a fourteenth century parody mass

A Fourteenth Century Parody MassAuthor(s): Leo SchradeSource: Acta Musicologica, Vol. 27, Fasc. 1/2 (Jan. - Jul., 1955), pp. 13-39Published by: International Musicological SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/931551 .

Accessed: 14/07/2014 04:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

International Musicological Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toActa Musicologica.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 79.179.8.157 on Mon, 14 Jul 2014 04:49:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=inmuso

http://www.jstor.org/stable/931551?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


A Fourteenth Century Parody Mass 13

A Fourteenth Century Parody Mass Leo Schrade (New Haven, Conn.)

One of the movements of the so-called "Mass of Toulouse", subject of a recent

study1, exposed a peculiar technique of composition, or rather a procedure, which the 14th century composer was not known to have practiced. The Ite missa est-motet: Laudemus Jhesum Christum appeared to employ material drawn from the music for the verse "Laudamus te" of the Gloria Qui sonitu melodie (Ivrea, No. 5o). In addition to the identity of the incipits of both compositions, various other contacts

proved the relationship between the two works to go far beyond what we ordinarily call a stylistic association. The procedure of taking musical material from the midst of another composition, possibly on account of a certain similarity of the text, but

mainly because of the intention to render the style of the "Diskantlied" common to both works, surely was striking enough to be recorded with a fair measure of

emphasis. Although the intimate relationship suggested one and the same composer for the two works, the procedure itself appeared to be considerably more important than any problem of authorship, provided the latter could have been solved. While the procedure strongly indicated a technique which we associate with the "parody," within the 14th century it seemed so strange and isolated a phenomenon as to re- commend caution as the wisest counsel, hence complete avoidance of the familiar term "Parody Mass."

Now that the discovery of a new fragmentary 14th century manuscript discloses

an even more striking example, the application of the term "parody" to the Mass

turns out to be fully justified. The new fragmentary Mass, a document of extreme

importance in more than one aspect, has been published by Jacques Chailley under

the title: "La Messe de Besangon et un compositeur inconnu du XIV siecle Jean Lambelet" 2. This fragment, a parchment double folio, used as a cover for a register of 1526 in Dambelin (a small parish in the Franche-Comte), was sent to the Ministere

de l'Instruction Publique in Paris in 1870; it remained in the care of the public archives for an unknown lenght of time until in 1952 3 Mr. Chailley discovered it in

the Institut de Musicologie de l'Universite de Paris, apparently the present owner.

The report on the manuscript presents the following details4: 1) that only one section

of the Kyrie expurgator, the first, is complete for three voices; it has neither the

Christe nor the last Kyrie ("sans Christe ni dernier Kyrie"); 2) that this Kyrie is

attributable to a composer, with what appears to be a signature being deciphered as

1 Leo Schrade, The Mass of Toulouse, in ,Revue Belge de Musicologie", VIII (1954), 84 ff.:

Hommage a Charles van den Borren. Cf. also Hanna Harder, Die Messe von Toulouse, in , Musica

Disciplina", VII (1953), 105ff. 2 Annales Musicologiques, II, 93-103; a partial transcription as well as complete photo-

graphic reproduction is included.

3 Mr. Chailley says (loc. cit, 94): ,,je ne saurais dire comment il aboutit a l'Institut de Musicologie de l'Universite de Paris oil je le retrouvai en Novembre 1952." 4 J. Chailley, loc. cit., 94 f.



14 A Fourteenth Century Parody Mass

"Johes Labuleti" (Johannes Lambuleti) 5; 3) that the Gloria is complete only for the

superius, for the second voice only up to "Qui tollis," and for the third voice up to "Gloriam tuam;" 4) that the Gloria is followed by the second voice of the Benedictus and the third voice of the Sanctus and Benedictus; 5) that the superius and the second voice of the Agnus and the same voices of the Benedicamus Domino conclude the

fragment, with both Agnus and Benedicamus assumed to be incomplete; 6) that the

manuscript, though a fragment, originally contained a cyclic Mass.

After thorough examination of documents in local archives, J. Chailley concludes that 1) the most likely place of origin of the Mass must have been Besancon, hence the title "La Messe de Besancon" 6; 2) the attribution of the Kyrie probably refers to a family name represented by a certain "Lambeleti Vernerii, Bisuntinensis dio- cesis," named cantor at the Augustine Abbey of Mentbenoit and later Rector of the H6pital du Saint-Esprit, mentioned in 1420 and still alive in 1461 7; 3) regardless of the possibility of having composed only the Kyrie, not the complete cycle, Jean Lambelet appears as a musician "qui semble digne de tenir un rang honorable dans

l'entourage des Ph. de Vitry ou des G. de Machaut."

Since all evidence of the authorship is indirect, a great many doubts are irrepres- sible. We do not really know by what manner of means the manuscript of the Mass

got to be in Dambelin at the beginning of the 16th century. It is safe to assume that a polyphonic Mass could hardly have been composed for a small parish like Dambelin. The only larger place nearby with a claim upon such an artistic production was

Besancon. Names such as Lambelat, Lambelin, Lambelot, Lambeleti, Belet, do occur in the registers of the Franche-Comte, with a Cantor Lambeleti appearing in the 1 5th century. Since Lambuleti might be replaced by Lambeleti, Lambelet is suggested as the French form of the name, to be carried over from the 15th century instance to the composer of the 14th century Mass. We must admit that we are not convinced of the attribution to the composer or to Besangon. Our discussion will supply ample evidence that the Mass did not originate in Besangon at all.

But is the name really Johannes Lambuleti? The "name" is attached to the Kyrie which appears on the outer page of the fragment. The page shows all the marks of the influence of time: brown stains, smudges, and signs of abuse; but it is still readable. The two upper voices of the Kyrie are written in two columns with four staves for each, the left column for the "Triplum," the right column for the "Motetus," while the Tenor is written below the upper parts on one staff across the page, hence in a fashion exactly typical of the motets. Now the "name" appears below the fourth

5 ,,avec une signature rubriquee au milieu du Kyrie: Johes Labuleti (Johannes Lambuleti)." , ,,Nous proposerions dans un but pratique et sans prejuger de recherches ult'rieures, de donner A

notre fragment, par analogie avec la messe de Tournai, le nom de ,,messe de Besanqon." (loc. cit., 96). 7 Loc. cit., 97: ,,L'identite du nom est ici complete, Lambuleti pouvant traduire aussi bien Lambelet que Lambulet, et apporte une prisomption serieuse au rattachement de notre messe a Besanqon." 8 The designation of the voices in 14th century Masses is frequently drawn from the motet. In the manuscripts the voices are often marked as triplum, motetus, tenor, with the name motetus entirely out of place. (In our manuscript, the voices are not marked, except for the tenor.) In the course of our discussion we shall use the terms: tenor, duplum (=motetus), triplum.




staff, entered before the syllables "leyson." Although the ink with which the "name" is written is faded and a smudge obscures the word, we cannot discover the "name," if a name it is, to be "L-ibuleti." There is no doubt about the Johannes. After "Johns" is, however, clearly a period! Then we read: an "1" with a dash through the stem that connects with the following letter "u". The second letter is certainly not an "a"; nor is the abbreviation over "u" the m-dash; the abbreviation has the shape of a

hook, which stands for "r" or "er", among other meanings, but never for "m" or "n". The third letter is probably not a "b", but seems rather to be an "s" (as in

"nos" on the same page). The fourth letter is definitely an "a" (not a "u") and seems to have a dash-like abbreviation above (obscured by the smudge). The fifth letter could well be an "1", but the stem is drawn below the line upon which the rest of

the letters stand. The sixth letter, completely faded, might be "c" instead of "e" The last two letters are "ti"; and then follows "etc." [!] "leyson". This does not make much sense, it must be admitted. If the word, or words, after Johannes represent a name, why an "etc."? And why a period after Johannes? In any case, the inscrip- tion could not possibly be read as "Lambuleti."

