex quatuor elementis seu humoribus efficitur unum corpus per mundanam musicam aut humanam, sic per convenientias huiusmodi specierum potest unus cantus seu etiam plures ad eundem finem tendentes tanquam sub uno corpore melodiam cantuum generare’ (ed. Yudkin, pp. 214–16). The corresponding passage in Boethius’s De institutione musica (as identified by Yudkin, p. 334) is Book 1, ch. 2. See Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius, De institutione musica, ed. G. Friedlein: Boethii De institutione musica libri quinque (Leipzig, 1867), pp. 187–9. For an English translation, see Boethius, Fundamentals of Music, trans. with an Introduction and notes by C. M. Bower (Music Theory Translation Series, ed. C. V. Palisca; New Haven and London, 1989), pp. 9–10.
133 Anonymous of St. Emmeram, De musica mensurata, trans. Yudkin, p. 217, adapted. Latin: ‘convenientiam eiusdem modi aut plurium circa plures cantus ad eundem finem tendentem consideratam’ (ibid., p. 216).
134 Trans. Yudkin, p. 217, adapted. Latin: ‘convenientiam plurium modorum ad perfectionem unius cantus communiter attributam’ (ed. Yudkin, p. 216).
135 Cf. Yudkin, p. 217. Latin: ‘Si circa unum, nota, quod istae sex species per convenientiam aliquam possunt cantum unicum statuere pro dispositione mutua componentis’ (ed. Yudkin, p. 216). I am most grateful to Leofranc Holford-Strevens for translating this passage.
136 It is worth quoting at length: ‘And it does not matter whether the second species or the third, and so on for the others, are put before the first or any other in such a melody, or the reverse, or whether such species are perfect or imperfect in it, or with their own figures or strange ones, as long as the notes suitably agree or accord with the tenor of some mode placed properly beneath it. And note that such a melody, or melodies if there are more, must be judged by the same mode from which the tenor is made, if there is one found there. And some senseless people have wished to establish their modes from this kind of ordering of the melodies’ (trans. Yudkin, p. 217, adapted). Latin: ‘Et non refert utrum secunda species seu tertia et sic de aliis in tali cantu priori vel alii praeponantur, aut etiam e converso, vel utrum tales species sint ibi perfectae vel imperfectae vel sub propriis figuris aut etiam alienis, dum tamen voces cohaereant seu conveniant tenori modi alicuius supposito competenter. Et nota, quod talis cantus sive tales, si sint ibi plures, debent iudicari de eodem modo de quo est tenor, si sit ibi reperire. Et de tali cantuum dispositione aliqui stupefacti modos suos statuere voluerunt’ (ed. Yudkin, p. 216).
137 St. Emmeram states openly that the first mode may not be combined with either the third or the fourth (see Yudkin, ed., pp. 216/217); and, listing the modes that do permit combination, silently omits the pairing of the first mode with the second. Yet Garlandia does permit all three of these combinations (cf. De mensurabili musica, ed. Reimer, pp. 85–6). Thus St. Emmeram betrays silent disagreement with the authority he so loudly champions. He rejects the pairings on the grounds of the repugnantia vocum, the ‘conflict of pitches’ they produce: ‘yet never will the first mode be able to agree with the third or the fourth in various melodies, nor the reverse, since the conflict of the figures or pitches [figurarum repugnantia sive vocum] in these modes stands in the way of this’ (trans. Yudkin, p. 217, adapted). Latin: ‘nonquam tamen primus modus contra tertium sive quartum in variis cantibus poterit convenire, nec etiam e converso, figurarum repugnantia sive vocum in eis contraria hoc obstante’ (ed. Yudkin, p. 216). The reference to a repugnantia figurarum here seems to be a logical solecism, for as the preceding passage (quoted in n. 132 above) makes clear, the convenientia of voices renders irrelevant the figures (that is, the notational signs) in which they are written. So it is not inconsistent semiosis but poor harmony that is at stake.
138 A fusion not quite captured in the separate delineation of harmonic and rhythmic senses in LmL Online, s.v. ‘convenientia –ae f.’ (acc. 16 Oct. 2016). St. Emmeram is most comprehensively discussed there under the third definition: ‘term that designates the ability of rhythmic modes to combine with each other’.
139 ‘By aequipollent things I mean that if a long or a breve is not found, then in its place is accepted that which is discovered in the place of the breve or the long’ (trans. Yudkin, p. 221, adapted). Latin: ‘Aequipollenta, dico, ut si non inveniatur longa vel brevis, suo loco accipiatur illud, quod loco brevis vel longae repertum est’ (ed. Yudkin, p. 220).
140 Ibid., pp. 222/223. Fascinatingly, this resembles the relation Lambertus posits between his perfect long (the basic unit of the modal system St. Emmeram is attacking) and all other figures. Of the perfecta figura, Lambertus writes: ‘every measurable song proceeds from this figure, and is divided by it, and is replicated in it, and all the figures that ensue return to it on account of the equipollentia that is to be retained’ (Lambertus, Ars musica, ed. Meyer, p. 68).
