Who ‘made’ the magnus liber?

Early Music History

Volumn 20, Issue , 2001, Pages 227-266

  Roesner, Edward H ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84979087519     PISSN: 02611279     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0261127901001061     Document Type: Article

References (94)

1. The Latin is, with minor adjustments, that of F. Reckow, Der Musiktraktat des Anonymus 4, 2 vols. (Beihefte zum Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 4–5; Wiesbaden, 1967), i, pp. 45–6. The translation is my own, but it has benefited from suggestions by Leofranc Holford-Strevens (most important among them, the readings of ‘optimus organista’ and ‘optimus discantor’ as ‘an excellent organista’ and ‘an excellent discantor’).
2. Regarding my (evidently still controversial) reading of ‘abbreviare’, cf. later in the same passage: ‘Ea quae dicuntur cum proprietate et sine perfectione, erant primo confuse quoad nomen. Sed per modum aequivocationis accipiebantur, quod quidem modo non est, quoniam in antiquis libris habebant puncta aequivoca nimis, quia simplicia materialia fuerunt aequalia…. Sed abbreviatio erat facta per signa materialia a tempore Perotini Magni et parum ante, et brevius docebant, et adhuc brevius [a tempore] magistri Roberti de Sabilone, quamvis spatiose docebat’; Reckow, Musiktraktat, i, pp. 49–50. ‘They [the figures of notation] which are said to be with propriety and without perfection were initially veiled as to their identity. In point of fact, they were interpreted through the method of equivocation, that which is not a method, since [the antiqui] had overly equivocal notes in the old books owing to the fact that the signs for single notes were alike…. However, an edition was made in [mensuralised] notation from the time of Perotinus Magnus and a bit before that, and they taught [the type of notation used there] concisely, and concisely moreover up to the time of Master Robertus de Sabilone (he, however, taught at length)’. Emphasis added.
3. Further regarding ‘Petrus notator optimus’, see Reckow, Musiktraktat, i, p. 50 (where Anonymous IV also provides more information on the shadowy Robertus de Sabilone).
4. For the most comprehensive examination of these and related writers, see S. Pinegar, ‘Textual and Contextual Relationships among Theoretical Writings on Measurable Music of the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries’ (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1991).
5. In late medieval school texts, ‘etc.’ usually occurs at the end of a quotation, whether or not the text that follows the quoted passage in the original is relevant to the point being made. In some cases, ‘etc.’ functions as little more than a full stop. (I am grateful to Martin Camargo for his thoughts on the use of ‘etc.’) Recovering (in general terms only, of course) the material included in the first ‘etc.’ in this passage is relatively straightforward, since it surely refers to the other elementary rules of mensural notation, which are easily retrievable from other treatises of the period - most importantly, that of Johannes de Garlandia. Some idea of what Anonymous IV may have had in mind by the second ‘etc.’, regarding the subtilitas of organum, can be achieved from elsewhere in the treatise (e.g., Reckow, Musiktraktat, i, pp. 78–9 and 85)
6. from the St Emmeram Anonymous, who alludes to the subtleties of the sustained-note idiom; see De musica mensurata: The Anonymous of St. Emmeram, ed. and trans. J. Yudkin (Music: Scholarship and Performance; Bloomington, Ind., 1990), pp. 276 and 280.
7. The text describing the contents of Perotinus' liber can be fleshed out somewhat from remarks later in the treatise (Musiktraktat, i, pp. 82–3). In all these cases, ‘etc.’ can be expanded to et cetera, ‘and the remainder’. ‘Simili modo etc.’ is more ambiguous, since it is not clear whether this refers back to Leoninus' and Perotinus' work of ‘making’, compiling, revising and editing or to the circulation of the liber after Perotinus, ‘up to the present day’. Following a suggestion by Professor Camargo I have rendered this ‘etc.’ as et ceteri, ‘and the others’, since it occurs in a passage linking one group of musicians with another. In the primary manuscript source for the treatise, London, British Library, Royal 12 C. VI, as in most writing of the thirteenth century, there is no palaeographical distinction made between the two forms of the word.
