(fl mid- to late 13th century). German theorist and ?composer. His Ars cantus mensurabilis contained the first major statement of an idea that has been fundamental to Western notation ever since: that different durations should be expressed by different note shapes, and not merely by different contexts. On a more specific level, the actual notational system he advocated held good for the next 200 years, with some refinements and modifications. The treatise also provides many valuable (if sometimes apparently imprecise) descriptions of 13th-century polyphony.
2. Authenticity and date of the ‘Ars cantus mensurabilis’.
3. Content of the ‘Ars cantus mensurabilis’.
ANDREW HUGHES
Of the eight surviving manuscripts of Franco’s treatise, two include biographical information. A Milan manuscript printed by Gerbert describes the treatise as ‘edita’ by magister Franco of Paris. The reference to Paris dates from the 15th century and is unique: Franco of Paris must be an alias for Franco of Cologne, whose importance and influence was firmly associated with the Parisian motet of the 13th century. The 14th-century St Dié manuscript printed by Coussemaker and the (related) Tremezzo manuscript (I-TRE) are more informative; they describe dominus Franco as a papal chaplain and preceptor of the Knights Hospitaller of St John of Jerusalem at Cologne, although these assertions are not verifiable (see below). Other treatises in the St Dié manuscript were by frater Jordanus de Blankenborch, who must have been of north German origin; hence the manuscript as a whole may well be from the Cologne area. Jacobus of Liège, in his Speculum musice dating from the early 14th century, confirmed the German origin of ‘Franco teutonicus’ (CoussemakerS, ii, p.384; also ed. in CSM, iii, 1955–73).
Relations between Cologne and Paris were close in the 13th century and it is not unlikely that Franco became magister, and perhaps worked for some time, at the University of Paris. His status as magister and vir reverendus, and possibly as a papal chaplain and preceptor of an order of knights, must have given him considerable authority in both church and university circles. His central role in the development of Parisian polyphonic notation is made clear not only by the music in contemporary manuscripts, which begins to follow the rhythmic procedures advocated by Franco, but also by a number of contemporary writers on music.
The writer known as Anonymus 4 referred to Franco twice. First, his name appears with that of a Franco primus (about whom there is no other information): ‘The book or books of magister Perotinus were in use until … the time of magister Franco primus and of the second magister Franco of Cologne, who began to notate somewhat differently in his books’ (‘in suis libris aliter pro parte notare’) (Reckow, i, p.46). Later, with no reference to Franco primus, this writer stated: ‘The above-mentioned Johannes … kept to the procedures of all the above-mentioned men until the time of magister Franco and some other magistri’ (Reckow, i, p.50). Jacobus of Liège, besides the remark cited earlier, stated that Franco’s rhythmic principles were followed by Petrus de Cruce (CoussemakerS, ii, p.401).
Jacobus’s treatise suggests that Franco was also a composer; he stated: ‘I think I heard at Paris a triplum [i.e. three-voice composition] composed, it was said, by magister Franco, in which more semibreves than three equalled one perfection’ (CoussemakerS, ii, p.402). No surviving composition, however, is attributed to Franco, and Coussemaker’s suggestions in L’art harmonique (Paris, 1865, monuments 16–18) are not supported by reliable evidence. Indeed, stylistic evidence suggests that one of these, the motet Homo luge/Homo miserabilis/Brumans est mors (D-BAs lit.115, f.20v), was quite probably written by a German in Paris, even though Birkner considered the motet an outstanding work by a ‘central master’ in the French repertory. In two manuscripts of German origin (D-DS 3317, E-BUlh) its tenor is a setting of the words ‘Brumans ist tod’ in a lyrical and strophic melodic style that Besseler (‘Franco von Köln’, MGG1) considered uncharacteristic of French compositions and more suggestive of a later German repertory. The work is not cited as an example in the Ars cantus mensurabilis.
