While contrafactum technique is common throughout Medieval and Renaissance music, there are several contrafacta resettings that are confined within the general circle of Notre Dame practice. Two motets, Ovibus pastoris Mens seduli/(Pro ovibus) and Mes cuers est emprisones/Et pro suo, have tenors set to the same text, yet the music for each tenor comes from a different chant. This relationship between tenors has not been observed before among Notre Dame motets. The identification of these tenors means that all motets in the Madrid manuscript have known tenors.

Works: Anonymous: Ovibus pastoris Mens seduli/(Pro ovibus) (399-401), Mes cuers est emprisones/Et pro suo (406-9).

Sources: Anonymous: Alleluia: Eripe me (408-409), Et pro suo grege (409).

Index Classifications: Polyphony to 1300

Contributed by: Elizabeth Stoner

Despite Ciconia’s notable break from the fourteenth-century cantus firmus tradition, the question of borrowing from a liturgical source looms over the tenor of his isorhythmic motet Petrum Marcello venetum/O Petre antistes. Four of Ciconia’s ten surviving motets are isorhythmic and are particularly notable for their tenors. Instead of borrowing them from liturgical sources, Ciconia’s tenors are newly composed, making Ciconia one of the first to compose isorhythmic motets without liturgical cantus firmi. However, a comparison of cadential intervals above the finals shows Petrum Marcello venetum/O Petre antistes to be an exception to Ciconia’s usual compositional practice. Given that the motet tenor cadences on the third, a chant—possibly Oremus pro antistite—is a likely model for the tenor.

Works: Johannes Ciconia: Petrum Marcello venetum/O Petre antistes (12-15).

Sources: Gregorian Chant: Oremus pro antistite (14-15).

Index Classifications: 1300s

Contributed by: Elizabeth Stoner

Comparing twenty thousand variants from three thousand chants helps to determine what components of chants change during their transmission, providing a starting point for comparisons when tracking the relationship of settings and liturgical practices between institutions, or the variants of a single tune over time, as well as other possible applications. The majority of the sources analyzed are Hungarian. Fields of comparison are text-melody combinations, antiphons with modal ambiguity, text variants, and variants of single notes. Many variants, modally ambiguous antiphons in particular, appear to be interpretations of older monophonic styles that are governed by stylistic coordination. This suggests a culture of musical borrowing between liturgical institutions during the period.

Index Classifications: General, Monophony to 1300

Contributed by: Elizabeth Stoner

Philip the Chancellor composed two Latin songs, Nitimur in vetitum and Pater sancte, dictus Lotharius using music from two vernacular songs. An analysis of musical borrowing between the songs reveals two French-Latin groups; these are Complex I, Nitimur in vetitum and Quant li rossignols iolis; and Complex II, Pater sancte, dictus Lotharius and Brulé’s trouvère song Douce dame, gres et graces vous rent. While there are no textual connections between the two complexes, and at first glance any relationship seems remote, a musical analysis reveals subtle musical relationships between the four songs. The term “contrafactum” does not convey the nature of musical borrowing between the four songs, because Philip the Chancellor does not substitute one text for another over the same melody. “Parody” is a more appropriate term for Philip’s compositional technique. However, the motivation for composing parodies of his own songs is not clear from this musical analysis. Conscious parody, occasional resemblance, or common practice melodic formulae and formal principles are all possible explanations for the musical similarities between the four songs.

Works: Philip the Chancellor: Nitimur in vetitum (92-97), Pater sancte, dictus Lotharius (95).

Sources: Anonymous: Quant li rossignols iolis (85-86, 90-92); Gace Brulé: Douce dame, gres et graces vous rent (85-92).

Index Classifications: Monophony to 1300

Contributed by: Elizabeth Stoner

According to Anonymous IV, Pérotin made revisions to Léonin’s Magnus liber organi. The extent of these revisions is apparent in the two-part organa in three manuscripts, W₁, F, and W₂. The pieces contained in all three sources are generally considered to form the body of the original Magnus liber organi. However, while all three have many pieces in common, each also contains clausulae not found in the others. This conflicts with Anonymous IV’s account that Pérotin abbreviated Léonin’s Magnus liber organi. Thus, all of these manuscripts represent enlarged forms of the Magnus liber organi, and also show different stylistic developments, particularly in the clausulae. Additionally, the total body of new organa nearly doubles the size of the collection’s original form. The additions to the Magnus liber organi show the extent of the technique of “Tenortausch,” the replacement of tenor melismas with melismas of other, related tenors contained within the same manuscript. This technique is evident in a large selection of pieces, primarily the Alleluia settings.

