Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:45:38.248Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The compilation of the Montpellier Codex*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Mary E. Wolinski
Mary E. Wolinski
Affiliation:
University of Rhode Island
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The manuscript Montpellier, Bibliothèque Interuniversitaire, Section Médecine, H 196 (hereafter called Mo) has long claimed a place as one of the musical monuments of the thirteenth century. It is one of the most comprehensive sources of the early motet and is by far the largest anthology of French three-voice motets. It has long been thought that Mo was compiled in a number of stages that reflect gradual changes in musical notation and style during the second half of the thirteenth century. This assumption has been used to date repertory, theorists and composers.

Type
Research Article
Information
Early Music History , Volume 11 , October 1992 , pp. 263 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A complete facsimile and transcription of Mo, together with commentary, appears in Rokseth, Y., Polyphonies du XIIIe siècle: le manuscrit H 196 de la Faculté de Médecine de Montpellier, 4 vols. (Paris, 1935–1939)Google Scholar. A more current edition and translation is The Montpellier Codex, parts 1–3, edited by Tischler, H.; part 4, translated by Stakel, S. and Relihan, J. C., Recent Researches in the Music of the Middle Ages & Early Renaissance, vols. 2–8 (Madison, WI, 1978–1985)Google Scholar.

2 Ludwig, F., ‘Studien über die Geschichte der mehrstimmigen Musik im Mittelalter II: Die 50 Beispiele Coussemakers aus der Handschrift von Montpellier’, Sammelbände der Internationalen Musikgesellschaft, 5 (1903–1904), pp. 200–3Google Scholar; and idem, ‘Die Quellen der Motettenältesten Stils’, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 5 (1923), pp. 194–207; and idem, Repertorium organorum recentioris et motetorum vetustissimi book, 2nd, complete edn, ed. Dittmer, L. A., 2 vols. in 3 (Brooklyn, NY, 1964–1978), i/2, pp. 345–408, 421–63, 547–66Google Scholar. Ludwig's theories were later articulated and developed by Besseler, Heinrich, ‘Studien zur Musik des Mittelalters, II: Die Motette von Franko von Köln bis Philipp von Vitry’, Archiv für Musikwissenshaft, 8 (1926), pp. 137–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Sanders, Ernest, ‘The Medieval Motet’, Gattungen der Musik in Einzeldarstellungen: Gedenkschrift für Leo Schrade, ed. Arlt, W. et al. (Berne, 1973), pp. 530–8, 550–4Google Scholar.

3 Rokseth, , Polyphonies, iv, pp. 28–30Google Scholar.

4 Branner, R., Manuscript Painting in Paris during the Reign of Saint Louis: A Study of Styles (Berkeley, CA, 1977), pp. 130–7, 237–9Google Scholar.

5 A 10-mm rastrum, however, was used on fols. 374 and 377, which form a bifolio.

6 In his analysis of text hands, Jacobsthal, Gustav (‘Die Texte der Liederhandschrift von Montpellier H.196’, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 3 [1879], p. 534)CrossRefGoogle Scholar did not realise that scribes I and III worked on both fascicles 1 and 7, and that scribe III texted the end of the supplement to fascicle 3. This accounts for the discrepancy between his fourteen text hands and the eleven proposed in this study.

7 This agrees with Everist, M., Polyphonic Music in Thirteenth-Century France: Aspects of Sources and Distribution (New York, 1989), pp. 110 and 132Google Scholar.

8 See motets nos. 26, 28, 29, 30, 32 and 33, on fols. 41, 42, 45, 46, 50 and 52 respectively. Note also the awkward placement of the last syllable of ‘Viderunt omnes’ in the tenor on fol. 41r, and the two beginning notes cramped to fit over the tenor word ‘Fiat’ on fol. 46r.

9 Jacobsthal (‘Die Texte der Liederhandschrift’, p. 534, n. 2) noted that many tenor textswere not written by the main scribe V, but perhaps by scribe VI – a possibility which he found difficult to accept.