141 On which, see Wolinski and Haggh, ‘Two 13th-Century Hockets’, pp. 43–4.
142 ‘For as the prose says, equipollent things must be understood in all the modes’ (trans. Yudkin, p. 221, adapted). Latin: ‘Nam ut dicit prosa, aequipollenta in omnibus modis intelligenda sunt’ (ed. Yudkin, p. 220). The formulation is not in fact in Garlandia’s treatise, though Garlandia does discuss aequipollentia and related terms frequently, e.g., offering the following, nearly tautological definition: ‘Discant is the sounding of certain diverse parts according to the mode and according to the aequipollence of its aequipollent part’ (my trans.). Latin: ‘Discantus est aliquorum diversorum cantuum sonantia secundum modum et secundum aequipollentis sui aequipollentiam.’ Johannes de Garlandia, De mensurabili musica, ed. Reimer, p. 35. Garlandia’s meaning is not at all clear. Lambertus uses a variant of the dictum when defining ‘figure’ (figura): ‘Whence a figure is a representation of a sound according to its mode and according to the equipollence of its equipollent part.’ Latin: ‘Unde figura est representatio soni secundum suum modum et secundum equipollentiam sui equipollentis.’ Lambertus, Ars musica, ed. Meyer, p. 62.
143 ‘The same judgment is to be considered about the other simplex figures as regards the quantity of units of time and actions in them. Indeed examples are to be sought through manifold hockets, and indeed as much in songs without text as those with’ (trans. Yudkin, p. 223, adapted). Latin: ‘Idem iudicium de aliis simplicibus pro quantitate temporum et actuum in eis est habendum. Exempla quidem per hoquetos varios atque cantus tam sine littera quam cum littera sunt quaerenda’ (ed. Yudkin, p. 222).
144 For a preliminary overview of the term’s use in other texts, see Pinegar, ‘Textual and Conceptual Relationships’, pp. 395–7.
145 Anonymous of St. Emmeram, De musica mensurata, ed. and trans. Yudkin, pp. 236–40. For instance, he gives an example ‘of how the short mode is converted into the sixth species and extracted from the third species or the fourth by a simple conversion’ (ibid., p. 237); Latin: ‘Exemplum qualiter brevis modus in sextam speciem conversus a tertia specie vel a quarta per conversionem simplicem extorquetur patet hiis exemplis’ (ed. Yudkin, p. 236). On diminutio: ‘the same conversion should be made with the double long and with respect to its diminution, because it is converted to a breve and a long according to the second species’ (trans. Yudkin, p. 241). Latin: ‘eadem conversio est de longa duplice facienda respectu diminutionis, eo quod convertitur in brevem et longam secundum speciem’ (ed. Yudkin, p. 240). It is clear from the context that St. Emmeram finds conversio and diminutio typical of hockets.
146 Thus: ‘discant which … rules melodies by order (with regard to the reduction of the aequipollent things to a particular mode)’ (trans. Yudkin, p. 237, adapted; emphasis mine). Latin: ‘tanquam discantus … hos qui regit ordine (quo ad reductionem aequipollentiarum ad aliquem modum) cantus’ (ed. Yudkin, p. 236).
147 DMLBS Online, s.v. ‘reductio’ (acc. 12 Jan. 2017).
148 For further philological information on related words, see Carruthers, ‘The Concept of Ductus’. I am most grateful to Professor Carruthers for discussing with me the interpretation of St. Emmeram’s reductio I set out here.
149 Trans. Yudkin, p. 217, adapted; emphasis mine. Latin: ‘Nos siquidem tales cantus de eodem modo de quo tenor est iudicamus, eo quod sit dignior pars, nam ab ipso ducunt omnes alii originem, quibus esse decernitur fundamentum’ (ed. Yudkin, p. 216). Cf. DMLBS, s.v. ‘decernere’ and ‘judicare’ (acc. 12 July 2017).
150 On which, see Leach, Sung Birds, esp. ch. 1, ‘Rational Song’, pp. 11–54.
151 On St. Emmeram’s reverence for Garlandia, see Yudkin’s introduction to Anonymous of St. Emmeram, De musica mensurata, pp. 10–19.
152 St. Emmeram wildly misrepresents Lambertus’s argument. For example, Lambertus writes: ‘every measurable song is understood to belong to the likeness of divine nature in a threefold manner [ex tribus]. Of which the proof is evident when the threefold number is reduced [or led back; reducitur] to the perfect [number].’ Latin: ‘sic omnis cantus mensurabilis ad similitudinem divine nature ex tribus constare invenitur. Cuius probatio patet in mensura ubi ternarius numerus reducitur ad perfectum’ (Lambertus, Ars musica, ed. Meyer, p. 70). The belonging of three breves to the unity of the perfection is here described as a reduction; and to construe perfections in this manner is to find that they participate in the likeness of the Trinity. So again we find that Lambertus’s listening is integrative and based on rhythm too; and though the theory of mind upon which it is based is not worked through as thoroughly as St. Emmeram’s, the ethical content of such listening for Lambertus (it helps one come to know God) is more clearly defined. Which is to say, the theorists differ on what the correct object of ethical listening should be (Garlandian modes for St. Emmeram, the perfection for Lambertus); but their accounts of how one should listen for it have points in common.
153 Trans. Yudkin, p. 225, adapted. Latin: ‘videlicet de hoquetis, per quos omnis aequipollentia sive convenientia figurarum omneque genus et efficacia cognitioque virtus et natura earum perfecte dignoscitur et habetur. Et nota, quod armonia, ut dicit Ysidorus, est modulatio vocis et concordia plurimorum sonorum vel coaptatio, quae audientium mentes excitat et delectat, scientes et cantantes imbuit et informat ad omne genus cantuum perfectius cognoscendum et proferendum et leviter componendum’ (ed. Yudkin, p. 224).