The Ars cantus mensurabilis is the only treatise that can with reasonable certainty be attributed to Franco (for the authorship of another short treatise, the Compendium discantus, see below). Even the Ars cantus mensurabilis, however, is denied to Franco by Hieronymus de Moravia: the version transmitted in F-Pn lat.16663, a collection of tracts compiled by Hieronymus, is described as by ‘Johannes … of Burgundy, as we have heard from his own lips, or according to the common opinion (‘secundum vulgarem opinionem’) Franco of Cologne’ (Cserba, pp.229–30). Moreover, a different treatise in the manuscript I-Rv B83 is described as ‘The sayings of magister Franco of Cologne and magister Johannes of Burgundy’ (‘Dicta magistri Franconis de colonia: Et magistri iohannis de bulgundia’ [sic]), even though only a single work is in question (Reckow, i, p.95). Reckow also referred to a coincidental appearance of the same two names in a cathedral record of 15th-century cantors. Johannes de Burgundia may be the same as the magister de Burgundia mentioned by Anonymous 4 as one of the ‘other magistri ’ in his statement quoted earlier; but the precise relationship between Franco and Johannes remains uncertain (a further possibility is that Johannes was a teacher who followed the teachings of Franco). There seems at present, therefore, to be no strong reason for questioning Franco’s authorship of Ars cantus. The treatise was widely diffused throughout Europe at least until the late 15th century. A number of commentaries and abbreviations ‘according to Franco’ survive, among them works by Jacobus of Liège, Marchetto da Padova, Johannes de Muris and Simon Tunstede.
The date of Franco’s activity and the writing of Ars cantus is quite uncertain. Neither the registers of the papal court nor the records of the order of Hospitallers contain his name. However, among the latter are documents that indicate that by the middle of the century (1261 at the latest) the Cologne Commandery had replaced the title preceptor with commendator. This fact led Besseler and later Rieckenberg to conclude respectively that Franco occupied the position of preceptor before 1260 or even before 1251. Rieckenberg identified Franco as the scholaster Franco of St Kunibert in Cologne up to about 1239 who later, according to Rieckenberg, became the Domscholaster magister Franco (d 1247). His evidence appears to be strong, but has been called untenable by Torsy (and it must be noted that the manuscripts containing these biographical details were compiled some time after the treatise was written). These dates would place the authorship of Ars cantus very early in the century, although Reaney considers that a date of 1240 ‘would not be very much earlier than the usual date given to the treatise’.
A number of erroneous attempts have been made to suggest a date for the treatise; and others lack sufficient evidence on which to make conclusions. For some time the treatise was thought to date from about 1280, but since it deals with rhythmic principles that probably appeared in manuscripts several decades earlier, Besseler accepted 1260 as a more likely date; this was also preferred by Huglo. 1240 would seem to be somewhat early. Frobenius revived the possibility of a date around 1280 on the grounds that Franco must have written after Lambertus and the anonymous St Emmeram theorist (published by Sowa), both of whom wrote about 1279. Certain of Franco’s comments regarding other theorists seem to refer to their writings. If this date were accepted, several of Franco’s innovations would have to be credited elsewhere, since they appear in Lambertus and the Anonymus. Reckow’s terminal date of about 1280 for the treatise of Anonymus 4, if correct, would necessitate an earlier authorship of Ars cantus. Opinion in more recent scholarship has remained divided: Huglo preferred a date of 1260–65, whereas Reaney and Gilles and Arlt and Haas settled on the later date of 1280.
Another short treatise entitled Compendium discantus in a 14th-century English manuscript, printed by Coussemaker (CoussemakerS, i, pp.154–6), begins ‘Ego Franco de Colonia’. Listing the consonances and dissonances, it describes rules for two-‘chord’ progressions in two voices for discant style. Although Rieckenberg tentatively suggested that it dates from about 1231, its reference to contrary motion, to the three note values, long, breve and semibreve, and to falsa musica, would suggest a later date. Although it has been said to contradict statements in Ars cantus mensurabilis, and has consequently been denied to Franco, there appears to be no firm reason for an opinion either way.
Franco began with the rhythmic modes, not used in plainchant (chap.1), stating that the six or seven advocated by other writers could be reduced to five (chap.3). Thus the 1st mode consists of longs, with a sub-species of long–breve groups; the 2nd mode of breve–long groups; the 3rd of long–breve–breve groups; the 4th of breve–breve–long groups; the 5th of breves and semibreves. Accepting this older modal rhythmic system as his foundation, Franco replaced its principle of the grouping of notes with one in which the note shapes signify duration. Instead of determining the duration of a note by its numerical position within a series of ligatures or of single notes, Franco determined duration by the shape of note symbols within a perfection, or a unit of three breves akin to the modern bar.