10 In addition, on fol. 52r the illuminator partly rubbed off the tenor text ‘Manere’ of scribe V.

11 Dry-point guide words still visible include: ‘Johanne’, fol. 25r; ‘Et gaudebit’, fol. 64r; ‘Letabitur’, fol. 69r; ‘Sustinere’, fol. 74v; ‘Domino’, fol. 90r; ‘Neuma’, fol. 91v; ‘Alleluya’, fol. 97r; ‘Dominus’, fol. 105v; ‘Ave maria’, fol. 106r; ‘Latus’, fol. 232v; ‘T’, fol. 233v ‘F’, fol. 234r; ‘Illuminare’, fol. 237r; ‘Domino’, fol. 239r; ‘Tu’, fol. 242v; ‘Et g’, fol. 243r; ‘Domino’, fol. 244v; ‘Pro patribus’, fol. 249r; and ‘Audi filia’, fol. 255v.

12 See Wolinski, M. E., ‘The Montpellier Codex: Its Compilation, Notation and Implicationsfor the Chronology of the Thirteenth-Century Motet’ (Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University, 1988), pp. 61–4Google Scholar.

13 A number of tenor texts in fascicle 2 were done by the main scribe V, but scribe V wrote them at the same time as the texts of the upper voices. Only in fascicles 3–6 did scribe V, like the other tenor text scribes, enter the tenor texts well after finishing the music.

14 See Wolinski, ‘The Montpellier Codex’, pp. 64–5.

15 An objection has been raised that the Henry VIII artist of fascicle 5 may be after all a member of the Cholet group; see Everist, i, pp. 128–9, citing M. Alison Stones.

16 Walters, A. (‘The Reconstruction of the Abbey Church of St-Denis (1231–81): The Interplay of Music and Ceremony with Architecture and Politics’, Early Music History 5 (1985), p. 194)CrossRefGoogle Scholar notes that the St-Denis Missal includes the feast of SS. Sanctinus and Antonius, whose relics were granted to Matthieu de Vendôme, abbot of St-Denis in 1258–86. Walters dates the St-Denis Missal before c. 1275 on the basis of its liturgical format. At the very latest, it would have been copied before the death of Matthieu in 1286, since his obit is not in the calendar, while that of his predecessor Guillaume de Macouris (d. 4 March 1254) is cited.

17 The statement of ownership names ‘Johannis Cardinalis dicti Cholet’ (quoted in Barzon, A., Codici miniati, Biblioleca capitolare della Cattedrale di Padova (Padua, 1950), p. 13Google Scholar). Van Dijk, S. J. P. and Walker, J. H. (The Origins of the Modern Roman Liturgy (Westminster, MD, and London, 1960), p. 404)Google Scholar assume that Cholet had the missal together with a matching epistolary (Padua, Biblioteca Capitolare, C. 47) and evangeliary (now lost) made for him while he was a papal legate in France, beginning 1283. Branner (p. 132) also supposes the books were made for Cholet, but not necessarily while he was cardinal.

18 The arms of Crown Prince Edward and his wife, Eleanor of Castile-León, at the beginning of the French-texted apocalypse date from 1254 to 1272. The presence of the arms of Simon de Montfort and Gilbert de Clare in the battle scenes of the Latin-texted apocalypse further narrows it to some time after de Clare's opposition to the Crown in 1264–5. That Edward and Eleanor were out of the country between 1270 and 1274 makes it most likely that the book was created for them during the late 1260s. Klein, however, doubts the credibility of the heraldry in the Latin apocalypse and prefers to date the picture cycle of that part of the manuscript in the early 1270s on stylistic grounds; see Klein, P., Endzeiterwartung und Ritterideologie: Die englischen Bilderapokalypsen der Frühgotik und MS Douce 180 (Graz, 1983), pp. 38–49, 61–3Google Scholar.

19 Branner (p. 133) conjectures that the St Louis Psalter, made for the king, and the Isabella Psalter (Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS 300), made either for the queen or for Louis's daughter Isabella, were both painted some time after Isabella's marriage to Thibaud of Navarre and Champagne in 1255.

20 Beer, E., ‘Pariser Buchmalerei in der Zeit Ludwigs des Heiligen und im letzten Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts’, Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte, 44 (1981), p. 84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Klein, pp. 44–6, 61–2.

22 Branner, , Manuscript Painting, pp. 136–7, 238–9Google Scholar.

23 See Kosmer, E., ‘Master Honoré: A Reconsideration of the Documents’, Gesta, 14 (1975), pp. 63–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Die Malerschule von St. Florian: Beiträge zur süddeutschen Malerei zu Ende des 13. und im 14. Jahrhundert (Graz and Cologne, 1962), p. 115Google Scholar.

