Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:59:22.583Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CONTRAFACTA AND TRANSCRIBED MOTETS: VERNACULAR INFLUENCES ON LATIN MOTETS AND CLAUSULAE IN THE FLORENCE MANUSCRIPT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

Catherine A. Bradley
Catherine A. Bradley*
Affiliation:
The Queen's College, Oxford
*
Email: catherine.bradley@queens.ox.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dated to the 1240s, the Florence manuscript (F: Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. 29.1) is the earliest surviving source to contain a collection of motets. The exclusively Latin-texted motets in F are widely regarded as the oldest layer(s) of pieces in this new genre. This study closely analyses three motets in F, demonstrating that they are Latin contrafacta reworkings of vernacular motets extant only in chronologically later sources. It traces the influences of secular, vernacular refrains in two supposedly liturgical clausulae in F, proposing that these clausulae are textless transcriptions of French motets, and engages with wider questions concerning scribal practices, the relationship between sine littera and cum littera notations and issues of consonance and dissonance. Reasons as to why clausulae might have been transcribed in F and the possible extent of vernacular influences in this manuscript are explored. These findings challenge established chronological narratives of motet development. The three case studies offer methodological models, demonstrating ways in which relationships between clausulae and Latin and French motets can be tested and their relative chronologies established.

Type
Research Article
Information
Early Music History , Volume 32 , 2013 , pp. 1 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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 Clausulae titles and numbers are those established by Ludwig, F., Repertorium organorum recentioris et motetorum vetustissimi stili, 2 vols. (Halle, 1910Google Scholar; repr. and ed. L. Dittmer, Broooklyn, NY, 1964, 1972 and 1978), updated in Smith, N. E., ‘From Clausula to Motet: Material for Further Studies in the Origin and Early History of the Motet’, Musica disciplina, 34 (1980), pp. 29–65Google Scholar. Refrain numbers are given according to vdB.

2 This hypothesis was first suggested by the philologist Wilhelm Meyer in his ‘Der Ursprung des Motett's: Vorläufige Bemerkungen’ (Göttingen, 1898), repr. in Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur mittellateinischen Rhythmik, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1905), ii, pp. 303–41. It was subsequently taken up by Ludwig in his Repertorium and remains the basic premise of current motet scholarship. See, e.g., Everist, M., ‘The Thirteenth Century’, in Everist, M. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Music (Cambridge, 2011), pp. 67–86, at 77–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 This is the chronology presented in Ludwig's Repertorium, and still widely accepted. See, e.g., Philip the Chancellor: Motets and Prosulas, ed. Payne, T. B. (Madison, Wis., 2011), p. xxvGoogle Scholar.

4 See P. M. Lefferts and E. H. Sanders, ‘Motet, §I: Middle Ages, 1. France, Ars antiqua’, in Grove Music Online <http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com> (acc. 19 May 2010).

5 Yudkin, J., Music in Medieval Europe (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989), p. 395Google Scholar.

6 Crocker, R., ‘French Polyphony of the Thirteenth Century’, in Hiley, D. and Crocker, R. (eds.), The Early Middle Ages to 1300 (The New Oxford History of Music, 2; Oxford, 1990), p. 638Google Scholar.

7 Philip the Chancellor: Motets and Prosulas, ed. Payne, p. xxv.

8 Everist, M., French Motets in the Thirteenth Century: Music, Poetry, and Genre (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 5–6Google Scholar.

9 Ibid., p. 29.

10 See ibid., pp. 15–42. This is also the narrative of Everist's more recent formulation of these ideas. See Everist, ‘The Thirteenth Century’, pp. 77–85.

11 See Everist, French Motets in the Thirteenth Century, p. 43 and also ‘The Thirteenth Century’, p. 81.

12 See, e.g., Ludwig, Repertorium; Anderson, G. A., The Latin Compositions in Fascicules VII and VIII of the Notre Dame Manuscript Wolfenbüttel Helmstadt 1099 (1206) (Musicological Studies, 24; New York, 1968), part 1Google Scholar; Smith, , ‘From Clausula to Motet’; The Earliest Motets (to circa 1270): A Complete Comparative Edition, ed. Tischler, H., 3 vols. (New Haven, and London, 1982)Google Scholar.

13 The manuscript W1 is dated to c. 1230 (see Baltzer, R. A., ‘The Manuscript Makers of W1: Further Evidence for an Early Date’, in Cannata, D. B., Currie, G. I., Mueller, R. C. and Nadas, J. L. (eds.), Quomodo cantabimus canticum? Studies in Honor of Edward H. Roesner (Miscellanea, 7; Middleton, Wis., 2008), pp. 103–20Google Scholar). W1, thought to be earlier than F, does not contain a collection of motets. However, six pieces existing as motets in other sources are recorded as conducti in W1, without their associated chant tenors. See the summary of scholarship on these six pieces in Bradley, ‘The Earliest Motets’, pp. 23–6.

14 See Antiphonarium, seu, Magnus liber de gradali et antiphonario: Color Microfiche Edition of the Manuscript Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana Pluteus 29.1: Introduction to the ‘Notre-Dame Manuscript’ F, ed. Roesner, E. H. (Codices illuminati medii aevi, 45; Munich, 1996), p. 15Google Scholar. Cited hereafter as Roesner, Introduction to the ‘Notre-Dame Manuscript’ F.

15 See Roesner, Introduction to the ‘Notre-Dame Manuscript’ F, pp. 20–1. Barbara Haggh and Michel Huglo proposed that F may have been prepared for the solemn dedication of the Sainte-Chapelle on 26 Apr. 1248. See their ‘Magnus liber – Maius munus: Origine et destinée du manuscrit F’, Revue de Musicologie, 90 (2004), pp. 193–230.

16 Roesner, Introduction to the ‘Notre-Dame Manuscript’ F, p. 15.

17 The first motet fascicle (fascicle 8 of F, fols. 381r–398v) contains twenty-six three-voice monotextual or conductus motets. The second motet fascicle (fascicle 9 of F, fols. 399r–414v) contains forty two-voice Latin motets and three three-voice Latin double motets. A list and general outline of the motets in F is available in Ludwig, Repertorium, i, pt. 1, pp. 102–23.

18 See, e.g., Baltzer, R. A., ‘Aspects of Trope in the Earliest Motets for the Assumption of the Virgin’, in Lefferts, P. M. and Seirup, B. (eds.), Studies in Medieval Music: Festschrift for Ernest H. Sanders (New York, 1990)Google Scholar=Current Musicology, 45–7 (1990), pp. 5–42.

19 While the first motet fascicle of F is in liturgical order throughout, many scholars assume that liturgical ordering was given up in the second. See, e.g., Roesner, Introduction to the ‘Notre-Dame Manuscript’ F, pp. 29–30. Parts of the second motet fascicle, however, are arranged liturgically and the placement of motets may reflect a liturgical function. See Bradley, C. A., ‘Ordering the Motet Fascicles of the Florence Manuscript’, Plainsong and Medieval Music, 22 (2013), pp. 37–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Only thirteen of the sixty-nine motets in F lack related clausulae in the same manuscript. On the function of clausulae, see Baltzer, R. A., Introduction to Le Magnus liber organi de Notre-Dame de Paris V: Les clausules à deux voix du manuscrit de Florence, Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana, Pluteus 29.1, fascicule V (Monaco, 1995), pp. xxxix–xlviGoogle Scholar. Cited hereafter as Les clausules à deux voix.

