(Lat., from Gk. organon: ‘instrument’, ‘implement’, ‘tool’).
A type of medieval polyphony. Early meanings are connected with the organ, but later only with ‘consonant music’. While retaining the collective meaning of ‘polyphony’ in general, from the 12th century it was used specifically to refer to music with a sustained-note tenor (usually a pre-existing part) and more mobile upper part or parts.
3. 10th- and 11th-century theory.
4. Practical sources: changes of style about 1100.
5. Organum and liturgical chant.
6. ‘Organum’ and ‘discant’: new terminology.
7. Florid organum of Aquitaine and Compostela manuscripts.
8. Parisian organum: the ‘Magnus liber’.
9. The style of Parisian organum.
10. The rhythmic interpretation of Parisian organum.
11. Organum of the 13th century and later.
FRITZ RECKOW (with EDWARD H. ROESNER) (1–5), RUDOLF FLOTZINGER (6–11), NORMAN E. SMITH/RUDOLF FLOTZINGER (bibliography)
The Greek word ‘organon’ (‘tool’, ‘means’, ‘organ of the body’) was also used for musical instruments, and for the various organs of speech of the human voice. Its first known usage specifically as ‘organ’ in the musical sense occurred in the first half of the 5th century ce in a commentary on the psalms by Hesychios of Jerusalem (PG, xxvii, 1341C). The Latin word ‘organum’ on the other hand was current in the restricted sense of ‘organ’ as early as c400 according to St Augustine, and this was its ‘true’ Latin meaning (Psalm commentary: PL, xxxvii, 1964). In Latin the primary word for ‘musical instrument’ in the general sense since classical times had been ‘instrumentum’.
In the biblical allegories of the church fathers the musical instruments referred to in the Bible were interpreted as ‘inner’ (i.e. vocal) instruments because the use of instruments in Christian worship was forbidden. The word ‘organum’ was also taken over and applied to that which was produced by instruments, and produced in particular by the human voice. Thereafter it was used not only for forms of verbal discourse (equivalent to ‘sermo’, ‘praedicatio’ and ‘evangelium’), but also for a song of spiritual praise (as a synonym for ‘canticum’ and ‘laus’), often in phrases such as ‘in hymnis et organis’. This usage persisted into the late Middle Ages, particularly in religious poetry. Consequently, there is no compelling reason for treating references to ‘organa’ or ‘cantica organica’ in the texts of sequences and tropes as allusions to instrumental performance or to polyphony. In the late 13th century the theorist Anonymous IV attested to the usage of ‘organum’ still for monophonic song, generally sacred (‘Quandoque simplex organum dicitur ut in simplicibus conductis’; ed. Reckow, i, p.70).
From the 9th century onwards the word existed as a technical term in the theory of polyphony. It came to be used equally for a ‘voice’ which was added to a pre-existent chant melody (vox principalis), or for a single note within such a voice (both of which were termed vox organalis), and also for the polyphonic fabric as a whole.
Scholars have drawn many analogies between early polyphony and musical instruments, their construction or manner of playing. It is to these analogies that the choice of the word ‘organum’ in the early Middle Ages has until recently generally been attributed. They have included the analogy between parallel movement of voices and the mixture rank of the organ (Husmann); between long-held notes and an instrumental drone (Waeltner); between the accompanimental role of the vox organalis with regard to the vox principalis and the accompanimental role of instruments with regard to singing; or between instrumental embellishment (which by its nature was wordless) and the melismatic vocal decoration which occurred in the vox organalis, especially after about 1100 (Eggebrecht). Other inferences from the term ‘organum’ have been that polyphony was instrumental in origin (Georgiades) and that it was intended for purely instrumental performance (Krüger).
Assumptions such as these may go some way to accounting for particular characteristics in early polyphony. At the same time, nowhere do they receive support in the literature of music theory itself as statements about terminology. The sole indication of a possible connection between musical instruments and terminology for polyphony occurs, in about 1100, in a vague attempt at etymological definition by Johannes Cotto (‘Affligemensis’), of which the Latin reads: ‘Qui canendi modus vulgariter organum dicitur, eo quod vox humana apte dissonans similitudinem exprimat instrumenti quod “organum” vocatur’ (‘A manner of singing commonly called “organum”, because the human voice, aptly dissonant, bears a likeness to an instrument which is called “organum”’: CSM, i, p.157). And this explanation, significantly, is ignored, even contradicted, by later theory.
On the other hand, a number of passages in early polyphonic theory can be taken to imply that the term ‘organum’ refers to the consonant relationship between vox principalis and vox organalis. Thus, in the central theoretical source, entitled Musica enchiriadis and dating from the second half of the 9th century, the vox organalis is also called the cantilena simphoniaca (ed. Schmid, p.48). This interpretation finds its strongest support, however, in a number of observations in the theoretical literature – all admittedly rather elliptical – on vertical sonority. In the Cologne organum treatise (c900), notes in the vox organalis that form a 3rd or 2nd with the vox principalis are ranked as ‘abusivum organum’ (ed. Waeltner, p.54). The author of the Paris organum treatise (10th century) went so far as to say that with such vertical sonorities legitimum organum ‘falls silent’, or that responsum organi ‘is lacking’ (ed. Waeltner, p.76). This does not mean that the creation of these sonorities is itself ‘improper’ or impossible – they are indeed expressly taught and demonstrated. It should be taken as conveying rather that such effects would be designated improper (i.e. contrary to proper word-usage) only as organum; in other words, that such (in themselves entirely legitimate) sonorities are not organum in the strict sense of the term. Logically then, the term ‘organum’ must at first have been reserved exclusively for consonant sonorities. Indeed, in the definitions of organum that occur in music theory up to the 12th century only 4ths and 5ths are mentioned as constituent intervals.
This conception of organum seems to be firmly associated with a specialized use, current from late classical times, of the adjective organicus. It comes through particularly clearly in expressions such as ‘organicum melos’ and, from the early Middle Ages onwards, ‘instrumentum organicum’. An organicum melos is a melos the pitches of which – whether monophonic or polyphonic, vocal or instrumental – are precisely measured. (It is in this sense, and not as evidence of polyphony, that a famous passage by John Scotus Erigena should be interpreted – see NOHM, ii, 1954, p.273.)
By analogy, an instrumentum organicum is a musical instrument which by virtue of its construction is capable of being exactly tuned, and thus lends itself to theoretical demonstration. Its pitches, each represented by one or more pipes, strings, keys or bells, exist in a consonant relationship to one another – as a result of the circle of 5ths, which forms the basis of tuning.
This conception of organicus probably derives from the Greek kataskeuē organikē of geometric construction. The organa in geometry were compasses and straight-edges which, in contrast to stencils with their imprecision, were considered scientifically reliable. It was on these grounds that the Greek adjective organikos had come to be used also in the abstract sense of ‘mathematically exact’ and ‘theoretically sound’ in geometrical theory as early as late classical times. The organa that lie behind the early medieval polyphonic term were thus in the last analysis not musical instruments at all: they were compasses and straight-edges as the guarantors of quadrivial order and exactitude. The term ‘organum’ can itself probably be seen as defining a prior condition for polyphony. This condition refers to the exact measurement of pitch which is so essential to the fitting together of parts, and at the same time expresses verbally the fact that consonance itself comes to audible reality as the ‘temperamentum modulationis’ (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, iii, 20.3).
In the early medieval sources the word ‘diaphonia’ was also used, along with ‘organum’, to designate polyphony. This word is not to be taken as signifying dissonance. Much more likely, it conveyed – as did its successor ‘discantus’ from the 12th century onwards – the striking effect of ‘sounding apart’, in contrast to the ‘uniformis canor’ of a monophonic melody.
The term ‘discantus’ from the 12th century onwards stood, as a general rule, for note-against-note counterpoint. The term ‘organum’ itself did continue as a collective word for all types of polyphony (organum generale); but at the same time it took on a special meaning in the 12th century as the new type of sustained-note counterpoint – a type that was at first for two voices, and in which a melismatic upper voice was constructed above long-held plainchant notes (organum in speciali; see §6 below). From the latter part of the 13th century, ‘organum’ came to be used to describe plainchant setting in general (above all that of the Notre Dame composers), in contradistinction to the categories of motet and conductus.
The concordant intervals were an essential element in early polyphony. This is clear from the way in which polyphonic treatment was at first frequently discussed under headings such as ‘De symphoniis’. The technique of polyphony was based on two practices, both of them probably very old: that of parallel singing in concordant intervals, and that of the use of a drone. At any rate, regular instruction in the form of a systematic course of teaching had become a necessity at just about the time when performance in pure and unornamented parallel motion, and performance using a drone, were on the decline. This decline took the form of a combination of the two practices. In it the new elements of polyphony since the 9th century had their origin – and not only in the decline itself, but also in the way in which musical theorists presented and accounted for it. For only now could the vox organalis be thought of as an increasingly independent moving ‘voice’; only now did alternative ways of singing polyphonically become thinkable and feasible; only now could different ways of shaping a counterpoint be tried out in practice and formulated as theory, and hence the ‘history’ of polyphony really begin. And it was a history at whose beginning there was very little by way of prescriptive theoretical writing. Nevertheless, by about 1100 a measure of freedom had been achieved in the fashioning of counterpoint. Music theory could do little more than give a general idea of this, in the form of contrived examples; and in turn, from the 13th century onwards there are specific references to individual compositions which the reader is expected to have in his mind as models. These, apart from elementary rules of part-writing, take the place of the examples and now serve to stimulate or to corroborate what has been said.
In the organum of the early Middle Ages the vox organalis generally lies beneath the vox principalis (ex.1; see also Score, fig.1). The latter, as the melody pre-existing in its own right, placed as it is in the prominent register, is still heard as the primary voice. Organum theory begins with performance in either parallel 5ths or parallel 4ths. Free interchange between these two intervals was not expressly permitted until about 1100. In even the earliest sources the 4th was favoured. This must have been partly because it was the concordant interval which would most perceptibly have the effect of ‘sounding apart’, and partly because the two voices were then closer together and could most easily converge on to a unison. The Daseian notation used in Musica enchiriadis was, as will be seen later, obviously designed with organum at the 4th in mind.
In
the discussion of organum in Musica enchiriadis a crucial role is played
by the tritone. It is the tritone’s inconsonantia or absonia
which makes deviation from strict parallel movement necessary. It is that also
which brings about a change in texture to one in which the vox organalis
often clings to a particular note and produces a drone-like effect. Since the
writer of Musica enchiriadis was clearly very concerned with such
deviations, he found that a system of disjunct tetrachords offered the means
whereby the occurrence of tritone intervals in organum at the 4th – and the
need for avoidance – could by comparison with the normal octave system be doubled.
This system was built of identical tetrachords grouping themselves around the
tetrachord of the finals D, E, F and G (ex.2: note the brackets under the
letter names; the four degrees of the main tetrachord appear with their Greek
number names archoos, deuteros, tritos and tetrardos).
Adjacent tetrachords were always separated by a whole tone – hence they were
disjunct. Because of this they cut across the octave structure of the normal
tonal system; the pattern of intervals repeats at the 5th rather than at the
octave. Thus it is possible to sing in parallel 5ths in this system without
disturbance. A critical factor was, however, that when singing in 4ths a
tritone now occurred on every fourth degree of the scale, between the tritos
of one tetrachord and deuteros of the next tetrachord up: B
–e, f–b, c'–f
', g'–c'' (see ex.2, the brackets
above the letter names). By contrast, the tritone in the octave system arises
only between B
and e, and between f and b. Each of the four degrees of
the tetrachord has its own sign, and this sign is modified with its
reappearance in each higher tetrachord by being reversed, inverted and reverted
respectively – the sign for the tritos being slightly modified in shape
also. The practice of changing a sign by turning it round is reminiscent of
Greek instrumental notation and is possibly directly influenced by that. The
signs themselves were named Daseia signs after their basic sign, which was the
Greek for the prosodia daseia (cf Schmid, pp.5–7).
If the teaching of Musica enchiriadis is followed, organum takes shape as a result of the joint operation of the tetrachord system and the law prohibiting the tritone. In order to avoid each tritone the vox organalis must constantly avoid the sonus tritus. To cope with this there is one prime rule: the vox organalis must not, in the course of a phrase, descend beyond the sonus tetrardus; nor, where the vox principalis begins a melodic ascent, must the vox organalis approach the tetrardus from below (cf Schmid, p.49: ‘ut in quolibet tetrachordo in qualibet particula nec infra tetrardum sonum descendat positione nec inchoatione levetur obstante triti soni inconsonantia, qui tetrardo est subsecundus’). The vox organalis is only allowed to ‘stray’ into the register of a neighbouring tetrachord if the vox principalis changes its register correspondingly (ed. Schmid, pp.51–2; cf ex.1: from the syllable -lis onwards the vox organalis shifts into the next tetrachord down). In practice each sonus tetrardus (c, g, d', a') functions as a lower limit of pitch to which the vox organalis clings like a drone. The vox organalis quits this limit in the upward direction only if the vox principalis itself moves beyond a 4th above it, or if the vox organalis moves to a unison with the vox principalis at the end of a section (the latter, as the pre-existing and hence unchangeable melody, thus drawing the vox organalis towards it, as it were). The second of these situations arises in ex.1 at the syllables pi-is; the first does not occur until after the dip down into the tetrachord below at the syllable -lis, the vox organalis therefore having to cling to the same tetrardus for the first nine syllables.
Put negatively, this way of shaping the end of a section, which applies analogously also to the beginning of a section (e.g. the unison opening of ex.1), suggests that a section was supposed never to end on a non-consonant interval. (Without the convergence of voices (convenire) ex.1 would have ended on a 3rd.) This is indeed the argument of Musica enchiriadis: it is because the vox organalis must not go below the sonus tetrardus, and because at the same time a section must not end on a 4th, that a unison is selected (ed. Schmid, p.50: ‘[vox organalis] subtus eundem [tetrardum] non valet positione progredi et ob hoc in finalitate positionum a voce principali occupetur, ut ambae in unum conveniant’). Admittedly examples do also occur in Musica enchiriadis in which the vox organalis does go below the sonus tetrardus and ends on a 4th. But such cases were probably counted as transitional – in accordance with the methodical way of setting out organum theory – though not in fact forbidden (ed. Schmid, pp.36ff). Put positively, this way of ending sections manifests a very strong desire to point up by musical means the structure and phrasing of chants that are to be sung polyphonically. The vox organalis is in truth no more than an ‘ornament’, but it is a great deal more than a mere ‘doubling’ of the chant. It creates sonorous tension by ‘singing apart’, heightens this tension by changing the vertical intervals, and dissolves the tension at each of the caesuras as it establishes a point of rest in the sonority.
The teaching in Musica enchiriadis is characterized by the search for a thoroughly ‘automatic’ process in polyphonic performance. Thanks to the particular nature of the tetrachord system, organum arose more or less of its own accord so long as certain rules and constraints were consistently observed (the only entirely optional factors were the doubling or tripling of both voices at the octave, and their reinforcement by instruments: cf Schmid, pp.38–40). The performers were not directly answerable for the musical effect; nor would they find in this treatise the necessary aesthetic grounding. It was thus possible to perform a vox organalis extempore at any time and to any chant for which it might be desired, after agreement on only a very small number of technical points. Not only this, however, but also the greatest possible uniformity was automatically guaranteed for the polyphonic end product. This very disregard of aesthetic considerations, and of evaluation, saved polyphonic practice from having to think in terms of alternatives, improvements or refinements. The teaching in Musica enchiriadis must surely be conceived in so cryptically codified a fashion precisely because the uniformity of liturgical chant had to be preserved even in polyphonic performance – that wholesale uniformity which had been a prime goal of all reforms in church music ever since Pépin and Charlemagne. This suggestion is supported by the extraordinarily wide distribution of the treatise, for it survives today in more than 40 manuscripts.
However, the future lay in a type of polyphonic teaching that emerged for the first time in the Cologne organum treatise of about 900. This type of teaching gradually began to spread in influence from the time of Guido of Arezzo’s Micrologus (early 11th century). This is a method of teaching that, while firmly based on Musica enchiriadis in its subject matter, differs strikingly in its manner of presentation and argument. Its starting-point was still a set of definitive rules, but now in addition it allowed for ‘exceptions’. In matters of detail it was content to lay down guidelines. It relied on the singers’ experience and judgment; by means of aesthetic argument it strove to analyse current practices, to experiment and develop new methods. The theory of polyphony thus became something like an introduction to the subject, describing possible ways of creating polyphony, and putting forward rules but never expecting blind observance.
The abstract tetrachord system was abandoned along with Daseian notation. The Cologne organum treatise no longer used Daseian notation; Guido criticized the ‘moderns’ openly for having introduced these innovations very carelessly, and at the same time disregarded the early theorists’ recognition of the octave as the only interval that makes perfect consonance (‘perfecte consonat’) rather than the 5th (CSM, iv, pp.112–3). The pitching of the vox organalis a 4th lower than the vox principalis, and also its parallel movement, were retained in essence, as was the principle of pitch limits that the vox organalis must not overstep. Indeed, these were now positively reasserted. The vox organalis no longer had to converge to unison (‘in unum convenire’) with the vox principalis as a matter of necessity just because an artificially produced tritone stood in the way. Rather the contrary: so that the two melody lines ‘can come together in a suitable manner’ at the end of the line – and this is the crux of the matter – the pitch limits should be obeyed merely as rules of thumb (‘ut in finalitatibus vox ad vocem apte convenire possit …, organum inferius descendere non possit’: Cologne organum treatise, ed. Waeltner, p.54).
The determination of the pitch limits was governed by the tonality of the chant. However, their deployment now became transparently clear on aesthetic grounds also. According to Guido, the whole tone and major 3rd (together with the 4th and unison) were the favoured sonorities. The minor 3rd on the other hand was no more than tolerated, the semitone not accepted at all. For this reason the bottom notes of the hexachords, C, F and G, with the particular pattern of intervals that surrounds them, turn out to be the ideal pitch limits, because all the favoured sonorities could be sounded above them (‘Aptissime vero, qui saepissime suaviusque id faciunt, ut tetrardus et tritus in .C. et .F. et .G. Haec enim tono et ditono et diatessaron obsequuntur’: CSM, iv, p.202). The tritone that arises in Guido’s system, between F and B natural, was avoided quite pragmatically by shifting the vox organalis on to G to produce a major 3rd (CSM, iv, p.206).
Guido went significantly beyond Musica enchiriadis in his refining of the way in which cadences were formed. He also for the first time allowed brief crossing of parts. The vox organalis was no longer simply ‘occupied’ at the close by the chant (cf Schmid, p.50) but could now ‘come to meet’ it in what was called the occursus (literally ‘meeting’). Guido viewed the two voices as approaching each other by step, so that they could converge on to unison as far as possible e vicino (‘from nearby’: CSM, iv, p.204). He demonstrated this by means of two examples, significantly presented together as alternative and equally acceptable possibilities (exx.3 and 4). Following traditional practice, the vox organalis in ex.3 (CSM, iv, p.211) clings to the lower pitch limit right through to the penultimate note on the grounds that its distance from the chant is less than a 4th. This is called occursus simplex. Following the new practice, the interval of the major 3rd c–e in ex.4 is passed over by step in the vox organalis via a penultimate d. This is called occursus per intermissas [voces].
When convergence by step in this way is not possible, it is preferable for a phrase to close on a 4th rather than converge on to a unison by leap in the vox organalis (CSM, iv, p.204). This does not apply, however, when the phrase concerned is the last of the whole piece. The progression towards a close may be further refined by a kind of cadential extension of the chant, this being also optional. Against the last note of the chant there occur two notes in the vox organalis, the first being a 2nd below – thus in effect prolonging the penultimate note – and the second note providing a resolution on to the unison (CSM, iv, p.205: ‘Item cum occursus fit tono, diutinus fit tenor finis, ut ei et partim subsequatur et partim concinatur’) (ex.5, based on exx.3 and 4).
The rule that the vox organalis must lie always beneath the chant was also first modified by Guido: if the chant went only briefly below the lower pitch limit (Guido demonstrated it with a limit of f) then the organum voice could remain unchanged. This was called organum suspensum (CSM, iv, pp.205, 212) (ex.6, at the asterisk).
To the extent that there were now alternatives between which the performers could freely choose, extempore polyphonic performance became that much more difficult. A way of relieving the difficulty was to fix some of the alternatives in written-down form. The earliest known practical sources of polyphony do in fact date from around the time of Guido (see Sources, ms, §§IV, 2 and VI; also RISM, B/IV/1, M. Gushee, V(3)1963, Rankin, VIII(1)1993, and Arlt, VIII(1)1993). In what is now called the Winchester Troper (early 11th century) numerous different versions of certain turns of phrase in the individual vox organalis parts are recorded expressly in the margin: this is some indication of the degree of freedom that had been gained meanwhile in polyphonic treatment, and also of the interest that each alternative aroused.