Does "al" mean "Apostoli," or "Alleluja," and "cti" "Sancti"? Is the name of the Saint entered (apart from the trope) to complete the Litany-like "eleyson"? The "etc." points in that direction. In our opinion, the words - and because of the

"etc." there are several, - do not refer to a name at all. They seem to be a liturgical rubric, entered by a different scribe and perhaps at a later time. If we must discard the name "Lambuleti" and cannot be certain about the words that are written, the attribution to a composer as well as the relation to Besangon is entirely illusory on paleographical grounds. The fragment must not be named the "Mass of Besanqon." The "Mass of Tournai" is so named for its present owner, not with regard to the

origin of the composition. For the Mass of Tournai did certainly not originate in

Tournai. Also titles such as the "Mass of Toulouse" or "Mass of Barcelona" refer

to present owners. Hence for the new fragment the proper analogy would be the

title "Mass of the Sorbonne"'9. For the sake of the analysis of the compositions it is best first to clarify the

physical appearance of the Mass movements in the manuscript.

Fol. 1 shows the third (not the first) Kyrie of the Kyrie "Rex genitor." The text

"expurgator scelerum / et largitor gracie" 10 that is attached to the Kyrie is not an independent trope, but the third strophe of the famous Kyrie

trope "Rex genitor." Since fol. 1 has but the third Kyrie, the first Kyrie and Christe must have been on a preceding fol. I'; hence we do not know

how many folios preceded the present fol. 1. On the remainder of fol. 1

(staves 6-11) the triplum, duplum, and tenor of the Gloria follow, ending all three voices simultaneously with "gloriam tuam."

* We shall use the title in our discussion (abbreviated ,,Sorb"). lo The Ms. has clearly ,gracie," not ,,grave" (transcription, Chailley, loc. cit., 99).




Fol. 1' continues the Gloria with seven consecutive staves for the Triplum, including the lengthy Amen-melisma; the remaining two staves show the duplum which ends with "Qui tollis." At least one folio is missing, or two if the Credo was included. In accordance with the length of the triplum

Fol. [21 continued the duplum of the Gloria on staves 1- ca. 5, while staves 6-9 had the rest of the Tenor. On

Fol. [2'] was either the Credo (on 9 staves), or the beginning of the Sanctus (see below).

Fol. [3] had the continuation and end of the Credo (on 9 or more staves), with the Amen-melisma probably shorter than the Gloria melisma as is often the case in 14th century Masses.

Fol. [3'] or [2']: Sanctus and Benedictus. The arrangement of the voices on the

following folio 4 (3) is strange; it shows the Tenor of the Benedicamus first at the top of the page, followed by the Sanctus and the Benedictus

successively for the Duplum. Provided the composition was for three voices, the arrangement of fol. [3'] [2'] consequently must have been the

following: Sanctus for the Triplum (staves 1-3), Benedictus for the

triplum (staves 4-6), Sanctus for the Tenor (staves 7-8). Whether or not the Sanctus was for three voices will be answered later.

Fol. 4 (3): Tenor of the Benedictus (staves 1-2); Duplum of the Sanctus (staves 3-5), and Duplum of the Benedictus (staves 6-8); the 9th staff is left vacant.

Fol. 4' (3') brings the Agnus Dei for two voices, duplum (staves 1--4) and tenor (staves 5-7), complete. Were the Agnus Dei incomplete, the Benedicamus would hardly have been entered below the tenor of the Agnus. At all events the counterpoint of the tenor and duplum of the Agnus is entirely sufficient and needs no supplement. A Benedicamus Domino is entered on staves 8 and 9 of fol. 4', complete for two voices, duplum and tenor. The Benedicamus is composed strictly nota contra notam, and strangely, with breves and longae only.

Although the Gloria and Sanctus will be the major subject of our analysis, the

Kyrie, Agnus, and Benedicamus require a few remarks. So far as can be seen, none of the three movements appears in any other source, though with the exception of the Benedicamus they are stylistically by no means isolated. They are related to that musical environment which is most comprehensively represented in the manuscripts of Ivrea and Apt. The Kyrie is particularly close to some of the Mass movements in Ivrea. Certain stylistic similarities can be observed in the Kyrie Rex Angelorum (Ivrea, No. 68, f. 53'-54'), and a still closer affinity is presented in the section "Et resurrexit" of the Credo Ivrea No. 46 (f. 30'-32)". Among the stylistic aspects of

11 In contrast to the preceding part of the Credo, this section (to the end of the Credo) is composed in tempus imperfectum, prolatio minor.




the Kyrie in the Mass of the Sorbonne, the use of the hocket in the latter part of the composition furnishes at least indirect evidence that it is the third Kyrie which has been preserved. To our knowledge hockets appear either in the Christe, or in the last Kyrie, but hardly in the first. It is rather doubtful that the Kyrie is based on a liturgical melody; if so, certainly not without changes. Perhaps the composer of the

Kyrie had the troped melody "Rex genitor" in mind; at least a certain resemblance seems to give the tenor the appearance of being reminiscent of the troped Kyrie melody. A comparison of the two melodies may be taken for what it is worth:

Ex.1. Kyrie Rex-Geniwr. W

4U _

-

1 i* 5

II

Ky-ri-e e- Le- i- son.

Exv.2 Ter•r Kyrie

ex-purgawr:(Sorb.) , ' =; -~I =F ---; FF,1 F",

The tenor and the liturgical Kyrie have only the very first notes in common; there- after they part company. We trust that the relationship between them should not be taken too seriously.

Also the other movements of the Mass of the Sorbonne have but a loose connection if any at all, to liturgical melodies. If the Agnus Dei has a definite contact with a chant melody at all, - and we believe it has not - it might be the Agnus of the Mass No. 4 that exercised a slight influence upon the tenor. It is also not likely that a 14th century chant of purely local importance has been used. For we should assume that any Agnus chant at that time would have a partial or complete repetition of the first Agnus melody for the third. The tenor of the polyphonic composition, however, has independent melodies for each Agnus Dei, and strangely enough the third section of the tenor is suggestive of the second Agnus in the Mass No. X. The stylistic study of the Agnus is limited by the relative rarity of polyphonic Agnus composition. Ivrea has no Agnus Dei at all. We might refer to the 2-part Agnus Dei in Barcelona, Biblioteca d'Orfe6 Catala, Ms. 2 (No. 2, f. 3) whose counterpoint is, however, inferior to the balanced lines of the Agnus in the Mass of the Sorbonne. The Agnus in the Mass of Toulouse, a troped composition for three voices, does not allow an adequate comparison on account of the trope in the triplum. At all events, taking into account that the voices have different functions in compositions for two and three parts respectively, the Agnus Dei of the Mass of the Sorbonne can be attributed to approximately the same period as the Kyrie, especially in view of the style of the duplum in the third Agnus and the hocket toward the end (on "pacem").

The strangest composition is, however, the Benedicamus for the end of the Mass where we usually find a motet "super Ite missa est." While the Ite missa est-motets are rare compositions in 14th century Masses, the Benedicamus that belongs litur-

gically to the Mass is, to our knowledge, unique. The plain rhythm, made up of




breves and iongae only, is suggestive of the use of a plain chant. Indeed, the composition is based on the Benedicamus chant, now in the Mass No. 2 of the Kyriale. The chant is transposed a fourth higher, and not in the tenor, but in the duplum, that is the upper part 12 The manner of combining the two voices conforms to the type of the old discantus. The succession of longae simplices at the beginning, mostly of breves (in ligatures, once with the ligatura cumi opposita proprietate) for the remainder can hardly be called a "rhythmic" organization. Compared with the other movements of the Mass, this Benedicamus is in every respect a complete stranger whose appearance we are unable to explain. Only in one respect does the Benedicamus seem to cast light upon the movements as a whole: that the Mass was planned as a cycle, though the cyclic arrangement combining more or less uniform movements adds to the strangeness of the Benedicamus.

On the basis of the Kyrie, Agnus, and Benedicamus, the Mass of the Sorbonne offers additional knowledge of the 14th century Mass by the supply of a unique com-

position and of a new example of the Agnus. The rarity of the Agnus in the repertory of the 14th century, hardly comprehensible on purely musical grounds, is perhaps linked to the liturgical communion rites, a possible association which we cannot here discuss •. On the basis of the Gloria and Sanctus, however, the Mass of the Sorbonne

proves to be one of the most important sources of the 14th century Mass that has come to light in recent years. Not that a superior artistic value places the Gloria and Sanctus in a class of their own, but a comprehensive interpretation of the historical circumstances gives the two movements a distinction of extraordinary novelty.