8. The text dates from after the death of Henry III in 1272; see Reckow, Musiktraktat, i, p. 50. This fact alone is sufficient to invalidate the suggestion that the treatise is the work of the scholar and theologian Robert Grosseteste (d. 1253)
9. for this hypothesis see N. van Deusen, Theology and Music at the Early University: The Case of Robert Grosseteste and Anonymous IV (Brill's Studies in Intellectual History, 57; Leiden, 1995), pp. 200–204.
10. (For an assessment of van Deusen's argument, see esp. the review by J. Ginther and R. Rosenfeld in The Medieval Review, on line: 95.06.01.)
11. A hint that the treatise may be later than 1272 by a few decades is provided by Anonymous IV's allusion to a ‘semibrevis vel minima’, implying some acquaintance at least with theoretical writing of the early fourteenth century; see Reckow, Musiktraktat, i, p. 84.
12. Without taking such issues seriously into account, some scholars have questioned the value of Anonymous IV as evidence; see, for example, H. van der Werf, ‘Anonymous IV as Chronicler’ (Rochester, the Author, 1990), repr. in Musicology Australia, 15 (1992), pp. 3–21 (with commentary by this writer and others).
13. C. Wright, ‘Leoninus, Poet and Musician’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 39 (1986), pp. 1–35.
14. For the most recent reviews of the evidence relating to the career of Perotinus, see C. Wright, Music and Ceremony at Notre Dame of Paris, 500–1550 (Cambridge Studies in Music; Cambridge, 1989), pp. 288–294
15. this writer's article on Perotinus in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd edn; R. Flotzinger, Perotinus musicus: Wegbereiter abendländischen Komponierens (Mainz, 2000)
16. H.-K. Metzger and R. Riehn (eds.), Perotinus magnus (Musik-Konzepte, 107; Munich, 2000).
17. On Philip see T. B. Payne II, ‘Poetry, Politics, and Polyphony: Philip the Chancellor's Contribution to the Music of the Notre Dame School’, 5 vols. (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1991).
18. Regarding the contents of the magnus liber, see Les Quadrupla et Tripla de Paris, ed. E. H. Roesner (Musica gallica/Le Magnus liber organi de Notre-Dame de Paris, 1; Monaco, 1993)
19. General Preface. That the liber was compiled for Notre-Dame itself can scarcely be doubted, whatever the origins of the various states in which the compilation has come down to us, and of the manuscripts that transmit it. Cf., however, N. Losseff, The Best Concords: Polyphonic Music in Thirteenth-Century Britain (Outstanding Dissertations in Music from British Universities; New York, 1994), §1: ‘The Myth of Notre Dame’.
20. On the relationship of notation to musical practice in the earlier Middle Ages, see, among others, L. Treitler, ‘Oral, Written, and Literate Process in the Transmission of Medieval Music’, Speculum, 56 (1981), pp. 471–491
21. id., ‘The “Unwritten” and “Written Transmission” of Chant and the Start-Up of Musical Notation’, Journal of Musicology, 10 (1992), pp. 131–191.
22. The most recent catalogue of these alternative settings and clausulae is H. van der Werf, Integrated Directory of Organa, Clausulae, and Motets of the Thirteenth Century (Rochester, 1989).
23. This supplements, but does not replace, F. Ludwig, Repertorium organorum recentioris et motetorum vetustissimi stili, vol. i/1 (Halle, 1910), and complete edn, by L. A. Dittmer, 2 vols. in 3 (Institute of Mediaeval Music, Musicological Studies, 7, 17 and 26; New York, 1964–78)
24. N. E. Smith, ‘The Clausulae of the Notre Dame School: A Repertorial Study’, 3 vols. (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1964).
25. See also the commentary sections in vols. 2–7 of Le Magnus liber organi de Notre-Dame de Paris (Monaco and Paris, 1995-).
26. See E. H. Roesner, ‘The Problem of Chronology in the Transmission of Organum Duplum’, in I. Fenlon (ed.), Music in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Patronage, Sources and Texts (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 365–399.
27. Many, but not all, of the sorts of variations mentioned here can be observed in The Parisian Two-Part Organa: The Complete Comparative Edition, ed. H. Tischler, 2 vols. (Stuyvesant, NY, 1988)
28. in Le Magnus liber organi de Notre-Dame de Paris, vols. 2–7.