25 Manuscript Painting, pp. 137 and 239.

26 The inventory is preserved in a fifteenth-century copy (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, f. fr. 2833, fols. 139v–140r), as well as in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century copies; printed in Vidier, A., ‘Le trésor de la Sainte-Chapelle’, Mémoires de la Société de l'Histoire de Paris et de l'Ile-de-France, 34 (1907), p. 202Google Scholar, and Petit, J., Gavrilovitch, , Maury, and Téodoru, , Essai de restitution des plus anciens mémoriaux de la Chambre des comptes de Paris, preface by Ch.-V. Langlois, Université de Paris, Bibliothèque de la Faculté des Lettres 7 (Paris, 1899), pp. 163–4Google Scholar. Item 34 of the inventory lists two unbound evangeliary covers: ‘Item custodes de 'vangilles, I. d'or à pierres precieuses et l'autre d'argent’. The golden cover with precious stones survives today as the cover of the Ste-Chapelle Evangeliary that was unbound to serve as the model of the London Evangeliary. The silver cover without gems is possibly that of an earlier evangeliary (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, f. lat. 8892) that consists of an old and new corpus and conceivably was unbound at the same time to receive the latter. The two covers are reproduced and described in Verdier, P., Brieger, P. and Montpetit, M. F., Art and the Courts: France and England from 1259 to 1328, 2 vols. (Ottawa, 1972), i, pp. 123–6, and ii, pls. 52–5Google Scholar.

27 G. Sed-Rajna attributes those on fols. 516v–523v to Honoré, in ‘The Paintings of the London Miscellany, British Library Add. MS 11639’, Journal of Jewish Art, 9 (1982), p. 30. She suggests (pp. 25–6)Google Scholar that these illustrations, together with those in the same manuscript attributed to the workshops of the Master of Aaron and the ‘Roman de la Poire’, were executed in the Amiens area where Honoré could have been active early in his career. Honoré is believed to have come to Paris from Amiens since he is listed in tax rolls of 1297 and 1299 as ‘Honoré d'Amiens’. See Baron, F., ‘Enlumineurs, peintres et sculpteurs parisiens des XIIIe et XIVe siècles d'après les rôles de la taille’, Bulletin Archéologique du Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques (1969), p. 50Google Scholar.

28 Narkiss, B., Hebrew Illuminated Manuscripts, foreword by C. Roth (New York, 1969), p. 86Google Scholar.

29 As in the rendition of the skies, fol. 517r, and in the background colouring of Solomon's judgement, fol. 518r.

30 The strongly modelled, muscular Adam and Eve of the London Miscellany, fol. 520v, resemble the Adam and Eve of the English manuscript Cambridge, St John's College, MS K.26 (reproduced in Morgan, N., Early Gothic Manuscripts 1190–1285, 2 vols. (London, 1982–1988), ii, pl. 381Google Scholar) far more than the gently curving, pliant bodies of the damned in the London Evangeliary, fol. 28r (reproduced in Verdier, et al. , Art and the Courts, i, p. 33Google Scholar).

31 As, for instance, the use of magenta described by Narkiss, p. 86 and visible in pl. 23.

32 It is assumed that the breviary was made for Philippe le Bel for use in the Ste-Chapelle, but Kosmer (‘Master Honoré’, p. 65) has already pointed out that there is no necessary connection either between lat. 1023 and the payment listed in the Treasury Accounts of 25 August 1296 ‘pro uno breviario facto pro Rege’ or between the breviary of 1296 and a payment made to Honoré, the illuminator, ‘pro libris Regis illuminates’ some time before Toussaint (1 Nov) 1296; listed in Fawtier, R., Comptes du Trésor (1296, 1316, 1384, 1477) (Paris, 1930), nos. 396, 407Google Scholar.

33 For the dating of these feasts, see Wright, C., Music and Ceremony at Notre-Dame of Paris, 500–1550 (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 73, 74, 76–8Google Scholar. My thanks to Professor Wright for sharing with me the proofs of his manuscript before publication.

34 Sandler, L. Freeman, Gothic Manuscripts 1285–1385, 2 vols. (London, 1986), i, p. 17Google Scholar.

35 See Ravaux, J.-P., ‘La cathédrale gothique de Châlons-sur-Marne’, Mémories de la Société d'Agriculture, Commerce, Sciences et Arts du Départment de la Marne, 91 (1976), p. 173Google Scholar.