21 See Everist, M., Polyphonic Music in Thirteenth-Century France: Aspects of Sources and Distribution (New York and London, 1989), pp. 108–9Google Scholar. Everist places W2 in the period 1240–60, favouring, on palaeographical grounds, a date early in this twenty-year span. This situates W2 in close chronological proximity to F. Roesner has likewise emphasised the possible contemporaneity of W2 and F, stating that the two manuscripts were produced ‘at about the same time’, Introduction to the ‘Notre-Dame Manuscript’ F, p. 21. Yet in spite of similar datings for F and W2, Everist and Roesner clearly regard F as the earlier source, and the more old-fashioned, both musically and orthographically. See Everist, French Motets in the Thirteeenth Century, pp. 11–12, and Roesner, Introduction to the ‘Notre-Dame Manuscript’ F, p. 15.

22 See Everist, French Motets in the Thirteenth Century, p. 11. For a review of proposed datings of Mo, see Dillon, E., The Sense of Sound: Musical Meaning in France 1260–1330 (The New Cultural History of Music; New York, 2012), pp. 297–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 See, e.g., Anderson, G. A., ‘Newly Identified Chants in the Notre Dame Repertory’, Music & Letters, 50 (1969), pp. 158–71, at 160CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Rebecca Baltzer proposed six early Assumption motets as ‘[Latin] contrafacts of French originals’, adding that ‘needless to say, all six of these motets are found in W2 rather than in F’. See her ‘Aspects of Trope’, p. 23.

24 See, e.g., Everist, French Motets in the Thirteenth Century, pp. 11–12. Payne, in his recent edition, Philip the Chancellor: Motets and Prosulas, states that ‘in the majority of circumstances the reliance on the earliest central source (often F) also provides the “oldest” representation of a given motet’ (p. xxxii). The equation of manuscript chronology and musical chronology in this repertory should, however, be made with caution. See Roesner, E. H., ‘Who “Made” the Magnus liber?’, Early Music History, 20 (2001), pp. 227–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Anderson, G. A., ‘Clausulae or Transcribed Motets in the Florence Manuscript?’, Acta Musicologica, 42 (1970), pp. 109–28, at 127CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Anderson, G. A., ‘The Motets of the Thirteenth-Century Manuscript La Clayette’, Musica Disciplina, 27 (1973), pp. 11–40Google Scholar, at 19, n. 19.

27 Ibid., p. 19, n. 19. The first motet was Ypocrite pseudopontifices/Velut stelle firmamenti/ET GAUDEBIT (F, fols. 411v–413r), whose French-style triplum employing the sixth rhythmic mode had previously led Anderson to doubt the priority of the Latin-texted version in F. See Anderson, G. A., ‘Notre Dame Latin Double Motets ca. 1215–1250’, Musica Disciplina, 25 (1971), pp. 35–92, at 43Google Scholar. The second motet deemed, without explanation, ‘another possible suspect’ for a contrafactum was Veni, salva nos/AMORIS (F, fol. 411r, examined in detail below).

28 ‘Zur frühen Geschichte der Motette: Funktionen – historische Schichten – Musik und Text – Kriterien der Interpretation’ (unpublished paper presented at Das Ereignis Notre Dame, Wolfenbüttel, 1985).

29 The musical style of this triplum had also previously troubled Friedrich Gennrich, who suspected that it must be a later addition to F. See Gennrich, F., Florilegium Motetorum: Ein Querschnitt durch das Motettenschaffen des 13. Jahrhunderts (Summa Musicae Medii Aevi, 17; Frankfurt, 1966), p. xvGoogle Scholar.

30 Baltzer, R. A., ‘The Polyphonic Progeny of an Et Gaudebit: Assessing Family Relations in a Thirteenth-Century Motet’, in Pesce, D. (ed.), Hearing the Motet: Essays on the Motet of the Middle Ages and Renaissance (New York and Oxford, 1997), pp. 17–27, at 24Google Scholar.

31 See Philip the Chancellor: Motets and Prosulas, ed. Payne, pp. xxv–xxvi and pp. 166–7, and F. Büttner, Das Klauselrepertoire der Handschrift Saint-Victor (Paris, BN, lat. 15139): Eine Studie zur mehrstimmigen Komposition im 13. Jahrhundert (Lecce, 2011), pp. 44–8. The motet Ypocrite pseudopontifices/Velut stelle firmamenti/ET GAUDEBIT has a related clausula (F, fol. 161v–4 and StV, no. 15, fols. 289v–290r, with the marginal incipit ‘Al cor ai une aligrance d'un fol dol enescurade’). As this clausula is in two voices only, the motet triplum is considered to be a later musical addition. Arlt, therefore, did not question the priority of the clausula in F. But Büttner suggested that the independent clasusula versions in StV and F might both represent transcribed motets (pp. 306–12). Despite his belief in the priority of the Latin motet in F, he noted the close relationship between the F clausula and French motetus Al cor ai une alegrance, raising the possibility that a French motet version was the model for this clausula, as well as the model for the clausula in StV (p. 309).

32 Frobenius, W., ‘Zum genetischen Verhältnis zwischen Notre-Dame-Klauseln und ihren Motetten’, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 44 (1987), pp. 1–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 These thirteen clausulae in F are, in Frobenius's terminology, Sm 8, 37, 47, 48, 49, 51, 53, 59, 62, 69, 81, 100 and 107. Sm stands for Smith, referring to the sequence in which the clausulae appear in his catalogue ‘From Clausula to Motet’.

34 For example, Frobenius cites repetitions of a tenor melisma as an indication of the primacy of the motet version. Multiple tenor statements are, however, a common feature of clausulae in general, and the majority of such clausulae do not have extant related motets. See Smith, N. E., ‘Tenor Repetition in the Notre Dame Organa’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 19 (1966), pp. 329–51, at 334CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Smith, N. E., ‘The Earliest Motets: Music and Words’, Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 114 (1989), pp. 141–63, at 145–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 In French Motets in the Thirteenth Century, Everist dicussed Frobenius's theory only briefly in a footnote, observing (p. 16, n. 2) that Frobenius's ‘challenge to the conventional view of the priority of clausula over motet’ was ‘ill directed’.

37 ‘Frobenius’ provozierende These fand in der neueren Literatur zur mittelalterlichen Motette wenig positive Resonanz. Entweder wurde die von ihm postulierte Entstehung der Motette vor der Klausel schlichtweg ignoriert oder als irrig abgetan.’ Körndle, F., ‘Von der Klausel zur Motette und zurück? Überlegungen zum Repertoire der Handschrift Saint-Victor’, Musiktheorie, 25 (2010), pp. 117–28, at 118Google Scholar.

38 Körndle has emphasised that Frobenius was right to believe in the derivation of the clausulae in StV from their related motets. See his ‘Von der Klausel zur Motette und zurück?’, p. 119. However, Körndle does not endorse all of Frobenius's findings, referring to ‘sein[e] radikal[en] Schlüsse’ (‘his radical conclusions’, p. 119).

39 Büttner, F., ‘Weltliche Einflüsse in der Notre-Dame-Musik? Überlegungen zu einer Klausel im Codex F’, Anuario Musical, 57 (2002), pp. 19–37Google Scholar. See also the discussion of Sm 8 in Frobenius, ‘Zum genetischen Verhältnis’, p. 14.

40 The origin of this refrain melody in the [Domi]ne 5 clausula had previously been accepted. See Everist, French Motets in the Thirteenth Century, pp. 101–3.

41 Büttner, ‘Weltliche Einflüsse’, p. 32.

42 Page, C., Discarding Images: Reflections on Music and Culture in Medieval France (Cambridge, 1993), p. 59Google Scholar.

43 The need for such methodological models is represented by David Rothenberg's recent observation (with reference to the third case study examined here) that ‘the exact compositional chronology of these motets is almost impossible to trace’: Rothenberg, D. J., The Flower of Paradise: Marian Devotion and Secular Song in Medieval and Renaissance Music (New York, 2011), pp. 39–40Google Scholar.

