Salve Fami!
Beneath the Letter and the Fiction
“I pretends and says many thing hat are
Ge verisimilitudinous and that there may be some
usicians pursuing medieval music study in Basel and elsewhere
med many things about the two historical cultures, Gothic France and
Italy, which together produced a significantly lager part of surviving music nota-
tion and music-related igs than any other Western European cultural groups
from the period.* The present esay examines a central Italian work as an example
‘of what might be described as a record of a pedagogical moment in 14*-yathoiai us erey
Byefer quo gd'ri urs mn cit plano cog tp fitd masoas"
Fig. ja: Einsedcn, Sifshiblithek, Codex 691200), fl. 7 (north Tay, carly 15 centu-
sy): Lacidaium of Marchetco da Padova, showing the use ofthe semitonus /emitonium
‘maior in counterpoint
tonati.? Here the composer has placed the uncommon leaps not in che con-
‘ratenor part, or perhaps in the superius, as one might expect, but in the tenor
19) Chantilly Bibl. du chiteau de Chantilly, Ms 64, fl. 25. Fora modern edition ee Will Apel,
French Secular Compositions ofthe Fourtcenth Century, Rome: American Institute of Masi
‘ogy 1970 (CMM 53), 77-79; Facsimile edition by Yolanda Plumley and Anne Stone, CFig. sb: Pais, Bibl. nationale, fonds nowy. aq, f. 671, fol. 6v (Veneto, ca. 1400); O in
Thalia feice Liguria of Jacopo da Bologna, tenor voice (vitornello) showing the use ofthe
rritonus above the words scorea e>
Fig. sc: Paris, Bibl. nationale, fonds italien 568, fl, 2v (north Italy, ca. 1400); Nel chiara
_fiume of Lorenzo Masini, supers voice (ritornello) showing the use ofthe dtonus semito-
rnatusat the end of line rand beginning of line 2
voice, which normally guards the modal identity of the work in this repertory.
Featuring passages such as the selected examples in Figure 4 (there are others in
the piece as well), the counterpoint has been crafted to leave no doubs that the
tenor must not be altered by the application of fictas it thus becomes evident
that tenoristi were also expected to negotiate tricky leaps, as were seen above in
the second interpretation of Lantefana.
While we can only assume that singers strove to match monochord pitch
reference when singing the sritonus, ditonus semitonatus and semitonus maior,
we also cannot ignore evidence of their awareness that they were in a conun-
drum, that is, there was a compromise between singing practice and music
theory in terms of Pythagorean interval proportions, specifically in relation to
singing coniuncta (musica ficta).”® This can be observed in compositions which,
Chany Biblioshoqu du chdtau de Chantily, Ms 6p, Facsmil, Tarahous! Tours
2008 (Epitome musica.
20 Sce Long, «Singing Through the Looking Glass (se n. 4), 329-357, in parscular the fol
lowing om p. 329: «Despite the fairly universal theoretical aceprance of Pythagorean can
ing inthe Middle Ages, iis nonetheless possible to point to numerous evidences ofthe useS555
pag pt
Fig. 4: Chantilly, Bibl, du chiteau de Chantilly, Ms 564 fl. 25 (ca. 1400);
bien le chantera of Guido, bars 47-48 and 23-24 (CMM 53, 77-79) showing the use of
the trtonus and dizonus semitonatus in the tenor
like Lantefana, are didactic, and in music instruction books of the 14" century.
Marchetto da Padovals Lucidarium includes his heretical (that is, non-literal
cording to the Pythagorean monochord) division of the zanus in order to de-
scribe the leading tones he and his singers use.” The Berkeley treatise, mean-
while, gives a full catalogue of coniuncta pitches, while confirming that singers
sing C sharp and D flat, F sharp and G flat, etc. as the same pitch, considering
them to be equivalent intervals.