36 My thanks to François Avril, who first drew my attention to the Papeleu Master and the painter of the Vatican Decretals.

37 See the explicit, fol. 320v.

38 For a description of this phenomenon in Decretals manuscripts, see Nordenfalk, C., review of Melnikas in Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte, 43 (1980), pp. 329–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 The Decretals are believed to have been composed by Gratian shortly after the second Lateran council of 1139. Bartholomew of Brescia wrote his gloss some time after the Council of Lyons in 1245 and before his death in 1258; see Le Bras, G., Lefebvre, Ch., Rambaud, J., L'âge classique 1140–1378: Sources et théorie du droit, Histoire du Droit et des Institutions de l'Église en Occident 7 (Paris, 1965), pp. 57–8, 78, 310Google Scholar.

40 Melnikas, A., The Corpus of the Miniatures in the Manuscripts of the Decretum Gratiani, 3 vols., Studia Gratiana 16 (Rome, 1975), i, p. 57Google Scholar. The work identified with the Papeleu Master spans the period from 1289 (the date of the colophon of the Summa copiosa, Paris, Bibliothèque Ste-Geneviève, MS 329) to 1317 (the date of the colophon of the historiated bible, Paris, Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal, MS 5059, copied by Johannes de Papeleu). Udovitch prefers to place his activity somewhat later, discounting as a copying error the colophon of 1289, which had been crossed out in red ink. She considers the Papeleu Master to have flourished from 1295, the date of the colophon of the Somme le Roy, Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 870, until well into the 1320s, which is where she places stylistically the historiated bible, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, f. fr. 157, and the Confraternity missal, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, f. lat. 861. She traces the roots of his style back to Honoré and the painter of the Châlons Missal-Breviary, Ars. 595. See Udovitch, J. Diamond, ‘The Papeleu Master: A Parisian Manuscript Illuminator of the Early Fourteenth Century’ (Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1979), pp. 29, 94–107, 136–65Google Scholar.

41 Nordenfalk, p. 329.

42 See the facsimile in Warner, G., Queen Mary's Psalter: Miniatures and Drawings by an English Artist of the Fourteenth Century Reproduced from Royal MS. 2B.VII in the British Museum (London, 1912), p. 225Google Scholar.

43 See Sandier, L. Freeman, Gothic Manuscripts, ii, p. 66Google Scholar. A chronology of manuscripts associated with the Queen Mary workshop is suggested by Dennison, L., ‘An Illuminator of the Queen Mary Psalter Group: The Ancient 6 Master’, The Antiquaries Journal, 66 (1986), p. 305CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Paul Binski noted similarities between Mo 8 and this English group, and directed my attention to the relevant bibliography.

44 See Sandier, , Gothic Manuscripts, i, pp. 18–19Google Scholar.

45 The format of the table of contents differs considerably from that of the rest of the book. It consists of a ternio, the first two leaves of which have been cut away. (Jacobsthal had earlier described the remaining four leaves as a binio, in ‘Die Texte’ (1879), p. 528.) It is written on a thick, stiff parchment, yellow-brown and crude in appearance, by a scribe who copied neither motets nor foliation. The size of the writing area differs considerably from that of the body of the manuscript. The table includes the motets of the supplements to fascicles 3 and 5, the corrections made by a later hand to the numbering of fols. 226, 235 and 236, as well as the correction made by the main emendator of fascicles 2–6 to the beginning of the motetus of no. 246, Hyer main touz seus.

46 Although the Roman foliation usually appears to swerve from the centre of the top margin to avoid running into the painted ornaments, on fol. 37r the paint of the tenor initial filigree passes over the ink of the foliation, showing that at least in one case the numeral preceded the tenor illumination.

47 Labelled ‘Nachträge’ by Ludwig, , Repertorium, i/2, pp. 455–63Google Scholar.

48 Rokseth, , Polyphonies du XIIIe; siècle, iv, p. 26Google Scholar.

49 See Hill, G. F., The Development of Arabic Numerals in Europe Exhibited in Sixty-four Tables (Oxford, 1915), pp. 46–7Google Scholar, table xii, nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, 14; pp. 50–1, table xv, nos. 5, 8; and, pp. 52–3, table xvi, nos. 1, 15, 20, 24. My thanks to Professor Anna Maria Busse Berger for confirming this information.