44 Texts are transcribed with reference to Tischler's reliable editions in The Earliest Motets: A Complete Comparative Edition, i, no. 72, pp. 538–45, and the text and translation of Fole acostumance in Relihan, J. C. and Stakel, S. (eds.), The Montpellier Codex, Part IV: Texts and Translations (Recent Researches in the Music of the Middle Ages and Early Renaissance, 8; (Madison, Wis., 1985), p. 20Google Scholar. In all transcriptions, punctuation and capitalisation are editorial, as are apostrophes in French texts. Original spellings are retained.

45 Tischler also noted this close thematic relationship, describing Fole acostumance as ‘a rare instance of a text replacement, a contrafactum, that is a real translation of the original text’. See Tischler, H., ‘A Comparison of Two Manuscripts: Fole acoustumance (c. 1250)’, in Borroff, E. (ed.), Notations and Editions: A Book in Honor of Louise Cuyler (Dubuque, Iowa, 1974), pp. 8–16, at 10Google Scholar.

46 The word ‘papalardalis’ is very unusual in the context of Latin poetry, while its French equivalent ‘papelardie’ is more common. See the discussion of ‘papelardie’ in Stimming, A., Die altfranzösischen Motette der Bamberger Handschrift (Gesellschaft für Romanische Literatur, 13; 1906), p. 140Google Scholar. Stimming observes that the origins of the word are uncertain, but notes its first appearance in a text by Gautier de Coincy, where it connotes hypocrisy, and is also associated with the word ‘paper’, to eat greedily. Baltzer offered a literal translation of ‘papelardie’ as ‘pope-stuffer’, someone who lards or flatters the pope (R. A. Baltzer, private correspondence, Nov. 2011), and she drew attention to two appearances of the noun ‘papelart’ in the fifth stanza of Thibaut de Champagne's Dex est ensi comme le pelicans, in which Thibaut criticises the pope and his corrupt supporters (‘il papelart’). I am very grateful to Professor Baltzer for sharing her thoughts on this word with me. See also her edition and translation of Fole acostumance in The Norton Anthology of Western Music, vol. 1: Ancient to Baroque Music, ed. Burkholder, J. P. and Palisca, C. V. (5th edn., New York, 2005), pp. 100–4Google Scholar.

47 MüA is the only source to preserve a complete version of this tenor melody on DO[MINUS]: the tenor melody is incomplete in F (see n. 60 below); W2 presents a highly corrupt copy of Fole acostumance (omitting sections of the text, and parts of the music for the motetus and tenor) and the tenor of Fole acostumance is not transmitted in Mo. All transcriptions are my own, unless otherwise indicated.

48 See Eine zentrale Quelle der Notre-Dame Musik [MüA]: Faksimile, Widerherstellung, Catalogue raisonné, Besprechung und Transcriptionen, ed. Dittmer, L. (Publications of Medieval Manuscripts, 3; Brooklyn, NY, 1959), pp. 47–50, at 48Google Scholar; H. Tischler, ‘A Comparison of Two Manuscripts’, p. 10; The Norton Anthology of Western Music, ed. Burkholder and Palisca, i, p. 107.

49 Speaking of possible candidates for contrafacta in ‘Zur frühen Geschichte der Motette’, Arlt observed that the nature of the relationship between Error popularis and Fole acostumance was unclear to him.

50 Dittmer also noted the similarity of textual theme between Error popularis and Ypocrite pseudopontifices. See his Eine zentrale Quelle, p. 48.

51 While the text Error popularis is unique to F, the text Ypocrite pseudopontifices is found in F, Ma and Ba. El mois d'avril, the French text for which Arlt suggested the music of the triplum was conceived, is also extant in three sources (W2, Mo and Cl). However, the combination of texts in the double motet Ypocrite pseudopontifices/Velut stelle firmamenti/ET GAUDEBIT is particular to F, and the text Velut stelle is unique to this source.

52 The motet Ypocrite pseudopontifices/Velut stelle firmamenti/ET GAUDEBIT has a related two-part clausula (see n. 31 above). The motet triplum, therefore, has no related clausula material, and this renders Ypocrite pseudopontifices/Velut stelle firmamenti/ET GAUDEBIT anomalous in the context of the three double motets extant in F: Stirps Iesse/Virga cultus/FLOS FILIUS E[IUS] (F, fols. 409v–410r) has a related three-voice clausula (F, fol. 11r–v); and Mors que stimulo/Mors morsu/MORS (F, fols. 400v–401v) has a related four-voice clausula (F, fols. 7v–8r).

53 Only four further motets in F contain substantial sections in the sixth rhythmic mode. The upper voices of In modulo sonet LETITIA/[IMMO]LATUS (F, f. 407v) and Ne sedeas/ET TENUE[RUNT] (F, fol. 400v) are entirely in the sixth mode. The motetus of Exilium parat/IN AZIMIS SINCERITA (F, fols. 410v–411r) alternates between first and sixth mode, while the motetus of Locus hic terribilis/[ET CONFI]TE[BOR] (F, fols. 406v–407r) alternates between second and sixth mode.

54 See Les clausules à deux voix, ed. Baltzer, Introduction, p. xliii.

55 In R. A. Baltzer, ‘Performance Practice, the Notre-Dame Calendar, and the Earliest Latin Liturgical Motets’ (unpublished paper presented at Das Ereignis Notre Dame, Wolfenbüttel, 1985). I am most grateful to Professor Baltzer for generously sharing this unpublished material with me.

56 Susan Kidwell has demonstrated that, for the most part, early Latin motets usually respect conventional poetic accentuations. See S. A. Kidwell, ‘The Integration of Music and Text in the Early Latin Motet’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Texas, Austin, 1993), pp. 181–95.

57 One inconsistency in the text setting of Fole acostumance might, initially, suggest that this text and its music were not conceived together. This concerns the musical setting of paroxytonic endings, such as -ance and -ie. Usually, such endings are set to two notes: an-ce (as in perfections 3–4 and 11–12) and i-e (as in perfections 60 and 62). However, they are occasionally set to a single note: -ance (in perfections 23 and 112) and -ie (as in perfections 42 and 50). The version of Fole acostumance in MüA consistently sets paroxytonic endings to a single note when the word that follows them begins with a vowel. Thus, it appears that textual elisions are inbuilt in the musical setting. See, e.g., Example 1, perfection 42 (where ‘envie’ and ‘et’ appear to be elided) or perfection 112 (where ‘decevance’ and ‘et’ could also be elided). Such flexible musical treatment of paroxytonic endings is evident in other French motets. In the triplum of the motet Grant solaz me fet amors/Pleust Diu, qu'ele seust/NEUMA (unique to Mo, fols. 160v–163r), for example, paroxytonic endings are usually set to two notes. But on two occasions (on the words ‘desirroie’ and ‘l'aimie’) they are set to a single note, and in both cases, these endings precede words beginning with vowels, again suggesting textual elisions.

58 See the etymological discussion of ‘papelardie’ in n. 46 above.

59 There was evidently uncertainty in the copying of music and text of this passage. On the fourth stave of F, fol. 413v, the first part of the line of text was erased (removing the top line of the musical stave below) and recopied, and the second pitch on this fourth stave was also erroneously copied and then erased.

60 It is clear the copyist of F was not checking the motetus part against the tenor or vice versa. Two tenor ordines are omitted in F at perfections 105–12, as are three further ordines at perfections 125–36 (incidentally, including the tenor ordines corresponding to the miscopied lines in the motetus). F also lacks the final three tenor ordines at perfections 157–67.