The early written sources are unfortunately difficult to decipher. They evidently assume the singer to be so well versed in the basic rules of polyphonic performance that a rendering in mostly staffless neumes would suffice. (Scribes did occasionally later in the Middle Ages resort to letter notation again; when they did so it was precisely in order to counter difficulties of reading that might arise.) Despite the uncertainties of deciphering these notations, it is possible, even in the earliest of practical sources, to determine certain characteristics that go beyond the teaching of Guido; they help to put the compulsoriness of the traditional rules into perspective.
Ex.7, from Alleluia, Angelus Domini in the Winchester Troper (f.164v; Holschneider, p.110; the vox organalis, in a different part of the manuscript from the vox principalis, is given in fig.1), is traditional in the parallel movement at the 4th below in its second phrase, and typically Guidonian in the close of its first phrase (at the asterisk). Similarly, the switch of lower pitch limit from g to f (first phrase) had already been authorized by Guido. By means of this switch the chant, which descends to f, does not have to cross the vox organalis; also, an occursus on to the final g is only possible via f (cf Guido’s example, CSM, iv, p.213). Among the new features that occur in this piece are the formation by the vox organalis of a 5th above the vox principalis at the beginning of the first and third phrases (assuming the transcription to be reliable). Evidently the tessitura of the vox organalis is regulated by the prevailing final; even in a chant of wider range the drone effect – which was still obviously much liked – is partially retained (according to Musica enchiriadis the vox organalis ought, by analogy with the melodic movement of the chant, to begin in unison on c: cf ex.1). As a result, the notion of a lower pitch limit in the strict sense scarcely applies any longer, so habitually is it exceeded (see for example the e at the end of the third phrase). Moreover, according to the movement of the chant, other notes, besides c, f or g, appear as organal holding-notes (as one might call them to distinguish them from the lower pitch limit, and also from the long-sustained notes of organum from the 12th century onwards): see for example the d in the second phrase of ex.7.
The principal requirements for the formulation of a ‘new organum’ about 1100 were by now fulfilled. Parallel movement and holding-notes were now so loosely applied that they could readily be replaced by a completely free use of intervals, including a free interchange between 4th and 5th. The 4th, which was for Guido the widest distance of ‘singing apart’, had evidently already been exceeded, and the two parts crossed as often as it seemed melodically or harmonically sensible for them to do so. In the light of Guido’s teaching on occursus the principle of contrary motion gradually emerged and took on significance; and in his extending of cadences there lay already the beginnings of an impulse to ornament the penultimate note, which after about 1100 became melismatic in character.
The new style of organum is evident as early as the latter part of the 11th century in one of the three Chartres fragments (F-CHRm 109). This fragment contains five two-voice pieces which can be accurately transcribed because they are notated on staff lines (fig.2 and ex.8, upper line). The principle of holding-notes is here completely abandoned. Even simple repetition of a note is avoided in the vox organalis, with the result that there is very little difference of melodic character between the two voices. With the exception of several parallel 3rds, which always converge onto a unison and function like a prolonged occursus (phrases 1–2, 5 and 7), contrary motion is prevalent, with the voices extending to a 6th apart (phrases 3 and 4) and occasionally as far as an octave apart (phrases 4 and 8). The vox organalis still tends, as in traditional practice, to lie below the vox principalis; but the two do nonetheless cross, as is natural when contrary motion is in force. In general the two voices seem to centre their movement on the final d. Caesuras (taken here as the points at which the two voices converge to unison, and in later sources as marked also by vertical strokes) occur not merely at each genuine distinctio in the chant but in practice at the end of each word of text. The price of emancipation from parallel movement and from drone effects is first and foremost sectionalization into small phrase units – the breaking-up of the chant into short harmonic progressions. The fact that almost all these progressions end on the final d means that the piece is, from the tonal point of view, remarkably homogeneous.
It is historically interesting to note that a second version of this piece has survived. It appears in a manuscript from the latter part of the 12th century, now in Oxford (GB-Ob Rawl.c.892, f.67v; see ex.8, lower line, and fig.3). The piece as it survives in Chartres 109 is evidently already a distinctive enough product to be worthy of preservation. For it is hard to imagine how, considering the great range of possibilities that had meanwhile evolved in polyphonic treatment, the two versions could so closely correspond simply by the application of analogous rules.
At the same time there are differences of detail that indicate that the first version was not thought to be absolutely definitive. Complete definitiveness is not found before the compositions of the Notre Dame repertory in the late 12th century: a repertory within which fixity had become a goal towards which composers might rightfully strive. In the first and sixth phrases there appear interchangeably an archaic initial 4th and a modern unison. Where Chartres lets the counterpoint expand to the octave Oxford on one occasion presents only a 5th, clearly preferring conjunct melodic movement (phrase 4, at the asterisk). Also, the author of the Oxford version is more concerned with contrary motion where Chartres has parallel 3rds. As the interchangeability of 4th and unison at the beginnings of phrases shows, the two versions were probably not far apart in time, despite certain differences. Rather, they are as the imprinting of two divergent stylistic tendencies upon the common basis of an established polyphonic solution.
The examples cited by polyphonic theorists up to Guido are drawn from the Te Deum and also from the sequence, hymn and antiphon. Scholars have often concluded from this that early medieval polyphony was a practice that ‘stood outside the official Roman liturgy and its Gregorian chant’ (Stäblein, IMSCR IX: Salzburg 1964, ii, p.72). At first, supposedly in recognition of the ‘inviolability of liturgical chant’, it was performed only ‘where the liturgy allowed a certain freedom’ (Waesberghe, AMw, xxvi, 1969, p.264). Also its terminology is said not to include ‘the names of Gregorian chant types’, but rather ‘unaccustomed terms’ such as ‘canticum’, ‘carmen’ and ‘cantio’.
In reality, nowhere in theoretical literature, or indeed in any other relevant writings of the time, is an express distinction to be found between more and less ‘inviolable’ chants. The most that occurs is reprimand for deviations from liturgical conformity. Even this occurs primarily on political grounds. What is more, it is very difficult to conclude from the terminology of early medieval polyphonic theory that ‘official’ plainchant was excluded from polyphonic treatment. If theorists were to deal not with individual chant types but with the various chants of the liturgy in general (‘ecclesiastica cantica’, ‘sacra cantica’, ‘ecclesiastica carmina’, etc.), it was only logical that they should use correspondingly general terms. For Gregorian chant itself, for instance, ‘carmen gregorianum’ was a current overall expression (see MGG1, Stäblein: ‘Choral’, §1).
More conclusively still, as early as the first half of the 11th century, in the very earliest surviving practical sources of polyphony, categories of Gregorian chant are included that can in no sense be called ‘extra-liturgical’ or even ‘half-liturgical’. There is no evidence that in the earlier time of Musica enchiriadis any other standards, liturgical or ideological, would have applied in polyphonic practice. The problem comes down in the end to the choice of examples in early polyphonic theory. And for this purely pragmatic reasons can be adduced.
In the first place, what the theorists needed above all to demonstrate was the construction of beginnings and ends to phrases. These were not placed arbitrarily, but coincided with the natural caesuras of the chant. Hence it was sensible to fall back on chants with relatively short phrases. Other rules for the vox organalis could all be clearly demonstrated with comparatively few notes of chant, as in ex.1: parallel movement, adherence to the lower pitch limit and transfer to a neighbouring tetrachord in the course of a phrase. The extended melismas that feature in the main species of chant would have offered no appreciable gain in information, and would have wasted costly parchment. Moreover, the means of writing down that was first used was hardly suited to recording melismatic chant. It involved the placing of syllables on a grid of horizontal lines (see ex.1). Each note therefore had to have the syllable to which it belonged separately written out. If melismatic music examples were to be cited they would not only take up a great deal of space but would also suffer a great reduction in the legibility of the text: the notation of a Martianus Capella text, for example, although only lightly melismatic, appears in notation as: ‘su-ub-i-i-re cel-sa po-os-cit a-as-tra iu-up-pi-ter’ (the Bamberg Dialogue, ed. Waeltner, p.46).
If the selection of examples for early polyphony can be explained on pragmatic grounds alone, then the possibility should not be ruled out that polyphonic treatment was at least permissible, even as early as the 9th century, for the whole range of liturgical chants. The Winchester Troper transmits polyphony for the whole range of chants, solo and choral, responsorial and antiphonal, ‘old’ and ‘newer’, ‘standard’ and ‘local’. If the Chartres repertory reveals a preference for responsorial chant settings (and even suggests that Chartres may have developed a cycle of polyphony for the liturgical year analogous to the later Magnus liber of Notre Dame), the liturgical inclusiveness evident in the Winchester polyphony continued to be cultivated elsewhere for centuries to come.
Two improvisatory styles of performance are separately discussed in a group of early 12th-century treatises known as Ad organum faciendum, marking changes from the styles of the repertories discussed above (§4). Until then they had been regarded as a single improvisatory form: Diaphonia vulgariter organum. These two styles grew further apart as they developed, and became independent musical forms. In theoretical writings it became necessary to distinguish them by name. Two anonymous treatises (ed. Schneider and ed. La Fage) used the term ‘organum’ for one and ‘discantus’ for the other; but they continued to use ‘organum’ as a generic term to cover the two together. The ambivalent nature of the term ‘organum’ was first taken account of by Johannes de Garlandia, who qualified them as specialiter dictum and generaliter dictum respectively.
Immediately striking is that, of the two general terms traditionally used to signify polyphony, one (‘organum’) was taken over directly for use in a more specialized sense, and the other (‘diaphonia’) was merely taken over by analogy or by straight translation into Latin as ‘discantus’. The term ‘diaphonia’ quickly disappeared as a result. Thus both new designations, organum and discantus, were really more specialized usages of terms already previously in existence; and their new meanings rested on convention. This was possible because the specific meaning of the word ‘organum’ was still hardly known or understood at this time.
The real difference between organum and discantus at this stage lies purely in the relative amount of movement between the given part and the matching upper voices (which goes against Riemann’s theory that it is to be found in contrary motion in discantus). In organum the upper voice (vox organalis) is a melisma over the sustained single notes of the vox principalis; in discant on the other hand it forms a more or less strict note-for-note (or melisma-against-melisma) counterpoint.
It was not, therefore, the newer of the two terms, ‘discantus’, which was applied as one would expect to the newer style. It was the older term, ‘organum’, which was used for the style furthest from tradition. The reason for this is by no means obvious. Eggebrecht (III(3)1970, p.27) pointed to ‘discantus’ as a translation of ‘diaphonia’. ‘On the one hand’, he argued, ‘it retains the implication of a note-against-note progression, and indicates that the vox organalis is still plainchant-like in character. At the same time, it is a scientific term which reflects the transparency and rational nature of a note-against-note texture’. By contrast, organum, ‘as a word, was much less restricted in meaning, and could thus be applied much more easily to something that theory could not cope with and yet was successfully established in performance and in practical teaching: namely, the practice of singing melismas against single notes’. Another factor may have played a part in this. The 12th century was an era that believed in progress. It may be that the term ‘organum’ was kept for the style which was then considered most up-to-date. This would have been florid sustained-note organum, offering completely new scope for development which was being fruitfully exploited.
This more advanced style of organum is in evidence from the early 12th century onwards. It is no coincidence that, for the first time with such a repertory, numerous examples of the style survive fully written out, especially in the manuscripts of St Martial (see Sources, MS, §IV, 3). Despite the fortuitous transmission of the manuscripts, which date from between the late 11th century and the early 13th, their contents may be regarded as representative. They contain 94 two-voice pieces. Of these approximately half are based on a pre-existing melody; the rest have apparently newly written text and melody. Most are non-liturgical strophic songs known as versus, and only a small minority are liturgical chant settings. The distinction that was normally made between organa, conductus, sequences and so on in theoretical writing from the time of the Notre Dame composers onwards had not yet been created, neither had they yet been separated in practical sources. Contrapuntally the melismatic style is clearly predominant over the syllabic.
Very close in style to the Aquitaine repertory are some compositions in the Codex Calixtinus. This was a slightly later manuscript which originated at Santiago de Compostela (see Sources, MS, §IV, 3). It was compiled in its present form about 1170.
We can see very clearly how this type of polyphony developed out of the old organum. It derived specifically from one of the two styles of performance previously embraced by organum: namely, simple note-against-note counterpoint, and a counterpoint whose added voice was ornamented. If all ornamental notes are eliminated, examples of the new organum can be reduced to an underlying counterpoint made up of octaves, 5ths, 4ths and unisons. This counterpoint corresponds to the rules of French discant theory as conveyed consistently in the treatises discussed above. Thus in ex.9, if we allow for the possibility of suspensions from 2nd on to unison and from 6th on to octave – suspensions which were still common in Parisian organum – the basic counterpoint comprises nine 5ths, eight unisons, eight octaves and one 4th. Only on the syllable ‘-po-’ do we have to allow for a couple of extra ornamental notes (assuming the text underlay to be exact). The vox principalis proves to be melodically inviolable even when not borrowed directly from plainchant – doubtless because of the very fact that it did traditionally draw on plainchant. On the other hand the notes of the added basic counterpoint are each ornamented. Thus the progression from one chord to the next which in discant was still a direct step came to be replaced in organum by short bursts of melodic movement in the upper part, causing each note of the vox principalis to be drawn out correspondingly in length.
The new vox organalis unfolded above its vox principalis, moving below it only very occasionally in brief crossing of parts. Because of its exposed position in the texture the upper voice naturally became increasingly prominent. What was originally an added voice became the really essential feature and the vox principalis on the other hand now seemed only to support it. It was for this very reason, as well as because it contained the plainchant melody, that this voice became known by the name of ‘tenor’ in the 13th century. The overall range used for the two voices was initially almost identical. Nonetheless there was a clear preference for different tessituras. Moreover, in the manuscripts the use of different clefs clearly distinguished lower voice from upper.
The notation of the two voices was laid out in score and this remained the rule until the end of the Notre Dame era. Initially, at any rate, this arose out of practical considerations in performance. In particular, the length of each single tenor note could only be gauged by the length of the melisma in the upper voice above it. Apart from this the phrasing of melismas in performance was conditioned very much by the harmonies they made with the tenor. For organum throughout most of the 12th century was still not thought of as unique and definitive. Rather it came into being as a result of collaboration between the person who wrote it down – the notator – and the person who actually performed it – the cantor. Thus it still retained, in spite of being written down, a strong element of improvisation.
One fact in particular marks this organum out from all improvised forms of organum: that when stripped of all ornamentation the succession of its underlying harmonies very rarely makes independent sense as satisfying progressions, that is, the result does not accord with the laws of discant. In other words, the melismas are essential to harmonic coherence. Here, then, is a further sense in which the melismatic voice achieves independence. The underlying harmonies seem little more than aids to the performers, insofar as they can be determined with any certainty at all, and insofar as the word ‘harmony’ is legitimate. As such they make possible, and justify, the union of the voices in a new totality. But their progressions show little sign of obeying predetermined rules, just as the melismas show little sign of exploiting certain harmonies and avoiding others. Rather the opposite: within the course of a phrase the intervals that are concordant with the tenor tend not to be approached directly but are delayed. They are reached irregularly and in an almost casual manner. The voices then come together in consonance all the more clearly in the cadences.
Despite the freedom of ornamental movement and the free choice of harmonies, there are nonetheless a number of short, distinctive melodic formulae and turns of phrase that occur frequently (see in this connection Centonization). These consist of only a few notes and can be made to pivot around a central note or to span across an interval. Accordingly, melismatic groups of notes are still relatively short: up to ten notes, but on average only three or four to one tenor note. Despite this, the groups are marked off with vertical strokes at the ends of sections, these corresponding to ends of words or groups of words; they are generally also marked off with strokes between syllables. These strokes are a practical aid in performance, and serve also to show up the structure of the music clearly.
The last two pieces of the latest St Martial manuscript tend to use rather longer melismas (thus ex.10 has on average 12 notes of melisma to one tenor note, as compared with four in ex.9 and ten in ex.11). It is in completing this development that the most significant achievement of the so-called Notre Dame school seems to lie, and it can be readily observed in the Magnus liber, the most important work of the period. This is a collection of two-voice plainchant settings for liturgical use, arranged for the church year in two cycles containing, respectively, the solo sections of the most prominent responsorial chants of the Office and of the Mass. The sheer consistency with which it was carried through, from all points of view, makes possible a much more precise understanding of its nature. The very selection of chant material itself constitutes a conscious limitation when compared with the diversity of material in the St Martial manuscripts.
The Magnus liber was attributed by Anonymous IV (CoussemakerS, i, 342; ed. Reckow, i, 46) to the optimus organista Leoninus, who is now identified with the poet Leoninus. The original version of the Magnus liber was liturgically designed for Notre Dame, Paris (Husmann, MQ, 1963), and was therefore probably compiled in Paris about 1170 (see Magnus liber, §2). Stylistically the original form of the work is very difficult to determine because it survives only in versions that date from the 13th century. These versions differ from one another in certain ways, revealing a general tendency for existing organum sections to be replaced by discant sections in a more recent style and hence in modal rhythm. This has been seen as evidence of a historical process whereby organum style – already regarded as outmoded towards the end of the 12th century – was superseded by the more fashionable discant. Even if this thesis be rejected as too linear a view of history there are nonetheless several grounds on which it can be argued. In the first place, it is widely accepted that modal rhythm was not an ‘invention’ at a single point in time, but resulted from several lines of development which were then formulated as a system, apparently after the model of the School of Grammarians in Paris (Flotzinger, AMw, 1972). There is no evidence of the complete system of six rhythmic modes before about 1180. Secondly, the procedures of extensio and fractio modi (see Rhythmic modes) were clearly not components of modal theory to begin with, but were connected with later attempts to subordinate other phenomena, including organum, to the system; indeed, they did much to hasten the obsolescence of the modes towards the end of the period of Notre Dame music. Finally, square notation, the basis of modal notation, which apparently developed in the Ile de France from the northern and central French neumes, did not appear in recognizable form before the last third, if not the very end, of the 12th century.
It is clear that this development resulted from a specific need. Stäblein’s suggestion that this development can be observed in the St Martial manuscripts, and that the beginnings of a modal rhythmic interpretation are already detectable in the later versions of these, does not call for an earlier sequence of dates above – if anything, it calls for the contrary. Thus it ought to be clear that the Magnus liber cannot have been conceived with modal rhythm in all sections; equally well, the sustained-note sections as they survive sometimes exhibit series of ligatures characteristic of modal rhythm, but are at other times far more ambiguous. This stage of development seems to correspond with the threefold classification of polyphony made by Johannes de Garlandia about 1240 as organum, copula and discantus. These three categories were abstracted with two considerations in mind: the relative amount of movement in the two voices, and the rhythm of the upper voice. On this basis, the three categories can be characterized thus: organum as a sustained-note style without modal rhythm, copula as a sustained-note style with modal rhythm, and discantus as a style in which both voices move in modal rhythm (see fig.4).
The decisive changes which occurred in the early Notre Dame period thus become clear in retrospect. The repertory is represented by the Magnus liber (with due reservation as to the composite nature of the form in which it survives) and the examples in the so-called Vatican Organum Treatise (ed. Zaminer, 1959). This style of organum is the natural outcome of certain tendencies found in the St Martial repertory and the Codex Calixtinus. Discantus developed a new characteristic, that of modal rhythm, and to that extent gained a new lease of life (cf Magnus liber, ex.1). An essential feature of the new developments was the clear increase in the range and scope of the melisma above each tenor note. This could go so far as to necessitate not only holding the tenor note for a corresponding length of time, but frequently also repeating it several times. This was very seldom written out in the manuscripts; occasionally it was indicated by placing a rest stroke alone without a preceding note, and in some cases by drawing several vertical strokes through a specially elongated note shape. Otherwise the reiteration of the tenor note was apparently taken for granted. For the time being the general character of the setting still derived from polyphonic extemporization: the melismas of the upper part seem to enjoy complete freedom of movement, and to constitute an ornamentation or paraphrase of an underlying note-for-note setting of the vox principalis.
However, there are distinct and interesting points of contrast with St Martial practice. First, the notes of the underlying harmony were sometimes clearly regarded as either starting- or end-points, linked by melodic phrases. The phrases may be formulaic or more extended; they may develop with reference to a mode or to a single note; they may be associated particularly with the openings or with the cadences of sections. It also seems that more importance was attached to meaningful progressions in the underlying harmony, fulfilling the requirements of the old discant theory. Whether these are real developments or merely differences of quality or interpretation has yet to be determined. Secondly, there was an increase in the melodic autonomy of the melismas. They seem to delight in unfolding around an underlying melodic framework. This in its turn is frequently directly related to the sustained tenor notes and suggests other underlying constructions within the melisma or clausula.
Another feature of this music that is important for the future is the difference in types of melodic repetition. In earlier times, if they operated at all they preferred to do so with melodic particles that were only similar rather than identical. But then there occurred a sudden increase in the use of identical phrases, repeated, moreover, either at the same or at a different pitch. Melodic movement still included wide leaps, acceptable as a legacy from plainsong tradition; they might be upward or downward leaps, perhaps several in succession, compensated by movement in the opposite direction through the intervening notes, by currentes, etc.
It goes without saying that copula, with the upper voice in modal rhythm above a sustained tenor note, had a completely different melodic structure, dependent on the new rhythm. But this in itself elucidates the close interdependence of melody and rhythm.