50 The poet Estienne Tabourot bought the manuscript in 1587, as is testified to by the partially erased inscription on fol. 4v: ‘C'est à moy Tabourot / A tous accords / Achepté deux testons le i febvrier 1587’. In the upper left-hand corner, likewise erased, is the name ‘P Durand’, perhaps another owner, who remains unidentified. Wolinski, ‘The Montpellier Codex’, pp. 74–8.

51 The parchment bifolio pasted to the front cover carries a descriptive title ‘Livre dechansons ancienes et romant avec leurs nottes de musicque’ that appears in both manuscript catalogues, dated before 1662, of Jean III Bouhier (1607–71). The catalogue entries are in Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Codices Phillippici Recentiores, 17. Phill. 1866, fol. 7, F33, and Troyes, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 902, p. 34, E25. Wolinski, pp. 69–70, 80–1.

52 In fascicle 7, of fifty motets, twenty-two feature this kind of triplum: nos. 253, 254, 255,256, 258, 262, 263, 264, 269, 270, 272, 273, 274, 281, 289, 290, 293, 294, 297, 298, 299 and 302. In fascicle 8, of forty-three pieces, fourteen have an accompanied triplum: nos. 305, 306, 307, 309, 310, 311, 312, 314, 316, 317, 330, 332, 334 and 338.

53 The two motet tripla attributed to Petus de Cruce are nos. 253 and 254 of fascicle 7. On the sources of their attribution, see Sanders, E. H., ‘Petrus de Cruce’, The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Sadie, S., 20 vols. (London, 1980), xiv, p. 598Google Scholar. Other motets having more than three semibreves to a tempus are nos. 264, 289, 299, 317, 332 and 338. Nos. 253, 254 and 264 are also transmitted in Turin, Biblioteca Reale, Varia 42. In addition, no. 40 of fascicle 3 features four semibreves to a tempus. A few additional motets in this style are documented in English sources by Lefferts, P. M., The Motet in England in the Fourteenth Century (Ann Arbor, MI, 1986), pp. 79–80Google Scholar.

54 Ludwig, , Repertorium, i/2, pp. 439, 554, 563Google Scholar. Mo, nos. 275 and 300 are discussed in Göllner, T., ‘Zwei späte Ars-Antiqua-Motetten’, Capella Antiqua München: Festschrift zum 25jährigen Bestehen, ed. Drescher, T. (Tutzing, 1988), pp. 189–98Google Scholar.

55 Odington, Water, Summa de speculation musicae, ed. Hammond, F. F., Corpus Scriptorum de Musica [hereafter CSM] 14 (n.p., 1970), pp. 131, 139Google Scholar.

56 Of eleven motets in fascicle 3 proper (not including the anomalous additions), six are in accompanimental style: nos. 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 44. This texture also appears in fascicle 4, nos. 52 a nd 53; and fascicle 5, nos. 77, 102, 103, 123, 124, 143, 144, and 164.

57 Fascicle 4, nos. 62 a n d 70. No. 70 even features some slight voice exchange in bars 1–2.

58 Fascicle 5, no. 164.

59 Nos. 303, 318, 320 and 330.

60 Nos. 345 and 338, respectively.

61 Nos. 309, 313, 321, 326, 331, 336, 337, 340 and 341.

62 The exception is no. 301, Laqueus conteritur/Laqueus, a two-voice motet attributed to Philip the Chancellor in London, British Library, Egerton 274, fol. 43.

63 Of the thirty-one motets nos. 147–77, only seven pieces (nos. 149, 152, 165, 170, 173,174 and 177) are preserved complete outside of Mo. Certain voices of two other motets (nos.148 and 164) appear elsewhere.

64 For an edition and commentary on the chant, see Arlt, W., Ein Festoffizium des Mittelaltersaus Beauvais in seiner liturgischen und musikalischen Bedeutung, 2 vols. (Cologne, 1970), ii, pp. 139, 252Google Scholar.