61 This is also the solution proposed by Tischler in his edition, The Earliest Motets: A Complete Comparative Edition, i, no. 72, pp. 543–4.

62 This also seems to have been the case in the motet Nostrum est impletum/NOSTRUM (F, fol. 384r–v). See the discussion of this motet in Bradley, ‘The Earliest Motets’, pp. 116–19.

63 That scribes could make adjustments for contrafacta ‘on the spot’ has also been suggested by Roesner, with reference to an organum in W1. See his ‘Who “Made” the Magnus Liber’, p. 252.

64 See Franco of Cologne, Ars cantus mensurabilis musicae, ed. Gilles, A. and Reaney, G. (Corpus scriptorum de musica, 18; Rome, 1974), p. 70Google Scholar. See also Leitmeir, C. T., ‘Types and Transmission of Musical Examples in Franco's Ars cantus mensurabilis musicae’, in Clark, S. and Leach, E. E. (eds.), Citation and Authority in Medieval and Renaissance Musical Culture: Learning from the Learned (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 29–44, at p. 42Google Scholar.

65 In Dame de valour/He Dieus, quant je remir – probably the later of the two double motets, with a more complex and independent triplum – the opening of the motetus is slightly reworked so that the word ‘Diex’ appears in the first line of the poem.

66 O quam sollempnis, unique to Lille (dated in the late 13th c.), is identified in this manuscript as a contrafactum of He, quant je remir. See Hughes, A., ‘The Ludus super Anticlaudianum of Adam de la Bassée’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 23 (1970), pp. 1–25, at 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for a discussion of O quam sollempnis and its symbolic significance in the context of the Ludus super Anticlaudianum. This motet is not discussed further here, nor is the text Virgo Dei plena gratia, of which only the first line is extant.

67 In ‘Performance Practice’.

68 Kidwell, ‘The Integration of Music and Text’, p. 236.

69 Ibid., p. 236.

70 ‘Alleluia. Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Thy faithful, and kindle in them the fire of Thy love.’ This text also forms the beginning of a Pentecost antiphon for first Vespers.

71 Texts and translations adapted from Kidwell, ‘The Integration of Music and Text’, p. 237, and Relihan and Stakel, The Montpellier Codex, Part IV: Texts and Translations, p. 34 respectively. The influence of the sequence text ‘Veni creator spiritus’ is also strongly evident in the motet Veni salva nos: both share the lines ‘mentes tuorum visita’; ‘septipharie’ in the motet echoes ‘tu septiformis munere’ in the sequence; lines 7–9 of the motet are also related to ‘accende lumen sensibus, infunde amorem cordibus’; and both texts contain the words ‘fontem/fons’ and ‘ignem/ignis’. I am most grateful to Bonnie Blackburn for drawing these parallels to my attention.

72 See Kidwell, S. A., ‘The Selection of Clausula Sources for Thirteenth-Century Motets: Some Practical Considerations and Aesthetic Implications’, Current Musicology, 64 (2001), pp. 73–103, at 97 and 101, n. 27Google Scholar; and R. A. Baltzer, ‘Notation, Rhythm, and Style in the Two-Voice Notre Dame Clausula’, 2 vols. (Ph.D. diss., Boston University, 1974), i, p. 45. Hendrik van der Werf has also argued for the priority of the Latin motet version. See his Hidden Beauty in Motets of the Early Thirteenth Century: XXV Vignettes (Tucson, Ariz., 1999), p. 91.

73 Anderson, ‘The Motets of La Clayette’, p. 19, n. 19.

74 Waite, W. G., The Rhythm of Twelfth-Century Polyphony: Its Theory and Practice (Yale Studies in the History of Music, 2; New Haven, 1954), p. 101Google Scholar.

75 See the discussion of Sm 59 in ‘Zum genetischen Verhältnis’, p. 17.

76 See Das Klauselrepertoire der Handschrift Saint-Victor, pp. 151–6. Büttner's monograph became available only after the current article was submitted for publication. His discussion of this motet family supports my own, as he independently noted several of the same features as indicators of chronological priority (such as: the relationship between motetus and tenor voices; the unconventional notation of the clausula and the presence of unnecessary vertical strokes; the more convincing text–music dynamics of the French motet version than the Latin and the structural importance of the French refrain). Büttner additionally emphasised the predominance of third sonorities in Amo[ris] 2 (p. 151), in his view a ‘French’ feature, and commented on the relationship between the motetus and triplum voices in the French double motet (p. 155). The current article offers a more developed and extensive analysis of this motet family, additionally providing full transcriptions of the texts and music discussed.

77 That these opening words, ‘Veni’ and ‘He’, both employ the same ‘e’ sound is striking.

78 Everist has challenged the validity of the motet enté as a generic concept. See his French Motets in the Thirteenth Century, pp. 75–89. I employ the term merely to invoke poetic characteristics associated with motets of this type. I am indebted to Professor Arlt for his comments on the poetic structure of this text (private correspondence, Mar. 2010). The two different renderings of the same word, as ‘onquore’ and ‘encore’, within such a short text might suggest an oral transmission.

79 See Everist, French Motets in the Thirteenth Century, p. 80.

80 On the fourth tenor presentation the final two pitches are omitted.

81 It is remarkable that both opening and closing couplets are set to an eleven-perfection phrase when the underlying tenor rhythm does not remain constant. This symmetry in the length of the first and fourth tenor presentations is possible only because the fourth tenor presentation omits the final two pitches of the chant.

82 In ‘Zur frühen Geschichte der Motette’ (‘übereinstimmend[e] Zäsur[e] in Cantus und Tenor’).

83 Tischler, H., The Style and Evolution of the Earliest Motets (to circa 1270), 4 vols. (Musicological Studies, 40; Ottawa, Ont., 1985), i, p. 193Google Scholar, has commented on the frequent use of lines to indicate both rests and to mark poetic divisions in the F motets.

84 It may be significant that this change in tenor syllable also offsets the refrain exclamation ‘He’ in the motet text.

85 Baltzer has suggested that this line of articulation in perfection 8 is erroneous, and should instead be placed after the b in perfection 6. See her ‘Notation, Rhythm, and Style’, i, p. 43. Even if this is the case, that the error in punctuation was made at all may be revealing.

86 The line in perfection 8 was erased presumably because it was recognised as erroneous. More generally, however, vertical lines in the motet fascicles of F – corresponding both to rests and to marks of musical or textual punctuation – appear to have been erased for no clear reason and in an unsystematic fashion. See Bradley, ‘The Earliest Motets’, pp. 30–1.

87 Baltzer also noted that the breaks in perfections 31–5 do not complement the Latin text (see ‘Notation, Rhythm, and Style’, i, p. 46). She admitted that this passage ‘seem[s] to argue for the priority of the French motet version preserved in Montpellier, fol. 125’. However, Baltzer was reluctant to regard He, quant je remir as the earlier version because ‘the Latin motet otherwise agrees most closely with the clausula version in general’. She did not consider that the clausula itself could have been influenced by the French motet.

88 This list of clausulae also included the [Domi]ne 5 clausula recently established by Büttner as a transcribed French motet.

89 See Tischler, H., ‘A propos the Notation of the Parisian Organa’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 14 (1961), pp. 1–8, at 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Though Tischler took issue with Waite's notational analysis he accepted these twenty-one clausulae as transcribed motets. When discussing those clausulae identified by Waite in his 1982 edition, Tischler added the remark: ‘ligated so poorly that it cannot be transcribed without the help of motets’ in his critical commentary (see, e.g., the commentary for no. 69, Veni, salva nos/AMO[RIS], in The Earliest Motets: A Complete Comparative Edition, ed. Tischler, iii, p. 95). See N. E. Smith, ‘The Clausulae of the Notre Dame School: A Repertorial Study’, 3 vols. (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1964), i, p. 70.