The motion of the upper voice, or duplum, was largely restricted to the range above the tenor, which emphasized the tenor’s supporting function even more. Its range expanded somewhat, tending particularly to centre on a higher register which often necessitated a fifth or even a sixth staff line. The relationship of the duplum to the tenor part was nearly always that of a flanking movement. One can speak of contrary and parallel motion only with reference to the underlying harmonic framework. One should note here the succession of identical perfect consonances, which were quite permissible at a time when it was neither obligatory nor customary to disguise them with ornamentation. One should also note the appearance of parallel imperfect consonances, particularly 3rds, in exactly the same way.
One of the most basic problem complexes, and one which is most intimately connected with the above considerations of structure, involves the rhythmic interpretation of Leonine organum. For this, Johannes de Garlandia (also, later, Franco of Cologne and Anonymous IV) gave the so-called law of consonance. This states that consonances (octave, unison, 5th, 4th, 3rd) are long, the other intervals short, and currentes equally fast where possible. The question then arises: can this law be evaluated as being based on older tradition (i.e. corresponding with ‘historical’ data, bearing in mind that Garlandia was writing two generations later)? Or is it, conversely, to be regarded as a retrospective attempt to minimize the differences between organum per se and copula, a calculated interpretation after the event? Eggebrecht (1960, p.60) would adopt the latter view. At any rate, the law of consonance hardly seems practicable if the formulation that has survived is rigidly applied: it should probably be narrowed down so that only structurally important consonances are interpreted as longs, as Reckow has done (Anonymous IV, 1967, ii, p.80ff).
One argument which is usually adduced in the problem of rhythm, and which is also secretly at work here, is that organum purum should be in totally free rhythm, or ‘Gregorian, in equal (or nearly equal) values’. Either this wrongly implies an interpretation of plainchant in completely equal note values, or else it is irresponsibly imprecise, to say the least. Rather, let us reflect that each phrase operated with points of emphasis and longs, and also that the distinction ‘non-modal’/‘modal’ should not automatically be equated with ‘not susceptible to rational interpretation’/‘measurable in a rational way’. It then begins to seem more credible for the concordance law to be a throwback to an earlier tradition. One might argue also that the values ‘long’ and ‘short’ might not have been fixed proportionally, but might have been relative concepts, i.e. ‘longer than short’, ‘shorter than long’. Finally, however the law might originally have been formulated, in both discant and organum pieces it would naturally have resulted in a rhythm generally similar to the so-called 1st mode. So here as well we may have one of the lines of development which, in the second half of the 12th century, led to the principal of modal rhythm (ex.11, last phrase).
In certain circumstances, therefore, the above factors (and others to be considered below) might directly have affected the melodic structure of the ‘classical organum’, without mediating influences from discant composition.
Judging by the extant sources, the non-modal sustained-note style lasted for only a limited time and on a small scale. At any rate, the surviving versions of the Magnus liber are witness both to the obvious climax of organum composition and to its relatively swift fall from a favoured position in the centre of musical development after the appearance of modal rhythm. This quickly gained a hold on and modified all musical forms of the period. With it arose quite new forms and possibilities (such as three- and four-part music) important for the future. In the field of two-voice plainchant settings it first affected the upper voice the more noticeably. This was for structural reasons, and perhaps also because the inviolability of the sacred tenor was still respected. Only after this were the tenor parts affected.
In the 13th century, however, all polyphony that was not in modal or mensural rhythm soon came to be regarded as unsatisfactory. Organum too was seen in this light, and was finally actually rewritten. It is only in the sense of a 13th-century interpretation that a transcription such as that of Waite (III(3)1954) can be justified. Waite saw the Magnus liber as a work wholly in modal rhythm. His interpretation may correspond to the time from which the sources date, but cannot satisfy the attempt to come closer to the work’s original rhythmic style. This situation corresponds with what Franco (c1280) said: he contrasted all polyphony, as being musica mensurabilis, with monophonic plainchant, musica plana. He subsumed Garlandia’s concepts of organum per se and copula under a new notion, organum purum, and defined copula anew. Thus, as in the 12th century, but on a new level, the only distinction made was between sustained-note and note-for-note composition. However, this time the future lay in the hands of the note-for-note style, and this was the case away from the centre of musical development as well.
Apart from the interpretation of older compositions mentioned above, the sustained-note style played a specific role in the 13th century only in the field of three- and four-part compositions. Yet here the upper parts were necessarily joined one above the other in modal rhythm. To a certain extent, they formed their own discant among themselves. For this reason the expression ‘copula’ was not used for this phenomenon. Similarly, Anonymous IV called plainchant settings for more than two voices simply ‘triplum’ and ‘quadruplum’, according to the number of parts, omitting the generic term ‘organum’. Together with the parallel formulation organum duplum, this meant that the word ‘organum’ could continue to stand (as it did in the 12th century) as a general term for polyphony based on plainchant (Ger. Choralbearbeitung); this was in contrast with the conductus, which was independent of plainchant. Thus an actual method of performing liturgical chant became an expression signifying the technique of composition itself. And now, once again through common practice, the word came to mean a musical form and genre.
In areas adjacent to France, away from the centre of these developments, matters stood differently. Apart from the peripheral, partly derivative tradition, particularly that of England (the Notre Dame manuscript D-W 677 is probably of insular origin), and excepting a few, easily identified, borrowings of individual pieces, the French 12th-century development of organum was not copied or adopted. In England it is rather the case that there were special traditions of improvised and composed discant. In Spain there were more influential contacts with France.
In Germany, however, polyphonic practices that invariably corresponded to pre-12th-century French developments did not arise until the 13th century. This late start was compensated by an existence lingering into the 16th century (see Geering, 1952). It was occasioned by the persistence of the technique of doubling a given cantus, which produces not genuine but only apparent polyphony, and other primitive techniques.
Without doubt this was not a simple case of meaningless and outmoded customs in cultural backwaters. It could also be a vital, albeit tradition-based practice, in definite cultural layers and for specific purposes, co-existing with the more universal developments. It is a phenomenon rather like the similarities between early German organ music of the 15th century and French organum, to which scholars have frequently drawn attention. Here, according to Göllner (XI1961), are found the same elementary ideas of doubling displayed instrumentally. Admittedly, the full potential of these ideas was not to be felt historically until a later period, with the perfection of an autonomous instrumental musical art.
See also Diaphonia, and Discant, §I.
For bibliography see Organum and discant: bibliography.
This bibliography is designed in the first place to serve the two articles Organum and Discant, whose bibliographies, if separate, would have overlapped to a great extent. It goes further than this, however, and attempts to provide a bibliographical coverage of Western polyphony from its beginnings to the end of the 13th century that is representative of all but trivial secondary literature.
D: musical sources: general catalogues
K: germany, low countries, switzerland, austria
N: paralells with popular and non-european polyphony
For a survey of the period, the cultural environment and the music treated in this bibliography, see Ars Antiqua.
AdlerHM
ReeseMMA
H.E. Wooldridge: The Polyphonic Period, i: Method of Musical Art, 330–1330, OHM, i (1901, rev. 2/1929/R by P.C. Buck)
H. Abert: Die Musikanschauung des Mittelalters und ihre Grundlagen (Halle, 1905/R)
F. Ludwig: ‘Studien über die Geschichte der mehrstimmige Musik im Mittelalter, I: Die mehrstimmige Musik der ältesten Epoche im Dienste der Liturgie’, KJb, xix (1905), 1–10; repr. in SMM, xvi, ed. F. Gennrich (1966), 103–15
F. Ludwig: ‘Die mehrstimmige Musik des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts’, IMusSCR III: Vienna 1909, 101–8
A. Gastoué: Les primitifs de la musique française (Paris, 1922)
R. von Ficker: ‘Formprobleme der mittelalterlichen Musik’, ZMw, vii (1924–5), 195–213
J. Handschin: ‘Zur Frage der melodischen Paraphrasierung im Mittelalter’, ZMw, x (1927–8), 513–59
H. Besseler: Die Musik des Mittelalters und der Renaissance (Potsdam, 1931/R)
F. Breidert: Stimmigkeit und Gliederung in der Polyphonie des Mittelalters (Würzburg, 1935)
M. Schneider: Geschichte der Mehrstimmigkeit (Berlin, 1934–5, enlarged 2/1969)
J. Smits van Waesberghe: Muziekgeschiedenis der Middeleeuwen (Tilburg, 1936–42)
E.T. Ferand: Die Improvisation in der Musik (Zürich, 1939)
W. Apel: The Notation of Polyphonic Music, 900–1600 (Cambridge, MA, 1942, 5/1961; Ger. trans., rev., 1970)
J. Handschin: Der Toncharakter: eine Einführung in die Tonpsychologie (Zürich, 1948)
L. Spiess: Polyphony in Theory and Practice from the Ninth Century to the Close of the Thirteenth Century (diss., Harvard U., 1948)
J. Chailley: Histoire musicale du Moyen Age (Paris, 1950, 3/1984)
H. Husmann: Die mittelalterliche Mehrstimmigkeit, Mw, ix (1955; Eng. trans., 1962)
E. Jammers: Anfänge der abendländischen Musik (Strasbourg, 1955)
J. Vos and F. de Meeûs: ‘L’introduction de la diaphonie et la rupture de la tradition grégorienne au XIe siècle’, Sacris erudiri, vii (1955), 177–218
W. Krüger: ‘Aufführungspraktische Fragen mittelalterlicher Mehrstimmigkeit’, Mf, ix (1956), 419–27; x (1957), 279–86, 397–403, 497–505; xi (1958), 177–89
L. Kunz: ‘Organum und Choralvortrag’, KJb, xl (1956), 12–15
C. Parrish: The Notation of Medieval Music (New York, 1957, 2/1959/R)
M.F. Bukofzer: ‘Changing Aspects of Medieval and Renaissance Music’, MQ, xliv (1958), 1–18
R.L. Crocker: ‘Discant, Counterpoint, and Harmony’, JAMS, xv (1962), 1–21
A. Seay: Music in the Medieval World (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1965, 2/1975)
R.L. Crocker: A History of Musical Style (New York, 1966), 62ff
F. Salzer: ‘Tonality in Early Medieval Polyphony: towards a History of Tonality’, Music Forum, i (1967), 35–98
W.E. Daglish: ‘The Hocket in Medieval Polyphony’, MQ, lv (1969), 344–63
J. Smits van Waesberghe: ‘Einleitung zu einer Kausalitätserklärung der Evolution der Kirchenmusik im Mittelalter (von etwa 800 bis 1400)’, AMw, xxvi (1969), 249–75
M. Lütolf: Die mehrstimmigen Ordinarium Missae-Sätze vom ausgehenden 11. bis zur Wende des 13. zum 14. Jahrhundert (Berne, 1970)
R. Falck: ‘Rondellus, Canon, and Related Types before 1300’, JAMS, xxv (1972), 38–57
A. Geering: ‘Die frühe kirchliche Mehrstimmigkeit’, Geschichte der katholischen Kirchenmusik, i, ed. K.G. Fellerer (Kassel, 1972), 360–78
E.H. Sanders: ‘Polyphony and Secular Monophony: Ninth Century–c.1300’, ‘England from the Beginnings to c.1540’, Music from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, A History of Western Music, i, ed. F.W. Sternfeld (New York, 1973), 89–142, esp. 95, 255–313
Andrew Hughes: Medieval Music: the Sixth Liberal Art (Toronto, 1974, 2/1980)
Anselm Hughes: ‘In hoc anni circulo’, MQ, lx (1974), 37–45
P. Gülke: Mönche, Bürger, Minnesänger: Musik in der Gesellschaft des europäischen Mittelalters (Leipzig, 1975), 77ff
C. Kaden: Musiksoziologie (Berlin, 1984), 334ff
J. Tenney: A History of ‘Consonance’ and ‘Dissonance’ (New York, 1988), 17–35
M.S. Gushee: ‘The Polyphonic Music of the Medieval Monastery, Cathedral and University’, Antiquity and the Middle Ages, ed. J. McKinnon (London, 1990), 143–69
D. Leech-Wilkinson: ‘Ars Antiqua – Ars Nova – Ars subtilior’, ibid., 218–40
H. Möller and R. Stephan, eds.: Die Musik des Mittelalters (Laaber, 1991) [incl. A. Haug: ‘Mehrstimmiges Singen’, 126–8]
H. van der Werf: ‘Early Western Polyphony’, Companion to Medieval and Renaissance Music, ed. T. Knighton and D. Fallows (London, 1992), 107–13
For discussion of etymology and terminology see especially Organum, §1 and Discant, §1, 1. There are also articles on all the other principal terms referred to in the following section, and on other terms used in contemporary theory.
MGG2(‘Discantus’, D. Hoffmann-Axhelm, P.M. Lefferts; ‘Organum’, M. Haas; also ‘Ars antiqua’, W. Frobenius; ‘Conductus’, A. Traub)
G. Adler: ‘Über Heterophonie’, JbMP 1908, 17–27
P. Wagner: ‘Über die Anfänge des mehrstimmigen Gesanges’, ZMw, ix (1926–7), 2–7
J. Handschin: ‘Über Voraussetzungen, sowie Früh- und Hochblüte der mittelalterlichen Mehrstimmigkeit’, Schweizerisches Jb für Musikwissenschaft, ii (1927), 5–42
A. Gastoué: ‘Paraphonie et paraphonistes’, RdM, ix (1928), 61–3
R. von Ficker: ‘Primäre Klangformen’, JbMP 1929, 21–34
J. Handschin: ‘Zum ältesten Vorkommen von “organistae”’, AcM, vii (1935), 159–60
J. Handschin: ‘Aus der alten Musiktheorie, II: Orgel und Organum’, AcM, xiv (1942), 19–27
J. Handschin: ‘Réflexions sur la terminologie (à propos d’une rectification)’, RBM, vi (1952), 7–11
L. Spiess: ‘Discant, Descant, Diaphony, and Organum: a Problem in Definitions’, JAMS, viii (1955), 144–7
L. Spiess: ‘An Introduction to the Pre-History of Polyphony’, Essays on Music in Honor of Archibald Thompson Davison (Cambridge, MA, 1957), 11–15
H.H. Eggebrecht: ‘Diaphonia vulgariter organum’, IMSCR VII: Cologne 1958, 93–6
H. Hüschen: ‘Der Harmoniebegriff im Musikschrifttum des Altertums und des Mittelalters’, ibid., 143–9
W. Krüger: Die authentische Klangform des primitiven Organum (Kassel, 1958)
J. Smits van Waesberghe: ‘Zur ursprünglichen Vortragsweise der Prosulen, Sequenzen und Organa’, IMSCR VII: Cologne 1958, 251–3
H.P. Gysin: Studien zum Vokabular der Musiktheorie im Mittelalter: eine linguistische Analyse (Zürich, 1959)
M. Schneider: ‘Wurzeln und Anfänge der abendländischen Mehrstimmigkeit’, IMSCR VIII: New York 1961, 161–77
W.G. Waite: ‘The Era of Melismatic Polyphony’, ibid., 178–83
E. Jammers: Musik in Byzanz, im päpstlichen Rom und im Frankenreich: der Choral als Musik der Textaussprache (Heidelberg, 1962)
E. Synan: ‘An Augustinian Testimony to Polyphonic Music?’, MD, xviii (1964), 3–6
M. Vogel: ‘Zum Ursprung der Mehrstimmigkeit’, KJb, xlix (1965), 57–64
F. Reckow: ‘Diaphonia’, ‘Organum’ (1971), HMT
G. Greene: ‘From Mistress to Master: the Origins of Polyphonic Music as a Visible Language’, Visible Language, vi (1972), 229–52
H.J. Marx: ‘Zur Bedeutung des Begriffs “Symphonia” im Mittelalter’, IMSCR XI: Copenhagen 1972, 541–7
F. Reckow: ‘Aspekte der Ausbildung einer lateinischen musikalischen Fachsprache im Mittelalter’, ibid., 612–17
F. Reckow: ‘Copula’, ‘Rondellus/rondeau, rota’ (1972), HMT
H. Besseler and P. Gülke: Schriftbild der mehrstimmigen Musik, Musikgeschichte in Bildern, iii/5 (Leipzig, 1973)
F.A. Gallo: ‘Astronomy and Music in the Middle Ages: the Liber introductorius by Michael Scot’, MD, xxvii (1973), 5–9
F. Reckow: ‘Conductus’ (1973), HMT
F. Reckow: ‘Organum-Begriff und frühe Mehrstimmigkeit: zugleich ein Beitrag zur Bedeutung des “Instrumentalen” in der spätantiken und mittelalterlichen Musiktheorie’, Forum musicologicum, i (1975), 31–167
M. Bent: ‘The Definition of Simple Polyphony: Some Questions’, Le polifonie primitive in Friuli e in Europa: Cividale del Friuli 1980, 33–42
R. Flotzinger: ‘Ein- und Mehrstimmigkeit im Choral’, Cantus planus: Eger 1993, 101–116
R. Flotzinger: ‘Die Paraphonista, oder: Klangprinzip und Organum’, Festschrift Max Lütolf zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. B. Hangartner and U. Fischer (Basel, 1994), 99–111
R. Flotzinger and W. Jauk: ‘Zur gesanglichen Stimmgebung im europäischen Mittelalter oder: Klangforschung und Medaevistik’, Vergleichend-systematische Musikwissenschaft: … Franz Födermayr zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. E.T. Hilscher und T. Antonicek (Tutzing, 1994), 395–416
R. Flotzinger: ‘Parallelismus und Bordun. Zur Begründung des abendländischen Organums’, Festschrift für Ludwig Finscher, ed. A. Laubenthal and K. Kusan-Windweh (Kassel, 1995), 25–33
This section presents catalogues of treatises and theory sources, editions of treatises, and modern studies of medieval theory. For a general survey covering all periods, see Theory, theorists. See also Anonymous theoretical writings, and articles on individual theorists.
MGG2(‘Anonymi’; K.-J. Sachs)
J. Smits van Waesberghe, ed.: The Theory of Music from the Carolingian Era up to 1400, i, RISM, B/III/1 (1961)
P. Fischer, ed.: The Theory of Music from the Carolingian Era up to 1400, ii: Italy, RISM, B/III/2 (1968)
This sub-section lists treatises in approximate chronological order, citing modern editions. Where no edition exists, the manuscript source is cited. Where no author is cited, the treatise is anonymous. Abbreviated entries are given for works cited later in this section.
Musica enchiriadis: GerbertS, i, 152–73; PL, cxxxii, 957ff; Ger. trans., R. Schlecht, MMg, vi (1874), 163–78, vii (1875), 1–93; E. Waeltner: Die Lehre vom Organum bis zur Mitte des 11. Jahrhunderts (Tutzing, 1975), 2ff [organum chap., with Ger. trans.]; ed. H. Schmid (Munich, 1981); Eng. trans. (1995)
Scolica enchiriadis: GerbertS, i, 173–212; PL, cxxxii, 981ff; Ger. trans., R. Schlecht, MMg, vi (1874), 163–78; vii (1875), 1–93, 33; partial Eng. trans., StrunkSR1 (New York, 1950/R), 126ff; Waeltner (1975), 20ff [organum chap., with Ger. trans.]; ed. H. Schmid (Munich, 1981); Eng. trans. (1995)
‘Item de diatessaron et diapente ac diapason et de symphoniis’ (Bamberg Dialogue): Waeltner (1975), 42ff [with Ger. trans.]
‘Diaphonia seu organum constat ex diatessaron symphonia’ (Cologne Treatise ‘De organo’): H. Müller:Hucbalds echte und unechte Schriften über Musik (Leipzig, 1884), 79; RiemannG (Leipzig, 1898, 2/1920), 20–21 [with Ger. trans.], i–ii trans. R. Haggh (Lincoln, NE, 1962/R), 13–14 [with Eng. trans.]; J. Handschin: ‘Aus der alten Musiktheorie: ii, Orgel und Organum’, AcM, xiv (1942), 19–27; Waeltner (1975), 54ff [with Ger. trans.]
‘Dyaphonia vel organo dupliciter uti possumus’ (Sélestat Treatise): Waeltner (1975), 68ff [with Ger. trans.]
‘Dictis autem, prout potuimus, his quibus ostendendum erat’ (Paris Treatise ‘De organo’):CoussemakerS, ii, 74ff; Waeltner (1975), 72ff [with Ger. trans.]