A cursory study of the Gloria reveals at once a close affiliation of the style with certain Mass movements in the repertory of Ivrea. The musical basis of the com-

position is an essentially compact body of 3-part harmony loosened by a rhythmic- melodic ornamentation which embroiders short passages. The ornamental figuration effects a style that gives the appearance of a "cantilena" structure, or - if the ornamentation is applied to the two upper parts - of a duet arrangement. The production of compact sound formed by the combination of three parts is the main con-

cept of the structure, while the "cantilena", far from realizing a melody complete by itself, does not actually play a leading role in the composition. The "cantilena" functions to break up the solid harmony by figuration, rather than to be prominent as a melody for its own sake; hence in such compositions the cantilena is not really what we should expect it to be in fulfillment of its nature.

These characteristics are exactly those of the Gloria in the Sorbonne Ms., and they apply as well to various Mass movements in the repertory of Ivrea. There we find all the relatives of the Sorbonne Gloria, representing a fairly large family which mani-

fests the style in any of the movements of the Mass. So common and all-embracing

12 The chant is maintained tone for tone, with the exception of the second group on ,,Do-(mino)": the chant has g' a' g' f' (transposed), but the duplum b' b g' a' f'. 13 Peter Browe, Mittelalterliche Kommunionsriten, Jahrbuch fiir Liturgiewissenschaft, XV, 1935, 123-66.




was the style that we need not seek it in one and the same category of the movements. At the side of the Sorbonne Gloria, a Kyrie such as the Kyrie Rex angelorum (No. 68, f. 53'-54') which has been quoted before may thus appear, or aSanctus such as No. 79

(f. 62'-64). The manner of figuration responsible for giving the impression of a "cantilena" naturally differs in individual compositions, without departure from the basic

concept. Despite various other structural aspects which we must forego discussing, the Gloria No. 62 (f. 49-49') in Ivrea appears to have a particularly close affinity to the Sorbonne Gloria. In fact, the stylistic relationship is the nearest imaginable; and we would be inclined to assume one and the same composer for the two works. But since all matters of authorship are so evasive in all these compositions, it will be more

prudent to claim for the two Gloria-compositions two composers who worked closely

together and belonged to the same school of musicianship. To illustrate the closeness of the two works in style, two corresponding passages, taken from each of the Gloria,

may be placed side by side (Ex. 3 and 4).

Ex"3. 3vrea: 62

LaM- - caa- Imu t•, Be-n,.- di-ci- ,mus t ?.

U•.- d&- rue rt, Be-n- di,-c,-

nw .

Lau. - da - mus te, Be-e- di-ci - mus tu.

La-AN .Lm-s , A, Be- •

0- c-w t

Lau..-.ds R, B

. . B- e-" e-

. - c-mu . Ex-. 4-.

Sorb.

" 1,,4t

B ___ _I _ c Lau-•d•mus tz Be- ne- dL - ca-Wmu.s t

This illustration is but one among others, all of which contribute to the evidence that the common birthplace of the two works rests in one and the same school. If the Sorbonne Gloria an the Gloria No. 62 in Ivrea belong together as they doubtless do, then a third composition must be added to this pair, which, supplementary to a stylistic relationship, is the key to the technique of parody in the Mass. The Sorbonne Gloria establishes a further link to the Ivrea repertory through the composition No. 48 (fol. 34'-35'). This composition is a Credo, starting with "Patrem omnipotentem,"




for three voices. The beginning of the Credo must be quoted in full for comparison with the Sorbonne Gloria (Ex. 5 and 6).

Exc 5. 3vrea, no.48 (f 34-): Credo.

EX.b. Sorb: GlorLa. Et

" p -? raI

L E U'- A-ra

E ier- - ra

Obviously the two compositions have an identical beginning. No comment would be needed were it not for the fact that the identity is in two movements as different from each other as Gloria and Credo. Hence the identity holds unusual surprise; for no similar case is known to exist. There is nothing in the history of the liturgical chants or of the liturgy itself that might have prepared or stimulated the procedure chosen by the composers for the Gloria and Credo. Exclusively polyphonic considerations must have guided the musician in probing a new technique, or what at least appears to be a new technique. The only technique which in a way might have been preparatory to the new procedure might have been that of the contrafactum. But a contrafactum is not involved as the further discussion will show. The new procedure is that of the parody. For the relation between the Gloria and Credo is not limited to the identity of the beginning. Although the texts entirely different in character, length, and liturgical usage, should preclude a further relationship, the link between the two works is actually maintained. First the composer, literally and fully in all parts, quotes the initial passage, sufficiently long to allow recognition of the parody. Moving along with greater freedom after the literal quotation, the composer then begins to work with the material of the composition from which he first quoted. The procedure may be observed in the individual voices.

While for the first five measures the tenores are identical in both compositions, they part company and proceed each in its own way. But the direction remains the




same, that is to say, the tenores advance toward a melodic goal that is common to both. An example will illustrate the relation (Ex. 7 and 8).

Ex.Z Jvrea, Credo,. no.4.8, Tenor. 15o2 • • n I x I n t

' I i I u I Fn • • I n I I , •

25 22

Ex-.8. Sorb, C1oria, Terwr. t. I

O w5.I

I• . l ! _ f l i ! • i i I ! I . I i I I .

The two tenores are not so much different from each other; they still keep certain main tones in common. The tenor of the Credo is naturally longer on account of the

longer phrases of the text that must be covered; but prolongation is simply achieved by longer values or by repetition. While the tenor of the Gloria needs but one g, f, (measure 15-17), the tenor of the Credo repeats the two tones four times (m. 17-27), until both tenores coincide on c' (m. 18, m. 28). Though not in literal agreement, the tenores are still more or less the same. One tenor is condensed, the other extended, in accordance with the length of the text. The tenor of the Credo covers the lengthy phrase: "terre visibilium omnium et invisibilium. Et in unum dominum Jesum Christum filium dei unigenitum," while the tenor of the Gloria sings only "pax homi- nibus bonae voluntatis." It is clear that the length of the text bears upon the length of the melody; and it is equally clear that the composer consciously works with the tenor material, which he adapts to the new purpose. Interestingly enough, similarities sometimes overlap, i. e. in the Credo they will be further prolonged over the shorter

phrase of the Gloria. If we take the continuation of the last Gloria example (Ex. 8) and compare the phrase with a new section of the Credo tenor, we notice that the

relationship is still carried (Ex. 9 and o10).

Ex. 9. Jvrea, Tenor, m.3L-ff. 2 V, A

,

I . 2 "

g " ? I I LF-, LI

- I I '/ "-

." , , , I , , , i I W . 1. 1!

' . . I I I I I II E !W . I? im.. .. -, " - . -. .. . ..

Ex. 10. Sorb. Tenor m.12 ff. ? , . i I i I I " I I I . I i?-i1 I. . l W. 000 loc. C-- '007 ~ 1 r- ~ III S.. . " I ';. . r

Although the comparative study can only be carried to the "Gloriam tuam" where the tenor of the Sorbonne Ms. breaks off, the available material clearly shows that




the proximity of one tenor th the other remains close throughout. Basically the same tones are used in both tenores as much as the difference of the texts, hence the organization of the whole composition, would allow. The necessary adjustments resulted in deviations from the primary melody. Depending on which composition was first, which the given material, either the shorter Gloria or the longer Credo, the method of working with the material was either that of contraction or of expansion. Though it might be most natural to assume that the Gloria preceded the Credo, we cannot

altogether be certain. The use of basically the same tenor in both Gloria and Credo seems to rule out the

presence of a liturgical melody. Does the liturgy not require that a Gloria chant cannot be used as Credo? Or else if a liturgical melody is really taken as tenor, is it not conclusive that whichever composition has a chant in the tenor is likely to

precede the other? Unfortunately, the answer is not unequivoval. None of the Credo melodies in the Kyriale has any resemblance to the Credo in Ivrea; but among the Gloria chants we find that the Gloria of the Mass No. VI has a very close similarity with the tenor, including the intonation (Ex. 11).