29. For an important discussion of the relationship of the Parisian tradition to musical practices at other centres, see the contributions of W. Arlt and F. Reckow to the symposium ‘“Peripherie” und “Zentrum” in der Geschichte der ein- und mehrstimmigen Musik des 12. bis 14. Jahrhunderts’, Bericht über den internationalen musikwissenschaftlichen Kongress, Berlin 1974, ed. H. Kühn and P. Nitsche (Kassel, 1980), pp. 15–170.
30. Throughout this article, references to M[ass] and O[ffice] follow the cataloguing system established in Ludwig, Repertorium, and maintained in all subsequent literature on this repertory. For the ranking of this and other feasts mentioned in this article, I have used the calendars in the missals Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France lat. 1112 and 9441, from the early and mid-thirteenth century respectively. The date on which the Dedication was commemorated at Notre-Dame is uncertain, since it is not indicated in Parisian calendars or in the formularies for the feast included in any liturgical book known to me. H. Husmann pointed out that the high altar of the cathedral was consecrated on 19 May 1182 (in that year, Wednesday within the Octave of Pentecost), and suggested, among other hypotheses, that the Dedication organa could have been used to celebrate the anniversary of that event; see ‘The Origin and Destination of the Magnus liber organi’, Musical Quarterly, 49 (1963), pp. 311–30, at pp. 317–18, n. 15.
31. M. Huglo speculates that the Dedication may have been commemorated concurrently with the feast of the Assumption, 15 August; ‘Principes de l'ordonnence des répons organisés à Notre-Dame de Paris’, Revue de Musicologie, 83 (1997), pp. 81–92, at p. 89, n. 2.
32. Wright (Music and Ceremony, pp. 127–8), noting that the cathedral was never formally dedicated, hypothesises that a Dedication feast was not actually celebrated. Unlike the situation with regard to the function of Alleluya, Adorabo, organum exists that is intended specifically and exclusively for the Dedication; as a consequence, Wright's suggestion implies that the magnus liber was conceived as a cycle for the major feasts of the church year from the outset, regardless of whether or not all those feasts were actually observed. Since there are organa not only for the main feast but also for its Octave, and since the organa intended only for the Dedication show signs of having been reworked, none of these hypotheses is entirely convincing. Of the other explanations that come to mind for the presence of Dedication provisions in the Parisian liturgical books and in the magnus liber, none is anything other than speculative. (The appearance of Dedication organa in the surviving copies of the liber is another matter, of course, since the feast for which they were intended would not be that of Notre-Dame but rather that of the institution for which the manuscript was made. None of the ‘Notre-Dame’ sources can be shown to have been copied for the cathedral of Paris.) Some additional evidence bearing on this question may be offered by the unique version of the Dedication responsory Terribilis est locus iste (O 31; the verse alone survives) preserved in the recently discovered organum triplum fragment, Stockholm, Riksarkivet Fr 535 (Wulf Arlt and I are preparing a study of this source and of another manuscript of ars antiqua polyphony discovered in the Riksarkivet; I am grateful to Andreas Haug for drawing my attention to it, and to Gunilla Björkvall, Jan Brunius and Anna Wolodarski for facilitating our work with it and for generously sharing their expertise with us.)
33. F: Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, plut. 29.1; facs. in Antiphonarium seu magnus liber organi de gradali et antiphonario: Color Microfiche Edition of the Manuscript Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, pluteus 29.1, Introduction by E. H. Roesner (Codices illuminati medii aevi, 45; Munich, 1996)
34. Faksimile-Ausgabe der Handschrift Firenze, Biblioteca Mediceo-Laurenziana, Pluteo 29,1, ed. L. Dittmer, 2 vols. (Veröffentlichungen mittelalterlichen Musikhandschriften, 10–11; Brooklyn, 1966-[7]).
35. W1: Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, cod. Guelf. 628 Helmstad. (Heinemann no. 677); facs. in Die mittelalterliche Musik-Handschrift W1: Vollständige Reproduktion des ‘Notre Dame’-Manuskripts der Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel, Cod. Guelf. 628 Helmst., ed. M. Staehelin (Wolfenbütteler Mittelalter-Studien, 9; Wiesbaden, 1995)
36. An Old St. Andrews Music Book (Cod. Helmst. 628), ed. J. H. Baxter (St Andrews University Publications, 30; London, 1931).