Guido of Arezzo: Micrologus: GerbertS, ii, 2–24; PL, cxli, 1391ff; Ger. trans., R. Schlecht, MMg, v (1873), 135; M. Hermesdorff: Micrologus Guidonis (Trier, 1876) [with Ger. trans.]; RiemannG, 73–4 [with Ger. trans.]; Riemann-Haggh (1962), 61ff [with Eng. trans.]; A. Amelli: Guidonis Monachi Micrologus (Rome, 1904); J. Smits van Waesberghe, CSM, iv (1955); Waeltner (1975), 90ff [with Ger. trans.]; Eng. trans. in Hucbald, Guido, and John on Music: Three Medieval Treatises, ed. C.V. Palisca (New Haven, CT, 1978)
Liber specierum: J. Smits van Waesberghe: Expositiones in Micrologum Guidonis Aretini, i (Amsterdam, 1957), 13ff
Johannes Afflighemensis: De musica: GerbertS, ii, 230ff; PL, cl, 1391ff; J. Smits van Waesberghe, CSM, i (1950); Ger. trans., U. Kornmüller, KJb, iii (1888), 1–22
‘Discantus cantui debet esse contrarius’ (Lafage Anonymous): A. de La Fage: Essais de diphthérographie musicale (Paris, 1864/R), 355ff; J. Handschin, ZMw, viii (1925–6), 333; A. Seay, AnnM, v (1957), 33
‘Diaphonia duplex cantus est cuius talis est diffinitio’ (Montpellier Organum Treatise): J. Handschin: ‘Der Organum-Traktat von Montpellier’, Studien zur Musikgeschichte: Festschrift für Guido Adler (Vienna, 1930/R), 50–57; F. Blum, MD, xiii (1959), 21 [with Eng. trans.]; H.H. Eggebrecht and F. Zaminer: Ad organum faciendum: Lehrschriften der Mehrstimmigkeit in nachguidonischer Zeit, Neue Studien zur Musikwissenschaft, iii (Mainz, 1970), 187ff [with Ger. trans.]
Ad organum faciendum (‘Cum obscuritas diaphonie multis et perplurimum tardis’; Milan Organum Treatise): C.-E.-H. de Coussemaker: Histoire de l’harmonie au moyen âge (Paris, 1852/R), 226ff [with Fr. trans.]; J.A. Huff: Ad organum faciendum & Item de organo, Musical Theorists in Translation, viii (Brooklyn, NY, 1969), 40ff [with Eng. trans.]; Eggebrecht and Zaminer (1970), 45ff, 111ff [with Ger. trans.]
‘Vocum copulationes dicuntur omni symphonia et de omni cantu dicatur’ (Berlin Treatise A): Eggebrecht and Zaminer (1970), 149ff
‘Item de organo. Cum multi veterum ac modernorum de diaphonia’ (Berlin Treatise B): Huff (1969), 60ff [with Eng. trans.]; Eggebrecht and Zaminer (1970), 159ff [with Ger. trans.]
‘Significatum organi aliud naturale aliud remotum a natura’ (Bruges Version): Eggebrecht and Zaminer (1970), 175–6
Guglielmo Roffredi: Summa artis musicae: A. Seay, MD, xxiv (1970), 71; M. Huglo, RdM, lviii (1972), 91
‘Item de cursu animadvertendum est. Si discantus fuerit cum cantu et cantus remittatur’ (London Treatise) [GB-Lbl Eg.2888, ff.38–38v, I-Nn VIII.D.12, ff.18v–19]: G. Pannain: ‘Liber musicae’, RMI, xxvii (1920), 407–40, esp. 437; M. Schneider: Geschichte der Mehrstimmigkeit, Historische und phänomenologische Studien, i–iii (1934–5, enlarged 2/1969), 116–17
‘Principalem organum est cantuum diversorum cohabitatio …/Omnis homo qui vult bene organiçare primitus debet’ [I-Vnm lat.Cl.VIII. 20 (3574), ff.3–4, 13v–14]: K.-J. Sachs, AMw, xxviii (1971), 241, 253
‘Incipit titulus artis cuj non desirit vox venerandus … Tres sunt principales consonantie In materia frangenj cantus’ [I-Nn XVI.A.15, ff.8v–9]: Sachs, AMw, xxviii (1971), 238–9
‘Organum est cantus subsequens precedentem’ (Vatican Organum Treatise) [I-Rvat Ottob.lat.3025, ff.46a–48va]: F. Zaminer: Der Vatikanische Organum Traktat (Ottob.lat.3025): Organum-Praxis der frühen Notre Dame-Schule und ihrer Vorstufen, Münchner Veröffentlichungen zur Musikgeschichte, ii (1959), 185ff; I. Godt and B. Rivera: ‘The Vatican Organum Treatise: a Colour Reproduction, Transcription and Translation’, Gordon Athol Anderson, 1929–1981, in memoriam, ed. L.A. Dittmer, ii (Henryville, PA, 1984), 264–345
‘Omnis cantus incipiens est cum suo cantore, aut in dyapente’ (Louvain Treatise) [Louvain MS, destroyed 1914]:CoussemakerS, ii, 494ff
‘Si cantus ascendit duas voces et organum incipit in duplici voce’ (Pseudo-Guido Caroli loci) [F-Psg 2284, ff.109v–110v]: Coussemaker (1852/R), 255ff [with Fr. trans.]; CoussemakerS, ii, 191–2
‘Si cantus equalis fuerit potes organum incipere’ [D-EF Ca 8° 93, f.45; Mu 8° 373 (Cim.13), f.64v]: Sachs, AMw, xxviii (1971), 244–5
‘Per regulas infrascriptas potest cuilibit cantui … Si cantus ascenderit unam vocem et organum incipiat’ (Anonymous IIa) [F-SDI 42, ff.37vb–38va]: CoussemakerS, i, 309–10
‘Qualiscumque cantor vul[t] incipere organum oportet ut’ [I-Nn XVI. A.15, f.9]: Sachs, AMw, xxviii (1971), 251
‘Si cantus ascendit unampason descendat .III. pente’ (Venetian Treatise) [I-Vnm lat.Cl.VIII.20 (3574), ff.27v–28]: Zaminer (1959), 134
‘De modo organiçandi. Omnis homo qui vult bene organiçare oportet’ [E-Sco 5–2–25, ff.36v–37v]: Sachs, AMw, xxviii (1971), 253–4
Discantus positio vulgaris (‘Sic autem ascendere et descendere debet discantus’) [F-Pn lat.16663, pp.129b–130b]: Coussemaker (1852/R), 250ff [with Fr. trans.]; CoussemakerS, i, 95–6; S. Cserba: Hieronymus de Moravia O.P. Tractatus de Musica, Freiburger Studien zur Musikwissenschaft, 2nd ser., ii (1935), 191–2; Eng. trans., J. Knapp, JMT, vi (1962), 200–15
Nicolaus de Senis: ‘Quando tenor ascendit et discantor est in octava’ [E-Sco 5–2–25, ff.65–65v]: H. Anglès: ‘Dos tractats medievals de música figurada’, Musikwissenschaftliche Beiträge: Festschrift für Johannes Wolf, ed. W. Lott, H. Osthoff and W. Wolffheim (Berlin, 1929/R), 10–12
‘Incipit Regula approbata que dicitur flos regularum …/Et est sciendum quod si cantus ascendit unam vocem’ [I-Nn XVI.A.15, ff.9vb–10a, 10–11v]: Sachs, AMw, xxviii (1971), 256, 258
‘[S]ciendum est quod in plana musica vel mensurabili’ (Anonymous IIc) [F-SDI 42, ff.40a–43b]:CoussemakerS, i, 312ff
Quaedam de arte discantandi (‘Sciendum est quod in plana musica vel mensurabili’) [F-Pn lat.15129, ff.5b–6vb]: Coussemaker (1852/R), 283ff [with Fr. trans.]
Compendium discantus (‘Regula prima. Ad unisonum igitur existens in diapason supra’) [GB-Ob 842, ff.60–62, 76]: CoussemakerS, i, 154ff; Sachs, AMw, xxviii (1971), 264; ed. G. Reaney, CSM, xxxvi (1996)
Libellus in gallico (‘Quiconques veut deschanter il doit premiers savoir’) [F-Pn lat.15139, ff.263, 269–70]: Coussemaker 1852/R), 245ff; E. Thurston: The Music in the St. Victor Manuscript, Paris lat.15139 Polyphony of the Thirteenth Century, Publications of the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies [Studies and Texts, v] (Toronto, 1959), 15, 21–2
‘[Q]uicumque bene et secure discantare voluerit’ (Anonymous III) [F-SDI 42, ff.56vb–58vb]:CoussemakerS, i, 324ff
‘Quicumque vult quintare [cantare] breviter et secure’ [E-Bbc 883, ff.64v–66; E-Sco 5–2–25, ff.81v–82v]: Sachs, AMw, xxviii (1971), 261–3
‘Si cantus ascendit tonum discantus [cantus] existens in diapasson [dyapaxon]’ [E-Bbc 883, ff.21v–22; E-Sco 5–2–25, ff.79–80]: Sachs, AMw, xxviii (1971), 264–5
De arte discantandi (‘Quando due note sunt in uno sono et tercia ascendit’) [F-Pn lat.15139, ff.270–72]: Coussemaker (1852/R), 262ff [with Fr. trans.]; CoussemakerS, i, 292ff; Thurston (1959), 22ff
Tractatus de discantu (‘Qui veult savoir l’art de deschant, il doit savoir qu’ils sont XIII espèces de chant’) (Anonymous XIII) [F-Pn lat.1474, ff.]: CoussemakerS, iii, 496ff; RiemannG, 123ff [with Ger. trans.]; Riemann-Haggh (1962), 102ff [with Eng. trans.]
Johannes de Garlandia: De mensurabili musica: CoussemakerS, i, 175–82; E. Reimer (Wiesbaden, 1972), i, 35; rev. version as De musica mensurabili positio: CoussemakerS, i, 97–117; Cserba (1935), 194ff
Tractatus de musica mensurabili (Karlsruhe Anonymous): H. Müller: Eine Abhandlung über Mensuralmusik (Leipzig, 1886)
De musica libellus (Anonymous VII): CoussemakerS, i, 378–83; Eng. trans., Knapp, JMT, vi (1962), 207–15; ed. G. Reaney, CSM, xxxvi (1996)
Amerus: Practica artis musice: J. Kromolicki: Die Practica artis musicae des Amerus und ihre Stellung in der Musiktheorie des Mittelalters (Berlin, 1909); ed. C. Ruini, CSM, xxv (1977)
Elias Salomo: Scientia artis musice: GerbertS, iii, 16ff
Magister Lambertus [Pseudo-Aristoteles]: Tractatus de musica: CoussemakerS, i, 251–81; PL, xc, 919ff
Anonymous IV: CoussemakerS, i, 327ff; Eng. trans., J. Yudkin: The Music Treatise of Anonymous IV: a New Translation, MSD, xli (1985); F. Reckow: Der Musiktraktat des Anonymus 4: Edition und Interpretation der Organum purum-Lehre (1967), i
St Emmeram Anonymous: H. Sowa: Ein anonymer glossierter Mensuraltraktat 1279, Königsberger Studien zur Musikwissenschaft, ix (1930)
Franco of Cologne: Ars cantus mensurabilis: GerbertS, iii, 1–16; CoussemakerS, i, 117–36, 154ff; Ger. trans., P. Bohn: Magistri Franconis Ars cantus mensurabilis (Trier, 1880); Cserba (1935), 230ff; F. Gennrich: Magistri Franconis Ars cantus mensurabilis Ausgabe von E. de Coussemaker nebst zwei handschriftlichen Fassungen, Musikwissenschaftliche Studien-Bibliothek, xv–xvi (Darmstadt, 1957); partial Eng. trans., StrunkSR1, 139ff; ed. G. Reaney and A. Gilles, CSM, xviii (1974)
Tractatus de consonantiis musicalibus (Anonymous I): CoussemakerS, i, 296ff
‘Sequitur de discantu’ (Anonymous IIb): CoussemakerS, i, 311f
Petrus de Picardia: Ars motettorum compilata breviter: CoussemakerS, i, 136ff; Cserba (1935), 259ff; C.-A. Moberg: ‘Om flerstämmig musik i Sverige under medeltiden’, STMf, x (1928), 5–92, esp. 62; F.A. Gallo, CSM, xv (1971), 9ff
Ars musicae mensurabilis secundum Franconem:: Coussemaker (1852/R), 274ff [with Fr. trans.]; Moberg, STMf, x (1928), 67ff; G. Reaney and A. Gilles, CSM, xv (1971), 31ff
Compendium musicae mensurabilis artis antiquae: F.A. Gallo, CSM, xv (1971), 59ff
Jerome of Moravia: Tractatus de musica: CoussemakerS, i, 1–94; Cserba (1935)
Johannes de Grocheo: De musica: J. Wolf, ‘Die Musiklehre des Johannes de Grocheo: ein Beitrag zur Musikgeschichte des Mittelalters’, SIMG, i (1899–1900), 65–130 [with Ger. trans.]; E. Rohloff: Der Musiktraktat des Johannes de Grocheo (Leipzig, 1943), 41ff [with Ger. trans.]; E. Rohloff:Die Quellenhandschriften zum Musiktraktat des Johannes de Grocheio: im Faksimile herausgegeben nebst Übertragung des Textes und Übersetzung ins Deutsche (Leipzig, 1972); Eng. trans., 1967, 2/1973
StrunkSR1
C.-E.-H. de Coussemaker: Histoire de l’harmonie au Moyen Age (Paris, 1852/R)
C.-E.-H. de Coussemaker: L’art harmonique aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles (Paris, 1865/R)
W. Niemann: Über die abweichende Bedeutung der Ligaturen in der Mensuraltheorie der Zeit von Johannes de Garlandia (Leipzig, 1902/R)
D.P. Blanchard: ‘Alfred le musicien et Alfred le philosophe’, Rassegna gregoriana, viii (1909), 419–31
E. Steinhard: ‘Zur Frühgeschichte der Mehrstimmigkeit’, AMw, iii (1921), 220–31
A.M. Michalitschke: Theorie des Modus: eine Darstellung der Entwicklung des musikrhythmischen Modus und der entsprechenden mensuralen Schreibung (Regensburg, 1923)
J. Handschin: ‘Zur Geschichte der Lehre von Organum’, ZMw, viii (1925–6), 321–41
H. Anglès: ‘Dos tractats medievals de música figurada’, Musikwissenschaftliche Beiträge: Festschrift für Johannes Wolf, ed. W. Lott, H. Osthoff and W. Wolffheim (Berlin, 1929/R), 6–12
G. Pietzsch: Die Klassifikation der Musik von Boetius bis Ugolino von Orvieto, i (Halle, 1929/R)
E. Rohloff: Studien zum Musiktraktat des Johannes de Grocheo (Leipzig, 1930, 2/1943)
H. Sowa, ed.: Ein anonymer glossierter Mensuraltraktat 1279 (Kassel, 1930)
A. Fox-Strangways: ‘A Tenth Century Manual’, ML, xiii (1932), 183–93
H. Sowa: ‘Zur Weiterentwicklung der modalen Rhythmik’, ZMw, xv (1932–3), 422–7
S.M. Cserba, ed.: Hieronymus de Moravia O.P. Tractatus de Musica (Regensburg, 1935)
G.D. Sasse: Die Mehrstimmigkeit der Ars antiqua in Theorie und Praxis (Leipzig, 1940)
M. Bukofzer: ‘Speculative Thinking in Mediaeval Music’, Speculum, xvii (1942), 165–80
J. Smits van Waesberghe: ‘La place exceptionelle de l’Ars Musica dans le développement des sciences au siècle des Carolingiens’, Revue grégorienne, xxxi (1952), 81–104
Anselm Hughes: ‘The Birth of Polyphony’, NOHM, ii (1954, 2/1990 as ‘The Early Middle Ages to 1300’), 270–86
W.G. Waite: The Rhythm of Twelfth-Century Polyphony: its Theory and Practice (New Haven, CT, 1954/R)
E. Waeltner: Die Lehre von Organum bis zur Mitte des 11. Jahrhunderts (Tutzing, 1975)
A. Seay: ‘An Anonymous Treatise from St. Martial’, AnnM, v (1957), 7–42
E. Waeltner: ‘Der Bamberger Dialog über das Organum’, AMw, xiv (1957), 175–83
C. Dahlhaus: ‘Zur Theorie des frühen Organum’, KJb, xlii (1958), 47–52
C. Dahlhaus: ‘Über den Dissonanzbegriff des Mittelalters’, IMSCR VII: Cologne 1958, 87 only
F. Blum: ‘Another Look at the Montpellier Organum Treatise’, MD, xiii (1959), 15–24
J. Coover: ‘Music Theory in Translation: a Bibliography’, JMT, iii (1959), 70–96; xiii (1969), 230–48
L. Spiess: ‘The Diatonic “Chromaticism” of the Enchiriadis Treatises’, JAMS, xii (1959), 1–6
F. Zaminer, ed.: Der Vatikanische Organum-Traktat (Ottob.lat.3025): Organum-Praxis der frühen Notre Dame-Schule und ihrer Vorstufen (Tutzing, 1959)
F.B. Crane: A Study of Theoretical Writings on Musical Form to ca. 1460 (diss., U. of Iowa, 1960)
H.J. Rieckenberg: ‘Zur Biographie des Musiktheoretikers Franco von Köln’, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, xlii (1960), 280–93
W.G. Waite: ‘Johannes de Garlandia, Poet and Musician’, Speculum, xxxv (1960), 179–95
F.J. León Tello: Estudios de historia de la teoría musical (Madrid, 1962)
W.G. Waite: ‘Two Musical Poems of the Middle Ages’, Musik und Geschichte/Music and History: Leo Schrade zum sechzigsten Geburtstag (Cologne, 1963), 13–34
C. Dahlhaus: ‘Zur Theorie des Organums im 12. Jahrhundert’, KJb, xlviii (1964), 27–32
G. Reaney: ‘The Question of Authorship in the Medieval Treatises on Music’, MD, xviii (1964), 7–17
K. Sinclair: ‘Eine alte Abschrift zweier Musiktraktate’, AMw, xxii (1965), 52–5
F. Reckow: Der Musiktraktat des Anonymus 4: Edition und Interpretation der Organum purum-Lehre (Wiesbaden, 1967)
F. Reckow: ‘Proprietas und perfectio: zur Geschichte des Rhythmus, seiner Aufzeichnung und Terminologie im 13. Jahrhundert’, AcM, xxxix (1967), 115–43
R. Stevenson: ‘A Neglected “Johannes de Garlandia Manuscript (1486) in South America”’, Notes, xxiv (1966–7), 9–17
J. Chailley: ‘Elmuahym et Elmuarifa’, Essays in Musicology: a Birthday Offering for Willi Apel, ed. H. Tischler (Bloomington, IN, 1968), 61–2
F.A. Gallo: ‘Alcune fonti poco note di musica teorica e pratica’, L’ars Nova Italiana del Trecento: convegni di studio 1961–1967 (Certaldo, 1968), 49–76
H. Knaus: ‘Neudatierung einer Berliner Musikhandschrift: Codex theol. lat. quart. 261’, Mf, xxi (1968), 312–14
F.A. Gallo: ‘Tra Giovanni di Garlandia e Filippo da Vitry: note sulla tradizione di alcuni testi teorici’, MD, xxiii (1969), 13–20
S. Gut: La tierce harmonique dans la musique occidentale: origines et évolution (Paris, 1969), 5–35 [with Eng. and Ger. summaries]
M. Huglo: ‘Le théoricien bolognais Guido Fabe’, RdM, lv (1969), 78–82
R. Rasch: Iohannes de Garlandia en de ontwikkeling van de voor-Franconische notatie (Brooklyn, NY, 1969) [with Eng. and Ger. summaries]
J. Smits van Waesberghe: Musikerziehung: Lehre und Theorie der Musik im Mittelalter, Musikgeschichte in Bildern, iii/3 (Leipzig, 1969)
H.H. Eggebrecht and F. Zaminer: Ad organum faciendum: Lehrschriften der Mehrstimmigkeit in nachguidonischer Zeit, Neue Studien zur Musikwissenschaft, iii (Mainz, 1970)
W. Frobenius: ‘Zur Datierung von Francos Ars cantus mensurabilis’, AMw, xxvii (1970), 122–7
A. Seay: ‘Guglielmo Roffredi’s Summa musicae artis’, MD, xxiv (1970), 69–77
W. Frobenius: ‘Semibrevis’ (1971), HMT
K.-J. Sachs: ‘Zur Tradition der Klangschritt-Lehre: die Texte mit der Formel “Si cantus ascendit …” und ihre Verwandten’, AMw, xxviii (1971), 233–70
R. Flotzinger: ‘Zur Frage der Modalrhythmik als Antike-Rezeption’, AMw, xxix (1972), 203–8
F.A. Gallo: ‘Philological Works on Musical Treatises of the Middle Ages: a Bibliographical Report’, AcM, xliv (1972), 78–101
M. Huglo: ‘A propos de la Summa artis musicae attribuée à Guglielmo Roffredi’, RdM, lviii (1972), 90–94
F. Reckow: Die Copula: über einige Zusammenhänge zwischen Setzweise, Formbildung, Rhythmus und Vortragsstil in der Mehrstimmigkeit von Notre-Dame (Mainz and Wiesbaden, 1972)
E. Reimer: Johannes de Garlandia: De mensurabili musica: kritische Edition mit Kommentar und Interpretation der Notationslehre (Wiesbaden, 1972)
G.A. Anderson: ‘Magister Lambertus and Nine Rhythmic Modes’, AcM, xlv (1973), 57–73
W. Frobenius: ‘Longa-brevis’, ‘Perfectio’ (1973), HMT
L.A. Gushee: ‘Questions of Genre in Medieval Treatises on Music’, Gattungen der Musik in Einzeldarstellungen: Gedenkschrift für Leo Schrade, ed. W. Arlt and others (Berne and Munich, 1973), 365–433
F. Reckow: ‘Das Organum’, ibid., 434–96
M. Haas: ‘Der Epilog des Mailänder Organum-Traktates: zum Problem von Dialektik und Sachbezug in der Musiktheorie des ausgehenden elften Jahrhunderts’, Schweizer Beiträge zur Musikwissenschaft, ii (1974), 7–20
K. Levy: ‘A Dominican Organum Duplum’, JAMS, xxvii (1974), 183–211
E.H. Sanders: ‘The Medieval Hocket in Practice and Theory’, MQ, lx (1974), 246–56
O. Wright: ‘“Elmuahym” and “Elmuarifa”’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, xxxvii (1974), 655–9
G.A. Anderson: ‘Johannes de Garlandia and the Simultaneous Use of Mixed Rhythmic Modes’, MMA, viii (1975), 11–31
E.L. Waeltner: Die Lehre vom Organum bis zur Mitte des 11. Jahrhunderts (Tutzing, 1975)
S. Gut: ‘La notion de consonance chez les théoriciens du moyen âge’, AcM, xlviii (1976), 20–44
J. Dyer: ‘A Thirteenth-Century Choirmaster: the Scientia artis musicae of Elias Salomon’, MQ, lxvi (1980), 83–111
E. Apfel: Diskant und Kontrapunkt in der Musiktheorie des 12. bis 15. Jahrhunderts (Wilhelmshaven, 1982)
H. Schmid, ed.: Musica et Scolica enchiriadis una cum aliquibus tractatulis adiunctis (Munich, 1981)
F. Zaminer, ed.: Geschichte der Musiktheorie, i–x (Darmstadt, 1984–) [incl. H.-H. Eggebrecht: ‘Die Mehrstimmigkeitslehre von ihren Anfängen bis zum 12. Jahrhundert’, v, 9–87; M. Haas: ‘Die Musiklehre im 13. Jahrhundert von Johannes de Garlandia bis Franco’, v, 89–159
D. Torkewitz: ‘Zur Entstehung der Musica und Scolica Enchiriadis’, AcM, lxix (1997), 156–81
This section lists only catalogues which are unrestricted by country or medieval repertory. Catalogues of more limited scope (such as Ludwig’s Repertorium and Gröninger’s Repertoire-Untersuchungen) are cited below, under the appropriate headings.
