(Lat., from contra punctum: ‘against note’).
A term first used in the 14th century in counterpoint treatises; before this the term ‘discantus’ had been used. Later, especially in German theoretical writings of the Baroque period, it was applied to a fugal movement or to counterpoint generally; the best-known examples are in J.S. Bach's Art of Fugue.
The term was used around 1330 to describe a note-against-note (punctus contrapunctum) compositional structure intended as the first step to producing a finished ‘discantus’ or upper voice. The earliest known treatises on ‘counterpoint’ are the anonymous Volentibus introduci (c1320), published by Coussemaker in two different versions, one falsely attributed to Philippe de Vitry (CoussemakerS, iii, 23–7) and the other to Johannes de Garlandia (iii, 12–13), and the Quilibet affectans (after 1340), published by Coussemaker (iii, 59–60a) as the first part of the Ars contrapuncti secundum Johannem de Muris. The former begins with a clear definition of counterpoint: ‘If you wish to be introduced to the art of counterpoint, that is, note against note … ’ (‘Volentibus introduci in arte contrapunctus, id est notam contra notam … ’). Another term used to define ‘counterpoint’, and one that shows its clear relationship to ‘discant’, is fundamentum discantus (‘foundation of the discant’). This term appears in the Cum notum sit extension (later 14th century) of the Quilibet affectans; in the anonymous Liber musicalium (probably after 1340; attributed by Coussemaker to Vitry); and in the second treatise, attributable to Goscalch, of the Berkeley Manuscript (US-BEm 744, c1375; extract ed. in Sachs, 1974).
A typical 14th-century counterpoint treatise such as the Volentibus introduci included as a minimum: (1) a listing of permissible consonances, classified as perfect (unison, 4th, 5th, octave and compounds) or imperfect (3rd, 6th and compounds); (2) a description of the proper resolution of imperfect consonances to the nearest perfect consonance, normally by contrary motion; and (3) various rules of part-writing, especially a prohibition against parallel progressions of perfect consonances and a limitation on the number of parallel imperfect consonances.
Treatises on discant often begin with a similar section on the rules of counterpoint but then proceed to other matters that are necessary to transform that note-against-note framework into a finished discant. These include the ornamentation of the upper voice to fill in the structural points of the counterpoint, as well as other matters affecting that voice, such as the notation of rhythm (especially small values that pertain only to the upper voice and are not covered in standard mensuration treatises), proportions and modal considerations.
This separation of polyphonic theory into two topics, provided with separate terminology and discussed in separate treatises, clearly reflects the division of the compositional process into two stages, at least for the novice composer, at whom these treatises are directed. The implication is that one should compose by first laying out a structured framework of consonant progressions and then ornamenting the upper voice into its finished form.
Some counterpoint treatises were expanded into ones on discant, so that the material dealing with counterpoint forms the opening section of the more extended discussion of discant. The anonymous treatise Ars contrapuncti secundum Johannem de Muris is such a composite treatise: the first part, the Quilibet affectans, which appears separately in some sources, is a standard counterpoint treatise, and the title refers to that section alone. As published by Coussemaker, this treatise includes a later, additional section, the Cum notum sit, that expands the earlier work into a complete discant treatise. A revision of Quilibet affectans appears at the beginning of the second treatise of the Berkeley Manuscript, attributed to Goscalch; it is followed by different material, again devoted to discant.
In the early 15th century, the term ‘contrapunctus’ was expanded gradually to take on its modern meaning and, in the process, replaced the term ‘discantus’. In his Contrapunctus (1412), Prosdocimus de Beldemandis distinguished between counterpoint in a ‘strict’ sense (contrapunctus stricte sumptus), which reflects the traditional note-against-note view, and counterpoint in a ‘larger’ sense (contrapunctus large sumptus), which reflects the expanded sense of the term. That the newer meaning is not entirely accepted is clear from Prosdocimus's definition: ‘Counterpoint in a large sense, or taken commonly, is the employment of several notes against a single note in a cantus [lower voice]. I do not intend to discuss that here, nor is it truly called counterpoint’ (‘Contrapunctus largo modo, sive communiter sumptus, est plurimarum notarum contra aliquam unicam solam notam in aliquo cantu positio, et de tali non intendo hic determinare, nec talis vere contrapunctus nominatur’).
Later 15th-century theorists generally adopted the expanded meaning of the term, but the narrow sense continued to appear, especially in more detailed accounts. Ugolino of Orvieto, in his Declaratio musice discipline (1430–35; ed. in CSM, vii, 1959–62), distinguished between a contrapunctus stricte seu proprie sumptus, which he defined as ‘placing a note against one note’ (‘uni notae contraponitur nota’), and contrapunctus large sumptus, defined as ‘placing several [notes] against one note’ (‘uni notae plures contraponi videntur’). In his Liber de arte contrapuncti (1477; CoussemakerS, iv, 76–153; Eng. trans., MSD, v, 1961), Tinctoris still distinguished between a contrapunctus simplex(the strict, ‘simple’ sense) and a contrapunctus diminutus (the broader, ‘diminished’ or ‘ornamented’ sense). By the end of the 15th century, only the broader meaning survived.
See also Counterpoint and Polyphony.
RiemannG
R.L. Crocker: ‘Discant, Counterpoint, and Harmony’, JAMS, xv (1962), 1–21
K.J. Sachs: Der Contrapunctus im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert: Untersuchungen zum Terminus, zur Lehre und zu den Quellen (Wiesbaden, 1974)
O. Ellsworth: ‘Contrapunctus and Discantus in Late Medieval Terminology’, Saints, Scholars, and Heroes: Studies in Medieval Culture in Honor of Charles W. Jones, ed. M.H. King and W.M. Stevens, ii (Collegeville, MN, 1979), 105–12
M. Bent: ‘Resfacta and Cantare super librum’, JAMS, xxxvi (1983), 371–91
J. Herlinger, ed. and trans.: Prosdocimus de Beldemandis: Contrapunctus (Lincoln, NE, 1984)
O. Ellsworth, ed. and trans.: The Berkeley Manuscript: University of California Music Library, MS. 744 (olim Phillipps 4450) (Lincoln, NE, 1984)
K.-J. Sachs: ‘Die Contrapunctus-Lehre im 14. und 15. Jarhundert’, Die mittelalterliche Lehre von der Mehrstimmigkeit, ed. H.H. Eggebrecht and others (Darmstadt, 1984), 16–256
B.J. Blackburn: ‘On Compositional Process in the Fifteenth Century’, JAMS, xl (1987), 210–84
K. Gümpel and K.-J. Sachs: ‘Das Manuskript Girona 91 und sein Contrapunctus-Traktat’, AMw, xlv (1988), 186–205
OLIVER B. ELLSWORTH