There remain some ambiguities, resolved by the position of notes within the perfection (chap.5), but basically each symbol can represent only two durations (chap.4). Thus the long is perfect or imperfect, containing three or two breves depending on the absence or presence of a breve in the same perfection. Depending on its position with respect to longs, the breve may be recta (of normal length) or altera (doubled). Semibreves relate to breves in the same way, as minor or major semibreves, with a maximum of three minor semibreves to the breve. The categories of rhythmic relationships which have characterized notation since then are clearly established. Ligatures, with or without tails to give a wider choice of shapes, are standardized and are thus assigned definite rhythmic meanings, and the terms ‘proprietas’ and ‘perfectio’ describe the typical forms (chap.7).
Plicae and conjuncturae give some additional rhythmic flexibility (chap.8), although Franco’s definition of the former (chap.6) does not state its rhythmic meaning: ‘a plica is a sign of the division of the same sound into a low [note] and a high [note]’ (‘plica est nota divisionis ejusdem soni in grave et acutum’; see illustration). The rest, called ‘vox omissa’ or ‘pausa(tio)’, is of central importance since each rest symbol represents a unique duration. It has a ‘miraculous power’: that of changing one mode into another. For example, if the rest proper to the 2nd mode (the imperfect long) is placed after the breve of the 1st mode, the 2nd mode is obtained (ex.1). Apart from the presence or absence of an anacrusis, the rhythm does not seem to be different in these modes, and this probably contributed to the demise of the modes in favour of Franco’s system of perfections.
Franco categorized numerous kinds of polyphony. Some is ‘mensurabilis simpliciter’, measured in all parts, and called ‘discantus’; some, called ‘organum’, is ‘partim mensurabilis’, measured only in certain sections. Unmeasured sections of the latter are known as organum duplum or purum. These are the distinctions of typical early Notre Dame polyphony; Franco emphasized discant styles and devoted only a short passage at the end to organum proper (chap.13). This style occurs only over a tenor whose ‘sola nota est in unisono’, a phrase possibly representing in a complicated way a long sustained note; where the tenor has several notes at once (‘accipit plures notas simul’), then the style is discant. Whatever is long (presumably in the upper voice) must be consonant with the tenor; if a dissonance arises the tenor must rest or feign a consonance (‘se in concordantiam fingat’): the example illustrating this is not clear. Whatever comes immediately before the end of a section (‘finis punctorum’) is long. With a possible reference to performance in free rhythm, Franco stated that whenever several notes are sounded over one pitch in the tenor only the first is struck, the remainder being held ‘in floratura’ (for further discussion see Atkinson).
Discant style comprises several genres, but is characterized by measured rhythm in all sections, and in it all modes can occur, since all can be reduced to perfections. The 5th rhythmic mode (breves and semibreves) can be taken most easily with the others (chap.9). After a classification of consonances and dissonances that may differ from that in the Compendium discantus, and in which 3rds are not regarded as dissonances (‘non discordant’), Franco showed how polyphony is regulated by consonances ‘in principiis perfectionis’, at the beginnings of the perfections (‘bars’), with dissonances in the proper places. Contrary motion is preferred. Giving the name ‘discantus’ to the voice immediately above the tenor, Franco listed rules for the triplum, quadruplum and quintuplum voices which imply that each may be discordant with only one other voice, and he stated that all imperfect dissonances sound well immediately before consonances (chap.11).
The words are of great consequence in musical compositions. Cantilenas, rondelli, and certain liturgical pieces (probably clausulas) have the same text in all voices throughout; conductus and some liturgical pieces improperly called ‘organum’ have texts in some sections, melismas in others (chap.11). The presence of a text affects the ligature patterns that may be used (chap.10), and the addition of texts was undoubtedly another reason why the modal system, dependent as it was on ligatures, had to be replaced. All discant genres are constructed in the same way, over a cantus prius factus called the tenor, except the conductus, in which the composer ought first to contrive as beautiful a melody (cantus) as he can, then to proceed as if it were normal discant. This is a clear statement that conductus do not use pre-existing melodies.