G. Reaney, ed.: Manuscripts of Polyphonic Music: 11th–early 14th Century, RISM, B/IV/1 (1966)
G. Reaney, ed.: Manuscripts of Polyphonic Music (c.1320–1400), RISM, B/IV/2 (1969) [incl. suppl. for B/IV/1]
K. von Fischer and M. Lütolf, eds.: Handschriften mit mehrstimmiger Musik des 14., 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts, RISM, B/IV/3–4 (1972)
This section presents the literature about French musical (as apart from theoretical) sources from the beginnings of French polyphony to the time immediately before the Magnus liber. It includes catalogues of sources, facsimile editions, modern editions, studies of sources and studies of musical style and technique. For further discussion, see Sources, MS, §IV, 3, and also Organum, §§4 – 7 and Discant, §2. The two principal repertories are those of Aquitaine and Compostela: for further discussion of these see St Martial (which lists and discusses the monophonic sources as well as those containing polyphony) and Santiago de Compostela. There are also biographical articles on all men to whom pieces in the Compostela manuscript are ascribed.
RISM, B/IV/1
M.S. Gushee: Romanesque Polyphony: a Study of Fragmentary Sources (diss., Yale U., 1965)
P. Wagner, ed.: Die Gesänge der Jakobusliturgie zu Santiago de Compostela aus dem sog. Codex Calixtinus (Fribourg, 1931)
W.M. Whitehill, G. Prado and J. Carro García, eds.: Liber Sancti Jacobi: Codex Calixtinus (Santiago de Compostela, 1944) [facs. and edn of E-SC]
Y. Delaporte, ed.: Fragments des manuscrits de Chartres, PalMus, xvii (1958)
T. Karp, ed.: The Polyphony of St Martial and Santiago de Compostela (Oxford, 1992)
H. van der Werf: The Oldest Extant Part Music and the Origin of Western Polyphony (Rochester, NY, 1993)
F. Ludwig: ‘Studien über die Geschichte der mehrstimmigen Musik im Mittelalter, II: Ein mehrstimmiges St. Jakobs-Offizium des 12. Jahrhunderts’, KJb, xix (1905), 10–16
H.M. Bannister: ‘Un fragment inédit de “discantus”’, Revue grégorienne, i (1911), 29
J. Handschin: Über die mehrstimmige Musik der St. Martial-Epoche sowie die Zusammenhänge zwischen Notre Dame und St. Martial und die Zusammenhänge zwischen einem dritten Stil und Notre Dame und St. Martial (Habilitationsschrift, U. of Basle, 1924)
J. Handschin: ‘Über den Ursprung der Motette’, Musikwissenschaftlicher Kongress: Basel 1924, 189–200
H. Anglès: ‘La música del MS de Londres, British Museum Add. 36881’, Butlletí de la Biblioteca de Catalunya, viii (1928–32), 301–14
H. Spanke: ‘Die Londoner St. Martial Conductushandschrift’, Butlletí de la Biblioteca de Catalunya, viii (1928–32), 280–301
H. Spanke: ‘St. Martial-Studien: ein Beitrag zur frühromanischen Metrik’, Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur, liv (1930–31), 282–317, 385–422; lvi (1932–3), 450–78
P. Wagner, ed.: Die Gesänge der Jakobusliturgie zu Santiago de Compostela aus dem sog. Codex Calixtinus (Fribourg, 1931) [partial edn of E-SC]
J. Handschin: ‘L’organum à l’église et les exploits de l’abbé Turstin’, Revue du chant grégorien, xl (1936), 179; xli (1937), 14, 41
P. Hooreman: ‘Saint-Martial de Limoges au temps de l’abbé Odolric (1025–1040)’, RBM, iii (1949), 5–36
W. Krüger: ‘Singstil und Instrumentalstil in der Mehrstimmigkeit der St. Martialepoche’, GfMKB: Bamberg 1953, 240–44
Anselm Hughes: ‘Music in the Twelfth Century’, NOHM, ii (1954, 2/1990 as ‘The Early Middle Ages to 1300’), 287–310
W. Apel: ‘The Earliest Polyphonic Composition and its Theoretical Background’, RBM, x (1956), 129–37
W. Krüger: ‘Zur Frage der Rhythmik des St. Martial Conductus Jubilemus’, Mf, ix (1956), 185–8
A. Machabey: Notations musicales non modales des XIIe et XIIIe siècles (Paris, 1957, 3/1959)
W. Apel: ‘Bemerkungen zu den Organa von St. Martial’, Miscelánea en homenaje a Monseñor Higinio Anglés (Barcelona, 1958–61), 61–70
J. Chailley: L’école musicale de Saint Martial de Limoges jusqu’à la fin du XIe siècle (Paris, 1960)
H. Anglès: ‘Die Mehrstimmigkeit des Calixtinus von Compostela und seine Rhythmik’, Festschrift Heinrich Besseler, ed. E. Klemm (Leipzig, 1961), 91–100
J.M. Marshall: A Late Eleventh-Century Manuscript from St. Martial de Limoges: Paris, B.N., f.lat.1139 (diss., Yale U., 1961)
J.M. Marshall: ‘Hidden Polyphony in a Manuscript from St. Martial de Limoges’, JAMS, xv (1962), 131–44
G. Schmidt: ‘Strukturprobleme der Mehrstimmigkeit im Repertoire von St. Martial’, Mf, xv (1962), 11–39
M. Gushee: ‘A Polyphonic Ghost’, JAMS, xvi (1963), 204–11
B. Stäblein: ‘Modale Rhythmen im Saint-Martial-Repertoire?’, Festschrift Friedrich Blume, ed.: A.A. Abert and W. Pfannkuch (Kassel, 1963), 340–62
H. Husmann: ‘Das Organum vor und ausserhalb der Notre-Dame-Schule’, IMSCR IX: Salzburg 1964, i, 25–35; ii, 68–80
W. Krüger: ‘Zum Organum des Codex Calixtinus’, Mf, xvii (1964), 225–34
L. Treitler: ‘The Polyphony of St. Martial’, JAMS, xvii (1964), 29–42
J. Schubert: ‘Zum Organum des Codex Calixtinus’, Mf, xviii (1965), 393–9
T. Karp: ‘St. Martial and Santiago de Compostela: an Analytical Speculation’, AcM, xxxix (1967), 144–60
W. Osthoff: ‘Die Conductus des Codex Calixtinus’, Festschrift Bruno Stäblein, ed. M. Ruhnke (Kassel, 1967), 178–86
N. Goldine: ‘Les heuriers-matiniers de la cathédrale de Chartres jusqu’au XVe siècle’, RdM, liv (1968), 161–75
S.A. Fuller: Aquitanian Polyphony of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (diss., U. of California, Berkeley, 1969)
A. Holschneider: ‘Consonancia – cuncta musica: eine Miniatur im Tropar-Prosar von Nevers, Codex Paris Bibliothèque Nationale, fonds latin 9449’, Mf, xxii (1969), 186–9
G. de Poerck: ‘Le MS Paris, B.N. lat.1139: étude codicologique d’un recueil factice de pièces paraliturgiques (XIe–XIIIe siècle)’, Scriptorium, xxiii (1969), 298–312
S. Fuller: ‘Hidden Polyphony: a Reappraisal’, JAMS, xxiv (1971), 169–92
T. Göllner: ‘Frühe Mehrstimmigkeit in Choralnotation’, Musikalische Edition im Wandel des historischen Bewusstseins, ed. T.G. Georgiades (Kassel, 1971), 113–33
E. Jammers: ‘Die Motette “Stirps Jesse”: eine analytische Studie’, AMw, xxviii (1971), 288–301
W. Arlt: ‘Peripherie und Zentrum: vier Studien zur ein- und mehrstimmigen Musik des hohen Mittelalters’, Forum musicologicum, i (1975), 169–222
B. Gillingham: Saint-Martial Polyphony (Henryville, PA, 1984)
R. Crocker.: ‘Rhythm in Early Polyphony’, Cmc, nos.45–7 (1990), 147–77 [Sanders Fs issue, ed. P.M. Lefferts and L.L. Perkins]
R. Crocker.: ‘Two Recent Editions of Aquitanian Polyphony’, PMM, iii (1994), 57–101
R. Lug: ‘Das “vormodale” Zeichensystem des Chansonnier de Saint-Germain-des-Prés’, AMw, lii (1995), 19–65
R. Eberlein: ‘Vormodale Notation’, AMw, lv (1998), 175–94
This section presents literature concerning the polyphony of the so-called ‘Notre Dame’ sources (described elsewhere see Sources, MS, §IV, 3). It includes catalogues, facsimile editions, modern editions, studies of sources and studies of musical style and technique. For further discussion of the forms and techniques involved, see Organum, §§8–10; Discant, §I, 3–4; Conductus, §§2–4; Motet, §I; Magnus liber; Clausula; Copula, copulatio. All the composers, notators and singers cited by the theorist Anonymous IV (see Anonymous theoretical writings) have articles: see in particular Leoninus and Perotinus. For further information on matters of notation see Notation and Rhythmic modes.
F. Ludwig: Repertorium organorum recentioris et motetorum vetustissimi stili, i (Halle, 1910; rev. 2/1964 by L.A. Dittmer); ii, ed. L.A. Dittmer (Hildesheim and New York, 1972)
E. Gröninger: Repertoire-Untersuchungen zum mehrstimmigen Notre Dame-Conductus (Regensburg, 1939)
F. Gennrich: Bibliographie der ältesten französischen und lateinischen Motetten, SMM, ii (1957)
F. Ludwig: Repertorium organorum recentioris et motetorum vetustissimi stili, ii: Musikalisches Anfangs-Verzeichnis des nach Tenores geordneten Repertorium, ed. F. Gennrich, SMM, viii (1962; repr. with preface by L.A. Dittmer in Musicological Studies, xvii, 1972)
H. Anglès: El Còdex musical de Las Huelgas (música a veus dels segles XIII–XIV), PBC, vi (1931)
J.H. Baxter: An Old St. Andrews Music Book (Cod. Helmst. 628): Published in Facsimile (London, 1931/R)
H. Schmidt-Garre, ed.: Benedicamus Domino: drei dreistimmige Organa aus der Zeit um 1200 (Mainz, 1933)
Y. Rokseth: Polyphonies du XIIIe siècle: le manuscrit H 196 de la Faculté de médecine de Montpellier (Paris, 1935–9) [i facs.; ii–iii edn; iv commentary]
H. Husmann: Die drei- und vierstimmigen Notre-Dame-Organa: kritische Gesamtausgabe, Publikationen älterer Musik, xi (Leipzig, 1940/R)
L. Dittmer: Faksimile-Ausgabe der Handschrift Madrid 20486/Facsimile Reproduction of the Manuscript Madrid 20486, Publications of Mediaeval Musical Manuscripts, i (Brooklyn, NY, 1957)
F. Gennrich, ed.: Die Wimpfener Fragmente der Hessischen Landesbibliothek Darmstadt: Faksimile-Ausgabe der HS 3471, SMM, v (1958)
L. Dittmer: Eine zentrale Quelle der Notre-Dame Musik/A Central Source of Notre-Dame Polyphony: Facsimile, Reconstruction, Catalogue raisonné, Discussion and Transcriptions, Publications of Mediaeval Musical Manuscripts, iii (Brooklyn, NY, 1959)
L. Dittmer, ed.: Paris 13521 and 11411: Faksimile, Einleitung, Register und Transcriptionen/Facsimile, Introduction, Index and Transcriptions from the Manuscripts Paris, Bibl. nat. nouv. acq. fr. 13521 (La Clayette) and lat. 11411, ibid., iv (Brooklyn, NY, 1959)
L. Dittmer: Faksimile-Ausgabe der Handschrift Wolfenbüttel 1099 Helenstadiensis (1206)/Facsimile Reproduction of the Manuscript Wolfenbüttel 1099 Helmstadiensis (1206), ibid., ii (Brooklyn, NY, 1960)
J. Knapp: Thirty-five Conductus for Two and Three Voices, Collegium Musicum, vi (New Haven, CT, 1965)
L. Dittmer: Faksimile-Ausgabe der Handschrift Firenze, Biblioteca-Mediceo-Laurenziana, Pluteo 29,1/Facsimile Reproduction of the Manuscript Firenze, Biblioteca Mediceo-Laurenziana, Pluteo 29,1, Publications of Mediaeval Musical Manuscripts, x–xi (Brooklyn, NY, 1966–7)
E. Thurston, ed.: The Works of Perotin (New York, 1970)
G.A. Anderson, ed.: Notre Dame and Related Conductus (Henryville, PA, 1988)
H. Tischler, ed.: The Parisian Two-Part Organa (Stuyvesant, NY, 1988)
E.H. Roesner, ed.: Magnus liber organi (Monaco, 1993–)
M. Staehelin, ed.: Die mittelalterliche Musik-Handschrift W1. Vollständige Reproduktion des Notre Dame-Manuskripts der Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel Cod. Guelf. 628 Helm (Wiesbaden, 1995)
MGG2(‘Notre Dame and Notre-Dame-Handschriften’)
W. Meyer: ‘Der Ursprung des Motett’s’, Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, philosophisch-historische Klasse (1898), 113–45; repr. in W. Meyer: Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur mittellateinischen Rhythmik, ii (Berlin, 1905/R), 303–41
F. Ludwig: ‘Über die Entstehung und die erste Entwicklung der lateinischen und französischen Motette in musikalischer Beziehung’, SIMG, vii (1905–6), 514–28; repr. in SMM, xvi, ed. F. Gennrich (1966), 117
A. Gastoué: ‘Three Centuries of French Mediaeval Music’, MQ, iii (1917), 173–88
J. Handschin: Choralbearbeitungen und Kompositionen mit rhythmischem Text in der mehrstimmigen Musik des XIII. Jahrhunderts (diss., U. of Basle, 1921)
F. Ludwig: ‘Die Quellen der Motetten ältesten Stils’, AMw, v (1923), 185–222, 273–315; repr. in SMM, vii, ed. F. Gennrich (1961)
J. Handschin: ‘Was brachte die Notre Dame-Schule Neues?’, ZMw, vi (1923–4), 545–58
J. Handschin: ‘Zur Notre Dame-Rhythmik’, ZMw, vii (1924–5), 386–9
J. Handschin: ‘Notizen über die Notre Dame-Conductus’, Deutsche Musikgesellschaft: Kongress I: Leipzig 1925, 209–17
E.F. Kossmann: ‘Ein Fragment einer neuen altfranzösischen Motettenhandschrift’, ZMw, viii (1925–6), 193–5
R. von Ficker: ‘Polyphonic Music of the Gothic Period’, MQ, xv (1929), 483–505
R. von Ficker, ed.: Perotinus: Organum quadriplum Sederunt principes (Vienna, 1930)
H. Schmidt: Die Organa der Notre-Dame-Schule (diss., U. of Vienna, 1930)
H. Spanke: ‘Die Stuttgarter Handschrift H.B.I. Ascet. 95’, ZDADL, lxviii (1931), 79–88
J. Handschin: ‘Zur Leonin-Perotin-Frage’, ZMw, xiv (1931–2), 319–21
H. Schmidt: ‘Zur Melodiebildung Leonins und Perotins’, ZMw, xiv (1931–2), 129–34
M. Schneider: ‘Zur Satztechnik der Notre-Dame Schule’, ZMw, xiv (1931–2), 398–409
J. Handschin: ‘Zur Geschichte von Notre Dame’, AcM, iv (1932), 5–17, 49–55, 104–5
H. Schmidt: Die drei- und vierstimmigen Organa (Kassel, 1933)
H. Husmann: Die dreistimmigen Organa der Notre Dame-Schule, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Handschriften Wolfenbüttel und Montpellier (diss., U. of Leipzig, 1935)
H. Husmann: ‘Die Motetten der Madrider Handschrift und deren geschichtliche Stellung’, AMf, ii (1937), 173–84
Anselm Hughes: ‘The Origins of Harmony: with Special Reference to an Old St. Andrews Ms.’, MQ, xxiv (1938), 176–85
G. Kuhlmann: Die zweistimmigen französischen Motetten des Kodex Montpellier, Faculté de médecine H 196, in ihrer Bedeutung für die Musikgeschichte des 13. Jahrhunderts (Würzburg, 1938)
L. Ellinwood: ‘The French Renaissance of the Twelfth Century in Music’, PAMS 1939, 200–11
F. Racek: Die Clauseln des Wolfenbüttler Codex I (diss., U. of Vienna, 1939)
G.D. Sasse: Die Mehrstimmigkeit der Ars antiqua in Theorie und Praxis (Leipzig, 1940)
L. Ellinwood: ‘The Conductus’, MQ, xxvii (1941), 165–204
H. Nathan: ‘The Function of Text in French 13th-Century Motets’, MQ, xxviii (1942), 445–62
H. Tischler: The Motet in Thirteenth-Century France (diss., Yale U., 1942)
Y. Rokseth: ‘La polyphonie parisienne du treizième siècle: étude critique à propos d’une publication récente’, Cahiers techniques de l’art, i/2 (1947), 33–47 [on H. Husmann, ed.: Die drei- und vierstimmigen Notre-Dame-Organa]
M. Bukofzer: ‘Rhythm and Meter in the Notre Dame Conductus’, BAMS, xi–xiii (1948), 63–5
W. Apel: ‘From St. Martial to Notre Dame’, JAMS, ii (1949), 145–58
J. Stulle: Die mehrstimmigen Sequenzen des Cod. Wolfenbüttel 677 (diss., U. of Bonn, 1950)
F. Spreitzer: Studien zum Formaufbau der dreistimmigen Organumkompositionen des sogenannten Notre Dame Repertoires (diss., U. of Freiburg, 1951)
J. Handschin: ‘Zur Frage der Conductus-Rhythmik’, AcM, xxiv (1952), 113–30
J. Handschin: ‘Conductus-Spicilegien’, AMw, ix (1952), 101–19
H. Husmann: ‘Zur Grundlegung der musikalischen Rhythmik des mittellateinischen Liedes’, AMw, ix (1952), 3–26
W. Waite: ‘Discantus, Copula, Organum’, JAMS, v (1952), 77–87
M.F. Bukofzer: ‘Interrelations between Conductus and Clausula’, AnnM, i (1953), 65–103
L. Schrade: ‘Political Compositions in French Music of the 12th and 13th Centuries: the Coronation of French Kings’, AnnM, i (1953), 9–63; repr. in L. Schrade: De scientia musicae studia atque orationes, ed. E. Lichtenhahn (Berne, 1967), 152–211
Anselm Hughes: ‘Music in Fixed Rhythm’, NOHM, ii (1954), 311–52
H. Husmann: ‘Das System der modalen Rhythmik’, AMw, xi (1954), 1–38
E. Thurston, ed.: The Conductus Compositions in Manuscript Wolfenbüttel 1206 (diss., New York U., 1954)
F. Gennrich: Lateinische Liedkontrafaktur: eine Auswahl lateinischer Conductus mit ihren volkssprachigen Vorbildern (Darmstadt, 1956)
J. Hourlier and J. Chailley: ‘Cantionale Cathalaunense’, Mémoires de la Société d’agriculture, commerce, sciences et arts du département de la Marne, lxxi (2nd ser., xxx) (1956)
W. Krüger: ‘Wort und Ton in den Notre-Dame-Organa’, GfMKB: Hamburg 1956, 135–9
H. Tischler: ‘The Evolution of the Harmonic Style in the Notre-Dame Motet’, AcM, xxviii (1956), 87–95
H. Tischler: ‘Ligatures, Plicae and Vertical Bars in Premensural Notation’, RBM, xi (1957), 83–92
U. Aarburg: ‘Ein Beispiel zur mittelalterlichen Kompositionstechnik: die Chanson R. 1545 von Blondel de Nesle und ihre mehrstimmigen Vertonungen’, AMw, xv (1958), 20–40
A. Machabey: ‘A propos des quadruples pérotiniens’, MD, xii (1958), 3–25
G. Reaney: ‘A Note on Conductus Rhythm’, IMSCR VII: Cologne 1958, 219–20
R. Dammann: ‘Geschichte der Begriffsbestimmung Motette’, AMw, xvi (1959), 337–77
L. Dittmer: ‘Änderung der Grundrhythmen in den Notre-Dame-Handschriften’, Mf, xii (1959), 392–405
E.F. Flindell: The Achievements of the Notre Dame School (diss., U. of Pennsylvania, 1959)
H. Tischler: ‘The Evolution of Form in the Earliest Motets’, AcM, xxxi (1959), 86–90
G. Birkner: ‘Motetus und Motette’, AMw, xviii (1961), 183–94