37. W2: Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, cod. Guelf. 1099 Helmstad. (Heinemann no. 1206); facs. in Facsimile Reproduction of the Manuscript Wolfenbüttel 1099 (1206), ed. L. Dittmer (Publications of Mediaeval Musical Manuscripts, 2; Brooklyn, 1960).
38. Alleluya, Adorabo ad templum: F, fols. 107r-108r; W1, fols. 30r-31r; W2, fols. 70v-71r.
39. Alleluya, Posui adiutorium: F, fols. 139r-140r; W1, fols. 46v-47r; W2, fols. 83r-84r.
40. MüA: Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Musikabteilung 55 MS 14 (olim Bibliothek Johannes Wolf, fragm. s.n., long thought to have been destroyed); facs. in L. A. Dittmer, ‘The Lost Fragments of a Notre Dame Manuscript in Johannes Wolf's Library’, in J. LaRue (ed.), Aspects of Medieval and Renaissance Music: A Birthday Offering to Gustave Reese (New York, 1966), pp. 122–33, pls. 6–17
41. in M. Staehelin, ‘Kleinüberlieferung mehrstimmiger Musik vor 1550 in deutschem Sprachgebiet, I: Die Notre-Dame-Fragmente aus dem Besitz von Johannes Wolf’, Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, 1. Philologisch-historische Klasse, Jg. 1999, no. 6 (Göttingen, 1999), pp. 1–35.
42. K: Copenhagen, Det kongelige Bibliotek, MS 1810 4o, fol. 3r-v. See J. Bergsagel, ‘The Transmission of Notre Dame Organa in Some Newly-Discovered “Magnus liber organi” Fragments in Copenhagen’, in Atti del XIV congresso della Società Internazionale di Musicologia: transmissione e recezione delle forme di cultura musicale, Bologna, 27 agosto-1 settembre 1987, ed. A. Pompilio et al., 3 vols. (Turin, 1990), iii, pp. 629–636.
43. This table does not take notice of independently transmitted clausulae in W1 and F, or of interrelationships with the three-voice setting of Alleluya, Posui ascribed to Perotinus by Anonymous IV, found in F, fols. 36r-37v, and in Montpellier, Bibliothèque interuniversitaire, Section de Médecine, H 196, fols. 16v-20r (facs. in Polyphonies du XIIIe siècle: le manuscrit H 196 de la Faculté de Médecine de Montpellier, ed. Y. Rokseth, 3 vols. in 4 (Paris, 1935–1939), i).
44. For the clausulae, see Smith, ‘Clausulae’, i
45. van der Werf, Directory.
46. On the alleluia organa as a group see N. E. Smith, ‘Interrelationships among the Alleluias of the Magnus liber organi’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 25 (1972), pp. 175–202.
47. M. Everist, ‘From Paris to St. Andrews: The Origins of W1’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 43 (1990), pp. 1–42. The presence in W1 of a distinctly local - British - polyphonic repertory (the tropes to the Ordinary of the Mass in fascicles 3 and 8–10, the locally produced organa included among the Parisian works, the Marian collection in fascicle 11) and of apparently late conductus (e.g., Crucifigat omnes) are among the factors that do not strengthen this hypothesis.
48. See, for example, the abbreviated copies of the three-voice setting of the respond of Descendit de celis, Tanquam sponsus (O 2) in F, fol. 15v, and W2, fol. 9v.
49. On the Fauvel manuscript, see Le Roman de Fauvel in the Edition of Mesire Chaillou de Pesstain, ed. E. H. Roesner, F. Avril and N. Freeman Regalado (New York, 1990), Introduction, passim.
50. See Roesner, ‘Problem’, pp. 375–376.
51. Cf. Anonymous IV's use of this term in the passage quoted at the beginning of this article. Some of these colores have been identified by Tischler in the introduction to his Parisian Two-Part Organa, but their use has yet to be systematically studied. The most important mention of them in the thirteenth-century literature occurs in the chapters added to the treatise of Johannes de Garlandia in the version of Jerome of Moravia; see E. Reimer, Johannes de Garlandia: De mensurabili musica, 2 vols. (Beihefte zum Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 10–11; Wiesbaden, 1972), i, pp. 95–97.
52. Der Discantussatz im Magnus liber und seiner Nachfolge, mit Beiträgen zur Frage der sogennanten Notre-Dame-Handschriften (Wiener musikwissenschaftliche Beiträge, 8; Vienna, 1969), p. 59.