154 As Yudkin identifies, the corresponding passage in Isidore’s Etymologiae is III. xix. 2: ‘Harmonics (harmonica) is the modulation of the voice and the bringing together of many sounds into agreement, or fitting them together.’ See The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville, trans. S. A. Barney, W. J. Lewis, J. A. Beach and O. Berghof, with the collaboration of M. Hall (Cambridge, 2006), p. 96. Latin: ‘Harmonica est modulatio vocis et concordantia plurimorum sonorum, vel coaptatio.’ See Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi Etymologiarum sive originum libri XX, ed. W. M. Lindsay (Oxford, 1911), i, p. 39, in which edition the passage is III. xx. 2.
155 OED Online, s.v. ‘antonomasia, n.’ (acc. 9 Feb. 2016).
156 DMLBS Online, s.v. ‘antonomastice’ (acc. 9 Feb. 2016).
157 Trans. Yudkin, p. 225, adapted. Latin: ‘Attendas igitur, mi dilecte … ut ea quae secuntur aure vigili uringinis suscipias, cordis armariolo pacifice reponendo, ne quod a paucis cognitum et honorifice reservatum est provulgatum communiter iam vilescat’ (ibid., p. 224.) Notice that the vocative dilecte is masculine.
158 See Rankin, S., ‘The Study of Medieval Music: Some Thoughts on Past, Present, and Future’, in D. Greer (ed.), Musicology and Sister Disciplines: Past, Present, Future (New York, 2000), pp. 154–168 Google Scholar.
159 For a conspectus of opinions about the dating of W2, and references to further literature, see Les quadrupla et tripla de Paris, ed. E. H. Roesner (Le magnus liber organi de Notre Dame de Paris, 1; Monaco, 1993), pp. lxxi–lxxiii.
160 In addition to studies to which specific debts will be acknowledged below, those which have left a foundational mark on my method here include M. Bent, ‘Polyphony of Texts and Music in the Fourteenth-Century Motet: Tribum que non abhorruit/Quoniam secta latronum/Merito hec patimur and its “Quotations”’, in Pesce (ed.), Hearing the Motet, pp. 82–103; Pesce, ‘Beyond Glossing: The Old Made New in Mout me fu grief/Robin m’aime/Portare’, ibid., pp. 28–51; Roesner, ‘Subtilitas and Delectatio’; Zayaruznaya, The Monstrous New Art; and A. Zayaruznaya, ‘Quotation, Perfection and the Eloquence of Form: Introducing Beatius/Cum humanum’, Plainsong and Medieval Music, 24 (2015), pp. 129–66.
161 On musical ‘events’, see Agawu, V. K., Music as Discourse: Semiotic Adventures in Romantic Music (New York and Oxford, 2009), esp. pp. 7–9 and pp. 32–3Google Scholar.
162 For a parallel transcription of all versions and sources, see The Earliest Motets (to circa 1270), ed. Tischler, no. 142, ii, pp. 957–62 (transcription) and iii, p. 139 (commentary).
163 F. Ludwig, Repertorium organorum recentioris et motetorum vetustissimi stili, 2 vols. (Halle, 1910; repr. and ed. L. Dittmer, Brooklyn, NY, 1964, 1972 and 1978), 1.i, pp. 196–7 and 283); G. A. Anderson, The Latin Compositions, i, pp. 296–9).
164 Dame vostre douz regart (72) and Jhesu Christi sedulus (73) show the same rhyme-scheme (though use different rhyme sounds), except in their verses 10 and 11. These are set to the two two-note phrases of the hocket. In the French, each carries a disyllabic word with b-rhyme (‘aler/parler’); in the Latin, they introduce a new rhyme, d, formed from the internal vowels of two words broken over the phrase-ends (‘previ-/-e fi-/dem’; see W2, fol. 182v, line 2). Such syllable division is unusual; and the first broken word (previe) has the Latin text’s original disyllabic b-rhyme -ie, as if to acknowledge that it was desirable but impossible to use b-rhyme at the end of verse 10 (because the phrase had only two notes, and ie alone is not a word). It is hard to imagine how these quirks would have come about except by modelling the Latin text (poorly) on the French. On philological ways of determining motet chronologies, see Bradley, C. A., ‘Contrafacta and Transcribed Motets: Vernacular Influences on Latin Motets and Clausulae in the Florence Manuscript’, Early Music History, 32 (2013), pp. 1–70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
165 Ludwig, Repertorium, 1.i, p. 283.
166 For a list of chants set polyphonically at Paris c. 1200 and their liturgical uses, see Wright, C., Music and Ceremony at Notre Dame of Paris, 500–1500 (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 259–262 Google Scholar. The surviving Parisian polyphony for M5 is indexed in van der Werf, Integrated Directory, pp. 19–21.
167 The version of Exiit sermo known to Parisian musicians in our period is readily available online: Paris, BnF, latin 1112 (at fol. 156r), http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b6000450z/f321.item (acc. 29 Mar. 2016) (a noted missal).
168 Transcribed from BnF, latin 1112, fol. 156r.
169 Translation based on The Holy Bible: Douay–Rheims Version (Charlotte, NC: Saint Benedict Press, 2009), New Testament, p. 132.