Index Classifications: Polyphony to 1300

Contributed by: Elizabeth Stoner

The discovery of the entire textual repertory of Jerusalem chant means that the history of this chant tradition can be traced from its origins in the fourth century to its decline in the twelfth. Testimonies of the tradition from Jerusalem survive in Greek texts which were translated into Georgian when the church of Georgia adopted the rite of Jerusalem as its own. Critical editions of these translations, made from tenth-century manuscripts, have recently been published. These translations show that the Jerusalem chant repertory had a significant influence on later medieval chant repertories in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Latin. Furthermore, when texts from the original Jerusalem tradition are borrowed by other traditions, they tend to be set to melodies that are consistent with the modal assignments and neumes of the Georgian sources. This suggests that the features these melodies share do go back in some way to the lost melodies that were once sung in Jerusalem itself.

Index Classifications: Monophony to 1300

Contributed by: Elizabeth Stoner

Chant texts used in Jerusalem from the fourth and fifth centuries onward imported into or shared with other Eastern and Western chant traditions, where medieval adaptations of the melodies survive. The medieval melodies associated with each text have many melodic and modal similarities, despite the wide chronological and geographic dispersal of the chant traditions that preserve them. These similarities are best seen as survivals of the lost Jerusalem melody, particularly because they are consistent with the mode(s) indicated in Jerusalem textual sources. Regardless of shared traits between many chant traditions that may point to a common Jerusalem chant element, each melodic survival reflects a later tradition in accordance with modal and formulaic preferences. The differences between Byzantine, Gregorian, Old Roman, Ambrosian, and Mozarabic melodies reflect extensive reworking and development, but they do not completely obscure essential melodic similarities common across traditions. These similarities are consistent with the modal assignments of now-lost Jerusalem melodies which are preserved in Gregorian and Greek sources. Graduals of the Roman mass and prokeimena of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy are particularly fruitful subjects for study based on the age of their texts and the apparent similarities of their melodies, suggesting a common ancestry in the ancient Jerusalem chant repertoire.

Works: Benedictus qui venit (160-72); Justus ut palma (173-85).

Index Classifications: Monophony to 1300

Contributed by: Elizabeth Stoner

Two Roman communions were transmitted directly from Rome to other major centers in medieval Europe without Frankish intermediation. The communions Sint lumbi vestri and Domine si tu es failed to be transmitted to Francia during the mid-eighth century but still appear in medieval books outside Rome. This rare occurrence raises questions about how Roman liturgical and stylistic elements were manipulated and preserved in territories other than Francia. Specific considerations include the different degrees of reliance on orality throughout Italy, modal variations in Frankish and peninsular chant dialects, and patterns of conservation of Roman texts and melodies within and outside of Rome. The case of Sint lumbi vestri is especially significant because, since it was transmitted with music notation, the numerous versions of the chant offer evidence of the stylistic specificities in Italian chant dialects before the twelfth century. The melody circulated particularly well in the Beneventan region, with the Abbey of Montecassino being the most likely outpost for its reception outside of Rome. Analyses of the Beneventan melody reveals that the cantors manipulated the received melody according to regional tastes, but did not modify its grammar, retaining the melody’s relationship with the text as well as leaving the modal profile unchanged.

A list of manuscript sigla is provided in the Appendix, listing the other known appearances of these communions.

Works: Sint lumbi vestri; Domine si tu es.

Index Classifications: Monophony to 1300

Contributed by: Elizabeth Stoner

Several instances of contrafacture from Ordinary chants are found in Hungarian manuscripts. The application of new texts to these Gregorian melodies gives a new liturgical function to these chants, otherwise heard during the Mass Ordinary. This is particularly important for manuscripts from Hungary, a country with thinkers well-versed in the Gregorian tradition who were able to skillfully reshape melodic material over texts for use in cathedral dramas. Several different Kyrie settings served as the models for newly texted chants.