65 Examples of motet collections beginning with this trope include Mo, fascicles 1 and 8; Turin, Biblioteca Reale, vari 42, fols. 4v–5r (after the conductus Parce virgo and before the motet section); Darmstadt, Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek, MS 3471, fol. la; and, Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale Albert ler, MS 19606. On the other hand, in Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, Lit. 115, the Deus in adiutorium appears at the end of the motet collection, on fol. 62v. In Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. lat. 5539, it appears on fol. 31v, in the midst of a variety of polyphonic works. It also appears in a four-voice fourteenth-century version in a fragment belonging to Cambrai, Médiathèque Municipale; see Günther, U., ‘Les versions polyphoniques du Deus in adiutorium’, Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, 31 (1988), pp. 111–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 Rokseth, , Polyphonies du XIIIe siècle, iv, p. 26Google Scholar.

67 Alleluia, Posui adiutorium and Alleluia, Nativitas are attributed to Perotin by Anonymous 4; see Reckow, F., Der Musiktraktat des Anonymus 4, 2 vols. (Wiesbaden, 1967), i, p. 46, II. 12–14Google Scholar.

68 See Payne, T. B., ‘Associa tecum in patria; A Newly Identified Organum Trope by Philip the Chancellor’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 39 (1986), pp. 238–9, 245–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Payne speculates that the responsory Sancte Germane, O Sancte Germane, the duplum of whose respond also appears as a monophonic conductus with the text Associa tecum in patria by Philip the Chancellor, was also composed by Perotin.

69 My thanks to Professor Roesner for communicating this information and sharing these ideas with me on the function of fascicle l.

70 ‘Omnis figura ligata cum proprietate posita et perfecta paenultima dicitur esse brevis et ultima longa. Si sint praecedentes vel praecedens, omnes ponuntur pro longa’ (Reimer, E., ed., Johannes de Garlandia: De mensurabili musica, 2 vols., Beihefte zum Archiv für Musikwissenschaft 10–11 (Wiesbaden, 1972), i, p. 50 (chap. iii, 2–3))Google Scholar.

71 ‘Omnis figura sine proprietate et perfecta posita valet per oppositum cum proprietate’ (ibid., i, p. 50 (chap, iii, 4)).

72 ‘Regula est: omnis imperfecta figura, si sit cum proprietate, extenditur usque ad primam longam sequentem, si sit sine proprietate, extenditur usque ad primam brevem sequentem’ (ibid., i, p. 51 (chap, iii, 16–17)).

73 ‘Omnis ligatura cum proprietate primam facit brevem. Item omnis sine: longam. Item omnis perfectio longa, et omnis imperfectio brevis.… Item omnis media brevis.…’ (Franco of Cologne, Ars cantus mensurabilis, ed. Reaney, G. and Gilles, A., CSM 18 (n.p., 1974), p. 50 (chap, vii, 26–8, 30))Google Scholar.

74 See Reckow, F., ‘Proprietas und perfectio’, Acta Musicologica, 34 (1967), p. 138Google Scholar.

75 See de Coussemaker, C. E. H., Scriptorum de Musica Medii Aevi, 4 vols. (Paris, 1864–1876), i, p. 274Google Scholar. For comments by the St Emmeram Anonymous, see Yudkin, J., De musica mensurata: The Anonymous of St. Emmeram (Bloomington, IN, 1990), p. 132, 1. 43–p. 136, 1. 19Google Scholar.

76 ‘Item omnis figura ligata ultra tres suo proprio modo reducitur ad tres per aequipollentiam’ (Reimer, i, p. 63 (chap, vi, 8)).

77 ‘Omnis ligatura per oppositum cum proprietate et perfecta ultima est longa et omnes praecedentes ponuntur pro brevi, si sint ibi plures sive pauciores’ (ibid., i, p. 50 (chap, iii, 6–7)).

78 ‘…sed si sint duae tantum non valent nisi brevem …’ (ibid., i, p. 50 (chap, iii, 7) ms. P only).

79 ‘Item omnis opposita proprietas facit illam semibrevem cui additur et sequentem, non per se sed consequenti, eo quod nulla sola semibrevis inveniri possit’ (Franco, p. 50 (chap, vii, 29)).

80 ‘Sunt etiam quaedam coniuncturae simplicium et ligaturarum, quae partim participant ligaturas et partim simplices figuras. Quae nec ligaturae nec simplices figurae appellari possunt… De valore autem talium coniuncturarum non possunt aliae regulae dari quam illae quae de simplicibus et ligatis prius dantur’ (ibid., p. 53 (chap, viii, 11–13)).