170 This passage formed part of the Gospel reading at Mass on the Feast of St John (John 21:19–24), so I supply the Latin from BnF, latin 1112, fol. 156r, silently expanding abbreviations, so as to preserve the textual variants in the Scripture alongside which the chant would have been heard. The English translation is based on The Holy Bible: Douay–Rheims Version, New Testament, p. 132, adapted.
171 John 21:21. Latin: ‘Hunc ergo cum vidisset Petrus; dixit Iesu. Domine; hic autem quid?’
172 John 21:22. Latin: ‘Dixit ei Iesus. Sic eum volo manere; donec veniam. Quid ad te? Tu me sequere.’
173 John 21:23. Latin: ‘Exiit ergo sermo iste in fratres; quod discipulus ille non moritur. Et non dixit ei Iesus non moritur; sed sic eum volo manere donec veniam quid ad te.’
174 DMLBS Online, s.v. ‘sermo’ (acc. 26 May, 2017).
175 Latin: ‘Hic est discipulus qui testimonium perhibet de hiis; et scripsit hec. Et scimus; quare verum est testimonium eius.’ English (Douay–Rheims): ‘This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.’
176 On which, see Rigg, A. G., ‘Morphology and Syntax’, in F. A. C. Mantello and A. G. Rigg (eds.), Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide (Washington, DC, 1996), pp. 83–92 Google Scholar, at 86.
177 As Peraino aptly observes, ‘refrains operate much like proverbs; they are aphorisms circulating freely in the public domain, representing a public voice’ (Giving Voice to Love, p. 197). It may be useful to clarify what I mean by ‘refrain’. Refrains (as Suzannah Clark lucidly characterises them) are ‘textual and melodic entities, ranging from one word to a couple of lines long, which are incorporated into a host genre’ (Clark, ‘“S’en dirai chançonete”’, p. 45). Refrains may or may not also be quotations, either in whole (i.e. as represented in the various refrain catalogues), or in part (at the level of formula in text and/or melody), such as when melodic units recur in several catalogued refrains, with citational force (on which, see A. Butterfield, ‘Repetition and Variation in the Thirteenth-Century Refrain’, Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 116 (1991), pp. 1–23; and Clark, ‘“S’en dirai chançonete”’, pp. 44–54). For another perspective on identifying refrains, which makes demonstrable quotation a more important criterion defining the category, see Everist, French Motets, pp. 54–66. There is a large and lively literature on refrains, but two excellent recent accounts of the scholarship render another unnecessary here: see Clark, ‘“S’en dirai chançonete”’, pp. 44–8, and J. Saltzstein, , The Refrain and the Rise of the Vernacular in Medieval French Music and Poetry (Gallica, 30; Woodbridge and Rochester, NY, 2013), pp. 1–34 Google Scholar.
178 On which most recently, see Peraino, Giving Voice to Love, p. 197.
179 S.v. ‘vdB 1233a*’, by Anne Ibos-Augé and Mark Everist, in Music, Poetry, Citation: The Medieval Refrain, http://refrain.ac.uk/view/abstract_item/1233a=2A.html (acc. 15 Feb. 2016). This resource is based on, and updates, the index by N. H. J. van den Boogaard, Rondeaux et refrains du XII e siècle au début du XIV e (Bibliothèque Française et Romane, Série D: Initiation, Textes et Documents, 3; Paris, 1969), whence derives the identifier ‘vdB’.
180 S.v. ‘vdB 238’, by Anne Ibos-Augé and Mark Everist, in Music, Poetry, Citation: The Medieval Refrain, http://refrain.ac.uk/view/abstract_item/238.html (acc. 15 Feb. 2016).
181 The refrains are also indexed by Gennrich, F., Bibliographisches Verzeichnis der französischen Refrains (Summa Musicae Medii Aevi, 14; Langen bei Frankfurt, 1964)Google Scholar; vdB 238=Gennrich 1420; vdB 1233a*=Gennrich 1421.
182 For reasons I set out in the prefatory material to Appendix 1, unaccented terminal -e is included in my syllable counts unless it elides with a following vowel in its melodic setting.
183 On this conception of ‘grafting’ (which translates the Old French horticultural term enté, used by some thirteenth-century witnesses in relation to motets and refrains, among other hybrid creative forms), see Butterfield, A., ‘The Language of Medieval Music: Two Thirteenth-Century Motets’, Plainsong and Medieval Music, 2 (1993), pp. 1–16 Google Scholar; Butterfield, , ‘ Enté: A Survey and Reassessment of the Term in Thirteenth- and Fourteenth-Century Music and Poetry’, Early Music History, 22 (2003), pp. 67–100 ; and Peraino, Giving Voice to Love, pp. 186–229. For another view, see Everist, French Motets, pp. 54–66.
184 At Mo, fol. 130r, line 4, the motetus’s conclusion reads ‘vie tout voz rent’, which should conclude vdB 238; while opposite (fol. 129v, line 4), an extraneous syllable yields ‘sauie tot voz rent’ in the triplum. The scribe underlined the motetus’s error and left a correction sign in the margin. Collation makes correct versions obvious. For vdB 1233a*: MuA (‘et la dolor qe ie sent’) and Cl (‘et la douleur que ie sent’) agree against an error in W2 (‘et les douz maus qe ie sent’: an asyntactic repetition of ‘maus’ from verse 13); so I supply Cl’s reading. Across all three sources of vdB 238 (W2, Mo, Cl), Mo’s extraneous syllable is the only verbal disagreement, and can be omitted.