53. Cf. the use of this figure as a cadential gesture at the close of the respond in Iudea et Iherusalem, Constantes estote (O 1) in W2, fol. 47r
54. in slightly varied form as the first part of a cadential gesture on the penultimate syllable of the clausula on ‘collaudantes’ in Alleluya, Assumpta est Maria (M 33) in, amongst others, W1, fol. 39r and W2, fol. 78v
55. and as a color that opens the verse of Alleluya, Nativitas gloriose virginis (M 38), e.g., in W1, fol. 42r.
56. Stary S¸cz, Convent of the Blessed Kinga, Gradual d.2, ‘fol.’ 1r; discussed in R. Curry, ‘More Notre Dame Two-Part Organa: Newly Discovered Fragments in Stary S¸cz, Poland’, paper read at the annual meeting of the American Musicological Society, Pittsburgh, 5 November 1992. I am grateful to Professor Curry for sharing his paper and his colour photographs of the fragments with me.
57. Like W1 and StS, the Parisian antiphonaries I have consulted pitch both verses high; see, for example, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France lat. 15181, fols. 334r and 344v, and lat. 10482, fols. 122v and 129v. The phenomenon of ‘transposition’ (if that is what it is) in the organum repertory, whether of the chant being set or of the polyphony, raises important questions, above all regarding the role of literacy and writing in the genesis of this music, that have yet to be adequately considered and that require a full-length study of their own. See, most recently, F. Körndle, Das zweistimmige Notre-Dame-Organum ‘Crucifixum in carne’ und sein Weiterleben in Erfurt (Münchner Veröffentlichungen zur Musikgeschichte, 49; Tutzing, 1993), pp. 108–117.
58. This is standard practice in F; cf. the placement of doxologies in the tripla, discussed in Quadrupla et Tripla, ed. Roesner, pp. lxxxiv and passim in the Critical Commentary. In these organum duplum settings, the polyphony for the doxology is, like the chant on which it is based, most closely related to the music F and W2 share for the verse of the first of the two organa, Non conturbetur, Ego rogabo patrem, rather than that for the verse of Dum complerentur, Repleti sunt omnes spiritu sancto. It is probably no more than coincidence that doxology organum appears only in those sources in which the verse is pitched low in both settings, F and W2, since W1 does not ordinarily include polyphony for the Gloria in any event, and StS is too fragmentary to permit a determination in this regard, preserving as it does only the end of the verse of Dum complerentur.
59. Mapped in Smith, ‘Clausulae’, i, 183–187
60. van der Werf, Directory, pp. 107–8. Both appeared prior to the discovery of the concordance in StS. The relationships between these works extend further still, to include the verses of other responsory organa as well. Here and elsewhere in the repertory, the interrelationships among the verses to other responsories in the same mode offer important clues to the genesis of this music. These are studied in detail in a forthcoming dissertation by J. L. Roth-Burnette.
61. W2, fols. 16r-21r (Alleluya, Nativitas gloriose virginis; Alleluya, Sanctissime Iacobe [M 60]
62. Alleluya, Iudicabunt sancti [M 42]).
63. For the most recent discussion of the ‘local’ aspect of W1, see I. Woods Preece, Our Awin Scottis Use: Music in the Scottish Church up till 1603, ed. S. Harper (Glasgow and Aberdeen, 2000), passim, but esp. ch. 11
64. (W. Edwards, ‘Polyphony in Thirteenth-Century Scotland’). I am grateful to Professor Edwards for sharing his essay with me prior to publication.
65. Regarding such intonations, see N. E. Smith, ‘Interrelationships among the Graduals of the Magnus liber organi’, Acta Musicologica, 45 (1972), pp. 73–97, at pp. 85–6.
66. Alleluya, Ascendens Christus: F, fols. 115v-116r; W1, fols. 34v-35r; W2, fols. 72v-73v; Si, fols. 4r-5v (Santo Domingo de Silos, Biblioteca de Monasterio, MS s.n.
67. facs. in I. Fernández de la Cuesta, ‘Fragmento polifó;nico del “Ars antiqua” en Castilla’, Revista de Musicología, 7 (1984), pp. 453–66).