Such apparent heresy, or at first sight, mathematical compromise, is noth~
ing other than the difference between practice and theory (or reality and ideal
blueprint) known as the Problem of Universals, one of the central philosophi-
‘al concepts fundamental to medieval world view.* Icis the starting point for
the conception of the second level of Lantefana, which neatly addresses the di-
Jemma of 14!-century musicians: they must negotiate the space between num-
fn musical practice, or the assumption on the part of practical musician, of equal semper
ment. By this ofcourse Ido not mean chae instruments and voices were actualy cured so
that each semitone would equal the ewelthr00t of two in proportion to the note below; but
that some theorss posited the equal divisblty of interval, and some musicians simply pre-
sumed tht semitones were equal to one another, hat A. lat was the same note a G sharp,
ten Cross discussion about equal temperament in 14?-century music (Chapter X of her
isertaton) i important, preceded, hoveever by others suchas Oliver Ellsworth, comment-
ing upon Book V of the Berkeley treatise. Olly, these discussions do nor acknowledge that
the conincta examples in Book I of Berkeley (Elsworth, The Berkeley Mancrpe seen. 14]
51-67) alteadycleatly confirm the equivalence of Ci and D fa, F mand G fi et. Interest
ingly all of Berkley’ coniancua examples are taken fiom monophonic chant {sc}, which s
the leas likely context we would expect to find them, rather than from polyphonic interval
progressions, the context far which they exist, soto speak
1 Jan Herlinget, The Lacidariom of Manheto of Padua: A Critical Editon, Translation and
Commentary Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1985, 138-143
1 Elsworth, The Berkeley Manaserip (Se m4) 51-67
24, See, for example, Chapter IX, «The Question of
tion of Medieoal Thought, New York: Vintage Boo
sale, in: David Knowles, The Evol
1962, 107-18 youre
ber theory and practice regarding the two technical parameters of practical mu-
sic, pitch and rhythm. Lantefana is of course only about the first; about the
second parameter of measurement, mensural rhythm, there was effectively no
equivalent evidence of compromise on the part of practicing musicians, within
a system constructed upon a literal relationship between sound duration and.
written symbol.
To conclude, let mention be made of a second example of late 14"-cen-
tury didactic composition. The infamous rondeau of Solage, Fumete fume, ad-
dresses the singer's conundrum in no less of a jocular way than Lanteina.**
“The text of Fumens fume is one of two song texts concerned (literally) with hu-
‘mous, in particular, one of the four medieval humours, the choleric humour.’
Anger apparently clouds the reason of the composer, who has woven an irra-
tionally dizzying tapestry of coniuncta-driven sequences and unexpected inter-
val progressions. Rising out of the vaporous spirit of Lantefina, the following
question is posed: What lies here beneath the leter and the fiction, hitherto un-
supposed? Look carefully to the placing of the Fictional signs on parchment ..
think on the letters of Furmeux fume par fimee fumeuse speculacion quiantrefum-
‘met sa pensce fumewx fume par fumee ... find the key and gain admittance to the
circle of true singers forever, Amen!
24 The unique source for che rondeau is Chantilly, Ms 564, fl 59. Modern editors ofthe work
include Apel, French Secular Compositions (se m1), 200, and Peter Lefferts, «Subriiasin
the tonal language of Fumeux fumes, in: EM 16s (1988), 176-183. In my opinion, none of|
the hitherto published editions accurately reflect 100% what is written in the manuscript in
‘ems of pitches (ends of ligatures) and applicable ict signs, although both areas can admit:
‘edly be problematic and open to discussion in this source. As with other Chantilly pieces,
the lack of any concordance for Fumeus fume fosters wide-ranging differences of inept
tion regarding the above.
35 The second work isthe ballade Pus que je suis fume by Hasprois (Chantilly, Ms 564
fal. 347; one modern edition is Apel, French Seclar Comperitions (se 19) 8-83. For an
offering of three different translations of the text, se Lefferts, «Subtiias in the tonal lan
guage of Fumeux umes (se. 24) 82.