185 Though there is no rest between the two phrases of vdB 1233a*, the scribe signals their division with a stroke, marked in the transcription by a comma above the staff.
186 On hermeneutic properties of linguistic sound supplementary to a motet-text’s semantic meaning, see Dillon, The Sense of Sound. On the aesthetic motif of imperfect musical reproduction in fourteenth-century songs, see Leach, E. E., ‘Nature’s Forge and Mechanical Reproduction: Writing, Reading, and Performing Song’, in M. Carruthers (ed.), Rhetoric beyond Words, pp. 72–95 Google Scholar; and in later repertories, Abbate, C., In Search of Opera (Princeton, 2001)Google Scholar. My reading is indebted to all three studies.
187 The other sources of the motet introduce some fascinating variants for vdB 1233a*, again recorded in The Earliest Motets, ed. Tischler, ii, no. 142, pp. 957–62, with commentary in iii, p. 139. There is not space to discuss them in full, though I suspect that comparing how refrain unica behave across copies of their single host motet may yet have more light to shed on issues of refrain transmission beyond the written record. Suffice it to say in the current case that the formal rhyming achieved in vdB 1233a* by motif x at bb. 41 and 45 (as per Mo) is most likely to be authorial. It is manifest also by the Latin contrafact W2(b), using the slightly different tag e′g′ [BL] in both positions. Both Mo and W2(b) therefore open with a dissonant second against the tenor’s d′ (b. 41). Importantly, all sources use either e′g′ [BL] (MuA, Cl, W2(b)) or the e′f′g′ variant I label motif x (W2(a), Mo) at b. 45. W2(a), MuA, and Cl all report f′g′ [BL] at b. 41, yielding a more consonant third with the tenor. I find it more likely that the versions beginning on f′ resulted from recension by scribes or singers who valued consonance over citational effect, than that the versions beginning with e′ represent independent errors from a consonant original that serendipitously yielded a formal symmetry. Mo’s e′f′g′ [BBB] version of x is probably the version taken by the motet’s composer: it opens vdB 238 also (b. 39) in the witness of both Mo and Cl (against W2(a)’s e′g′ [BL]); and lies behind the sequentially curving, ascending contour with which both of vdB 238’s phrases begin. One wonders if a citational fragment of melody was indeed in broader circulation, and that the e′g′ variant was another acceptable way of capturing in writing a tune that singers or scribes transmitting our motet might have known.
188 The triplum in Mo has one statement of y (b. 35) and five statements of y′ (bb. 1, 18, 22, 42 and 46): in every case, W2(a) and Cl are in precise agreement with Mo. The motetus only sings the variant y, and only twice (bb. 40 and 44). At b. 44, Mo, W2(a) and W2(b) all report y, though Cl has y′, and MuA the otherwise unattested variant b′g′ [BL]. But at b. 40, all sources except W2 agree in reporting y exactly; the formal rhyming with b. 44 was surely intended, and argues powerfully that y was the original version of this figure taken by the motet’s composer. Again, variations across the motet’s sources may indicate broader circulation of this citational formula.
189 Clark analyses how refrains may be composed in the course of making a motet in ‘“S’en dirai chançonete”’, pp. 44–54.
190 Butterfield, Poetry and Music, pp. 85–6.
191 Clark, ‘“S’en dirai chançonete”’, p. 59.
192 Thus: b. 40, motetus, y; b. 42, triplum, y′; b. 44, motetus, y; and b. 46, triplum, y′.
193 Relevant here is Michel Zink’s suggestion that ‘the prehistory of literature is above all a trompe l’oeil creation of literature itself. It is the texts themselves that send their reader on a wild goose chase for their antecedents.’ Zink, , The Enchantment of the Middle Ages, trans. J. M. Todd (Parallax: Re-Visions of Culture and Society; Baltimore and London, 1998), p. 13 Google Scholar.
194 I do not mark variants which might be heard to echo x. However, the use of the B–BB fractio pattern (ubiquitous in the second rhythmic mode) as a citational and formal tag in vdB 1233a* and at the opening of vdB 238 has the effect that almost any use of the rhythm, especially in conjunct ascent, could be heard as a sonic premonition of the refrains. To decide which such uses are and are not internal citations is more than usually arbitrary, and that is quite to the motet’s point.
195 A grateful allusion to Leach, Sung Birds; we will shortly see that this figure, as sung by the motetus, signals its narrator’s distress.
197 The term ‘High Style’ is Christopher Page’s. See Page, , Voices and Instruments of the Middle Ages: Instrumental Practice and Songs in France, 1100–1300 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1986), pp. 10–17 Google Scholar. Such semantic contrasts are prominent among the poetic devices studied by S. Huot, Allegorical Play in the Old French Motet.
198 See Dillon, The Sense of Sound, pp. 174–328.
199 Everist conducts paradigm analysis to show internal repetitions in thirteenth-century motets (French Motets, e.g. pp. 168–9); Clark uses a similar method to reveal a hidden ‘stanza’ shape in a motet part (‘“S’en dirai chançonete”’, p. 51); and Zayaruznaya disposes small-format scores of fourteenth-century motets on the page so as to make visible their isorhythmic regions (e.g. The Monstrous New Art, p. 88). My diagrams are modelled on theirs. My account of the song-representations in the piece also builds on Judith A. Peraino’s claim that refrains may be synecdoches for – rather than citations of – longer songs; see Peraino, ‘Et pui conmencha a canter: Refrains, Motets and Melody in the Thirteenth-Century Narrative Renart le nouvel’, Plainsong and Medieval Music, 6 (1997), pp. 1–16, at 2–4. My examples 4 and 5 report as apostrophes above the score short strokes used by the scribe to indicate phrase divisions not articulated by silences.