Index Classifications: Monophony to 1300

Contributed by: Elizabeth Stoner

Allusion in music is an intentional reference to a preexisting work via a resemblance that influences the interpretation of meaning among those who recognize it. Any instance of allusion involves the interaction of four factors: the composer, the new composition, the old composition, and the audience. Allusions create musical order while simultaneously expressing non-musical meaning, and act within one of two categories. Assimilative allusions rely upon the creator’s acceptance of the referenced material, while contrastive allusions frame the earlier material in a way that creates new, possibly contradictory meaning. Thus, the interpretation of an allusion requires consideration of its musical-rhetorical significance, that is, the composer’s intention and the contextual framework of their audience, not just the intervallic and rhythmic similarities between the allusion and its model. This more nuanced approach to borrowed material allows for a more flexible understanding of the pieces in question, leading listeners to form interpretations may at times partially or completely contradict composers’ intentions.

Such allusions in the early nineteenth century are often achieved through symbolism, and often relied on composers’ invocation of conventional topics, such as dance types, fanfares, regional styles, and pastoral sounds. As Romanticism pervaded artistic circles, however, composers developed more personal systems of symbolism, and their allusions to other works and styles became less overt. It may be difficult to ascertain, however, the motivations behind allusions in the works of certain nineteenth century composers who, unlike Franz Liszt and Richard Wagner, were not forthcoming about their allusions or “reminiscences.” Intertextual relationships nevertheless exist in the works of Liszt and his followers that were not identified outright by the composer, and these same relationships may be said to exist in the works of less forthcoming allusory composers like Schumann and Brahms. Huizinga’s theory of metaphor as play helps to conceptualize allusion as a form of play; if rhetorical allusion is play upon words in a text, musical allusion can be play upon motives in a composition. The works of Mikhail Bakhtin, Hans-Georg Gadamer, and Harold Bloom offer further context for discussion of how artists interact with other artists’ ideas.

Works: Beethoven: Piano Sonata No. 31 in A-flat Major Op. 110 (1), Cello Sonata No. 3 in A Major, Op. 69 (1), Fidelio (11); Schubert: Mass No. 2 in G Major, D. 167 (10); Haydn: The Creation (11); Mendelssohn: Festgesang zum Gutenbergfest, WoO 9, Lobgesang, Op. 52 (12); Richard Strauss: Also Sprach Zarathustra (12); Robert Schumann: Frühlings Ankunft (17–19), Symphony No. 2 in C Major, Op. 61 (21); Brahms: Piano Sonata No. 1 in C Major, Op. 1 (21).

Sources: Johann Sebastian Bach: St. John Passion, BWV 245 (1); Anonymous: Crux fidelis (7-8); Beethoven: Fidelio (10, 17–19), Piano Sonata No. 29 in B-flat Major, Op. 106 (21); Mozart: Die Entführung aus dem Serail (11); Handel: Samson (12); Franz Anton Rösler: Der sterbende Jesus (12); Haydn: The Creation (12), Symphony No. 104 in D Major, H. 1/104 (21); Niels Gade: Frühlings-Phantasie (14).

Index Classifications: General, 1700s, 1800s

Contributed by: Chelsey Belt, Elizabeth Stoner

Motet composers set lines of Ovid’s text that appear in juxtaposition with their respective explanatory glosses, taken from the translation L’Art d’amours. Related proverbs and intertextual refrains serve to comment even more so on Ovid’s original text. Several motet composers used these proverbs and intertextual refrains, and it is likely that these non-Ovidian texts were borrowed from earlier motets rather than a single literary source. Composers who set these texts in motets also appear to have borrowed musical material from each other, though the exact relationship of source and borrowing is not always clear. The current hypothesis is that the motetus voice of Dieus, je fui ja pres de joir / Dieus, je n’i puis la nuit dormir / Et vide et inclina aurem tuam provided the entire textual and musical structure of the Latin double motet Laus tibi salus / Laus tibi virgo / Et vide et inclina aurem tuam. Other motets are discussed in terms of text borrowing, though this borrowing could be between the motets or it could be composers borrowing the same text from the single source, L’Art d’amours.