68. Alleluya, Iudicabunt sancti: F, fols. 132v-133v; W1, fols. 44r-45r; W2, fols. 86v-87v.
69. Alleluya, Nativitas gloriose virginis: F, fols. 129v-130r; W1, fol. 42r-v.
70. Descendit de celis, Tanquam sponsus, F, fols. 65v-66v; W1, fols. 17v-18r.
71. On one level, there would seem to be little qualitative difference between these two methods of establishing and preserving a text. To the extent that the content of a text is shaped by its physical appearance on the page, however, the distinction may be more meaningful. In the case of the Notre-Dame tradition, for example, I have argued that the rhythmic modes, and the ‘modal rhythm’ out of which they emerge, are directly related to the written presentation of the musical material in notation; see ‘The Emergence of Musica mensurabilis’, in E. K. Wolf and E. H. Roesner (eds.), Studies in Musical Sources and Style: Essays in Honor of Jan LaRue (Madison, 1990), pp. 41–74.
72. For a somewhat different but not necessarily opposing view of the rhythmic modes, see A. M. Busse Berger, ‘Mnemotechnics and Notre Dame Polyphony’, Journal of Musicology, 14 (1996), pp. 263–298.
73. On the function of memory in medieval literacy and culture generally, see esp. M. J. Carruthers, The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature, 10; Cambridge, 1990).
74. For different aspects of the question see also J. Goody, The Interface between the Written and the Oral (Studies in Literacy, the Family, Culture, and the State; Cambridge, 1987)
75. J. Coleman, Ancient and Medieval Memories: Studies in the Reconstruction of the Past (Cambridge, 1992)
76. S. Reynolds, Medieval Reading: Grammar, Rhetoric and the Classical Text (Studies in Medieval Literature, 27; Cambridge, 1996)
77. M. T. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record, England 1066–1307, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1993).
78. On the nature of medieval creative intelligence and the role of ‘memory’ in it see most recently M. Carruthers, The Craft of Thought: Meditation, Rhetoric, and the Making of Images, 400–1200 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature, 34; Cambridge, 1998).
79. B. Cerquiglini, Éloge de la variante: histoire critique de la philologie (Paris, 1989), p. 111: ‘Or l'écriture médiévale ne produit pas des variantes, elle est variance.’
80. Facs. and edn in F. Zaminer, Der vatikanische Organum-Traktat (Ottob. lat. 3025): Organum-Praxis der frühen Notre Dame-Schule und ihre Vorstufen (Münchner Veröffentlichungen zur Musikgeschichte, 2; Tutzing, 1959)
81. in I. Godt and B. Rivera, ‘The Vatican Organum Treatise - A Colour Reproduction, Transcription, and Translation’, in Gordon Athol Anderson (1929–1981) in Memoriam, von seinen Studenten, Freunden und Kollegen, 2 vols. (Institute of Mediæval Music, Musicological Studies, 49; Henryville, Pa., 1984), ii, pp. 264–345.
82. S. Immel, ‘The Vatican Organum Treatise Re-examined’, in this volume.
83. Cf. A. M. Busse Berger, ‘Die Rolle der Mündlichkeit in der Komposition der “Notre Dame-Polyphonie”’, Das Mittelalter, 3 (1998), pp. 127–143, esp. pp. 137–8.
84. ‘House style’ in the Parisian manuscripts and its impact on the musical texts they transmit are discussed in Roesner, ‘Problem’, pp. 386–399.
85. L. Treitler, ‘Der vatikanische Organumtraktat und das Organum von Notre Dame de Paris: Perspektiven der Entwicklung einer schriftlichen Musikkultur in Europa’, Basler Jahrbuch für historische Musikpraxis, 7 (1983), pp. 23–31, at pp. 25, 27.
86. See Carruthers, Book of Memory, pp. 174–85 for the use of florilegia in the recreation of existing texts and the creation of new ones.
87. The discussion of colores in Jerome of Moravia's text of Johannes de Garlandia cites familiarity and recognisability as producing color, by means of which the listener could derive pleasure; see Reimer, Johannes de Garlandia, i, pp. 95, 97.