200 Again the analysis holds across the manuscript witnesses, as only three variants divide phrases by silence differently than does Mo. (1) Motetus, b. 12: MuA has b [B] + rest [L], dividing verses 3 and 4 (articulating with silence what Mo acknowledges as a phrase-break with a short stroke); all other sources agree with Mo. (2) Triplum, b. 17: Cl has g′ [B] + rest [L], dividing verses 5 and 6. Compatibly with my argument, Cl’s reading makes the second aaba-rhymed segment of the emerging song-form more palpable, setting all its verses to phrases of 3 perfections. (3) Triplum, b. 28: Cl transmits rhythmic errors, among them a rest; the reading can be disregarded.
201 Gaël Saint-Cricq identifies eighteen motets that strictly reproduce the AAB melodic-repetition scheme characteristic of trouvère chansons. See Saint-Cricq, , ‘A New Link between the Motet and Trouvère Chanson: The Pedes-cum-cauda Motet’, Early Music History, 32 (2013), pp. 179–223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In his excellent Ph.D. dissertation, he included Dame vostre douz regart in a further list of twenty-four ‘péri AAX’ motets whose repetition scheme is less strict. See Saint-Cricq, ‘Formes types dans le motet du XIIIe siècle: Étude d’un processus répétitif’, 2 vols. (Ph.D. diss., University of Southampton, 2009), http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/203381, at ii, pp. 8–9, where this motet is no. XVI. Saint-Cricq’s AA′ section corresponds to my segment 1; but though we both highlight other repetitions in the rest of the piece, we interpret its sectionalisation differently.
202 A quick search in the standard index of Old French lyrics (G. Raynaud, rev. H. Spanke, G. Raynauds Bibliographie des alfranzösischen Liedes (Leiden, 1955), henceforth ‘Raynaud–Spanke’), found eighty-nine lyrics using the rhyme-scheme aaab (or xxxy) to demarcate a segment of the poem: nos. 1, 10a, 11, 47a, 50, 51, 54, 56, 57, 67, 102, 105, 122a 141, 144, 165, 278, 317, 339, 355a, 386, 413, 413, 436, 461, 475, 532, 577, 611a, 764, 766, 795, 799, 811, 835a, 868, 835, 835a, 868, 871a, 878a, 897, 901, 910a, 935, 966, 969, 1013, 1048, 1077, 1101, 1160, 1177, 1197, 1259, 1323, 1347, 1359, 1360, 1362, 1376, 1385a, 1405, 1406, 1407, 1481, 1524, 1602, 1604, 1646, 1701, 1735, 1750, 1781, 1805, 1808, 1828, 1862, 1898, 1902, 1915, 1924a, 1996, 2009, 2017a, 2043, 2048, 2087 and 2103. Perhaps others evaded detection; but this many suffices to show that the scheme was known and relatively common. The rhyme-scheme aab (or xxy) for tercets is ubiquitous, and does not require listing here.
203 Clark finds a depiction of a singer’s vocal style in ‘“S’en dirai chançonete”’, at p. 39. See also Carolyn Abbate’s discussion of Wotan’s authorial singing voice in ‘Wotan’s Monologue and the Morality of Musical Narration’, in Unsung Voices: Opera and Musical Narrative in the Nineteenth Century (Princeton Studies in Opera, 4; Princeton, 1991), pp. 156–205.
204 ‘Qu’il ne me soit tart’ (verse 5) can be construed either as a subordinate clause of result, or as an independent clause of exclamation. Because it is most compatible with the musical segmentation, I prefer the latter view. However, we should notice the uncertainty about the narrator’s physical and temporal position relative to the Lady and her wounding look. The syntactic uncertainty of verse 5 heightens one initiated in verses 3 and 4 (‘. . . cele part/ne me puis torner’). This reflexive use of torner can mean both to turn back, and to turn away (see OFED, s.v. ‘torner vr’ [p. 585]): is the narrator unable to turn back thither (‘cele part’), whence he parted? Or, transfixed by the Lady’s gaze, is he unable to turn his eyes away? So with ‘qu’il ne me soit tart’ at verse 5, the narrator could be saying that he cannot take leave ‘without being anxious to return’ (in which case his Lady may or may not be present to his narration). But he could also be crying, ‘Let it not be too late for me/to be able to return to you!’ (in which case the Lady is absent, and the wounding look is in the past). All these interpretations are linguistically plausible, but not all are compatible, which is quite to the point: their incompatibility reproduces the dysphoria of the narrator’s perception, and communicates the strange stasis of his timeless but immobile present (upon which the ‘aler’ of his hocket comments).
205 The classic study of compositional agency is Cone, E. T., The Composer’s Voice (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1974)Google Scholar. The unveiling of authorial agency is a topos widespread in medieval musical and literary forms, and has generated a rich (and developing) scholarship. Among studies formative to my thinking here, see Brownlee, K., Poetic Identity in Guillaume de Machaut (Madison, Wis., 1984)Google Scholar; Leach, E. E., ‘Death of a Lover and the Birth of the Polyphonic Ballade: Machaut’s Notated Ballades 1–5’, Journal of Musicology, 19 (2002), pp. 461–502 ; Leach, ‘Nature’s Forge’; Stone, A., ‘The Composer’s Voice in the Late-Medieval Song: Four Case Studies’, in Philippe Vendrix (ed.), Johannes Ciconia: Musicien de la transition (Turnhout, 2003), pp. 169–194 Google Scholar; and Stone, A., ‘Self-Reflexive Songs and their Readers in the Late 14th Century’, Early Music, 31 (2003), pp. 180–194 .