90 R. Flotzinger, Der Discantussatz im Magnus liber und seiner Nachfolge (Wiener musikwissenschaftliche Beiträge, 8; Vienna, 1969), pp. 68–70. It could be argued that these other instances of mis-texting and punctuation of tenor chants simply point towards a greater number of transcribed motets in F than was identified by Waite. Büttner has also recently emaphasised the significance of tenor texting and syllable strokes as evidence to confirm the derivation of clausulae from motets in StV. See, for example, Das Klauselrepertoire der Handschrift Saint-Victor, p. 253.

91 Frobenius (‘Zum genetischen Verhältnis’, p. 11, n. 45) states incorrectly that Flotzinger proposed a further twenty-four clausulae in addition to those listed by Waite. In fact, seventeen of the clausulae on Flotzinger's list were also on Waite's.

92 There is no evidence to suggest that clausulae were ever notated or conceived mensurally, except in the form of motets. See also Frobenius's evaluation of Flotzinger's unlikely hypothesis, which seemingly sprang from a desire to preserve the traditional clausula to motet chronology. Ibid., p. 11, n. 45.

93 See Anderson, ‘Clausulae or Transcribed Motets’. Anderson's rejection of Waite's hypothesis is discussed in detail below. However, Anderson was initially sympathetic to Waite's proposal. See ‘A Small Collection of Notre Dame Motets ca. 1215–1235’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 22 (1969), pp. 157–96, at 167–8.

94 ‘Zum genetischen Verhältnis’, pp. 11–12.

95 Baltzer examined both Waite's hypothesis and Anderson's response in her 1974 dissertation (‘Notation, Rhythm, and Style’, i, pp. 33–41). She sided essentially with Anderson in rejecting Waite's proposal that clausulae in F might represent transcribed motets. Yet Baltzer did admit that Waite was correct in some important respects, providing notational analysis to show that many of these twenty-one clausulae are truly irregular, and that they could have been ligated in a more normal manner but were not, a fact which Anderson did not sufficiently acknowledge.

96 Baltzer, ibid., i, pp. 42–6.

97 Baltzer, ibid., i, p. 45.

98 I borrow Saltzstein's phrase. See Saltzstein, J., ‘Relocating the Thirteenth-Century Refrain: Intertextuality, Authority and Origins’, Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 135 (2010), pp. 245–79, at 245CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

99 That vdB 815 was not an established intertextual refrain might be supported by its flexible textual transmission. This refrain appears with the text ‘He Diex, encore l'amerai, qu'autre de li tant ne me plaist’ in the double motet Dame de valour/He Diex, quant je remir.

100 See, e.g., Jeanroy, A., Chansons, jeux partis et refrains inédits du XIIe siècle (Paris, 1896)Google Scholar and N. van den Boogaard, Rondeaux et refrains. See also the review of refrain scholarship in Saltzstein, ‘Relocating the Thirteenth-Century Refrain’, pp. 245–50.

101 See, e.g., Everist, M., ‘The Refrain Cento: Myth or Motet?’, Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 114 (1989), pp. 164–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Butterfield, A., ‘Repetition and Variation in the Thirteenth-Century Refrain’, Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 116 (1991), pp. 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

102 In van den Boogaard, Rondeaux et refrains and Gennrich, F., Bibliographie der ältesten französischen und lateinischen Motetten (Summa Musicae Medii Aevi, 2; Frankfurt, 1957)Google Scholar.

103 See Everist, French Motets in the Thirteenth Century, pp. 54–7, and Saltzstein, ‘Relocating the Thirteenth-Century Refrain’, pp. 250–1. See also Clark, S., ‘“S'en dirai chançonete”: Hearing Text and Music in a Medieval Motet’, Plainsong and Medieval Music, 16 (2007), pp. 31–59, at 47–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

104 See ‘Relocating the Origins of the Thirteenth-Century Refrain’, pp. 250–4.

105 Ibid., p. 252.

106 I have identified ten clausulae in F containing melodies associated with intertextual refrains. five of these clausulae contain intertextual refrains extant only in the motet repertory (clausula and refrain numbers are as follows: F 105=vdB 1699; F 106=vdB 1671; F 151=vdB 237; F 197=vdB 1157; F, f. 88v–4=vdB 287 and 1361). Five clausulae in F contain intertextual refrains with extant musical concordances in both the motet and chanson repertories (F 41=vdB 314; F 46=vdB 285; F 150=vdB 411; F 163=vdB 595; F, fol. 11r=vdB 338).

107 The presence of melodies associated with refrains in the clausula collection in StV fuelled Rokseth's suspicion that these clausulae had originated as motets. See Polyphonies du XIIIe siècle: Le manuscrit H196 de la Faculté de médecine de Montpellier, ed. Rokseth, Y., 4 vols. (Paris, 1939), iv, pp. 70–1Google Scholar.

108 See ‘Zum genetischen Verhältnis’, pp. 1–3.

109 Everist, French Motets in the Thirteenth Century, pp. 66–71, 101–3; Clark, ‘“S'en dirai chançonete”’, p. 46, and Saltzstein, ‘Relocating the Origins of the Thirteenth-Century Refrain’, p. 253. Everist does leave open the possibility that refrains may have entered clausulae via motets, suggesting that clausulae could have been created to act as ‘notational props’ for motets (French Motets in the Thirteenth Century, p. 71). This hypothesis is examined in detail below.

110 Clark, ‘“S'en dirai chançonete”’, p. 46, n. 32. For a discussion of this refrain, see also Everist, French Motets in the Thirteenth Century, pp. 66–8, 71. This, too, is Richard Crocker's explanation for the presence of vdB 338 in the Flos filius e[ius] 3 clausula, ‘French Polyphony of the Thirteenth Century’, p. 652.

111 Everist, French Motets in the Thirteenth Century, p. 71.

112 Clark, ‘“S'en dirai chançonete”’, p. 55.

113 See Franco of Cologne, Ars cantus mensurabilis musicae, ed. Gilles and Reaney, p. 32.

114 See ibid., p. 72.

115 This is confirmed by the marginal incipit ‘Autrier jour’ copied at the beginning of Candida virginitas in W2, fol. 145v. See The Latin Compositions in Fascicules VII and VIII of W2, ed. Anderson, pt. 1, p. 102.

116 Frobenius cites the presence of a refrain melody and the repetition of the tenor melisma on EIUS as evidence of French motet priority. See the discussion of Sm 100 in ‘Zum genetischen Verhältnis’, p. 19. Yvonne Rokseth had previously included Flos filius e[ius] 3 on a list of eleven three-voice clausulae that she proposed as possible sketches for motets (‘canevas de motets’). Such ‘sketch’ clausulae technically still pre-date their related motets, but their conception and function are atypical. See Rokseth, Y., ‘La Polyphonie parisienne du treizième siècle: Étude critique à propos d'une publication récente’, Les Cahiers techniques de l'art, 2 vols. (Strasbourg, 1947), i, p. 44bGoogle Scholar.

117 When discussing motets related to Flos filius e[ius] 3, Anderson assumed that the Latin double motet in F must be the ‘original’ version. See his The Latin Compositions in Fascicules VII and VIII of W2, pt. 1, p. 102. A clausula–Latin motet–French motet progression is also presumed by Huot, Sylvia. See her Allegorical Play in the Old French Motet: The Sacred and the Profane in Thirteenth-Century Polyphony (Stanford, Calif., 1997), pp. 95–6Google Scholar. Rothenberg, in a recent textual analysis of this motet family (The Flower of Paradise, pp. 39–49), was careful to avoid assumptions about the relative chronology of motet versions. However, he stated that this motet family ‘originated with a three-voice clausula in the Florence manuscript’ (p. 39).