81 See Coussemaker, , Scriptorum, i, pp. 274–7Google Scholar.

82 See Yudkin, pp. 166–82.

83 Koller, O., ‘Die Liederkodex von Montpellier: Eine kritische Studie’, Vierteljahrsschrift für Musikwissenschaft, 4 (1888), pp. 27–32Google Scholar.

84 Roesner, E., ‘The Performance of Parisian Organum’, Early Music, 7 (1979), pp. 175, 182–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

85 The elongated binariae on fol. 10, meaning duplex long-long, correspond to the description of the Karlsruhe Anonymous (Dietricus), edited in Müller, H., Eine Abhandlung über Mensuralmusik (Leipzig, 1886), p. 6Google Scholar.

86 The scribes of Group 1 routinely follow this convention for binariae without propriety, except in the motetus of no. 50, in which scribe If uses an elongated binaria with propriety as described in the Discantus positio vulgaris, ed. in Cserba, S. M., ed., Hieronymus de Moravia O.P.: Tractatus de Musica (Regensburg, 1935), p. 190, ii, 13–15Google Scholar.

87 See the tenors of nos. 3, 49 and 283, which follow Lambertus's practice for the final note of a ligature without propriety, although, as Koller (pp. 28–9) has shown, in other respects they do not follow any known rules.

88 See Apel, W., The Notation of Polyphonic Music 900–1600, 5th edn (Cambridge, MA, 1953), p. 286Google Scholar.

89 As in the tenor of no. 178, in which rests of three tempora span the entire staff, while rests of one or two tempora are drawn somewhat shorter.

90 These two systems of writing ligatures are called the ‘proper’ and ‘improper’ manners, respectively, by Garlandia. The strict observation of propriety (or lack of propriety) and perfection ‘is known in conductus or motets, when it is taken without text or with text, if they [the ligatures]; are figured in the proper manner. If they are figured in the improper manner, almost all figures are accepted to be imperfect, and this is known in discant and wherever modal measure is accepted’ (‘… intelligitur in conductis vel motellis, quando sumitur sine littera vel cum littera, si proprio modo figurantur. Si improprio modo figurantur, omnes fere figurae accipiuntur imperfectae, et hoc intelligitur in discantu et ubicumque rectus modus accipitur’ (Reimer, , Garlandia, i, p. 51Google Scholar (chap, iii, 16–20), MS B). Lambertus alludes to the same situation; see Coussemaker, , Scriptorum, i, p. 273bGoogle Scholar.

91 ‘Et tempore illo fuit quidam, qui vocabatur Thomas de Sancto Iuliano Parisius antiquus. Sed non notabat ad modum illorum, sed bonus fuit secundum antiquiores’ (Reckow, , Der Musiktraktat, p. 50, 11. 23–5Google Scholar).

92 In the tenors of Mo, nos. 21, 53, 82, 94 and 127.

93 See Mo, nos. 42, 57, 93, 95, 96, 135, 173, 181, 187 and 250.

94 See Mo, nos. 75, 81, 101, 102, 106, 156, 163, 166, 169, 178, 189, 210 and 218.

95 This meaning of perfection is also found in motets in second mode, in which the last notes of phrases in the upper voice, which are properly breves, are nevertheless written as longs. These longs are not actual longs, but indicate that the phrase ending is perfect and complete, just as the final note of a second-mode ternaria is perfect and ends with a breve. Kuhlmann, G., Die zweistimmigen französischen Motetten des Kodex Montpellier, Faculté de Médecine H 196 in ihrer Bedeutung für die Musikgeschichte des 13. Jahrhunderts, 2 vols. (Würzburg, 1938), i, pp. 100–1Google Scholar, considers these final notes to be actually breves, while Dittmer, L., ‘The Ligatures of the Montpellier Manuscript’, Musica Disciplina, 9 (1955), pp. 49–50Google Scholar, considers them to be literally longs.

96 Mo, nos. 35, 46 and 60.

97 Mo, nos. 178, 225 and 228.

98 The concept of imperfection as interruption may still apply here, if we view these imperfect ternariae as truncations of reduced quaternariae.

99 See Roesner, E. H., review of The Earliest Motets (to circa 1270): A Complete Comparative Edition, ed. Tischler, H., in Early Music History, 4 (1984), p. 373Google Scholar.