206 Jane Gilbert (pers. comm.) confirms that the forms ‘crie’ and ‘sent’ may be either first- or third-person singular in the present indicative. The translations presented by modern editions are concomitantly varied. I prefer a first-person interpretation here, albeit that it results in a change of grammatical person in the middle of verse 12 (because ‘Qu’en puet il?’ is unambiguously in the third person).
207 Another quick search through Raynaud–Spanke found that the rhyme-scheme aaba demarcated a set of four verses in twenty-five lyrics: 120, 315, 631, 689, 722, 757, 892, 985, 987, 1095, 1123, 1196, 1203, 1216, 1226, 1275, 1290, 1325, 1574, 1620, 1634, 1745, 1793, 2066 and 2111. A further twenty-four songs showed a segment with the same contrast pattern, but using subsequent rhymes (thus xxyx): 43, 135a, 142, 587, 1054a, 1096, 1170, 1271, 1296, 1317, 1356, 1374, 1476, 1540, 1547, 1589, 1668, 1669a, 1684, 1911, 1945, 1954, 2067 and 2106.
208 The interplay of love- and song-making is a central topos in the troubadour canso or the trouvère chanson. See Peraino, Giving Voice to Love, pp. 3–32 and 123–85, and the literature cited there.
209 The Pygmalion intertext is Ovid, Metamorphoses 10. 243–97. The Metamorphoses were well known to scholars of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. See Coulson, F. T., ‘Ovid’s Metamorphoses in the School Tradition of France, 1180–1400: Texts, Manuscript Traditions, Manuscript Settings’, in J. G. Clark, F. T. Coulson and K. L. McKinley (eds.), Ovid in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 2011), pp. 48–82 Google Scholar. For a recent critical account of the Pygmalion episode in Old French literary texts, see Griffin, M., Transforming Tales: Rewriting Metamorphosis in Medieval French Literature (Oxford, 2015), pp. 167–172 Google Scholar. Griffin observes that ‘what is at stake in this metamorphosis of statue into woman is the relationship between nature and art’ (ibid., p. 167). This insight captures something important about our triplum too. But where Pygmalion’s statue was a material thing wondrously turned to flesh, art transformed into life, the fictional gambit of our triplum works the other way around: albeit that the refrain seems to come to life, nevertheless the represented song it caps is an artistic thing wrought from lived experience; it transforms life into art.
210 For an overview of positions on the major early sources, see Les quadrupla et tripla de Paris, ed. Roesner, pp. lxx–lxxxi. The touchstone for all work on Ars antiqua manuscripts is Everist, Polyphonic Music in Thirteenth-Century France.
211 Roesner, E. H., ‘The Problem of Chronology in the Transmission of Organum Duplum ’, in Iain Fenlon (ed.), Music in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Patronage, Sources, and Texts (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 365–399 Google Scholar; Roesner, , ‘Who “Made” the “Magnus Liber”?’, Early Music History, 20 (2001), pp. 227–266 ; and Rankin, ‘The Study of Medieval Music’.
212 I am influenced here by Johnson, Practicing Literary Theory, who analyses moments in which Middle English texts ‘step outside of themselves, to do the work of theoretical commentary and to enact meditations on the nature of literary experience itself’ (p. 11).
213 Zayaruznaya, The Monstrous New Art, pp. 220–1 and passim.
214 Ibid., p. 10 and passim.
215 Hoppin’s textbook has something wise about this: ‘As a rule, longer hocket passages are reserved for melismatic polyphony; passages with text are usually short and introduce a momentary contrast to the normal motet style. In neither case, however, is hocket introduced to no purpose, although that purpose may sometimes be difficult to determine. Some hocket passages are exclamatory or descriptive; others function as structural elements by underlining the organization of the tenor, a use of hocket that becomes increasingly important in the fourteenth century’ (Medieval Music, p. 345). The assumption that the tenor’s structure is necessarily most important bears the marks of older thought; but everything else here is quite right.
216 Again, a formulation inspired by Carruthers, ‘The Concept of Ductus’.
217 I develop this notion of ‘monaurality’ in the thirteenth-century motet in Curran, S., ‘Writing, Performance, and Devotion in the Thirteenth-Century Motet: The “La Clayette” Manuscript’, in H. Deeming and E. E. Leach (eds.), Manuscripts and Medieval Song: Inscription, Performance, Context (Cambridge, 2015), pp. 193–220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 217. The adjective ‘monaural’ complements ‘polytextual’, and characterises the effect when a motet’s many listening stances coalesce into a single one, revealing for a moment a unitariness of interpretative purpose before the parts go on their own ways again. For a different use of the word, see Abbate, Unsung Voices, pp. 63–4 and 69.
218 This recalls T. W. Adorno’s notion of form as ‘everything on which the hand has left its trace, everything over which it has passed’. See Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, ed. G. Adorno and R. Tiedeman, trans. R. Hullot-Kentor (Theory and History of Literature, 88; Minneapolis, 1997), p. 143.