R. Hunt: ‘The Collections of a Monk of Bardney: a Dismembered Rawlinson Manuscript’, Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies, v (1961), 28–42
J. Knapp: The Polyphonic Conductus in the Notre-Dame Epoch: a Study of the Sixth and Seventh Fascicles of the Manuscript Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, Pluteus 29.1 (diss., Yale U., 1961)
H. Tischler: ‘A propos the Notation of the Parisian Organa’, JAMS, xiv (1961), 1–8
W.G. Waite: ‘The Abbreviation of the Magnus liber’, JAMS, xiv (1961), 147–58
G. Birkner: ‘Notre Dame-Cantoren und -Succentoren vom Ende des 10. bis zum Beginn des 14. Jahrhunderts’, In memoriam Jacques Handschin, ed. H. Anglès and others (Strasbourg, 1962), 107–26
J. Chailley: ‘Fragments d’un nouveau manuscrit d’Ars Antiqua à Châlons-sur-Marne’, ibid., 140–49
H. Husmann: ‘St. Germain und Notre-Dame’, Natalicia musicologica Knud Jeppesen septuagenario collegis oblata, ed. B. Hjelmborg and S. Sørenson (Copenhagen, 1962), 31–6
G. Reichert: ‘Wechselbeziehungen zwischen musikalischer und textlicher Struktur in der Motette des 13. Jahrhunderts’, In memoriam Jacques Handschin, ed. H. Anglès and others (Strasbourg, 1962), 151–69
E.H. Sanders: ‘Duple Rhythm and Alternate Third Mode in the 13th Century’, JAMS, xv (1962), 249–91
H. Tischler: ‘Classicism and Romanticism in Thirteenth-Century Music’, RBM, xvi (1962), 3–12
H. Husmann: ‘Deklamation und Akzent in der Vertonung mittellateinischer Dichtung’, AMw, xix–xx (1962–3), 1–8
F. Gennrich, ed.: Aus der Frühzeit der Motette, der erste Zyklus von Clausulae der HS W1 und ihre Motetten (Langen, 1963)
H. Husmann: ‘The Origin and Destination of the Magnus liber organi’, MQ, xlix (1963), 311–30
H. Husmann: ‘The Enlargement of the Magnus liber organi and the Paris Churches St. Germain l’Auxerrois and Ste. Geneviève-du-Mont’, JAMS, xvi (1963), 176–203
H. Husmann: ‘Ein dreistimmiges Organum aus Sens unter den Notre-Dame-Kompositionen’, Festschrift Friedrich Blume, ed. A.A. Abert and W. Pfannkuch (Kassel, 1963), 200–03
H. Husmann: ‘Zur Überlieferung der Thomas-Offizien’, Organicae voces: Festschrift Joseph Smits van Waesberghe (Amsterdam, 1963), 87–8
J. Knapp: ‘Quid tu vides, Jeremia: Two Conductus in One’, JAMS, xvi (1963), 212–20
H. Tischler: ‘The Dates of Perotin’, JAMS, xvi (1963), 240–41
D.D. Colton: The Conducti of Ms. Madrid 20486 (diss., Indiana U., 1964)
K. von Fischer: ‘Neue Quellen zur Musik des 13., 14. und 15. Jahrhunderts’, AcM, xxxvi (1964), 79–97
D. Harbinson: ‘Imitation in the Early Motet’, ML, xlv (1964), 359–68
N.E. Smith: The Clausulae of the Notre Dame School: a Repertorial Study (diss., Yale U., 1964)
L.A. Dittmer: ‘The Lost Fragments of a Notre Dame Manuscript in Johannes Wolf’s Library’, Aspects of Medieval and Renaissance Music: a Birthday Offering to Gustave Reese, ed. J. LaRue and others (New York, 1966/R), 122–33
D. Harbinson: ‘Isorhythmic Technique in the Early Motet’, ML, xlvii (1966), 100–09
D.G. Hughes: ‘The Sources of Christus manens’, Aspects of Medieval and Renaissance Music: a Birthday Offering to Gustave Reese, ed. J. LaRue and others (New York, 1966/R), 423–34
T. Karp: ‘Towards a Critical Edition of Notre Dame Organa Dupla’, MQ, lii (1966), 350–67
F. Mathiassen: The Style of the Early Motet (c.1200–1250): an Investigation of the Old Corpus of the Montpellier Manuscript (Copenhagen, 1966)
N.E. Smith: ‘Tenor Repetition in the Notre Dame Organa’, JAMS, xix (1966), 329–51
H. Tischler: ‘Perotinus Revisited’, Aspects of Medieval and Renaissance Music: a Birthday Offering to Gustave Reese, ed. I. LaRue and others (New York, 1966/R), 803–17
H. Tischler: ‘The Early Cantors of Notre Dame’, JAMS, xix (1966), 85–7
E.F. Flindell: ‘Syllabic Notation and Change of Mode’, AcM, xxxix (1967), 21–34
H. Husmann: ‘Ein Faszikel Notre-Dame-Kompositionen auf Texte des Pariser Kanzlers Philipp in einer Dominikanerhandschrift (Rom, Santa Sabina XIV L 3) [Sab]’, AMw, xxiv (1967), 1–23
E.H. Sanders: ‘The Question of Perotin’s Oeuvre and Dates’, Festschrift für Walter Wiora, ed. L. Finscher and C.-H. Mahling (Kassel, 1967), 241–9
H. Tischler: ‘Some Rhythmic Features in Early 13th-century Motets’, RBM, xxi (1967), 107–17
G.A. Anderson: ‘Mode and Change of Mode in Notre Dame Conductus’, AcM, xl (1968), 92–114
G.A. Anderson: ‘A New Look at an Old Motet’, ML, xlix (1968), 18–20
G.A. Anderson: ‘Notre Dame Bilingual Motets: a Study in the History of Music c.1215–1245’, MMA, iii (1968), 50–144
R. Flotzinger: ‘Beobachtungen zur Notre-Dame-Handschrift W1 und ihrem 11. Faszikel’, Mitteilungen der Kommission für Musikforschung: Anzeiger der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, no.19 (1968), 245–62
D. Harbinson: ‘Consonance and Dissonance in the Old Corpus of the Montpellier Motet Manuscript’, MD, xxii (1968), 5–13
H. Tischler: ‘A propos a Critical Edition of the Parisian Organa Dupla’, AcM, xl (1968), 28–43
G.A. Anderson: ‘A Small Collection of Notre Dame Motets ca. 1215–1235’, JAMS, xxii (1969), 157–96
G.A. Anderson: ‘Newly Identified Tenor Chants in the Notre Dame Repertory’, ML, l (1969), 158–71
G.A. Anderson: ‘Newly Identified Clausula-Motets in the Las Huelgas Manuscript’, MQ, lv (1969), 228–45
R. Flotzinger: Der Discantussatz im Magnus liber und seiner Nachfolge: mit Beiträgen zur Frage der sogenannten Notre-Dame-Handschriften (Vienna, 1969)
H. Tischler: ‘How were Notre Dame Clausulae Performed?’, ML, l (1969), 273–7
G.A. Anderson: ‘Clausulae or Transcribed-Motets in the Florence Manuscript?’, AcM, xlii (1970), 109–28
G.A. Anderson: ‘Symbolism in Texts of Thirteenth-Century Music’, SMA, iv (1970), 19–39; v (1971), 36–42
E. Apfel: Anlage und Struktur der Motetten im Codex Montpellier (Heidelberg, 1970)
L. Dittmer: ‘Eine zerlegte dreistimmige Klausel’, Speculum musicae artis: Festgabe für Heinrich Husmann, ed. H. Becker and R. Gerlach (Munich, 1970), 93–102
R.F.P. Erickson: Rhythmic Problems and Melodic Structure in Organum Purum: a Computer-Assisted Study (diss., Yale U., 1970)
R. Falck: The Structure of the Polyphonic and Monophonic Conductus Repertories: a Study of Source Concordances and their Relation to the Chronology and Provenance of Musical Styles (diss., Brandeis U., 1970)
R. Flotzinger: ‘Zur Herkunft der Wimpfener Fragmente’, Speculum musicae artis: Festgabe für Heinrich Husmann, ed. H. Becker and R. Gerlach (Munich, 1970), 147–51
K. Hofmann: ‘Zur Entstehungs- und Frühgeschichte des Terminus Motette’, AcM, xlii (1970), 138–50
T. Karp: ‘A Test for Melodic Borrowings among Notre Dame Organa Dupla’, The Computer and Music, ed. H.B. Lincoln (Ithaca, NY, 1970), 293–5
K. Hofmann: ‘Rhythmic Architecture in the Music of the High Middle Ages’, Medievalia et humanisticà, new ser., i (1970), 67–80
G.A. Anderson: ‘A Troped Offertorium-Conductus of the 13th Century’, JAMS, xxiv (1971), 96–100
G.A. Anderson: ‘Notre Dame Latin Double Motets ca. 1215–1250’, MD, xxv (1971), 35–92
H.H. Eggebrecht: ‘Organum purum’, Musikalische Edition im Wandel des historischen Bewusstseins, ed. T.G. Georgiades (Kassel, 1971), 93–112
G.A. Anderson, ed.: The Latin Compositions in Fascicules VII and VIII of the Notre Dame Manuscript, Wolfenbüttel, Helmstadt 1099 (1206) (Brooklyn, NY, 1968–76)
G.A. Anderson: ‘Notre Dame and Related Conductus: a Catalogue Raisonné’, MMA, vi (1972), 153–229
G.A. Anderson: ‘Thirteenth-Century Conductus: Obiter Dicta’, MQ, lviii (1972), 349–64
R.A. Baltzer: ‘Thirteenth-Century Illuminated Miniatures and the Date of the Florence Manuscript’, JAMS, xxv (1972), 1–18
K. Hofmann: Untersuchungen zur Kompositionstechnik der Motette im 13. Jahrhundert, durchgeführt an den Motetten mit dem Tenor ‘In seculum’ (Neuhausen-Stuttgart, 1972)
T. Karp: ‘Text Underlay and Rhythmic Interpretation of 12th C. Polyphony’, IMSCR XI: Copenhagen 1972, 482–6
F. Reckow: Die Copula: über einige Zusammenhänge zwischen Setzweise, Formbildung, Rhythmus und Vortragsstil in der Mehrstimmigkeit von Notre-Dame (Mainz and Wiesbaden, 1972)
N.E. Smith: ‘Interrelationships among the Alleluias of the Magnus liber organi’, JAMS, xxv (1972), 175–202
G.A. Anderson: ‘Motets of the Thirteenth Century Manuscript La Clayette: the Repertory and its Historical Significance’; ‘A Stylistic Study of the Repertory’, MD, xxvii (1973), 11–40; xxviii (1974), 5–37
G.A. Anderson: ‘The Rhythm of cum littera Sections of Polyphonic Conductus in Mensural Sources’, JAMS, xxvi (1973), 288–304
E.H. Sanders: ‘The Medieval Motet’, Gattungen der Musik in Einzeldarstellungen: Gedenkschrift Leo Schrade, ed. W. Arlt and others (Berne and Munich, 1973), 497–573
N.E. Smith: ‘Interrelationships among the Graduals of the Magnus liber organi’, AcM, xlv (1973), 73–97
N.E. Smith: ‘Some Exceptional Clausulae of the Florence Manuscript’, ML, liv (1973), 405–14
J. Stenzl: ‘Eine unbekannte Notre-Dame-Quelle: die Solothurner Fragmente’, Mf, xxvi (1973), 311–21
H. Tischler: ‘Musica Ficta in the Parisian Organa’, JMT, xvii (1973), 310–18
H. Tischler: ‘“Musica Ficta” in the Thirteenth Century’, ML, liv (1973), 38–56; extracts in IMSCR XI: Copenhagen 1972, 695–6
G.A. Anderson: ‘A Unique Notre-Dame Motet Tenor Relationship’, ML, lv (1974), 398–409
W. Arlt and others: ‘Peripherie und Zentrum’, GfMKB: Berlin 1974, 15–170
R.A. Baltzer: Notation, Rhythm, and Style in the Two-Voice Notre Dame Clausula (diss., Boston U., 1974)
E.H. Roesner: The Manuscript Wolfenbüttel, Herzog-August-Bibliothek, 628 Helmstadiensis: a Study of its Origins and of its Eleventh Fascicle (diss., New York U., 1974)
G.A. Anderson: ‘Nove Geniture: Three Variant Polyphonic Settings of a Notre Dame Conductus’, SMA, ix (1975), 8–18
W. Arlt and M. Haas: ‘Pariser modale Mehrstimmigkeit in einem Fragment des Basler Universitätsbibliothek’, Forum musicologicum, i (1975), 223–72
E.H. Roesner: ‘The Origins of W1’, JAMS, xxix (1976), 337–80
H. Tischler: ‘The Structure of Notre-Dame Organa’, AcM, xlix (1977), 193–9
G. Chew: ‘A Magnus Liber Organi Fragment at Aberdeen’, JAMS, xxxi (1978), 326–43
P. Jeffrey: ‘Notre Dame Polyphony in the Library of Pope Boniface VIII’, JAMS, xxxii (1979), 118–24
J. Knapp: ‘Musical Declamation and Poetic Rhythm in an Early Layer of Notre Dame Conductus’, JAMS, xxxii (1979), 383–407
E.H. Roesner: ‘The Performance of Parisian Organum’, EMc, vii (1979), 178–80
P. Maddox, J. Couchman and R. Nemeth: ‘The Gradual Benedicta V Virgo Dei Genitrix: a Study of its Settings in the Notre Dame Repertoire’, Comitatus, x (1979–80), 31–96
V.J. Corrigan: The Style of the Notre Dame Conductus (diss., Indiana U., 1980)
E.H. Sanders: ‘Consonance and Rhythm in the Organum of the 12th and 13th Centuries’, JAMS, xxxiii (1980), 265–86
N.E. Smith: ‘From Clausula to Motet: Material for Further Studies in the Origin and Early History of the Motet’, MD, xxxiv (1980), 29–65
J. Yudkin: ‘The Copula According to Johannes de Garlandia’, MD, xxxiv (1980), 67–84
J. Brown, S. Patterson and D. Hiley: ‘Further Observations on W1’, Journal of the Plainsong & Medieval Society, iv (1981), 53–80
E.H. Roesner: ‘The Problem of Chronology in the Transmission of Organum Duplum’, Music in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, ed. I. Fenlon (Cambridge, 1981), 365–99
S. Brunner: Die Notre-Dame-Organa der Handschrift W2 (Tutzing, 1982)
E.H. Roesner: ‘Johannes de Garlandia on Organum in speciali’, EMH, ii (1982), 129–60
H. Tischler: ‘The Four Styles of Notre-Dame Organa’, Orbis musicae, viii (1982–3), 44–53
P. van Poucke: Magister Perotinus magnus: Organa quadrupla generaliter, in leidende reconstructieve studie (diss., Rijksuniversitett Gent, 1983)
L. Treitler: ‘Der Vatikanische Organumtraktat und das Organum von Notre-Dame de Paris: Perspektiven der Entwicklung einer schriftlichen Musikkultur in Europa’, Basler Jb für historische Musikpraxis, vii (1983), 23–31
R. Flotzinger: ‘Zu Perotin und seinem “Sederunt”’, Festschrift für Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. W. Breig and others (Wiesbaden, 1984), 14–28
I. Godt and B. Rivera: ‘The Vatican Organum Treatise: a Colour Reproduction, Transcription and Translation into English’, Gordon Athol Anderson, 1929–81, in memoriam, ed. L.A. Dittmer (Henryville, PA, 1984), 264–345
D. Hiley: ‘The Plica and Liquescence’, ibid., 379–92
M. Everist: Polyphonic Music in Thirteenth-Century France: Aspects of Sources and Distribution (diss., U. of Oxford, 1985)
C. Wright: ‘The Feast of the Reception of the Relicts at Notre Dame of Paris’, Music and Context: Essays for John M. Ward, ed. A.D. Shapiro and P. Benjamin (Cambridge, MA, 1985), 1–13
T.T. Payne: ‘Associa tecum in patria: a Newly Identified Organum Trope by Philipp the Chancelor’, JAMS, xxxix (1986), 233–54
F. Reckow: ‘Kompilation als Innovation: eine Methode theoretischer Herstellung als Zugang zum Charakter hochmittelalterlicher Mehrstimmigkeit’, Festschrift Martin Ruhnke zum 65. Geburtstag (Neuhausen-Stuttgart, 1986), 307–19
C. Wright: ‘Leoninus, Poet and Musician’, JAMS, xxxix (1986), 1–35
R. Eberlein: ‘Ars antiqua: Harmonik und Datierung’, AMw, lxiii (1986), 1–16
R.A. Baltzer: ‘Notre-Dame Manuscripts and their Owners: Lost and Found’, JM, v (1987), 387–9
M. Staehelin: ‘Conductus-Fragmente aus einer Notre-Dame-Hs. in Frankfurt am Main’, Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, philologisch-historische Klasse (1987), 179–92 [no.8]
W. Frobenius: ‘Zum genetischen Verhältnis zwischen Notre-Dame-Klauseln und ihren Motetten’, AMw, xliv (1987), 1–39
R.A. Baltzer: ‘Another Look at a Composite Office and its History: the Feast of Susceptio reliquiarum in Medieval Paris’, JRMA, cxiii (1988), 1–27
F. Brusniak: ‘Zur Überlieferung des zweistimmigen Organums Crucifixum in carne im Antiphonale Hs. Domarchiv Erfurt Lit. 6a’, Augsburger Jb für Musikwissenschaft 1988, 7–19
M. Everist: French 13th-Century Polyphony in the British Library (London, 1988)
D.F. Scott: The Early Three- and Four-Voice-Monotextual Motets of the Notre Dame School (diss., UCLA, 1988)
M.L. Martínez-Göllner: ‘Mode and Change of Mode in the 13th-Century Motet’, AnM, lii (1997), 3–14
N.E. Smith: ‘The Parisian Sanctorale ca. 1225’, Capella antiqua München: Festschrift, ed. T. Drescher (Tutzing, 1988), 247–61
C. Page: The Owl and the Nightingale: Musical Life and Ideas in France 1100–1300 (London, 1989)
N.E. Smith: ‘The Earliest Motets: Music and Words’, JRMA, cxiv (1989), 141–63
C. Wright: Music and Ceremony at Notre Dame of Paris 500–1500 (Cambridge, 1989)
R.A. Baltzer: ‘How Long was Notre-Dame Organum Performed?’, Beyond the Moon: Festschrift Luther Dittmer, ed. B. Gillingham and P. Merkley (Ottawa, 1990), 118–43
R.A. Baltzer: ‘Aspects of Trope in the Earliest Motets for the Assumption of the Virgin’, CMc, nos.45–7 (1990) [Sanders Fs issue, ed. P.M. Lefferts and L.L. Perkins], 5–42
T.B. Payne: Poetry, Politics, and Polyphony: Philipp the Chancelor’s Contribution to the Music of the Notre Dame School (diss., U. of Chicago, 1991)
A. Traub: ‘Das Ereignis Notre Dame’, Die Musik des Mittelalters, ed. H. Möller and R. Stephan (Laaber, 1991), 239–71
W. Frobenius: ‘Die Motette’, ibid., 272–94
R.A. Baltzer: ‘The Geography of the Liturgy at Notre-Dame of Paris’, Plainsong in the Age of Polyphony, ed. T.F. Kelly (Cambridge, 1992), 45–64
K.-H. Schlager: ‘Panofsky and Perotin’, Festschrift Hubert Unverricht zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. K.-H. Schlager (Tutzing, 1992), 245–54
N.E. Smith: ‘An Early Thirteenth-Century Motet’, Models of Musical Analysis: Music Before 1600, ed. M. Everist (Oxford, 1992), 20–40
S.A. Kidwell: The Integration of Music and Text in the Early Latin Motet (diss., U. of Texas, 1993)
F. Körndle: Das zweistimmige Notre-Dame-Organum ‘Crucifixum in carne’ und sein Weiterleben in Erfurt (Tutzing, 1993)
M. Everist: French Motets in the Thirteenth Century: Music, Poetry and Genre (Cambridge, 1994)
W. Arlt: ‘Warum nur viermal? Zur historischen Stellung des Komponierens an der Pariser Notre Dame’, Festschrift für Ludwig Finscher, ed. A. Laubenthal and K. Kusan-Windweh (Kassel, 1995), 44–8
H. Schick: ‘Musik wird zum Kunstwerk – Leonin und die Organa des Vatikanischen Organumtraktats’, ibid., 34–43
This section presents literature concerning ‘peripheral’ sources of French music in the late 12th century and the 13th. It covers in particular the St Victor manuscript (see Sources, MS, §IV, 4) and the Beauvais manuscript (GB-Lbl 2615). See also Adam de la Bassée; Pierre de Corbeil; Versified Office.