Ex. 11. Kyriale, Mass No. VI, In Festis Duplicibus: Gloria

Glo-ri?-a,- i ex-cL-sis De-o. Et in 'er-ra, pax ho-mL-i-bus bo-tae

vo- lutn-tm--vis. L -da-mus re. Be- fe-di- ci-mus te. A- do- rao- mus te.

As the recitation of a simple formula for a number of verses characterizes the chant, so does the repetition of a similar formula distinguish the tenor. But since the identity of tenor and chant is not complete tone for tone, we cannot be absolutely certain that the tenor is related to the chant. The assumption that the tenor is related to the chant seems to be strengthened by a further point of evidence. The tenor of the Gloria, in measures 18-19, has the characteristic fifth c'-f (see ex. 8). That interval is not to be found in the chant, and yet it is no deviation from the chant in the tenor. For the tenor brings the interval in those inserted measures at the ned of verses or sections which stress the caesuras by stereotyped material (see ms. 18-19, 30-31, 82-83, 100--101); being instrumental insertions typical of Gloria and Credo compositions, they have nothing to do with either chant or text (see the discussion below). Now the Sorbonne Gloria has the insertion in the correct place and form, with an interval in the tenor that does not belong to the chant. But also the Ivrea Credo has this characteristic interval (see ex. 9, m. 41). The appearance of the interval might be taken as evidence for the priority of the Gloria. For in the Credo that interval lost its proper place as well as function, and, probably as a result of the necessary extensions, came to be associated with the text passage in the upper parts. In the Credo the interval is not an insertion as it should be, but belongs to the sub- stance of the tenor melody. The interval would therefore be a deviation from the




chant in the Credo; in the Gloria, however, it is not, since there it is an instrumental "interlude" between the verses. This seems to be indirect evidence that the Gloria provided the model for the Credo.

But the two works are not united upon a common tenor alone. As the beginning of Gloria and Credo was the same in all three voices, so in the further pursuit of the procedure of parody also the upper parts are involved in the process. A few characteristic illustrations should be cited, with their significance being assessed. A particularly interesting example, typical of the method of working with given material in the upper parts, appears directly after the literal quotation of the incipit. The example is taken from the dupla of the compositions (Ex. 12 and 13).

Ex.123Jvreia 48, tupum:

facto-rem. ce-l• er ter-re vi- si- bi- l- um

Ex.13. Sorb. dLupLum: ** *,-*

*

pax homi- bus.

The example clearly displays the technique. The phrase of the Gloria having the essential tones of the model melody is nearly syllabic; so is the phrase of the Credo. But being insufficient to cover the verse of the Credo insertions had to be made in the phrase of the Gloria. While the Gloria has the simple and direct approach of the final tone, e'-f', the Credo shows an extension without altering the approach itself. Such a passage can probably also be taken as evidence that the Gloria provided the material for the Credo.

The tripla present an equal amount of contacts between the two compositions. Not all the changes that occur prove themselves to result from the text that requires extensions in the Credo. Other considerations are, at times, the determining factor. To quote an example from the tripla (Ex. 14 and 15):

Ex:). . Jvrect, 48, triplum

-tumf orm- u - um er in - vi,- si-b-li-um. EV in Lu-(ramun)

Exs 15. Sorb. tripLwm.

homi nibus bo - nae vo- tun-

Although both melodies have a great many tones in common, it is rather the intention of the composer to reshape the model that unites the tripla. They maintain a




movement in the same direction; they even have the same general mould; but they are sufficiently free from each other to appear as two melodies. This is typical of the

technique that is associated with the parody. For a parody is to produce something new that has absorbed, but not extinguished the old. It is probably significant that the re-created new shape comes best to the fore when the process of composing is free from the material demands of the text. For in our example (ex. 15) the phrase of the Gloria has enough tones to supply a syllabic phrase for the text of the Credo; the Gloria has even a small melismatic group which becomes syllabic in the Credo. Both

phrases are of approximately the same length; being independent in matters of the text, they show the artistic intention to prevail.

In the course of the composition, literal identities occur here and there, but never for long; the identity is kept for but one or two measures, and mostly in one voice

only, rather than in all three parts simultanously. Even where we observe identity, one or two tones might deviate, usually because of a different harmonic situation.

Examples 16 and 17 should be considered under this aspect.

Ex 16. Jvrea, tripl. 3vrea,, dupt.

de - - i de - -

Er. 17 Sorb. ripl.

Among the methods the composer oft the parody employs, one may be found that affects the figuration, realized in two varieties, ohne dependent on, the other free from the text. For the first variety we quote from the two tripla (Ex. 18 and 19).

Ex,18. 3vrea, trilrt. A

"I I , ?

an -te omrnia se- ca, -La, deumdede-o lumen de t-mi- ne.

Ex'.19. Sorb. ri pltm.

te. Be- ne- di- ci- mus te.

Resting on a different basis of harmony, the two phrases of the triplum obviously differ at the beginning, but unite themselves in a peculiar way which at the same time characterizes the manner of figuration. The "model" has but the essential tones of the melody, not enough to cover the new text in the parody. The composer therefore takes recourse to a figuration, with the new text being underlaid syllabically to the figurative group. The figuration always contains the essential tones of the melody




(see in the examples the notes provided with an asterisk); hence it has the effect of

embroidering the model. While here the figuration clearly is carried out in order to match the text, it also occurs independently, i. e. free from the text and for purely aristic reasons. An example may be quoted (ex. 20 and 21):

E x. 20. Jvrea, triplum. r - ci - - a I a, -" l. - ti i

Ex- 21. Sorb. vripuLn.

Gra- ci- - s a.-

c - musti - bi

This example, first of all, shows the Gloria model to have more than enough tones for a syllabic melody of the Credo text. Instead of simple underlaying of the text to the given melody, the composer renews the melody by melismatic figuration, i. e. regardless of the text. Here, too, the essential tones of the melodic phrase are maintained in the figuration. Instead of being used for the text, the figuration group is but a musical ornament. The transformation of the given melody by figuration per- tains to both textual and musical reasons.

Although a great many more points of contact between the two compositions can be listed, our analysis has clearly shown that the Gloria of the Sorbonne Ms. and the Credo of Ivrea belong together. United one with another by that peculiar technique that is characteristic of parody, the two movements apparently represent the first known instance of parody within the range of the polyphonic Mass. In view of the present fluctuation in medieval research and of rapid discoveries of new sources or new stylistic aspects we hesitate to draw hasty conclusions. Nevertheless, our Gloria and Credo may be the first examples of parody in fact. For, among the polyphonic compositions of the Ordinarium Missae of the preceding two centuries, no two compositions to our knowledge establish the relationship to the procedure of parody. It

might be safe to assume that the parody Mass was, indeed, the product of the 14th

century when the polyphonic Ordinarium Missae aroused new interest among the composers.

The instrumental insertions which were mentioned in connection with the tenores of the Gloria and Credo require a further, brief explanation. These insertions, though not obligatory, are very frequent in 14th century movements of Gloria or Credo inclu-

ding the Mass of Machaut. All of them have certain features in common: they are all very short and consist of no more than two breves; they have usually fewer parts (often 2) than the rest of the composition; they always present standardized, highly conventional material which is either slightly varied in all insertions of a specific composition, or literally repeated in ritornello-like fashion. The Credo of the Mass of Tournai seems to suggest that certain omissions in the tenor resulted from the




transcripiton of the original version for solo voice and instrumental accompaniment (cf. Ms. Huelgas, Madrid) to an entirely vocal version. We know now, however, that the ritornelli, always instrumental, really functioned to mark sectional caesuras.