In chapter 12 there is a reference to ‘copula’, which is ‘velox discantus ad invicem copulatus’. The exact nature of copula is not clear from this, although its faster speed is emphasized, especially towards the end. It is said to differ from passages in modal rhythm in notation and in movement (‘in proferendo’). Hocket is defined clearly in chapter 13, with the additional comment that it may be taken ‘supra cantus prius factum’ in Latin or the vernacular.
Franco’s treatise thus deals in a very practical way with the major issues and genres of 13th-century part-music, making only the briefest of gestures to the great authorities of speculative music. In general its meaning is clear, and the numerous examples, many drawn from the contemporary repertory, usually illustrate the text well.
The eight surviving sources of the Ars cantus mensurabilis are as follows:
F-Pn lat.11267, ff.1–7v (13th-century French MS); Pn lat.16663, ff.152–65 (13th-century Parisian MS); Pn lat.16667, ff.152–65; SDI 42, ff.43–53v (14th-century German MS)
GB-Ob 842, ff.49–59 (14th-century English MS)
I-Ma D.5.inf., ff.110–18 (15th-century Italian MS); TRE [MS without no.], ff.3–14 (MS written by Gaffurius)
S-Uu C 55, ff.20–43 (15th-century Swedish MS)
|
GerbertS, iii, 1–16 |
|
CoussemakerS, i, 117–36 |
|
O. Strunk, ed. and trans.: Source Readings in Music History from Classical Antiquity through the Romantic Era (New York, 1950), 139–59 |
|
F. Gennrich, ed.: Franco of Cologne: Ars cantus mensurabilis, Musikwissenschaftliche Studien-Bibliothek, xv–xvi (Darmstadt, 1957) [repr. of CoussemakerS, i, 117–36, and diplomatic transcrs. of I-Ma and F-SDI MSS] |
G. Reaney and A. Gilles, eds.: Franconis de Colonia Ars cantus mensurabilis, CSM, xviii (1974)
C.-E.-H. de Coussemaker: L’art harmonique aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles (Paris, 1865/R)
H. Besseler: ‘ Studien zur Musik des Mittelalters, II: Die Motette von Franko von Köln bis Philipp von Vitry’, AMw, viii (1926), 137–258, esp. 156, 177
H. Sowa, ed.: Ein anonymer glossierter Mensuraltraktat 1279 (Kassel, 1930)
J. Handschin: ‘ Die Rolle der Nationen in der mittelalterlichen Musikgeschichte’, Schweizerisches Jb für Musikwissenschaft, v (1931), 1–42, esp. 20–21
S.M. Cserba, ed.: Hieronymus de Moravia O.P.: Tractatus de musica (Regensburg, 1935)
G. Birkner: ‘ Zur Motette über “Brumans est mors”’, AMw, x (1953), 71–80
H.J. Rieckenberg: ‘Zur Biographie des Musiktheoretikers Franco von Köln’, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, xlii (1960), 280 [see also review by J. Torsy, Kölner Domblatt, xx (1961–2), 227]
G. Reaney: ‘ The Question of Authorship in the Medieval Treatises on Music’, MD, xviii (1964), 7–17
F. Reckow: Der Musiktraktat des Anonymus 4 (Wiesbaden, 1967)
W. Frobenius: ‘ Zur Datierung von Francos Ars cantus mensurabilis’, AMw, xxvii (1970), 122–7
W. Arlt and M.Haas: ‘Pariser modale Mehrstimmigkeit in einem Fragment der Basler Universitätsbibliothek’, Forum musicologicum, i (1975), 223–72, esp. 233
M. Huglo: ‘De Franco de Cologne à Jacques de Liège’, RBM, xxxiv–xxxv (1980–81), 44–60
M. Haas: ‘Die Musiklehre im 13. Jahrhundert von Johannes de Garlandia bis Franco’, Geschichte der Musiktheorie, ed. F. Zaminer, v (Darmstadt, 1984), 91–158
C.M. Atkinson: ‘Franco of Cologne on the Rhythm of Organum purum’, EMH, ix (1990), 1–26