Works: Anonymous: Cest quadrouble / Vos n’i dormires / Biaus cuers / Fiat (354-60); Anonymous: Laus tibi salus / Laus tibi virgo / Et vide et inclina aurem tuam (358); Anonymous: Ne sai tant / Ja de boine / Portare (364-67).

Sources: Anonymous: Dieus, je fui ja pres de joir / Dieus, je n’i puis la nuit dormir / Et vide et inclina aurem tuam (358-64).

Index Classifications: Polyphony to 1300

Contributed by: Elizabeth Stoner

Johannes Lambuleti is confirmed as the composer of a fourteenth-century fragment initially published in Institut de Musicologie de l’Université Musicologiques, II (1954). This finding supplements a hypothesis offered in the original article, “A Fourteenth Century Parody Mass” by Schrade, published in 1955.

Index Classifications: 1300s

Contributed by: Elizabeth Stoner

Modena, Biblioteca Estense Universitaria, Alpha.M.5.24 (often referred to as the “Modena Manuscript”) is an important collection of Ars subtilior French songs, including some composed by Matteo da Perugia and Antonella de Caserta. The contributions by these two composers have garnered attention because they invoke music from the previous generation’s most influential composer, Guillaume de Machaut. Following a common practice of the late 14th century, Antonello de Caserta imbues his song Biauté parfaite with the metrical and textual qualities found in Machaut’s song of the same title. Matteo da Perugia uses Machaut’s Se vous n’estes as a scaffolding for a new composition by adding a new countertenor to the original song. He also quotes two Machaut songs directly in his ballade Se je me plaing de fortune. Tables and charts with extensive musical examples highlight the connection between the Modena Manuscript and Machaut’s works. These examples also demonstrate the variety of borrowing and reworking that occurs in compositions of the early fourteenth century, which are consistent with copying and transmission practices elsewhere during the period. Even so, the relationship of the composers represented within the manuscript to their looming predecessor is difficult to interpret without the referencing later notions of authorship and authority. This problem is alleviated by the emerging sense of authorship for secular songs and a new practice of circulating polyphonic songs. This opens the possibility for seeing an emerging historical self-consciousness among composers at the end of the fourteenth century. Thus, the invocation of Machaut in the Modena Manuscript can be interpreted as an early example of the borrower invoking the authority of the source.

Works: Antonello de Caserta: Biauté parfaite (172, 175-77); Matteo da Perugia: Se vous n’estes (172, 177-80), Se je me plaing de fortune (172, 180-87); Anonymous: Dame qui fut (185-87); Johannes Ciconia: Sus une fontayne (187).

Sources: Machaut: Se vous n’estes (177-80), De Fortune je me doi plaindre (179-87), Se je me plaing, je n’en puis mais (179-87); Filippotto da Caserta: En atendant, souffrir m’estuet (188), Sus une fontayne (188).

Index Classifications: 1400s

Contributed by: Jaime Carini, Elizabeth Stoner, Nicolette van den Bogerd

The 11th century manuscript Montpellier H 159 and the mid-13th century copy, Brussels II 3824, are often identified as being functionally and musically identical to each other. However, there are several notational differences between the two manuscripts’ versions of Sacerdotes eius, as well as differences in the organization of the manuscripts themselves. Notational variations between the manuscripts’ versions of the chant consist of omitted pitches and small differences in melody, but the melodies are similar enough to suggest and interdependent relationship between the two versions. Another curious feature of the chant is its distribution in the Brussels manuscript. The chant Sacerdotes eius appears twice in the Brussels manuscript, within several folios of each other. This close positioning is unusual in the common practice of reincorporating specific melodies in the same gradual. Moreover, these two versions exhibit differences in pitches and cadential formulas which are striking, given that they appear near each other in the same manuscript and are written in the same handwriting. The differences in these two instances of the same chant suggests that the scribe copied exactly from his now unknown exemplar or exemplars.

Works: Montpellier H 159: Sacerdotes eius; Brussels II 3824: Sacerdotes eius.

Index Classifications: Monophony to 1300

Contributed by: Elizabeth Stoner