220 This, notwithstanding that preparation outside the real-time of performance must have been practised by some. On which, see Bent, ‘Polyphony of Texts and Music’, p. 82.
221 Thus I arrive again at issues concerning historical attitudes to musical ethics also handled by Emma Dillon, in her beautiful study of the ethics of attention in thirteenth-century prayer practice and its manifestation in polytextual motets: see Dillon, The Sense of Sound, pp. 174–328.
222 See Abbate, C., ‘Music—Drastic or Gnostic?’, Critical Inquiry, 30 (2004), pp. 505–536 Google Scholar, at 506.
223 Ibid., pp. 511 and 530–1. Abbate builds on V. Jankélévitch, Music and the Ineffable, trans. C. Abbate (Princeton, 2003). See also Gumbrecht, H. U., Production of Presence: What Meaning Cannot Convey (Stanford, Calif., 2004)Google Scholar.
224 Other reminders include Berger, K., ‘Musicology according to Don Giovanni, Or: Should We Get Drastic?’, Journal of Musicology, 22 (2005), pp. 490–501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 495 and 497 (respectively on Horace and St Augustine); Dillon, The Sense of Sound, passim; and Leach, Sung Birds, pp. 11–54. Abbate acknowledges the deeper historical legacy when, paraphrasing Jankélévitch, she writes: ‘Embarrassing reversions may be necessary, to Neoplatonic philosophy, for instance, or its stepchild, apophatic theology’ (‘Music—Drastic or Gnostic?’, pp. 529–30; referencing Jankélévitch, Music and the Ineffable, pp. 111–19 and 130–55); the medieval also makes an appearance in Abbate’s article at p. 531 n. 58. But this conception of premodern philosophy and theology, insofar as they are characterised as justifying a non-intellective rapture before the unspeakable, does not match the very agitative cognition explored by the scholastic Anonymous of St. Emmeram, and by our motet.
225 See Bent, , ‘The Grammar of Early Music: Preconditions for Analysis’, in C. C. Judd (ed.), Tonal Structures in Early Music (Criticism and Analysis of Early Music, 1; London and New York, 1998), pp. 15–59 Google Scholar; and Bent, , ‘Grammar and Rhetoric in Late Medieval Polyphony: Modern Metaphor or Old Simile?’, in Carruthers (ed.), Rhetoric beyond Words, pp. 52–71 .
226 The motet is still often considered a pre-eminently clerical genre, though that perception is changing. For a predominantly clerical view (though one alert to how broad a socio-economic sweep of men entered orders, and how wide was the range of literary registers the motet engaged), see Page, Discarding Images. For recent explorations of possible extra-institutional milieux, see Curran, S., ‘Composing a Codex: The Motets in the “La Clayette” Manuscript’, in J. A. Peraino (ed.), Medieval Music in Practice: Studies in Honor of Richard Crocker (Miscellanea, 8; Middleton, Wis., 2013), pp. 219–253 Google Scholar; and Curran, , ‘Reading and Rhythm in the “La Clayette” Manuscript (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, nouv. acq. fr. 13521)’, Plainsong and Medieval Music, 23 (2014), pp. 125–151 .
227 See Curran, ‘Writing, Performance, and Devotion’.
228 On motet parts that script a singer’s physical labour to affective ends, see Curran, ‘Writing, Performance, and Devotion’, pp. 208–20, and Curran, , ‘Feeling the Polemic of an Early Motet’, in A. Suerbaum, G. Southcombe, and B. Thompson (eds.), Polemic: Language as Violence in Medieval and Early Modern Discourse (Farnham and Burlington, Vt., 2015), pp. 65–94 Google Scholar, at 75–7.
229 I have not suggested b♭′ in the triplum at b. 35 (albeit that the tenor sounds f′ against the first) in order to preserve the cadential rhyme with b. 40, where the tenor has b♮. Dissonances with the tenor were evidently accepted to project a musical citation with clarity: hence the motetus’s e′ at b. 41 (echoed at b. 45) against tenor d′.
The triplum’s pitches for ‘[cri]e quant’ (g′a′b♭′a′g′, bb. 36–371) also contribute to sense that recognition has emerged, and with retroactive force. They allude with changed rhythm to the a′b′a′ motif that augurs the motetus’s collapse at bb. 17 and 32, but which the triplum himself has subjected to greater formal control in the parallelism of bb. 13 and 16. The indexical meaning the motif has accrued over the course of the piece is retroactively confirmed in denotative language.
230 Like our motet, this article ends with a double allusion. Elaine Scarry argues that being struck by beauty alerts one to errors of care and attention, and enjoins that they be corrected; the experience can prepare one for moral action. See Scarry, , On Beauty and Being Just (London, 2006), esp. pp. 12–33 Google Scholar. Our motet makes a similar point, some eight centuries earlier. The blend of vocal fracture and bravery alludes, of course, to Carolyn Abbate’s witness to Ben Heppner’s loss of voice in Abbate, ‘Music—Drastic or Gnostic?’, p. 535.
231 A matter commented on by Edward H. Roesner in Les quadrupla et tripla de Paris, ed. Roesner, p. xci. On the grammar of fourteenth-century counterpoint, see Bent, , Counterpoint, Composition, and Musica Ficta (Criticism and Analysis of Early Music, 4; New York and London, 2002)Google Scholar; and Bent, ‘The Grammar of Early Music’ (among several of her publications).
No CrossRef data available.