C.-E.-H. de Coussemaker: ‘L’harmonie au moyen âge: “Orientis partibus”’, Annales archéologiques, xvi (1856), 300–04
H. Villetard, ed.: Office de Pierre de Corbeil (Office de la Circoncision) improprement appelé “Office des Fous”: texte et chant publiés d’après le manuscrit de Sens (XIIIe siècle) (Paris, 1907)
G. Beyssac: ‘L’Office de la Circoncision de Pierre de Corbeil’, Rassegna gregoriana, vii (1908), 305, 543–8
F. Ludwig: ‘Mehrstimmige Musik des 12. oder 13. Jahrhunderts im Schlettstädter St. Fides-Codex’, Festschrift Hermann Kretzschmar (Leipzig, 1918/R), 80–84
P. Wagner: ‘Ein versteckter Discantus’, Musikwissenschaftliche Beiträge: Festschrift für Johannes Wolf, ed. W. Lott, H. Osthoff and W. Wolffheim (Berlin, 1929/R), 785–802
P. Bayart, ed.: Adam de la Bassée (†1286): Ludus super Anticlaudianum (Tourcoing, 1930)
J. Handschin: ‘Gregorianisch-Polyphones aus der Handschrift Paris B.N. lat. 15129’, KJb, xxv (1930), 60–76
H. Greene: ‘The Song of the Ass Orientis partibus, with Special Reference to Egerton MS. 2615’, Speculum, vi (1931), 534–49
Y. Rokseth: ‘Le contrepoint double vers 1248’, Mélanges de musicologie offerts à M. Lionel de La Laurencie (Paris, 1933), 5–13
Y. Delaporte: ‘L’ordinaire chartrain du XIIIe siècle’, Mémoires de la Société archéologique d’Eure-et-Loir, xix (1952–3) [whole vol.]
L. Spiess: ‘Some Remarks on Notational Advances in the St. Victor Manuscript’, JAMS, vii (1954), 250–51
A. Seay: ‘Le manuscrit 695 de la Bibliothèque communale d’Assise’, RdM, xxxix/xl (1957), 10–35
A. Geering: ‘Retrospektive mehrstimmige Musik in französischen Handschriften des Mittelalters’, Miscelánea en homenaje a Monseñor Higinio Anglés (Barcelona, 1958–61), 307–11
D.G. Hughes: ‘Liturgical Polyphony at Beauvais in the Thirteenth-Century’, Speculum, xxxiv (1959), 184–200
E. Thurston, ed.: The Music in the St. Victor Manuscript, Paris lat. 15139: Polyphony of the Thirteenth Century (Toronto, 1959)
J. Smits van Waesberghe: ‘Singen und Dirigieren der mehrstimmigen Musik im Mittelalter: was Miniaturen uns hierüber lehren’, Mélanges offerts à René Crozet, ed. P. Gallais and Y.-J. Riou (Poitiers, 1966), 1345–54
E. Thurston: ‘A Comparison of the St. Victor Clausulae with their Motets’, Aspects of Medieval and Renaissance Music: a Birthday Offering to Gustave Reese, ed. J. LaRue and others (New York, 1966/R), 785–802
W. Arlt: Ein Festoffizium des Mittelalters aus Beauvais in seiner liturgischen und musikalischen Bedeutung (Cologne, 1970)
R. Falck: ‘New Light on the Polyphonic Conductus Repertory in the St. Victor Manuscript’, JAMS, xxiii (1970), 315–26
Andrew Hughes: ‘The Ludus super Anticlaudianum of Adam de la Bassée’, JAMS, xxiii (1970), 1–25
J. Stenzl: Die vierzig Clausulae der Handschrift Paris Bibliothèque nationale latin 15139 (Saint Victor-Clausulae), Publikationen der Schweizerischen Musikforschenden Gesellschaft, ii/22 (Berne, 1970)
H. Tischler: ‘A propos of a Newly Discovered Organum’, JAMS, xxviii (1975), 515–26
M.E. Fassler: ‘The Feast of Fool and Danielis ludus: Popular Tradition in a Medieval Cathedral Play’, Plainsong in the Age of Polyphony, ed. T.F. Kelly (Cambridge, 1992), 65–99
For further discussion of the sources see Sources, ms, §§IV, 2 and VI. Discussion of repertory, style and technique occurs under Cantilena (i), Gymel, Rondellus, Rota, Sumer is icumen in and Worcester polyphony, as well as under Organum and Discant. There are also articles on relevant chroniclers (e.g. Giraldus Cambrensis), theologians, composers, compilers and theorists.
HarrisonMMB
W.H. Frere, ed.: The Winchester Troper from MSS of the Xth and XIth Centuries with Other Documents Illustrating the History of Tropes in England and France (London, 1894/R)
H.E. Wooldridge and H.V. Hughes, ed.: Early English Harmony from the 10th to the 15th Century (London, 1897–1913/R)
J. Handschin: ‘Eine wenig beachtete Stilrichtung innerhalb der mittelalterlichen Mehrstimmigkeit’, Schweizerisches Jb für Musikwissenschaft, i (1924), 56–75
J. Handschin: ‘A Monument of English Mediaeval Polyphony: the Manuscript Wolfenbüttel 677 (Helmst. 628)’, MT, lxxiii (1932), 510–13; lxxiv (1933), 697–704
M. Bukofzer: ‘The Gymel, the Earliest Form of English Polyphony’, ML, xvi (1935), 77–84
M. Bukofzer: ‘The First Motet with English Words’, ML, xvii (1936), 93–105
J. Handschin: ‘The Two Winchester Tropers’, Journal of Theological Studies, xxxvii (1936), 34–49, 156–64
J. Beveridge: ‘Two Scottish Thirteenth-Century Songs’, ML, xx (1939), 352–64
M. Bukofzer: ‘Sumer is icumen in’: a Revision, University of California Publications in Music, ii/2 (Berkeley, 1944)
H. Tischler: ‘English Traits in the Early Thirteenth-Century Motet’, MQ, xxx (1944), 458–76
J. Handschin: ‘The Summer Canon and its Background’, MD, iii (1949), 55–94; v (1951), 65–113
L. Dittmer: ‘Binary Rhythm, Musical Theory, and the Worcester Fragments’, MD, vii (1953), 39–57
L. Dittmer: ‘An English Discantuum Volumen’, MD, viii (1954), 19–58
R. Greene: ‘Two Medieval Musical Manuscripts: Egerton 3307 and some University of Chicago Fragments’, JAMS, vii (1954), 1–34
L.A. Dittmer: ‘Beiträge zum Studium der Worcester-Fragmente: der Rondellus’, Mf, x (1957), 29–39
L. Dittmer: ‘The Dating and the Notation of the Worcester Fragments’, MD, xi (1957), 5–11
L. Dittmer: The Worcester Fragments: a Catalogue Raisonné and Transcription, MSD, ii (1957)
L.I. Hibberd: ‘Giraldus Cambrensis on Welsh Popular Singing’, Essays on Music in Honor of Archibald Thompson Davison (Cambridge, MA, 1957), 17–23
E. Apfel: Studien zur Satztechnik der mittelalterlichen englischen Musik (Heidelberg, 1959), no.5 [contains facs. and edns]
L. Dittmer, ed.: Worcester Add. 68, Westminster Abbey 33327, Madrid, Bibl. Nac. 192: Facsimile, Introduction, Index and Transcriptions, Publications of Mediaeval Musical Manuscripts, v (Brooklyn, NY, 1959)
F.Ll. Harrison: ‘Rota and Rondellus in English Medieval Music’, PRMA, lxxxvi (1959–60), 98–107
M.F. Bukofzer: ‘Popular and Secular Music in England (to c.1470)’, NOHM, iii (1960/R), 107–28
L. Dittmer, ed.: Oxford, Latin Liturgical D 20, London, Add. MS 25031, Chicago, MS 654 app.: Facsimile, Introduction, Index and Transcriptions, Publications of Mediaeval Musical Manuscripts, vi (Brooklyn, NY, 1960)
E. Apfel: ‘Über einige Zusammenhänge zwischen Text und Musik im Mittelalter, besonders in England’, AcM, xxxiii (1961), 47–54
Anselm Hughes: ‘The Topography of English Mediaeval Polyphony’, In memoriam Jacques Handschin, ed. H. Anglès and others (Strasbourg, 1962), 127–39
I.D. Bent: ‘The English Chapel Royal before 1300’, PRMA, xc (1963–4), 77–95
E.H. Sanders: Medieval English Polyphony and its Significance for the Continent (diss., Columbia U., 1963)
E.H. Sanders: ‘Peripheral Polyphony of the 13th Century’, JAMS, xvii (1964), 261–87
E.H. Sanders: ‘Tonal Aspects of Thirteenth-Century English Polyphony’, AcM, xxxvii (1965), 19–34
F.Ll. Harrison: ‘Polyphony in Medieval Ireland’, Festschrift Bruno Stäblein, ed. M. Ruhnke (Kassel, 1967), 74–8
A. Holschneider: Die Organa von Winchester: Studien zum ältesten Repertoire polyphoner Musik (Hildesheim, 1968) [facs. and study]
I.D. Bent: ‘A New Polyphonic “Verbum bonum et suave”’, ML, li (1970), 227–41
I.D. Bent: ‘A 12th-Century Extemporizing Technique’, MT, cxi (1970), 33–7
G. Reaney: ‘John Wylde and the Notre Dame Conductus’, Speculum musicae artis: Festgabe für Heinrich Husmann, ed. H. Becker and R. Gerlach (Munich, 1970), 263–70
D. Stevens: ‘Music in Honor of St. Thomas of Canterbury’, MQ, lvi (1970), 311–48
D. Stevens, ed.: Music in Honour of St. Thomas of Canterbury 1118–1170 (London, 1970)
T. Göllner, ed.: Die mehrstimmigen liturgischen Lesungen (Habilitationsschrift, U. of Munich, 1967; Tutzing, 1969)
G. Vecchi: ‘“Celum mercatur hodie”: motteto in onore di Thomas Becket da un codice bolognese’, Quadrivium, xii/1 (1971), 65–70
E.H. Sanders: ‘England: from the Beginning to c.1540’, Music from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, A History of Western Music, i, ed. F. Sternfeld (London, 1973), 255–313
R. Wibberley: English Polyphonic Music of the Late Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries: a Reconstruction, Transcription and Commentary (diss., U. of Oxford, 1976)
G. Chew: ‘A Magnus Liber Organi Fragment at Aberdeen’, JAMS, xxxi (1978), 326–43
C. Hohler: ‘Reflections on some Manuscripts Containing 13th Century Polyphony’, Journal of the Plainsong and Mediaeval Music Society, i (1978), 2–38
E.J. Dobson and F.Ll. Harrison, eds.: Medieval English Songs (London, 1979)
E.H. Sanders: English Music of the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries, PMFC, xiv (1979)
B. Cooper: ‘A Thirteenth-Century Canon Reconstructed’, MR, xlii (1981), 85–90
F.Ll. Harrison and R. Wibberley, eds.: Manuscripts of Fourteenth Century Polyphony: a Selection of Facsimiles, EECM, xxvi (1981)
P.M. Lefferts: ‘Two English Motets on Simon de Montfort’, EMH, i (1981), 203–25
P.M. Lefferts and M. Bent: ‘New Sources of English Thirteenth- and Fourteenth-Century Polyphony’, EMH, ii (1982), 273–362
G.A. Anderson: ‘New Sources of Medieval Music’, Musicology, vii (1982), 1–26
R.M. Thomson: ‘England and the Twelfth-Century Renaissance’, Past and Present, ci (1983), 3–21
P.M. Lefferts: ‘Text and Context in the Fourteenth-Century English Motet’, L’Europa e la musica del Trecento: Congresso VI: Certaldo 1984 [L’Ars Nova italiana del Trecento, vi (Certaldo, 1992)], 169–92
B. Gillingham, ed.: Medieval Polyphonic Sequences: an Anthology (Ottawa, 1985)
M. Everist, ed.: Five Anglo-Norman Motets (Newton Abbot, 1986)
P.M. Lefferts: The Motet in England in the Fourteenth Century (Ann Arbor, 1986)
E.H. Sanders, F.Ll. Harrison and P.M. Lefferts, eds.: English Music for Mass and Offices (II) and Music for other Ceremonies, PMFC, xvii (1986)
R. Baltzer: ‘Notre Dame Manuscripts and their Owners: Lost and Found’, JM, v (1987), 380–99
B. Gillingham: ‘Lambeth Palace 457: a Reassessment’, ML, lxviii (1987), 213–21
A. Wathey: ‘Lost Books of Polyphony in England: a List to 1500’, RMARC, no.21 (1988), 1–19
O.E. Malyshko: The English Conductus Repertory: a Study of Style (diss., New York U., 1989)
B. Gillingham, ed.: Cambridge, University Library, Ff.i.17(1) (Ottawa, 1989)
R. Crocker: ‘Polyphony in England in the Thirteenth Century’, The Early Middle Ages to 1300, NOHM, ii (2/1990), 679–720
P.M. Lefferts: ‘Cantilena and Antiphon; Music for Marian Services in Late Medieval England’, CMc, nos.45–7 (1990), 247–82 [Sanders Fs issue, ed. P.M. Lefferts and L.L. Perkins]
F. Büttner: Klang und Konstruktion in der englischen Mehrstimmigkeit des 13. Jahrhunderts: ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Stimmtauschkomposition in den Worcester-Fragmenten (Tutzing, 1990)
M. Everist: ‘From Paris to St Andrews: the Origins of W1’, JAMS, xliii (1990), 1–42
J. Caldwell: The Oxford History of English Music, i, From the Beginnings to c.1715 (Oxford, 1991)
P.M. Lefferts: ‘Medieval England, 950–1450’, Man & Music/Music and Society, i: Antiquity and the Middle Ages: from Ancient Greece to the 15th Century, ed. J. McKinnon (London, 1990), 170–96
M. Everist: ‘Anglo-French Interaction in Music, c1170– c1300’, RBM, xlvi (1992), 5–22
G. Di Bacco and J. Nádas: ‘The Papal Chapels and Italian Sources of Polyphony during the Great Schism’, Papal Music and Musicians in Late Medieval and Renaissance Rome: Washington DC 1993, 44–92
S. Roper: Medieval English Benedictine Liturgy: Studies in the Formation, Structure, and Content of the Monastic Votive Office, c.950–1540 (New York, 1993)
A. Wathey, ed.: Manuscripts of Polyphonic Music: the British Isles, 1100–1400 (Munich, 1993) [suppl. 1 to RISM, B/IV/1–2]
S. Rankin: ‘Winchester Polyphony: the Early Theory and Practice of Organum’, Music in the Medieval English Liturgy: Plainsong & Mediaeval Music Society Centennial Essays, ed. S. Rankin and D. Hiley (Oxford, 1993), 59–100
W. Arlt: ‘Stylistic Layers in Eleventh-Century Polyphony: how can the Continental Sources Contribute to our Understanding of the Winchester Organa?’, ibid., 101–44
N. Losseff: The Best Concords: Polyphonic Music in Thirteenth-Century England (New York, 1994)
M. Staehlin, ed.: Die mittelalterliche Musik-Handschrift W1: vollständige Reproduktion des “Notre Dame”-Manuskripts der Herzig August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel Cod. Guelf. 628 Helmst (Wiesbaden, 1995)
C. Page: ‘Marian Texts and Themes in an English Manuscript: a Miscellany in Two Parts’, PMM, v (1996), 23–44
P.E. Szarmach, M.T. Tavormina, J.T. Rosenthal, eds.: Medieval England: an Encyclopedia (New York, 1998)
W.J. Summers and P.M. Lefferts, eds.: English Thirteenth-Century Polyphony: a Facsimile Edition of the Manuscript Sources (forthcoming)
S.B. Meech: ‘Three Musical Treatises in English from a Fifteenth-Century Manuscript’, Speculum, x (1935), 235–69
M.F. Bukofzer: Geschichte des englischen Diskants und des Fauxbourdons nach den theoretischen Quellen (Strasbourg, 1936/R)
T. Georgiades: Englische Diskanttraktate aus der ersten Hälfte des 15. Jahrhunderts (Munich, 1937)
S.W. Kenney: ‘“English Discant” and Discant in England’, MQ, xlv (1959), 26–48
S.W. Kenney: ‘The Theory of Discant’, Walter Frye and the ‘Contenance Angloise’ (New Haven, CT, 1964/R), 91–122
E.H. Sanders: ‘Cantilena and Discant in 14th-Century England’, MD, xix (1965), 7–52
Andrew Hughes: ‘Mensural Polyphony for Choir in 15th-Century England’, JAMS, xix (1966), 352–69
Andrew Hughes: ‘The Old Hall Manuscript: a Re-appraisal’, MD, xxi (1967), 97–129
A.B. Scott: ‘The Performance of the Old Hall Discant Settings’, MQ, lvi (1970), 14–26
H. Anglès: ‘Die mehrstimmige Musik in Spanien vor dem 15. Jahrhundert’, Beethoven-Zentenarfeier: Vienna 1927, 158–63
H. Anglès: El Còdex musical de Las Huelgas (música a veus dels segles XIII–XIV), PBC, vi (1931) [facs., edn, commentary]
H. Anglès: La música a Catalunya fins al segle XIII, PBC, x (1935/R)
H. Anglès: ‘Hispanic Musical Culture from the 6th to the 14th Century’, MQ, xxvi (1940), 494–528
S. Corbin: Essai sur la musique religieuse portugaise au Moyen Âge (1100–1385) (Paris, 1952)
K. von Fischer: ‘Ein singulärer Typus portugiesischer Passionen des 16. Jahrhunderts’, AMw, xix–xx (1962–3), 180–85
R. Baralli: ‘Un frammento inedito di “Discantus”’, Rassegna gregoriana, x (1911), 151–2; xi (1912), 5–10
E. Ferand: ‘The “Howling in Seconds” of the Lombards: a Contribution to the Early History of Polyphony’, MQ, xxv (1939), 313–24
J. Handschin: ‘Aus der alten Musiktheorie, III: Zur ambrosianischen Mehrstimmigkeit’, AcM, xv (1943), 2–15
G. Vecchi: ‘Innodia e dramma sacro, II: Una prosa-conductus dei processionali de Cividale’, Studi mediolatini e volgari, i (1953), 231–7
H. Anglès: ‘La musica sacra medioevale in Sicilia’, Musiche populari mediterranee; Convegno dei bibliotecari musicali: Palermo 1954, 205–14
G. Vecchi, ed.: Uffici drammatici padovani (Florence, 1954)
G. Vecchi: ‘Tra monodia e polifonia: appunti da servire alla storia della melica sacra in Italia nel secolo XIII e al principio del XIV’, CHM, ii (1956–7), 447–64
K. von Fischer: ‘Die Rolle der Mehrstimmigkeit am Dome von Siena zu Beginn des 13. Jahrhunderts’, AMw, xviii (1961), 167–82
K. von Fischer: ‘Das Kantorenamt am Dome von Siena zu Beginn des 13. Jahrhunderts’, Festschrift Karl Gustav Fellerer zum sechzigsten Geburtstag, ed. H. Hüschen (Regensburg, 1962), 155–60
L. Schrade: ‘Ein neuer Fund früher Mehrstimmigkeit’, AMw, xix–xx (1962–3), 238–56
M.L. Martinez: Die Musik des frühen Trecento (Tutzing, 1963)
B. Stäblein: ‘Zur archaischen ambrosianischen (Mailänder) Mehrstimmigkeit’, A Ettore Desderi (Bologna, 1963), 169–74
G. Massera: ‘De alcuni canti sacri a due voci nei corali del Duomo di Parma’, Aurea Parma, xlviii (1964), 79–97
G. Massera: ‘Sempre a proposito de alcune musiche polifoniche nei libri liturgici del Duomo di Parma’, Aurea Parma, xlviii (1964), 260–5
