Review

Author(s): Peter Bergouist

Review by: Peter Bergouist
Source: Journal of the American Musicological Society, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Spring, 1970), pp. 144-150

Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the American Musicological Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/830357
Accessed: 03-01-2016 14:15 UTC

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 of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Musicological Society and University of California Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Journal of the American Musicological Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 14:15:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
144 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY
Franchinus Gaffurius, Practica Mu-
sicae. Translation and transcription
by Clement A. Miller. (Musicolog-
ical Studies and Documents, Vol.
20.) Dallas: American Institute of
Musicology, 1968. 244 p.
The Practica musicae of Franchinus
Gafurius. Translated and edited
with musical transcriptions by Ir-
win Young. Madison: The Uni-
versity of Wisconsin Press, 1969.
xxxvni, 273 PP.
GAFORI'S Practica Musicae of 1496 is un-
questionably one of the most important
treatises on music of its period. It is that
portion of the so-called Gafurian trilogy
which deals directly with the perform-
ance and composition of music; the other
two more speculative treatises which
complement it are Theoricum opus mu-
sicae disciplinae (1480; revised 1492) and
De harnmoniamusicorum instrumentorum
opus (1508). Since these two works are
relatively unconcerned with practical
matters, the Practica is Gafori's treatise
which would be of widest interest to
modern scholars and performers, and a
translation of it is most desirable. Its four
books of fifteen chapters each discuss,
respectively, the staff, clefs, solmization,
and church modes; notation; counter-
point; and proportions, thus providing a
complete and substantial introduction to
most subjects that the fifteenth-century
performer or composer would need to
know. The treatise has been described in
some detail in a recent article by Clement
Miller,1 in which its origins, sources, and
the successive stages in its composition
are also considered carefully; accordingly,
further description will be dispensed with
here in favor of discussing the transla-
tion itself.
Or rather, the translations. It is most
curious that two translations of Practica
have been issued within the past year,
one by Irwin Young and the other by
Clement A. Miller. On reading the two
1 Clement A. Miller, "Gaffurius's Practica
Musicae: Origin and Contents," Musica
Disciplina, XXII (1968), 105-128.
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 14:15:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
translations side by side, an immediate
impression is of the more fluent English
style of Miller. Young's translation is
more prolix, on rare occasions to the
point of unintelligibility. This difference
appears to be a direct result of two dif-
ferent philosophies of translation: Young
is trying to adhere quite closely to the
original, while Miller paraphrases more
freely. The result is in favor of Young
when Miller compresses too much or
even omits a phrase or sentence; the fol-
lowing is a representative example:
(Gafori, Book I, Chapter 3:) Omnis enim
littera sive sedes lineali vel spaciali loco
in introductorio disposita clavis vocitatur :
qluoniam notulae omnes lineis ipsis vel
spatiis clauduntur. Sed neque necessarium
fuisse constat lineas omnes et spacia pro-
priis litteris et clavibus declarare propter
scilicet mutuam contiguae descriptionis
conculcationem. Qua re congruum arbitrati
sunt Musici paucioribus signis omninesin-
troductorii chordas apperire.
(Young, p. 20 :) Every letter in the Gui-
donian system, whether in a lineal or a
spatial location, is called a clef [key],
since all the notes are locked up on these
lines or spaces. But obviously, it was un-
necessary to identify every line and space
with its own letter and clef because they
would be so close together that they would
trample all over each other. Accordingly,
musicians thought it sensible to show all
the notes of the system in fewer signs, ...
(Miller, p. 29:) Every letter or base
placed on a line or space of the Introduc-
torium is called a clef [clavis], because
all notes are included on these lines and
spaces. But is apparent [sic] that every
line and space does not need to have its
own clef letter in order to indicate pitches.
Therefore musicians have decided to show
all notes by only a few of the clef signs
found in the Introductorium.
Miller has failed to include the clause
which begins with the words, "propter
scilicet." They contain no indispensible
information, though they do amplify the
discussion slightly. There is no apparent
good reason for omitting them, and in
this instance and several others like it