Both the Gloria of the Sorbonne Ms. and the Credo of Ivrea have such insertions. But it is only the Gloria that presents them in the correct manner: reduced to two parts, disassociated from the text, made up of stereotyped motifs, and acting as caesuras of the verses. The Credo on the other hand allows us to imagine some of the difficulties the composer faced when trying to adjust the instrumental insertion to the Credo. In fact, all of these insertions prove that the Credo is the parody with the Gloria being the model. Only three insertions in the Credo function properly in accordance with their original purpose, though there they are limited to one measure each. All others have been changed; they were misplaced as well as adjusted to the text. These adjustments, all carried out by applying one and the same device, are particularly instructive. They occur five times in the Credo, and always where instrumental insertion would be expected to function as caesura. The device the composer applies is the following: the tenor rests for two breves; two words are sung by the upper parts, but the first word always only by the duplum, the second word always only by the triplum. Consequently, the Credo text is incomplete in each of the voices; for example: triplum: "et (pausa brevis) factus est"; duplum: "et homo (pausa brevis) est"; or triplum: (pausa brevis) "ante omnia"; duplum: "natum (pausa brevis) omnia." It is now interesting to see that the omitted word which cannot be sung because of the missing notes is nevertheless written underneath the pausa brevis. This is exactly the case with the omitted words in the Credo of Tournai. While for the rest each voice sings the full Credo text, five times the words are distributed over two voices. On the whole, then, the instrumental insertions caused trouble which the composer was not entirely successful in overcoming. But they are a key to the relation between the Gloria and Credo and a guide in the chronology of the works. If the Gloria is older than the Credo, then also the Sorbonne Ms. must precede the Ms. Ivrea; and since we are fairly certain about the chronological termini of Ivrea, certain dates might also be conclusive for the Ms. Sorbonne. The question of chronology will be taken up again after the analysis of the Sanctus.

The Sanctus has further surprises in store. Although in view of a certain uniqueness of the composition we must regret the fragmentary state of the Sanctus in the Sorbonne Ms,, we are in a position safely to draw all the important conclusions even from the fragmentary state. First the question of the number of voices. Was the Sanctus for three or four voices? It seems safe to assume that the Sorbonne composition had but three voices. For the arrangement of the composition in the manuscript would indicate the presence of three voices only. Since the page had but nine staves, only three voices can be distributed over the two pages f. 3' and f. 4. What Chailley calls "page 3" must have been the recto of a new folio, presumably f. 4 (see the list above). The rest of the voices for Sanctus and Benedictus must have been on the adjoining verso of the preceding folio. If the composition had four voices, the fourth voice necessarily had to be on the recto of f. 3. Such an arrangement would have made im-




possible simultaneous singing of the parts; it would prove the Sorbonne Ms. not to have been copied for performance. While such a conclusion cannot be ruled out a

priori, it is not likely to apply to the Sorbonne Ms. For all three voices of the Gloria, for example, end simultaneously on f. 1, with the singers completing the Gloria on f. 1' and f. 2. A proper understanding of the number of voices is particularly important for the interpretation of the Sanctus.

As the Gloria clearly was an offspring of the repertory represented by the Ivrea Ms., i. e. of Avignon, so also the Sanctus owes its origin to the Avignonese musician-

ship. As with the Gloria, so with the Sanctus a case of singular importance is before us. The Sorbonne composition is related to the Sanctus, Ivrea No. 79, f. 62'-64. Despite the fragmentary state of the Sorbonne version, the association of the two works can definitely be proved. But were the relationship merely one of stylistic affinity, any definiteness of the thesis could well be doubted. The two compositions, however, belong together for different reasons on the ground of which uniqueness can be claimed for the Sanctus. The two compositions develop, in fact, two different techniques. We might be inclined to explain the technical differences by the fact that the Ivrea Sanctus has four voices, the Sorbonne Sanctus only three. Nevertheless, the difference in the number of voices, though always influential in shaping the technique of composition, is by no means the decisive factor. Let us again first con- front the tenores one with another, taken from the Benedic*us of the Sorbonne version and the Ivrea composition respectively (Ex. 22 and 23).

Ex'. 22. Sorb. Benedicatus, tenor.

Be - ne - - dic- tas quw ve-u 20t 20

Save for the slight deviation in measures 13-14 (Sorbonne), 13-15 (Ivrea), where Ivrea lengthens the melody by one measure, the two tenores are exactly the same. With the following phrase on "In nomine," however, the situation changes entirely. The identity of the two tenores breaks off, and the relationship between the two is not particularly close. In Ivrea the tenor presents a motif on "In nomine" which, though not literally, is repeated in succession by all voices, excepting the highest voice, the Quadruplum, while each voice rests after the statement of the motif. This alone produces a phrase twelve semibreves in length, for which there is no equivalent in the Sorbonne version. In the course of the Benedictus a similar passage, on "quos




creasti," identically arranged, gives further length to the tenor of Ivrea. Even so, the two tenores here and there clearly maintain points of contact (indicated by asterisks in the example). As an illustration we quote the continuation of the tenores (Ex. 24 and 25):

Ex-24. 3vrea,79, Benedictus, tenor.

S 3n no-mi--ne do- m ,- m?, - ni 0- san - na I

Exr. 25. Sor. Benedctu t, tnor.

3vrea, Jvw- MI- ne - n, - n -

sw,--na.

Sorb. bo -

exr - eL - s While the passages on "In nomine domini Osanna" have merely a few tones in

common, a similarity that at first sight might be either intentional or accidental, from "In excelsis" on the two tenores go together again, even through the long sequential groups, although the sequences are a bit differently staggered. The same holds true for the repetition of the sequences, whereby Ivrea gives by far the longer version. But it is worthy of note that the two long melismata on "In excelsis" appear in reversed order, i. e. Ivrea "a+b" equals Sorbonne "b+a." The melisma Ivrea- "a" is almost the same in Sorbonne, while the melisma "b" is identical in both tenores. (See ex. 24 and 25, under "a" and "b"). At the beginning and end of each passage, certain deviations do occur. In the last section, however, after the common melisma, the Ivrea tenor has a long phrase all its own, without any equivalent in Sor- bonne. The last motif on "excelsis" significantly is again identical in both versions (Ex. 26).

Ex.26. 3vrea, Sorb, endr of tenor.

ex - ceL - sts . *Brev s Ltn vrea, bL error.




It would apear that we have here two compositions based on the same tenor, with Ivrea presenting the more extended, hence more digressive version. This would hardly be a case worthy of special mention. Should there be any liturgical Sanctus melody used by the composers, the method of handling the tenor might be still more in

ccmmon with well-known techniques. It remains, however, open to question whether or not the tenor is a liturgical chant. Such stereotyped sequences as appear in the

tenores of the Benedictus would rule out the presence of a chant, although these

sequential melismata could be added to a given melody. Unfortunately, the tenor of the Sanctus is not preserved in the Sorbonne Ms.; we have only the extended version of Ivrea. In the present Kyriale, only one Sanctus has a certain resemblance with the tenor, in our opinion only remotely; it is the Sanctus of the Mass No. VIII (Ex. 27).

Ex: 27. Kyria~e, Mass[TI, Jn Fesvc s Dupltibus:Sanctus.

Savuts/1Sic • us, SxLcwsaics, Do - m•,-nue

De-u Sa- - - ba. - oh

-e-"- 14- in - D-,,

Be-rne-d,- t, qi vee- rit i. no-nL-ve Do-v--nL.

Further serious doubt about the use of this melody arises in view of the Benedictus, which shows the melodies in Ivrea-Sorbonne and the chant of the Benedictus in Mass No. VIII to have nothing in common at all. Of course, there might be a melody in a 14th century (or earlier) manuscript which contains the chant version which the

composer used for his polyphonic composition. At all events, we seriously doubt that the chant of Mass VIII was chosen as tenor of the Sanctus.