F.Ll. Harrison: ‘Benedicamus, Conductus, Carol: a Newly-Discovered Source’, AcM, xxxvii (1965), 35–48
P. Petrobelli: ‘Nuovo materiale polifonico del Medioevo e del Rinascimento a Cividale’, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi, xlvi (1965), 213–15
F.A. Gallo: ‘“Cantus planus binatim”: polifonia primitiva in fonti tardive’, Quadrivium, vii (1966), 79–89
K. Ricciarelli and P. Ernetti: ‘Il Discanto Aquileies’, Jucunda laudatio, iv (1966), 238
R. Strohm: ‘Neue Quellen zur liturgischen Mehrstimmigkeit des Mittelalters in Italien’, RIM, i (1966), 77–87
F.A. Gallo: ‘Esempi dell’ organum dei Lumbardi nel XII secolo’, Quadrivium, viii (1967), 23–6
R. Strohm: ‘Ein Zeugnis früher Mehrstimmigkeit in Italien’, Festschrift Bruno Stäblein, ed. M. Ruhnke (Kassel, 1967), 239–49
F.A. Gallo and G. Vecchi: I più antichi monumenti sacri italiani, MLMI, iii/1 (1968)
N. Pirrotta: ‘Church Polyphony Apropos of a New Fragment at Foligno’, Studies in Music History: Essays for Oliver Strunk, ed. H. Powers (Princeton, NJ, 1968), 113–26
O. Strunk: ‘Church Polyphony Apropos of a New Fragment at Grottaferrata’, L’Ars Nova italiana del Trecento: Convegno II: Certaldo and Florence 1969 [L’Ars Nova italiana del Trecento, iii (Certaldo, 1970)], 305–14; repr. in O. Strunk: Essays on Music in the Western World (New York, 1974), 44–54
G. Vecchi: ‘Teoresi e prassi del canto a due voci in Italia nel Duecento e nel primo Trecento’, L'Ars Nova italiana del Trecento: Convegno II: Certaldo and Florence 1969 L’Ars Nova italiana del Trecento, iii (Certaldo, 1970)], 203–14
G. Cattin, O. Mischiati and A. Ziino: ‘Composizioni polifoniche del primo Quattrocento nei libri corali di Guardiagrele’, RIM, vii (1972), 153–81
K. Levy: ‘Italian Duecento Polyphony: Observations on an Umbrian Fragment’, RIM, x (1975), 10–19
A. Ziino: ‘Polifonia nella cattedrale di Lucca durante il XIII secolo’, AcM, xlvii (1975), 16–30
F.A. Gallo: ‘The Practice of Cantus planus binatim in Italy from the Beginning of the 14th to the Beginning of the 16th Century’, Le Polifonie Primitive di Cividale: Cividale del Friuli 1980, 13–30
H. Müller: Eine Abhandlung über Mensuralmusik in der Karlsruher Handschrift St. Peter pergamen (Karlsruhe, 1886)
P. Wagner: ‘Das Dreikönigsspiel zu Freiburg in der Schweiz’, Freiburger Geschichtsblatter, x (1903), 77–101
F. Ludwig: ‘Die mehrstimmigen Werke der Handschrift Engelberg 314’, KJb, xxi (1908), 48–61
H. Zingerle: Die ein- und zweistimmigen Kirchengesänge des Codex 457 der Universitätsbibliothek Innsbruck aus der Karthause Schnals (diss., U. of Innsbruck, 1925)
J. Wolf: ‘Eine neue Quelle zur mehrstimmigen kirchlichen Praxis des 14. bis 15. Jahrhunderts’, Festschrift Peter Wagner, ed. K. Weinmann (Leipzig, 1926/R), 222–37
J. Handschin: ‘Angelomontana polyphonica’, Schweizerisches Jb für Musikwissenschaft, iii (1928), 64–96
H. Funck: ‘Die mehrstimmigen Kompositionen in Cod. Zwickau 119’, ZMw, xiii (1930–31), 558–63
H.J. Moser: Die mehrstimmige Vertonung des Evangeliums, i (Leipzig, 1931/R)
K.A. Rosenthal: ‘Einige unbekannte Motetten älteren Stils aus Handschriften der Nationalbibliothek, Wien’, AcM, vi (1934), 8–14
J. Handschin: ‘Peripheres’, Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen musikforschenden Gesellschaft, ii (1935), 24–32
J. Wolf: ‘Eine deutsche Quelle geistlicher Musik aus dem Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts’, JbMP 1936, 30–48
H. Federhofer: ‘Archaistische Mehrstimmigkeit im Spätmittelalter’, SMz, lxxxviii (1948), 416
H. Federhofer: ‘Eine neue Quelle zur Organumpraxis des späten Mittelalters’, AcM, xx (1948), 21–5
H. Federhofer: ‘Ein Beispiel spätmittelalterlicher Organumspraxis in Vorau, Codex 22’, Aus Archiv und Chronik, iii (1950), 57
R. Stephan: ‘Einige Hinweise auf die Pflege der Mehrstimmigkeit im frühen Mittelalter in Deutschland’, GfMKB: Lüneburg 1950, 68–70
A. Geering: Die Organa und mehrstimmigen Conductus in den Handschriften des deutschen Sprachgebietes vom 13. bis 16. Jahrhundert (Berne, 1952)
R. Ewerhart: Die Handschrift 322/1994 der Stadtbibliothek Trier als musikalische Quelle (Cologne, 1955)
H. Federhofer and R. Federhofer-Königs: ‘Mehrstimmigkeit in dem Augustiner-Chorherrenstift Seckau (Steiermark)’, KJb, xlii (1958), 98–108
W. Irtenkauf: ‘Ein neuer Fund zur liturgischen Ein- und Mehrstimmigkeit des 15. Jahrhunderts’, Mf, xii (1959), 4–12
T. Göllner: Formen früher Mehrstimmigkeit in deutschen Handschriften des späten Mittelalters (Tutzing, 1961)
J. Smits van Waesberghe: ‘Das Weihnachtslied In dulci iubilo und seine ursprüngliche Melodie’, Festschrift Helmuth Osthoff, ed. L. Hoffmann-Erbrecht and H. Hucke (Tutzing, 1961), 27–37
G.P. Köllner: ‘Eine Mainzer Choralhandschrift des 15. Jahrhunderts als Quelle zum “Crucifixum in carne”’, AMw, xix–xx (1962–3), 208–12
J. Valkestijn: ‘Organa-handschriften uit de XVIe eeuw in Nederlands bibliotheken’, Gregoriusblad, lxxxv (1964), 185–9, 267–70; lxxxvi (1965), 80–85, 259–65; xc (1966), 218–26, 288–93, 447–53
J. Smits van Waesberghe: ‘Die Handschrift Utrecht NIKK B 113’, KJb, l (1966), 45–74
J. Stenzl: ‘Das Dreikönigsfest in der Genfer Kathedrale Saint-Pierre’, AMw, xxv (1968), 118–33
K. von Fischer: ‘Neue Quellen mehrstimmiger Musik des 15. Jahrhunderts aus schweizerischen Klöstern’, Renaissance-muziek 1400–1600: donum natalicium René Bernard Lenaerts, ed. J. Robijns and others (Leuven, 1969), 293–301
T. Göllner: Die mehrstimmigen liturgischen Lesungen (Tutzing, 1969)
C. Allworth: ‘The Medieval Processional: Donaueschingen MS 882’, Ephemerides liturgicae, lxxxiv (1970), 169–86
W. Dömling: ‘Überlieferung eines Notre-Dame-Conductus in mensurierter Notation’, Mf, xxiii (1970), 429–31
J. Stenzl: ‘Eine unbekannte Sanctus-Motette vom Ende des 13. Jahrhunderts’, AcM, xlii (1970), 128–38
T. Göllner: ‘The Three-Part Gospel Reading and the Medieval Magi Play’, JAMS, xxiv (1971), 51–62
W. Dömling, ed.: Die Handschrift London, British Museum, Add. 27 630 (LoD), EDM, 1st ser., lii–liii (1972)
T. Göllner: ‘Frühe Mehrstimmigkeit im liturgischen Gesang und Orgelspiel’, Musik in Bayern, i: Bayerische Musikgeschichte, ed. R. Münster and H. Schmid (Tutzing, 1972), 97–105
J. Stenzl: Repertorium der liturgischen Musikhandschriften der Diözesen Sitten, Lausanne und Genf, i: Diözese Sitten (Fribourg, 1972)
R. Flotzinger: ‘Non-Mensural Sacred Polyphony (Discantus) in Medieval Austria’, Le polifonie primitive in Friuli e in Europa: Cividale del Friuli 1980, 43–61
A. Hammerich: ‘Studien über isländische Musik’, SIMG, i (1899–1900), 341–71
C.-A. Moberg: ‘Om flerstämmig musik i Sverige under medeltiden’, STMf, x (1928), 5–92
E. von Hornbostel: ‘Phonographierte isländische Zwiegesänge’, Deutsche Islandforschung, i, ed. W.H. Vogt (Breslau, 1930), 300–20
J. Handschin: ‘Das älteste Dokument für die Pflege der Mehrstimmigkeit in Dänemark’, AcM, vii (1935), 67–9
H. Helgason: ‘Das Bauernorganum auf Island’, IMSCRVII: Cologne 1958, 132
N.L. Wallin: ‘Hymnus in honorem Sancti Magni comitis Orchadiae: Codex Upsaliensis C 233’, STMf, xliii (1961), 339–54
I. Milveden: ‘Die schriftliche Fixierung eines Quintenorganum in einem Antiphonar-Fragment der Diözese Åbo’, STMf, xliv (1962), 63–5
I. Milveden: ‘Organum’, Kulturhistorisk leksikon for nordisk middelalder fra vikingetid til reformationstid, ed. J. Danstrup (Copenhagen, 1956–78)
N. Schiørring: ‘Flerstemmighed i dansk middelalder’, Festskrift Jens Peter Larsen, ed. N. Schiørring, H. Glahn and C.E. Hatting (Copenhagen, 1972), 11–27
J. Bergsagel: ‘The Transmission of Notre Dame Organa in Some Newly-Discovered Magnus Liber Fragments in Copenhagen’, IMSCR: Bologna 1987, 629–36
D. Orel: ‘Počátky umělého vícehlasu v Čechách’ [Beginnings of art polyphony in Bohemia], Sborník filozofická fakulta univerzity Komenského v Bratislava, viii (1922), 143
M. Szczepańska: ‘Do historii muzyki wielogłosowej w Polsce z końca XV wieku’ [History of polyphonic music in Poland from the end of the 15th century], KM, no.8 (1930), 275–306
F. Feldmann: ‘Ein Quintenorganum aus einer Breslauer Handschrift des frühen 16. Jahrhunderts’, KJb, xxvii (1932), 75–83
V. Belyayev: ‘The Folk-Music of Georgia’, MQ, xix (1933), 417–33
H.A. Sander: ‘Organa und Konduktus in spätmittelalterlichen schlesischen Handschriften’, Mitteilungen der Schlesischen Gesellschaft für Volkskunde, xxxv (1935), 218–30
J. Vanický: Umění vokální polyfonie: selectio artis musicae polyphonicae a XII.–XVI. saec. [The art of vocal polyphony] (Prague, 1955)
V. Belyayev: ‘Early Russian Polyphony/Ranneye russkoye mnogogolosie’, Studia memoriae Belae Bartók sacra, ed. B. Rajeczky and L. Vargyas (Budapest, 1956), 307–36; Eng. edn (London, 1959), 311–29
A. Sutkowski: ‘Nieznane zabytki muzyki wielogłosowej z polskich rękopisów chorałowych XIII i XIV wieku’ [Unknown polyphonic music surviving in Polish choral manuscripts of the 13th and 14th centuries], Muzyka, iii/3 (1958), 28–36
A. Sutkowski: ‘“Surrexit Christus hodie”, najdawniejszy w Polsce zabytek muzyki wielogłosowej’ [‘Surrexit Christus hodie’: the earliest example of polyphony in Poland], Muzyka, iv/2 (1959), 3–11
L. Mokrý: ‘Zu den Anfängen der Mehrstimmigkeit bei den Westslawen’, The Works of Frederick Chopin: Warsaw 1960, 567–71
B. Rajeczky: ‘Spätmittelalterliche Organalkunst in Ungarn’, SMH, i (1961), 15–28
A. Sutkowski: ‘Początki polifonii średniowiecznej w Polsce w świetle nowych źródeł’ [The beginnings of medieval polyphony in Poland in the light of new sources], Muzyka, vi/1 (1961), 3–22
D. Plamenac: ‘Music Libraries in Eastern Europe’, Notes, xix (1961–2), 217–34, 411–20, 584–98
K. Szigeti: ‘Mehrstimmige Gesänge aus dem 15. Jahrhundert im Antiphonale des Oswald Thuz’, SMH, vi (1964), 107–17
T. Göllner: ‘Eine mehrstimmige tropierte Weihnachtslektion in Polen’, AcM, xxxvii (1965), 165–78
H. Feicht, ed.: Muzyka staropolska [Early Polish music] (Kraków, 1966)
K. von Fischer: ‘Organal and Chordal Style in Renaissance Sacred Music: New and Little-Known Sources’, Aspects of Medieval and Renaissance Music: a Birthday Offering to Gustave Reese, ed. J. LaRue and others (New York, 1966/R), 173–82
B. Rajeczky: ‘Mittelalterliche Mehrstimmigkeit in Ungarn’, Musica antiqua Europae orientalis: Bydgoszcz and Toruń 1966, 223–36
J. Vanický: ‘Czech Mediaeval and Renaissance Music’, ibid., 69–79
N. Kaufmann: ‘Die Mehrstimmigkeit in der Liedfolklore der Balkanländer’, BMw, ix (1967), 3–21
K. Wilkowska-Chomińska: ‘Znaczenie radzieckich badań folklorystycznych dla problematyki genetycznej wschodnioeuropejskiej polifonii’ [The significance of Soviet ethnomusicological research into the problem of the origins of east European polyphony], Muzyka, xii/3 (1967), 60–70
K. von Fischer: ‘Elementi arsnovistici nella musica boema antica’, L’Ars Nova italiana del Trecento: convegni di studio 1961–1967, ed. F.A. Gallo (Certaldo, 1968), 77–84
B. Rajeczky: ‘Többszólamuség a középkori Magyarországon’ [Polyphony in medieval Hungary], Írások Erkel Ferencről és a magyar zene korábbi századairól, ed. F. Bónis (Budapest, 1968), 125–36
K. von Fischer: ‘Repertorium der Quellen tschechischer Mehrstimmigkeit des 14. bis 16. Jahrhunderts’, Essays in Musicology in Honor of Dragan Plamenac, ed. G. Reese and R.J. Snow (Pittsburgh, 1969/R), 49–60
J. Höfler: ‘Primer primitivnega srednjeveškega večglasja iz Kranja’ [An example of medieval polyphony in Kranji], MZ, v (1969), 5–9
A. McCredie: ‘New Perspectives in European Music Historiography: a Bibliographical Survey of Current Research in Medieval and Renaissance Slavic and Byzantine Sources’, MMA, iv (1969), 22–127
R. Rybarič: ‘“Primitívna” polyfónia a gregoriánsky chorál’ [‘Primitive’ polyphony and Gregorian chant], Musicologica slovaca, i (1969), 283–96
J. Cerný: ‘Die Ars nova-Musik in Böhmem’, MMC, nos.21–3 (1970), 47–106
M. Perz: ‘Ze studiów w bibliotekach i archiwach włoskich’ [From studies in Italian libraries and archives], Muzyka, xv/2 (1970), 93–105
M. Perz: ‘Organalne Sanctus-Agnus z zaginionego rękopisu Lat. Q.I.201’ [Sanctus-Agnus in organum from the lost manuscript Lat. Q.I.201], Muzyka, xv/3 (1970), 20–34
J. Černý: K nejstaršim dějinám moteta v českých zemích [The earliest history of the motet in Bohemia], MMC, no.24 (1971), 7–90
M. Perz: ‘A jednak Notre Dame?’ [Notre Dame after all?], Ruch muzyczny, xv/17 (1971), 6–7
M. Perz: ‘Starosądecki urywek motetów średniowiecznych w Bibliotece Uniwersyteckiej w Poznaniu’ [Early legal fragments containing medieval motets in the University Library, Poznań], Muzyka, xvi/1 (1971), 77–82
M. Perz: ‘Quattro esempi sconosciuti del “cantus planus binatim” in Polonia’, Quadrivium, xii/1 (1971), 93–117
B. Bujić: ‘Jedan rondel iz Dalmacije’ [A rondellus from Dalmatia], Arti musices, iii (1972), 107–17
B. Rajeczky: ‘Ein neuer Fund zur mehrstimmigen Praxis Ungarns im 15. Jahrhundert’, SMH, xiv (1972), 147–68
M. Perz: ‘Organum, Conductus und mittelalterliche Motette in Polen: Quellen und Probleme’, IMSCR XI: Copenhagen 1972, 593–6
M. Perz, ed.: Sources of Polyphony up to c.1500: Facsimiles, AMP, xiii (1973)
M. Perz: ‘Organum, conductus i średniowieczny motet w Polsce: źródła i problemy’ [Organum, conductus and medieval motet in Poland: sources and problems], Muzyka, xviii/4 (1973), 3–11
G.F. Messner: Die Schwebungsdiafonie in Bistrica (Tutzing, 1980)
A. Elschekova: ‘Vergleichende typologische Analysen der vokalen Mehrstimmigkeit in den Karpaten und auf dem Balken’, Stratigraphische Probleme der Volksmusik in den Karpaten und auf dem Balkan (Bratislava, 1981), 159–256
R. Flotzinger: ‘Mittelalterliche Mehrstimmigkeit in Dalmatien, im übrigen Kroatien und in Slowenien’, IMSCR: Madrid 1992, 29–49
This section cannot by its nature be comprehensive. See also Polyphony; Minstrel; and articles on individual countries.
M.F. Bukofzer: ‘Popular Polyphony in the Middle Ages’, MQ, xxvi (1940), 31–49
M. Schneider: ‘Kaukasische Parallelen zur mittelalterlichen Mehrstimmigkeit’, AcM, xii (1940), 52–62
M. Schneider: ‘Ist die vokale Mehrstimmigkeit eine Schöpfung der Altrassen?’, AcM, xxiii (1951), 40–50
W. Bachmann: ‘Die Verbreitung des Quintierens im europäischen Volksgesang des späten Mittelalters’, Festschrift Max Schneider zum achtzigsten Geburtstage, ed. W. Vetter (Leipzig, 1955), 25–9
H. Hickmann: Musicologie pharaonique (Kehl, 1956), 97
W. Salmen: ‘Bemerkungen zum mehrstimmigen Musizieren der Spielleute im Mittelalter’, RBM, xi (1957), 17–26
P. Collaer: ‘Polyphonies de tradition populaire en Europe méditerranéenne’, AcM, xxxii (1960), 51–66
C. Sachs: ‘Primitive and Medieval Music: a Parallel’, JAMS, xiii (1960), 43–9
M. Ravina: Organum and the Samaritans (Tel-Aviv, 1963; Hebrew orig, Tel-Aviv, 1966)
H. Husmann: ‘The Practice of Organum in the Liturgical Singing of the Syrian Churches of the Near and Middle East’, Aspects of Medieval and Renaissance Music: a Birthday Offering to Gustave Reese, ed. J. LaRue and others (New York, 1966/R), 435–9
A. Ringer: ‘Eastern Elements in Medieval Polyphony’, Studies in Medieval Culture, no.2 (1966), 75–83
E. Apfel: ‘Volkskunst und Hochkunst in der Musik des Mittelalters’, AMw, xxv (1968), 81–95
E. Gerson-Kiwi: ‘Vocal Folk-Polyphonies of the Western Orient in Jewish Tradition’, Yuval, i (1968), 169–93
H. Helgason: ‘Das Organumsingen auf Island’, BMw, xiv (1972), 221–3
C. Corsi and P. Petrobelli, eds.: Le polifonie primitive in Friuli e in Europa: Cividale del Friuli 1980
A.V. Konotop: ‘Volïnka v khrame ili zagadka znaka “3”’ [The bagpipe in church or the mystery of the sign ‘3’], Rossiyskaya muzïkal'naya gazeta, xi (1989), 6
R. Flotzinger: ‘Was heisst hier “frühe Mehrstimmigkeit”?’, Ethnomusikologie und historische Musikwissenschaft: gemeinsame Ziele, gleiche Methoden? : Erich Stockmann zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. C.-H. Mahling and S. Münch (Tutzing, 1997), 188–96
R.M. Brandl: ‘Die Schwebungsdiafonie in Epiros und verwandte Stile im Lichte der Psychoakustik’, Von der Vielfalt musikalischer Kultur: Festschrift für Josef Kuckertz, ed. R. Schumacher (Salzburg, 1992), 43–80