100 ‘Quod si aliquando pro altera brevi ponantur, tune enim duo tempora compleantur’ (Coussemaker, , Sciptorum, i, p. 274aGoogle Scholar).

101 ‘Omnes semibreves equales et indivisibiles proferuntur, nisi in tertio loco quarti modi, pro altera brevi reperiantur; nam sicut altera brevis tenet affinitatem recte breves, sic etiam tales affinitatem inter se tam in forma quam proprietate tenebunt’ (ibid., i, p. 275b).

102 ibid., vol. 1, p. 275b. The figure in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, f. lat. 11266, fol. 28, was originally a long followed by a ternaria with propriety and perfection, which was erased and changed to a long followed by two rhombs. In Siena, Biblioteca Comunale, L.V.30, fol. 28, it is a long followed by three rhombs, as represented in Table 4, box 15.

103 ‘In isto tertio modo datur talis regula: quod quando nos habemus multitudinem brevium, illa que plus appropinquat fini dicitur longior proferri. Ergo de duabus brevibus prima est unius temporis, reliqua vero duorum. Si vero tres vel quatuor inveniantur, pro duabus brevibus, ultima valet duo tempora et totum residuum non valet nisi unum’ (Coussemaker, , Scriptorum, i, p. 379aGoogle Scholar).

104 ‘Pro altera autem brevi minus quam quatuor semibreves accipi non possunt,…nec plures quam sex,…eo quod altera brevis in se duas rectas includit; per quod patet quorundam mendacium, qui quandoque tres semibreves pro altera brevi ponunt, aliquando vero duas’ (Franco, p. 40 (chap, v, 25)).

105 Yudkin, p. 148, II. 32–40; p. 166, 1. 30–p. 168, 1. 3.

106 ibid., p. 172, 11. 31–42.

107 ibid., p. 176, 11. 31–4.

108 See Franco, pp. 38–9 (chap, v, II. 22–3); Coussemaker, , Scriptorum, i, p. 272bGoogle Scholar. On controversies surrounding the ordering of unequal semibreves see Wolinski, pp. 114–20.

109 Apel, , The Notation of Polyphonic Music, p. 286Google Scholar.

110 See Sanders, E. H., ‘Sources, MS, § v, 2: Early Motet, Principal Sources’, The New Grove Dictionary, xvii, pp. 655–7Google Scholar; Reaney, G., Manuscripts of Polyphonic Music 11th–Early 14th Century, RISM B/iv/1 (Munich and Duisburg, 1966), p. 272Google Scholar; and Apel, W., The Notation of Polyphonic Music, pp. 284–301, 315–18Google Scholar.

111 Heinrich Besseler placed Franco c. 1260, at the time Ludwig dated the motets central to Franco's treatise; see Besseler, H., ‘Franco von Köln’, Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Blume, F., 14 vols. (Kassel and Basle, 1949–1968 and suppls.), iv, cols. 688–98Google Scholar. Wolf Frobenius believed that Franco's Ars appeared just after the St Emmeram Anonymous's treatise of 1279; see Frobenius, W., ‘Zur Datierung von Francos Ars cantus mensurabilis’, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 27 (1970), pp. 122–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Michel Huglo redates Franco between 1260 and 1265, which he believes is after Lambertus supposedly flourished in 1250 to 1260, and before Jerome of Moravia transmitted Franco's Ars, which could have been as early as 1275; see M. Huglo, ‘De Francon de Cologne’, pp. 45–50, 60.

112 See Viard, J., Les journaux du Trésor de Philippe IV le Bel (Paris, 1940), pp. 127, 144, 159Google Scholar.

113 Durand, G., ed., Ordinaire de l'église Notre-Dame, cathédrale d'Amiens, par Raoul de Rouvray (1291) (Amiens and Paris, 1934), pp. xxiii–xxiv, lxxGoogle Scholar.

114 de Cruce, Petrus, Tractatus de tonis, ed. Harbinson, D., CSM 29 (American Institute of Musicology, 1976)Google Scholar.

115 ‘… qui tot pulchros et bonos cantus composuit mensurabiles et artem Franconis secutus est’ (Jacobus of Liège, , Speculum musicae, ed. Bragard, R., 7 vols., CSM 3 (American Institute of Musicology, 1973), vii, p. 36 (chap, xvii, 7)Google Scholar).