The relationship between the two Sanctus in Ivrea and Sorbonne goes far beyond the identity of the tenores. Though incomplete, the Sorbonne composition allows

sufficiently illustrative comparisons. Also the dupla of Ivrea and Sorbonne are associated with each other. Again, we must begin with the Benedictus section. The initial

phrases, up to "In nomine," of the two dupla are as follows (Ex. 28 and 29):

Ex.28. ivrea,79, Beneictus, Duptlum

,I

I

,

Be - m = '• ' t,"s q- '- 'ni'

Ex. 29. Sorb, Benediaus,DupLwu I I __

I

" - r ipT " I IIr:; I doIr-0i0 21 I" i-




Comparing the two voices with one another, we have no doubt that they are at least basically the same. The Sorbonne version, rhythmically more active, shows more

figuration by bringing the prolatio major more frequently into play. But the melodic core is the same for both dupla. We noticed before that together with the phrase "In nomine" a considerable divergence appeared in the Tenores. Hence we should not expect any link between the upper parts within that phrase. But the association of the dupla is re-established exactly at the same place where the two tenores begin to be identical again, i. e. at "In excelsis": the three initial tones, three longae in Ivrea, three breves in Sorbonne, are in both dupla e' d' e'. Then follow the long sequences which move in Ivrea contrapuntally nota contra notam, in Sorbonne by hockets, with the same relation being realized in the second section of the melisma: nota contra notam in Ivrea, hockets in Sorbonne. Having tonally much in common, the two voices have the same shape of structure, save for the difference in the rhythmic order.

We may now turn to the initial Sanctus of which the Sorbonne Ms. has merely the duplum available for comparison. Even so, the relationship between the dupla in Ivrea and Sorbonne can be proved. For the first eight breves the relation of the two voices is one of complete identity (Ex. 30 and 31).

Ex.30. Jvrea, 79, Sanctws, duptum.

San - -ctus

Ex.31. Sorb. Sanct, &pumn.

Sck I - -- - - crUs

In the second Sanctus the voices are rendered more divergent. As they exhibit an overall similarity, though vaguely indicated, they nevertheless belong to the same stylistic family. Identity is re-established with the third Sanctus (Ex. 32 and 33).

Ex. 32.3vrea 79. Sanctus dutplum.

dowums de -uS Sa -bot- bx- olt

Ex-.33. Sorb. Sancncs dAupLtm.

Sanc• ctus dominus de-as Sa, - ba, - ort

With a slight variation toward the end, the identity is carried through "Sabaoth." The melodies for "Pleni sunt celi et terra gloria" are note for note the same in both




compositions, but on "tua" a new variaety occurs. On "salva nos" the Sorbonne

duplum presents a b c' b (J .J J.) c' (d.)14 d' (J.), pausa brevis, c' d' (~ ~), a b

(•.7) , a phrase that is the same in Ivrea exept for the initial group ( JJ~ j)Both

dupla coincide at the beginning and end of the last melisma on "In excelsis," with the end of the duplum in Ivrea resembling more the end of the triplum in Ivrea. A similar type of coincidence can be found at the end of the Benedictus. Of special interest are those phrases that seem to display the method of "reworking" or parody which may be demonstrated with two brief passages (Ex. 34 and 35).

Ex .34. Jvrea,,79, Soavcus tupLum.

itI I 1? 1 i'

Ex..35, Sorb. Sncuts duplwm. A? I _w, • I i J•.:-• K

" F " - i i; 1 1ir

What conclusions must be drawn from this composition, undoubtedly a work of extreme importance? Certain omissions which appear in the Sorbonne Ms. making its Sanctum an altogether shorter composition, and certain varieties which occur off and on after relatively long passages of complete identity in both tenor and duplum result from the fact that the Sanctus has a trope in Ivrea, none in Sorbonne. Also the

procedure of troping is quite peculiar. For the trope "Sanctus sanans fragilia" appears

only in the highest part, the quadruplum, an elaborate, lengthy voice. This quadru-

plum is entered in a manner typical of most of the Ivrea manuscript: on a full page, f. 63, with the Benedictus section being continued on a special page, f. 64. The three

lower parts, all unnamed - not even the tenor has a designation - do not have the

trope; they all sing the same liturgical text of the Sanctus with the brief (trope-like) insertion of "salva nos" in the Sanctus and of "tuos servos," "te laudantes," "quos creasti" in the Osanna of the Benedictus, with the latter three insertions being assigned successively to the three lower voices. The manner of writing the three lower

parts (on f. 62' for the Sanctus, on f. 63' for the Benedictus) differs considerably from the usual form found in Ivrea. Here the voices are distributed over the page in the older motet fashion: in two columns for the two upper parts, and the tenor written below on staves across the whole page. According to the traditional custom, the left column was assigned to the triplum, the right column to the motetus. The same

arrangement appears in the section of the Benedictus (f. 63'). None of the voices, however, is named. The usual way of distributing the voices presents the parts one

14 The last two tones are b c' in Ivrea: an obvious error of the scribe; for it is clear on the ground of the harmony that the two notes are a tone too high in Ivrea.




below the other, with the contratenor or tenor put lowest on the page. The troped quadruplum conforms to this manner of writing the voices.

The scribe of Ivrea seems to have had two copies of the Sanctus, one which contained the three lower parts, and another which included the quadruplum. The Sanctus must have existed as an independent composition, complete by itself, previous to the four part version which introduced the trope. Can we restore the original version simply by omitting the quadruplum? There are several factors that encumber the attempt to reconstruct the older version on the basis of the three lower voices in Ivrea. We pointed to the strange successive entrance in tenor, duplum, triplum in the Benedictus on "In nomine." A similar structure of such nearly "imitative" entrances occurs with the Sanctus directly before "dominus deus," and a third time on "quos creasti," "te laudantes," "tuos servos" (in this succession, with tenor, duplum, triplum following each other) in the Benedictus. These extensions, merely consisting of successive entrances which automatically lengthen the composition, cannot be ex- plained musically on the ground of the three-part Sanctus alone. There is no plausible reason that calls for these musical "insertions." Certain changes must have been made with an original model, changes which affected also those passages or phrases already mentioned when comparing the melodic identities or varieties in the individual parts of Ivrea and Sorbonne. And why does the text "tuos servos te laudantes quos servasti" appear in the Benedictus? It has not much meaning in between the long melismata on "Osanna" and "In excelsis." The words do not appear in the trope "Benedictus es iugiter qui venit salvare" of the quadruplum. But oddly enough they do occur in the troped Sanctus section of the quadruplum shortly before the end. There we read "salva tuos quos creasti," but not "te laudantes." It is indeed on account of the trope that insertions were needed to prolong the lower parts. But this is not the full explanation. It is true, with regard to the three musical insertions, on "Sanctus," "In nomine", and "servos tuos", the composer of Ivrea needed extensions to fit the long, troped quadruplum; in two cases he simply repeated the words of the liturgical text, "Sanctus" and "In nomine," while in the third case he took up the words of the trope whereby either he or the scribe jumbled the grammar of the sentence when assigning the words to the voices in the wrong succession. But what about the trope-like insertion of "Salva nos" which appears in the older three-part version in all three lower voices? Not being engaged in lengthening the composition for the sake of the troped quadruplum, the insertion of "salva nos" is entirely different. It must have been in the original version, although we should mention that the words "salva nos" precede (by 18 measures) the words "salva tuos quos creasti" of the quadruplum 15

It is now interesting to examine the Sorbonne version for comparison. Due to the preservation of the duplum for the Sanctus, we know the Sorbonne version also had the little insertion of "Salva nos", apparently in all parts with the same type of emphatic longae that his passage presents in Ivrea for all three lower voices. Ivrea has three longae in the duplum: d', # c', d'; but Sorbonne offers a variety, slight, yet

15 Textually, all the words, of course, belong together: ,Salva nos, servos tuos, te laudantes, quos creasti."




revealing. Between the first d' longa and c' brevis a brevis measure a b c' b (J~ 4 ) is inserted on the first syllable of "salva" while the first longa d' is clearly linked to the syllable "a" of the preceding word "tua". The last d' is in Sorbonne a brevis, followed by a pausa brevis. The sum total of three longae is therefore maintained. The insertion in the Sorbonne version proves that it did not result from the trope of the quadruplum. Since its musical structure differs widely from the three other troped insertions in the lower parts of Ivrea, we can safely assume that the "Salva nos" was included in the original version.