118 See Everist, French Motets in the Thirteenth Century, pp. 43–51, 66–8. Everist discusses the Latin and French texts and the refrain associated with this double motet.

119 Planchart, A. E., ‘The Flower's Children’, Journal of Musicological Research, 22 (2003), pp. 303–48, at 315–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

120 Ibid., p. 321.

121 Baltzer, ‘Notation, Rhythm, and Style’, i, p. 40. Baltzer admitted that notational irregularities in clausulae could be ‘caused by exactly the kind of small-note ornaments or embellishments found in motets, much less typical in the general clausula repertory’. She subsequently (i, p. 41) drew a parallel more specifically between these embellishments and French motets.

122 Planchart discussed this notational irregularity in his ‘The Flower's Children’, pp. 317–19.

123 See The Earliest Motets: A Complete Comparative Edition, ed. Tischler, iii, no. 65, pp. 92–4.

124 Le Magnus liber organi de Notre-Dame de Paris, i: Les quadrupla et tripla de Paris, ed. E. H. Roesner (Monaco, 1993), no. 20, p. 323. Cited hereafter as Les quadrupla et tripla de Paris.

125 The transcription in Example 7 reproduces the interpretation offered by Planchart in his ‘The Flower's Children’, ex. 3, p. 316.

126 The transcription in Example 8 reproduces the interpretation offered by Roesner in his Les quadrupla et tripla de Paris, no. 20, p. 124.

127 Waite did not propose this clausula to be a transcribed motet (see The Rhythm of Twelfth-Century Polyphony, p. 101). This is surprising, for Flos filius e[ius] 3 meets exactly the criteria by which he identified other clausulae as transcribed motets. Significantly, all of the clausulae identified by Waite as transcribed motets are two-voice pieces. It seems, therefore, that Waite overlooked, or did not consider, the small collection of three-voice clausulae in F as possible candidates.

128 Apart from two extra decorative pitches in the motet, discussed in n. 137 below.

129 Planchart, ‘The Flower's Children’, p. 328.

130 Ibid., p. 326.

131 The change in vertical sonority at perfection 34 is produced by Planchart's extended reading of the ending of the clausula (see Example 7). Roesner also has f at the beginning of perfection 34 of the clausula duplum, rather than the e in the Latin motetus. Roesner believed the clausula e to be erroneous and therefore corrected it to f (see Example 8). See also Planchart's discussion of Roesner's transcription in ‘The Flower's Children’, pp. 317–18.

132 See Smith, ‘The Earliest Motets: Music and Words’, pp. 154–63, and Smith, N. E., ‘The Notation of Fractio Modi’, in Lefferts, P. M. and Seirup, B. (eds.), Studies in Medieval Music: Festschrift for Ernest H. Sanders (New York, 1990)Google Scholar=Current Musicology, 45–7 (1990), pp. 283–304, at pp. 294–8.

133 These changes in vertical sonority are significant in the light of Roesner's observation (in ‘Who “Made” the Magnus liber?’, p. 257) that, in organa subject to considerable variation in melodic profile, the ‘overall contrapuntal framework’ remains remarkably stable from version to version. Roesner notes that, despite significant melodic changes, ‘tenor/duplum simultaneities’ (p. 254) are largely unaltered.

134 Other motet texts associated with this musical material are not considered further here. As noted above, Candida virginitas is a contrafactum of L'autrier jouer. The texts Claustrum pudicie and Virgo viget melius are probably the youngest in this motet family. This is the view of both Anderson (The Latin Compositions in Fascicules VII and VIII of W2, pt. 1, pp. 102–3) and Planchart (‘The Flower's Children’, pp. 334–41), and it is supported by the appearance of this Latin double motet in mensural notation in later sources such as Ba and Hu.

135 Translations of the texts are adapted from The Latin Compositions in Fascicules VII and VIII of W2, ed. Anderson, pt. 1, pp. 97–9.

136 On melodic repetition in clausulae, see Arlt, W., ‘Warum nur viermal? Zur historischen Stellung des Komponierens an der Pariser Notre Dame’, in Laubenthal, A. and Kusan-Windweh, K. (eds.), Studien zur Musikgeschichte: Eine Festschrift für Ludwig Finscher (Kassel, 1995), pp. 44–8Google Scholar, and Rankin, S., ‘Thirteenth-Century Notations of Music and Arts of Performance’, in Dorschel, A. and Haug, A. (eds.), Vom Preis des Fortschritts: Gewinn und Verlust in der Musikgeschichte (Studien zur Wertungsforschung, 49; Vienna, London and New York, 2008), pp. 110–41, at 126–8Google Scholar.

137 The priority of Quant revient/L'autrier jouer is further confirmed by the presence of two melodic decorations in Stirps Iesse/Virga cultus/FLOS FILIUS E[IUS] absent from Flos filius e[ius] 3 but present in the related French motet in W2 (in perfection 17 of the motetus and perfection 21 of the triplum, circled in Example 10). As Planchart noted (‘The Flower's Children’, p. 328), Stirps Iesse/Virga cultus does not seem to be related directly to the copy of Quant revient/L'autrier jouer in W2. This unique Latin motet in F apparently remained relatively independent from the transmission of its extant French counterparts. It is, therefore, unlikely that two widely transmitted melodic details, absent from the related clausula, could have originated in Stirps Iesse/Virga cultus. It seems that these two melodic decorations entered the Latin motet in F via a connection with a French motet version, and that they were omitted from the clausula in F owing to the great difficulty of expressing them in sine littera notation.

138 I borrow Anderson's term ‘little appendix’. Anderson suggested that, if the clausulae proposed as transcribed motets were ‘gathered together in a little appendix’, then ‘much more credence could be given to the hypothesis’ (‘Clausulae or Transcribed Motets’, pp. 111–12). He qualified his definition of a ‘little appendix’ in a corresponding footnote stating that ‘such “pockets” occur in many MSS. In F we have the 3pt clausulae of fascicule one’ (p. 112, n. 20).

139 For a discussion of Tanquam 12, see Zimmermann, A. K., Studien zur mittelalterlichen Dreistimmigkeit (Tübinger Beiträge zur Musikwissenschaft, 29; Tutzing, 2008), pp. 326–47Google Scholar. Zimmermann suggests that this clausula exhibits the influence of its related motets. See also Baltzer's analysis of the mixing of first and second modes in the tenor of this clausula (which does not question the priority of this clausula over related motets), in ‘Notation, Rhythm, and Style’, i, pp. 76–81.

140 VdB 1154 is not cited outside the context of the text Por conforter mon corage. However, the melody and text of the motetus of Por conforter mon corage are transmitted in R (fol. 102v) as the first stanza of a monophonic chanson avec des refrains attributed to Ernoul le vielle de Gastinois. ‘Je voi venir Amelot’ clearly functions as a refrain in this chanson. Everist has presumed that this refrain originated in the [Vir]go 2 clausula (see French Motets in the Thirteenth Century, p. 70).

141 The status of vdB 300 as a genuine refrain in Tanquam 12 is more ambiguous. It has no known concordances, and appears only in the context of this motet, which circulates exclusively as a motet in motet sources, and is not found in any chansonniers.

142 See Tischler, The Earliest Motets: A Complete Comparative Edition, iii, no. 65, pp. 92–4 and no. 138, pp. 135–6, and Roesner, Les quadrupla et tripla de Paris, no. 7, p. 322 and no. 20, p. 332.