88. To judge from his own words (see the passage quoted at the beginning of this article and Reckow, Musiktraktat, i, passim), the magnus liber familiar to Anonymous IV was written in a strongly mensuralised notation. The surviving manuscripts vary in the degree to which their notation is mensural and in the particular mensural dialect employed, but virtually all of them - at least, all the thirteenth-century copies - use rhythmically significant notation of some sort, at least for the organa. The lone exception is the Vatican treatise, which transmits the components of the Parisian tradition rather than the repertory itself. It is, of course, possible that the rhythmically neutral Vatican notation was ‘transcribed’ from the kind of notation found in the other sources, and that it was deployed purely for the sake of efficiency, to permit the scribe to pack the maximum amount of material onto the page, rather than because that was the form in which he or his author knew the Notre-Dame repertory.
89. See the copies of Viderunt omnes in F, fol. 99r, W1, fol. 25r, and W2, fol. 63r; cf. its intonation with the form assumed by this color in, e.g., Propter veritatem, Audi filia in F, fols. 128r and 129r, W1, fol. 41r, and W2, fol. 84r. Stability may not necessarily be a sign of an ‘original’ state of the work, however. Speculation in this regard is invited by a particularly intriguing case, the opening of the very first work in all three of the principal magnus liber collections, Iudea et Iherusalem, Constantes estote (F, fol. 65r, W1, fol. 17r, W2, fol. 47r). The organum purum setting of ‘Iudea’ is the same in all three sources, apart from differences in notational dialect and a few minor details. This setting is unusual in several respects. It makes no use of the sort of formulaic material characteristic of organum duplum intonations; and, related to this, its opening material is not found elsewhere in the repertory (indeed, none of its melodic content occurs elsewhere in the magnus liber collections). It does not make use of the florid and wide-ranging melody typical of the sustained-note idiom, instead flowing in strict modal rhythm of a kind that suggests a secure control of fully developed modal theory as well as modal practice; and the highly patterned duplum line is neatly divided into complementary phrases. These stylistic features resemble the idiom of copula described by Johannes de Garlandia (see Reimer, Johannes de Garlandia, i, p. 88)
90. Iudea et Iherusalem is cited as an example of copula by the St Emmeram Anonymous (De musica mensurata, ed. Yudkin, p. 276). In all these respects, the clausula on ‘Iudea’ stands apart from the rest of the organum and from the rest of the repertory. Material used in the clausula is found elsewhere, however: the first phrase is used in the Ars cantus mensurabilis of Franco of Cologne, where it serves (without text) as an example of organum purum
91. see Franconis de Colonia ars cantus mensurabilis, ed. G. Reaney and A. Gilles (Corpus scriptorum de musica, 18; American Institute of Musicology, 1974), p. 81. And nearly the whole of it appears in a Benedicamus domino setting in the early fourteenth-century Spanish manuscript Burgos, Monasterio de Santa María la Real de Las Huelgas, có;d. ix, fols. 24v-25r, where it opens the work and then leads into a virtuoso melismatic flourish to conclude the organum purum clausula on ‘Benedicamus’
92. facs. in El còdex musical de Las Huelgas (música a veus dels segles XIII-XIV): introducció;, facsímil, i transcriptió;, ed. H. Anglès, 3 vols. (Publicacions del Departament de Música del Biblioteca de Catalunya, 6; Barcelona, 1931), ii
93. Có;dice musical de Las Huelgas Reales de Burgos (Madrid, 1997). (It is one of several reworkings of earlier material to generate new compositions in the Las Huelgas Benedicamus domino repertory.) These two appearances suggest that the ‘Iudea’ duplum led a somewhat independent existence, and that it may have been regarded as a color in its own right. If so, it was a color that stood apart from the normal corpus of Parisian colores in terms of style, function and transmission. It may have entered the Parisian tradition late in the history of the repertory; were that to be the case, it would very likely be a replacement for an earlier clausula on ‘Iudea’, one that would probably have been more conventional in its melodic usage, and that was dropped from the tradition prior to the compilation of any of the surviving manuscripts or their exemplars. With the ‘new’ ‘Iudea’ in place, the Parisian organum collection begins with a setting that is a vivid demonstration of modal rhythmic virtuosity (to what extent can be seen in my edition of this work after W1 in vol. 7 of Le Magnus liber organi de Notre-Dame de Paris, forthcoming) that draws attention to the power of temporal mensura as the defining aspect of the tradition (cf. the opening sentence in the treatise of Johannes de Garlandia
94. Reimer, Johannes de Garlandia, i, p. 35.