The specific musical form of this troping insertion "Salva nos" yields further interesting evidence. The Ivrea version of this passage appears to be closer to the

original. With the three unadorned chords (longae), the directness and simplicity of Ivrea conform to the make-up of a primary version, as opposed to the phrase in Sor- bonne, where an ornamental figure breaks up the chords, where above all the insertion of the words must have caused the inconsistency, actually the error, in underlaying the text (see: "-a sal-"). The three Iongae chords are exactly like those emphatic harmonies that come at the beginning of each important section: "Sanctus" (third), "Pleni sunt", "Salva nos," "Benedictus," "Osanna," and almost alwavs in three sustained longae which are marked with the corona in the Sorbonne Ms.16. Only at "Salva nos" (Sorbonne) is the straightforward statement of the chords weak- ened by an ornamentation and confused in the texting. Hence we are on solid ground if we assume that the lower parts of Ivrea represent the original at least in this passage more faithfully.

Now, also the old form of writing the composition in Ivrea gains new significance; it probably was the form in which the original was written. We believe that the original three-part version should be traced back to a primary source "x", now lost. The composer of the Ivrea version used this source for the most part quite faithfully, but adopted the composition to the quadruplum; that is to say, he wanted to compose the trope text at his avail by writing a new quadruplum as melody for the trope, in consequence of which he was forced to make certain changes in the body of the work. Except for the new quadruplum and the changes caused by the trope, Ivrea represents what we suppose to have been the original". The scribe, or composer, of Sorbonne, however, did not use the Ivrea version, but drew directly from the model "x" which he worked over in terms of a paraphrase, or, as we might again say (see the discussion below), of a parody.

How certain can we actually be in taking for granted that Sorbonne did not have the Quadruplum on one of the lost pages between the Gloria and Sanctus? Is it not

presumptuous as well as risky to carry out the argument on the basis of an uncertain preliminary? We tried to answer this question before, merely with the make-up and

16 These are, of course, not ,,longues a point d orgue" (Chailley, loc. cit., 94), but ,,morae generales," coinciding in all voices, hence sustained chords. 17 There might have been, of course, a still older version of the Sanctus without the troped insertion ,,Salva nos;" but this appears to be entirely outside the range of traceability.




order of the manuscript in view. The answer can now be clarified on musical grounds. While the troped insertion of "Salva nos" also appeared in the Sorbonne version, the further insertions, actually derived from the text of the quadruplum trope are omitted in Sorbonne. The troping words "servos tuos," "te laudantes," "quos creasti" are not in the Benedictus of Sorbonne. It is therefore obvious that the musician of the Sorbonne version cannot have worked with the Ivrea composition; he must have had the model "x" which did not contain these insertions. The Sorbonne version is, in

fact, not influenced by the trope. If Sorbonne has its own relationship to a primary source, and if the three lower

parts of Ivrea, before being changed for the sake of the trope, represent the original, possibly the oldest rendition, the next logical step to make must lead to an inquiry about the voices lost in Sorbonne. If our interpretation of the relationship of the

manuscripts to a primary source is correct, we should be able to reconstruct the lost

parts with the aid of Ivrea. This, indeed, is possible for those sections that are not

directly changed or added on account of the trope. We have no doubt that for the pas-

sages being completely identical in Ivrea and Sorbonne in every detail, even including the type of ligatures, the reconstruction can be made bc adding the missing voices from

Ivrea. We may show an example of the Sanctus, with the duplum taken from Sor-

bonne, tenor and triplum added according to Ivrea (Ex. 36 und 37).

Ex.36. 3vrea: tr~ipkmt,tnor, Sorb: cupgum. Tr

vv

CLIO- Ml" r,", de,-

us S•-- 1rba , "otii Du,

Sorb do -

wM-n de-us SCa-

ICa- ohI T C IA,

cto-•i - nts 4c*- Sc~- be.- o•

Ex-.37. 3vreLa'iplum, rer; Sorb: d"pLum. Tr IFii..?I T3v I I

_ -

PlC - M- 5nl sua ce- L ev ter- DLtC

Sorb L

T __-"_- " ?" '-m _ "_ --"

Re-- i -w e- e-i e"

wr- T

Jv

RZ n SU*Wt c - eve- ?ter-

is No sharp in Sorb. 19 Sharp in Sorb.




Tr .__-. •- ____ ___F

gLo- - - r -- , ~1 I

U 1i. o

Sorb rr rc gLo- - ri - -

Z3v

rV OLD- Ti r r

The composition in Sorbonne must have been either exactly the same as here

presented or slightly different in ornamentation 21

Of particular interest are now the sections where all the voices quickly move on in long melismata of sequences, where the original itself had long passages without text, where the added trope did not call for special extensions or changes, but had to be adjusted to the characteristics of the melismata. These are the long sequential melismata on "In excelsis" toward the end of the Benedictus. Relatively free from the influence of the trope, they should be most revealing with regard to the "reconstruction." We noticed before that the melismata of the tenor in Ivrea (a+b) are reversed in Sorbonne (b+a). In contrast to the tenores, the dupla of these melismatic sections are entirely different. Being considerably simpler, the duplum (Ivrea) moves along together with the tenor in the same rhythm of equal semibreves

(always in ligaturae cumr opposita proprietate, as in the tenor). The duplum in Sorbonne, however, is much more "sophisticated," or so intended to be, since the modern hocket is used to break up the even motion. An attempt to complete the Sorbonne version by adding the missing triplum from Ivrea to the two voices of Sorbonne is instructive. If we take the triplum of melisma "a" (Ivrea) to fit the voices in Sorbonne, we quickly find out that the combination does not work. But if we set the triplum of melisma "b" (Ivrea) to the first section in Sorbonne, the harmony between all parts is perfect, despite the fact that the Sorbonne duplum has the hocket at variance with Ivrea (Ex. 38).

Ex. 38. 3vre: ripLunAm; Sorb: ctaupam,tenor; melisma, on,, 'Jn excesis!

rL I ___? .

b S or b o i- i

I," • " ." - " .

- .I . . ..o

o

20 Following a (longa) the duplum has a lacuna of 4 breves in Ivrea. Sorb. allows emendation; the 4 measures should read:

. I

a b c' de' d 21 It should be noted that ,,Sabaoth" ends in Ivrea on a (duplum), longa simplex, and adds 4 breves (with rests for the triplum) a quick counterpoint in prolatio major without text to quadruplum and tenor (4 breves ligatae) before the ,,Pleni" section. In Sorbonne the longa a (on ,,Sabaoth") is the first




Certain conclusions can now be drawn. The greater simplicity of the Ivrea version is again suggestive of a particular closeness to the original. The composer of Ivrea took the original not to rework it under purely musical aspects in terms of a paraphrase or parody, not to modernize it in any way but to adjust it for the sake of the trope. The Sorbonne composer availed himself of the original with entirely different intentions. He really worked with the material of the original: he left it intact, where he saw no need for a change; he introduced the modern hocket which in the case of the melisma "a" altered the harmonic situation; consequently he must have composed also a new triplum in addition to the hocket duplum; in the case of the melisma "b", the new hocket duplum did not change the harmonic basis, hence he might have used the triplum of the original, although the fact that the triplum (b) fits the two lower voices does not imply that the composer of Sorbonne has actually taken it over; perhaps in Sorbonne the triplum for the two melismata (a + b) was on the whole new and participated in the hocket; and finally, there is the reversed order of the melismata. All this unfolds a characteristic working process with results which,

though somewhat different from those discovered in the Gloria, resemble the method of parody. For the Sorbonne composer worked also in the Sanctus with a model as a whole, i. e. with all parts of a composition rather than with but one voice, the tenor.

Do our findings cast light upon the chronology of the compositions? The question is not easy to answer definitely. Regardless of the changes caused by the trope, which can be singled out fairly well, but not always with absolute certainty, the style of the Ivrea version, "purified" of the trope and its influences, suggests for the thus restored

original (source "x") a period close to the middle of the century at the latest. The Sorbonne version must be placed around 1350 or directly after the mid-century; at all events, it is younger than the original, probably only by a few years. Though not being used for the re-working of the original in Sorbonne, Ivrea might have been

composed simultaneously with Sorbonne. The artistic or purely stylistic considerations were of no special importance to the composer of Ivrea who could leave the style of the older original unchanged as long as it did not interfere with his primary intention to trope. He may have rendered the troped version at the same time when the Sorbonne composer gave his more modern parody of the original. The chronological distance of both Ivrea and Sorbonne from the original should be about the same; and since the modernized Sorbonne version does not go very far beyond the stylistic range of the original, the distance from the original cannot be very large. In any event, to our knowledge it is unique that we have of one and the same composition the troped and the untroped version with the latter being a parody of an original that can be reconstructed only in part.