143 Zimmermann, Studien zur mittelalterlichen Dreistimmigkeit, p. 330.

144 Heinrich Husmann suggested in 1940 that the copyist of Tanquam 12 created this clausula from a motet version. See Die drei- und vierstimmigen Notre-Dame Organa: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, ed. Husmann, H. (Publikationen älterer Musik, 11; Leipzig, 1940), p. 133Google Scholar. Although neither Tanquam 12 nor Flos filius e[ius] 3 was proposed as a transcribed motet by Waite (see The Rhythm of Twelfth-Century Polyphony, p. 101), both meet his criteria. Frobenius also believed Tanquam 12 to be a transcribed motet on grounds of its peculiar transmission in F, and the presence of refrain quotations. See the discussion of Sm 97 in ‘Zum genetischen Verhältnis’, p. 19.

145 Frobenius provided uncharacteristically extensive arguments in favour of the priority of the French motet Por conforter mon corage over [Vir]go 2 (Sm 69). He noted the incomplete nature of the second tenor statement; the song-like structure of the music and its close melodic relationship with the French text; the presence of a refrain melody and the long notes set to ‘a, e, o’ as motivated by textual demands. Frobenius also highlighted the closer correspondence between the French motet and the clausula as regards oxytonic and paroxytonic cadences than between the Latin motet Crescens incredulitas and the clausula. See his ‘Zum genetischen Verhältnis’, p. 18. I also recently argued for the priority of Por conforter mon corage over its related clausula and Latin motet in F. See ‘The Earliest Motets’, pp. 168–79, and 219–24.

146 Zimmermann proposed that the blank staves in the Tanquam 12 clausula in F were probably not intended for the music associated with the text ‘Quant nest la flor’. See her Studien zur mittelalterlichen Dreistimmigkeit, pp. 336–8. She questioned the status of this three-part material as a contrapuntal whole, suggesting that the triplum is incomplete without its accompanying quadruplum (found in the motet versions in Cl and Mo). Although Zimmermann's musical arguments are convincing, they do not explain the fact that this three-voice structure is transmitted independently of its quadruplum in the bilingual motet in W2. In any case, her observations do not necessarily challenge the hypothesis that these clausulae in F were copied from a French motet source in which the motet triplum of this material on TANQUAM was Quant nest la flor. It is possible that the music scribe of F wished to use another form of the triplum or a different melody in his clausula version. That this was not the version present in his hypothetical French motet exemplar may explain why the triplum melody was never copied.

147 That Quant nest la flor and Quant revient et fuelle et flor are three-voice double motets, while Por conforter mon corage is for tenor and motetus only, would not prevent these works from appearing together in a motet collection. The upper voices of these double motets would probably have been notated as successive parts alongside two-voice motets, just as they are in the ninth fascicle of F.

148 Everist, French Motets in the Thirteenth Century, p. 71.

149 Lefferts and Sanders, ‘Motet §I: Middle Ages, 1. France, Ars antiqua’. See also Sanders, E. H., ‘The Medieval Motet’, in Arlt, W.et al. (eds.), Gattungen der Musik in Einzeldarstellungen: Gedenkschrift Leo Schrade (Berne and Munich, 1973), pp. 497–573, at 508–9Google Scholar.

150 There are extant motets for seventeen of the irregularly ligated clausulae proposed by Waite as transcribed motets (in one instance two separate clausulae correspond to a single motet). Significantly, eleven of these seventeen clausulae contain melodies associated with refrains as catalogued by van den Boogaard, and five of these eleven clausulae contain intertextual refrains.

151 See, e.g., no. 69, in The Earliest Motets: A Complete Comparative Edition, ed. Tischler, iii, p. 95.

152 Baltzer, ‘Notation, Rhythm, and Style’, i, p. 40.

153 Ibid.

154 Lefferts and Sanders, ‘Motet, §I: Middle Ages, 1. France, Ars antiqua’.

155 This argument also applies to Rokseth's related proposal that certain clausulae were potentially sketches for motets (‘canevas de motets’). See ‘La Polyphonie parisienne du treizième siècle’, i, p. 44b and above, n. 116. It seems unlikely that motet creators should sketch in sine littera clausulae when motets are much more effectively and easily conveyed in cum littera notation.

156 That a motet in F might offer a more prescriptive and reliable source of rhythmic information than a clausula has not yet been properly acknowledged. Norman Smith, in ‘The Notation of Fractio Modi’, warned expressly against the danger of ‘correcting’ clausula notation with reference to related motets. In his earlier article, ‘The Earliest Motets: Music and Words’, pp. 154–9, Smith had demonstrated that small and fairly insignificant rhythmic changes are often effected in the process of converting borrowed clausulae into motets. He emphasised that this was not a reason to impose the rhythm of a motet on its related clausula, observing (p. 160) that though ‘the motet notation is explicit, the clausula's notation seems no less so’. This caveat is not, however, applicable to the situation of clausulae representing ‘transcribed motets’, given that one of the typical characteristics of such a clausula is its rhythmic ambiguity.

157 See Roesner, Les quadrupla et tripla de Paris, no. 24, pp. 141–2. The motet concordances are as follows: Crescens incredulitas/[VIR]GO (F, fol. 402r–v); Por conforter mon corage/[VIR]GO (W2, fols. 240v–241r); and Por conforter mon corage (motetus only, R, fol. 102v).

158 Baltzer, ‘Notation, Rhythm, and Style’, i, p. 36.

159 Planchart noted that the Flos filius e[ius] 3 clausula is remarkably lacking in dissonance (see ‘The Flower's Children’, p. 318).

160 In the one difference in vertical sonority between Amo[ris] 2 and Veni, salva nos, the clausula duplum is in unison with the tenor at the beginning of perfection 25, while the motetus creates an interval of a second with the tenor (see Example 6). In five out of the six differences in vertical sonority between Flos filius e[ius] 3 and Stirps Iesse/Virga cultus the clausula offers a more consonant reading than the motet (see Example 9).

161 Sanders, ‘The Medieval Motet’, p. 515. See also Zimmermann, Studien zur mittelalterlichen Dreistimmigkeit, p. 369.

162 See Arlt, W., Ein Festoffizium des Mittelalters aus Beauvais in seiner liturgischen und musikalischen Bedeutung, 2 vols. (Cologne, 1970), i, pp. 298–300Google Scholar, and D. F. Scott, ‘The Early Three- and Four-Voice Monotextual Motets of the Notre Dame School’ (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1988), pp. 334–47.

163 Scott, ‘The Early Three- and Four-Voice Monotextual Motets’, pp. 258–353.

164 Baltzer, ‘Notation, Rhythm, and Style’, i, p. 36.

165 See M. P. Ferreira, ‘Early Cistercian Polyphony: A Newly-Discovered Source’, Lusitania Sacra, 2nd ser., 13–14 (2001–2), pp. 267–313, at 288–303.

166 Anderson, ‘Clausulae or Transcribed Motets’, pp. 111–12.

167 Ibid., p. 111.

168 Ibid., p. 112.

169 Rokseth, the first scholar to propose motet origins for the clausulae in StV, underlined their special status as exceptions to the typical model exemplified in the Notre-Dame sources. See Polyphonies du XIIIe siècle, iv, pp. 70–1. Recent scholarship has continued to view the StV manuscript as anomalous. See, e.g., Körndle, ‘Von der Klausel zur Motette und zurück?’, pp. 127–8.

170 ‘Clausulae or Transcribed Motets’, p. 111.