Finally, an account must be given of the trope of the quadruplum in Ivrea. Its

study yields results no less surprising than those of the untroped Sanctus. At first

note of a ligatura ternaria (a d' c'; longa, brevis, brevis). Ivrea is thus longer by two breves. The text of the quadruplum (9 syllables) did not really require the lengthening, since it could be fitted within 2 breves. Hence the trope is not always the cause of musical extensions; other musical considerations, of paraphrasing, ornamenting, etc., must also have been effective.




sight we do not expect to find anything peculiar in the quadruplum or anything other than what it obviously was: a troped melody. But the words "servos tuos quos creasti" were reminiscent of a similar phrase in another trope. Indeed, these words do occur in a trope which together with a second text is used in a Sanctus double motet: the composition No. 15 in Codex Apt. This double motet has the trope "Sacro Sanctus pater ingenitus" in the triplum, the trope "Sanctus miro" in the motetus. The same texts are underlaid to a Sanctus motet in Barcelona, Biblioteca de Catalunya, Ms. 946 (Barc C), musically different from Apt, and isorythmic in structure22.

Although the texts of the quadruplum on the one hand and those of the Sanctus double motet on the other are by no means identical, they are very close relatives. For comparison, the tropes of the triplum as well as motetus of the Sanctus motet must be considered. We put side by bide some of the lines that are either the same, or use the same words, or express the same or similar ideas.

Quadruplum (Ivrea) Motetus (Apt) Triplum (Apt) Tibique voce sobria Cantant cantica moduli Corus angelorum Agmina celorum... Deo nostro intonat Sanctus dicunt et filio Et cum quidem Sanctus et

Filius Sanctus dant flamini dona Sanctus quoque qui

donans fecundata... flamen dicitur Una in personis unus ... in personis

tribus Dominus unus et Deus unicus presidet in tronis in thronis presides pleni celi ac maria Plena sunt celes- Pleni celi, terra-

tia... que maria et terrestria loca

Salva tuos quos creasti Osanna filios quos creasti In Western and Eastern liturgies the Sanctus text has been expanded by added ideas

that were quite common: the idea of the "chorus angelorum," that of the "majestas in tronis presidens" (Apoc. 5, 13), or the idea of Trinity23. These ideas, subject of frequent discussion with a good many medieval liturgists, supplied the material for many a trope; doubtless, being widely known, they also proveded a common voca- bulary with which to express the ideas. The mutual association of our Sanctus tropes seems to go beyond a "general" similarity; they originated within one and the same climate. The tropes of the Sanctus double-motet in Apt came from the region of Avignon; they are known only in the versions of Apt and Barc C, with the latter

22 Apt has no indication of the tenor, Barc C has ,,Sacrosanctus" which in all likelihood refers to the incipit of the triplum, rather than to the tenor proper. 23 For the discussion of the idea of Trinity in the Sanctus, see, for example, Remigius of Auxerre, ,,Expositio", Migne Patrologia Latina 101, 1255. For the question as a whole, see A. Landgraf, Scho- lastisdie Texte zur Liturgie des 12. Jahrhunderts, in ,Ephemerides Liturgicae", 1931, 213.




manuscript also being linked to Avignon24. Also the Sanctus trope of the quadruplum in Ivrea seems to be unicum since, to our knowledge, it does not appear in any other

manuscript. In addition to the musical style, definitely Avignonese, also the trope texts place our Sanctus in the region of Avignon.

With the texts being so closely associated with one another, is there also a musical relationship between the Apt motet and the Ivrea quadruplum? The question has

fascinating implications. We might again first place certain passages side by side for comparison (Ex. 39-42).

Ex. 39.

Prm-ceps pa,-tus re reuwinu-

ti,-

ts 0 •.' I " ' . . . . . I . . . . I

pa-ter paC-tmf-wr se- - cu.-- - i

Ex- hO. ApL

-do sbL, rwi cit -

Can- tL - ca mo-cu-li.

Exr 41.

ux-pte cre-&- avr a per-so- nws Pal-tvis ev -li-

,Iv

5an,--aw d -uwefi -li- o muni ie-ro re - demp-to- r?

Er. 2.

ma-je-s-tins em.

Ng I I

cwicrr grlort ere.

These examples reveal, perhaps, no more than a stylistic relationship. Obviously the technique of figuration is exactly the same in the two voices. Wherever in accordance with the number of syllables the declamation of the text requires only the semibrevis, the corresponding example might show the prolatio (with minima) in operation, often only by repeating the same tone. At times the phrases are nearly identical in the two voices, although their brevity would seem to imply no more than a common stylistic idiom. Above all, the specific behavior of the melodic phrases

2" U. Chevalier, Repertorium, quotes the tropes after Gastoue, without giving any other source.




in more or less identical situations establishes a common denominator for the two

compositions. It is not impossible that the composer of the Apt motet has also composed the Ivrea quadruplum by availing himself of one of the Avignonese tropes very much like the tropes used in the double motet. Taking furthermore into account that the Ivrea repertory at least of the sacred music belongs to a circle of Avignonese musicians, we have no doubt that the composer of the troped Sanctus is one of them. If finally the composer of the untroped original was a different, perhaps slightly older musician, it is clear that also the original Sanctus must have belonged to the same

repertory since only from there was the composer of the quadruplum able to draw the Sanctus for this new troped version.

In the upper margin of f. 64 of Ivrea where the lower parts of the Benedictus are written in, a note has been entered subsequently in a slightly different ink by a different scribe, the same hand that also elsewhere in the manuscript entered marginal indications of what appears to be names of composers. The note of f. 64 above the Benedictus, difficult to decipher, may possibly be read "a dno uiob."25. So we have read "A domino" or "ad" ... "non" (?) The next letters do not seem to make sense; the first letter can be A majuscel (most likely), but also a U; the second letter can be n, or I and i, with a tiny o following in higher position; over what seems to be either n, or I and i, there is a vertical dash indicating an abbreviation; the last letter is apparently a b, but oddly written, for it has the form of a b-flat sign, at all events not that of the normal letter b. Should these words be an attribution to a composer? Is the reading " a domino" correct? If autorship is meant, we should expect "de," not "a;" but we prefer the reading "ad." Why does the note appear above the Bene- dictus and not at the beginning of the composition? We are unable to answer these questions. If reference to an composer is really made, the authenticity of such an attribution still remains a doubtful matter, as likewise other such marginal attribu- tions in Ivrea have doubtful authenticity. On the whole we are not inclined to see a name at all in the marginal note.

The importance of the Sorbonne manuscript is considerable. The new source enables us to learn about the troped and untroped version of one and the same work. In addition, it reveals techniques which we long have thought to have been the privi- lege of the Flemish, Italian, and French composers of the late 15th and the whole of the 16th centuries. At present, the Mass of the Sorbonne Ms. appears to offer the sole example of a Parody Mass movement. But it is to be expected not to remain the only instance. Additional significance derives from the fact that the Mass of Sorbonne puts research upon a new path to be explored.

25 In his list of the Ivrea compositions, H. Besseler, AfMW VII, 186, reads: ,dn dne nccb;" but the first letter is without question ,,a"; questionable is if d belongs to a or the following letters no (o not e). - In his catalogue Besseler designates Ivrea 79 (Sanctus sanans) as ,,MM," i. e. ,,Motetten- messe", and places Ivrea 42 (Gloria with motetus text: ,Clemens deus artifex") as the only other comparable example at the side of Ivrea 79. The designation ,Motet-Mass" applies better to Ivrea 42, certainly not to Ivrea 79. The quadruplum trope is not a motetus nor motet-like; the three lower parts of the Sanctus having all the liturgical text are vocal. The quadruplum produces something of a ,,cantilena-" (discantus) composition in accordance with which a formal designation if desirable should be chosen.



a fourteenth century parody mass

Documents