171 Baltzer, ‘Notation, Rhythm, and Style’, i, p. 36.

172 Smith has referred to the added melisma at the end of one of the clausulae discussed by Waite (Domino 12, F, fol. 88v–4) as ‘a simple and frequently used cadential formula found throughout the Magnus liber’. See Smith, N. E., ‘Some Exceptional Clausulae of the Florence Manuscript’, Music & Letters, 59 (1973), pp. 405–14, at 409CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

173 This is an argument also offered by Frobenius in ‘Zum genetischen Verhältnis’, p. 11.

174 Another group of transcribed motet clausulae in F might be the series of clausulae Domino 12–16 at the end of fascicle 3 (fols. 88v–89r). Domino 12, 14 and 16 have extant related French motets. Domino 12 and 13 were identified by Waite as notationally irregular, and Flotzinger added Domino 15 and 16 to Waite's list.

175 Roesner, Introduction to the ‘Notre-Dame Manuscript’ F, p. 30.

176 See my more detailed evaluation of this hypothesis in Bradley, ‘Ordering in the Motet Fascicles of the Florence Manuscript’, pp. 61–2.

177 I have suggested elsewhere that the motets at the end of the second fascicle may have been pieces created specifically for F. See ibid., pp. 55–60.

178 Körndle, ‘Von der Klausel zur Motette und zurück?’, p. 122, and Büttner, Das Klauselrepertoire der Handschrift Saint-Victor, p. 41.

179 Büttner has established [Domi]ne 5 as a transcribed French motet. I have made the case here for Amo[ris] 2 and Flos filius e[ius] 3, also proposing [Vir]go 2 and Tanquam 12. Klaus Hofmann also argued for one of Waite's notationally irregular clausulae, F no. 94, as a transcribed French motet. See Hofmann, K., Untersuchungen zur Kompositionstechnik der Motette im 13. Jahrhundert durchgeführt an den Motetten mit dem Tenor IN SECULUM (Tübinger Beiträge zur Musikwissenschaft, 2; Neuhausen-Stuttgart, 1972), p. 129Google Scholar. The remaining thirteen clausulae with extant French motets listed by Waite are strong candidates as transcriptions: F nos. 14, 59–60, 61, 77, 85, 105, 106, 131, 150, 156, 163 and Domino 12 (fol. 88v–4). Of the additional notationally irregular clausulae noted by Flotzinger, three have extant French motets: F nos. 64 (also containing refrain 1018, with a suriving text concordance), 137 and Domino 16 (fol. 89r–3). Three further clausulae containing intertextual refrains are also possibilities: nos. 46, 151 and 197. Also plausible are nos. 148 (on grounds of style and dissemination patterns) and 208 (with a unique refrain that attracted Rokseth's attention; see Polyphonies du treizième siècle, iv. 209, n. 1). Building on Büttner's evidence (discussed above in n. 31), F no. 130 (also extant in StV) might represent a transcribed French motet. Gaël Saint-Cricq has traced the influence of an AAB structure associated with trouvère song in the motet repertory. See G. Saint-Cricq, ‘Formes types dans le motet du xiiie siècle: Étude d'un processus répétitif’, 2 vols. (Ph.D. diss., University of Southampton, 2009). Two French motets of this type have related clausulae, F nos. 77 and 452, which probably originated as motets. No. 77 already appears on Waite's list. No. 452 ([Immo]latus est 12, unique to F, fol. 184r–4) has a motet concordance, discovered by Saint-Cricq (p. 146): motet 241 (A tort sui d'amours blasmee/[IMMO]LATUS, unique to Mo, fols. 232v–233r). This motet also contains refrain 189, with a surviving text concordance.

180 Arlt has established Ypocrite pseudopontifices as a contrafactum, Büttner has proposed Prothomartir plenus fonte and I have here suggested Error popularis, Veni, salva nos, Stirps Iesse/Virga cultus and Crescens incredulitas. Of the Latin motets in F with extant related French versions, In modulo sonet letitia/[IMMO]LATUS (motet no. 233) seems plausible on stylistic grounds and its related clausula (no. 105) is also proposed as a transcribed motet by Waite. Clamans in deserto/IOHAN[NE] (no. 379, whose related clausula, no. 148, may also be a transcribed motet) is another likely candidate, as are O Maria maris stella/VERITA[TEM] (no. 448, with no extant related clausula), and Agmina militie celestis/AGMINA (no. 532, with a related clausula in StV, no. 40). Locus hic terribilis/[CONFI]TE[BOR] (no. 110) is a further possibility, though this motet has a related passage of discant transmitted within organa (in F, fol. 139v and W2, fols. 71r and 83v), and the chronological relationship between discant/motet versions is, as yet, unclear.

181 Clausula no. 283 (unique to F, with a Latin motet also unique to F, Et exalta vi magna/ET EXALTA[VI]), identified by Waite as notationally irregular, is a possibility. Another candidate is the passage of discant In azimis sinceritatis (fol. 110r), unique to F, with a Latin motet (Exilium parat/IN AZIMIS SINCERITA, no. 244) also unique to F. However, it is also possible that these Latin motets could be descended from French motets now lost.

182 I have argued elsewhere that this is the case for motet Liberator libera/[LIBERATI] (no. 97). See ‘The Earliest Motets’, pp. 283–95.

183 Four of the clausulae identified by Waite as transcribed motets, but for which no related motets are extant, are likely suspects: nos. 50, 126, 146 and Domino 13 (fol. 88v–5). Four of Flotzinger's additions to Waite's list similarly lack extant motet versions: nos. 13, 127, 135 and Domino 15 (fol. 88v–5). Büttner has also suggested that no. 445 (Patribus 6, unique to F, fol. 183v) is a transcription of a French motet, now lost. See his Das Klauselrepertoire der Handschrift Saint-Victor, pp. 184–9.

184 It seems probable that two passages of discant within organa in W2 represent transcribed motets. These passages of discant (W2, fols. 68v and 72r) are transmitted in F as clausulae (nos. 61 and 94) and identified by Waite as transcribed motets. That a passage of discant embedded in an organum in F could be a transcribed motet has not yet been investigated. Plausible candidates include the passage of discant Et exaltavi 2 (F, fol. 139v and W2, fol. 83v, related to motet 110) and In azimis sinceritatis (unique to F, fol. 110r, related to motet 244). Another suspect, on stylistic grounds, is the passage of discant Iustus 2 (unique to F, fol. 138r) related to the motet A grant joie/IUSTUS (no. 821, extant in W2 and N).

185 This figure was calculated with reference to Smith's catalogue in ‘From Clausula to Motet’, pp. 38–65, adding the new clausula–French motet concordance discovered by Saint-Cricq (see n. 177 above).

186 See Yudkin, Music in Medieval Europe, pp. 393–5, and Hoppin, R., Medieval Music (The Norton Introduction to Music History; New York and London, 1978), p. 326Google Scholar. Everist also emphasised the possibility that motets in French can be ‘adaptations from clausulae and pre-existent Latin motets’ (French Motets in the Thirteenth Century, p. 43). More recently, Everist also implied (‘The Thirteenth Century’, p. 85) that the tradition of motets in French originally derived from clausulae, noting that ‘the collision . . . between musicians trained to sing and perhaps compose (or at least modify) organa and clausulae and a vernacular culture may well have triggered the earliest motets with French texts’.

187 Tischler, for example, gives the text Fole acostumance a date of ‘c. 1250’. See his ‘A Comparison of Two Manuscripts’, p. 8.

188 See The Latin Compositions in Fascicules VII and VIII of W2, ed. Anderson, pt. 1, pp. 329–33. See also the discussion of this motet family in Everist, French Motets in the Thirteenth Century, pp. 51–4.

189 See, e.g., Lefferts and Sanders, ‘Motet §I: Middle Ages, 1. France, Ars antiqua’.

190 French Motets in the Thirteenth Century, p. 39.

191 See Büttner, ‘Weltliche Einflüsse in der Notre-Dame-Musik?’, pp. 35–7.