Young's translation is preferable for be-
ing more faithful to Gafori.
Despite his frequent infelicities of style,
Young would be preferable on the basis
of exactness. He attempts a closer English
equivalent of what Gafori said, though
 REVIEWS
neither Young nor Miller matches the
elegance and precision of Gafori's Latin.
Unfortunately, Young and Miller fre-
quently disagree completely about the
meaning of a passage, and in many of
these instances Young is clearly in error.
An example is found in the same chapter
quoted above:
(Gafori, I, 3 :) Sol autem sonitus quam
mi semiditoni rursus intervallo acutior
est: et mi quam sol gravior: atque item
composite et incompositae consyderatur.
Distat autem hic ab eo quod inter re et fa
deductus est. Ille enim semitonium tono
acutius: hic tonum semitonio servat acu-
tiorem: quod his notulis probatur.
(Young, p. 24:) The pitch sol is higher
than mi again by a semiditone interval,
and mi is lower than sol; and likewise it
is considered compositely and incompos-
itely. Sol stands apart from the pitch
which is deduced between re and fa. The
semitone in the preceding example is
higher than the whole step; here the whole
step presides over the semitone. This is
proved by the following examples:
(Miller, p. 32:) Sol sounds a minor third
higher than mi, and mi the same distance
lower than sol; they are also found in a
scale formation and in a leap. But this
interval is different than the one between
re and fa, since in the latter the semitone
is above the whole tone, while in the for-
mer the whole tone is above the semitone,
as this example shows:
Young obviously has misunderstood the
antecedents of bic and eo; as Miller's
translation clearly indicates, Gafori is re-
ferring to the different placement of tone
and semitone within the semiditonesD-F
and E-G. When the text refers directly
to the musical examples,Young picks up
the thread again, but the meaningless
sentence stands in between. It is difficult
to understand how an error like this
would be allowed to pass through the
several readings to which the translation
was undoubtedly subjected.
Some fifteen to twenty examplesmight
be listed in which Young misses the sense
of the passagealtogether or mistranslates
in some substantialway, and they do not
enhance the value of his work. It should
not be assumed that Miller is blameless,
however. A few passages may be found
in which Young is clearly more accurate,
such as the following:
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 14:15:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
145
(Gafori, IV, 4:) Solet plerumque haec
subdupla proportio -a cantoribus canonis
descriptione probari: quum ascribitur
Crescit in duplo: neque aliter quam vel
propriis characteribus: vel ipso canone
(quod nonnullorum pace dixerim) sub-
duplam ipsam in cantilenis sentio dispon-
endam.
(Young, p. 185:) Frequently it is the
practice of musicians to indicate this sub-
duple proportion by canonic inscription,
when "It increases twofold" is written out.
I feel (and I should like to say this with
the permission of certain people) that
this subduple proportion should be set
forth in music only by appropriate nu-
merical symbols or by canonic inscription.
(Miller, p. 17o:) Proportion subdupla
[sic] is often indicated by singers through
a canon. When the canon Crescit in duplo
is inscribed, as if equating a proportion's
proper numerals with the canon (as I
said, pace to others), I think subdupla
should be applied to the song.
Here Young has rendered Gafori's mean-
ing exactly while Miller has tangled it
altogether, seemingly by overlooking the
parallel construction, "vel . . . vel." Mil-
ler is more often to be preferred when
he and Young disagree, but Miller goes
wrong often enough that the reader will
be confused or misled severaltimes. It ap-
pears that neither translationwas checked
with sufficient care, which is highly re-
grettable in a work of such importance.
The passages above raise serious ques-
tions of terminology. In the second set of
quotations, Young's "semiditone interval"
is certainly poor English style, as poor
as its equivalent, "minor third interval,"
or the comparable"fourth interval."Mil-
ler on the other hand is open to criticism
for his use of the term "minor third"
rather than "semiditone."The two are es-
sentially equivalent,of course, but Gafori
uses both terms, now one, now the other,
as he does with other intervals, such as
diatessaron and fourth or diapente and
fifth. Miller's inattention to these distinc-
tions lessens the value of his translation.
It is not pedantic to insist on accuracy
here. The terms "minor third" and "sem-
iditone" might possibly refer to that in-
terval in just tuning and Pythagorean
intonation respectively. I do not know
whether Gafori distinguishes them in that
way, and such a distinction would not
146 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY
apply to the perfect fourth or fifth. In
any case, Gafori's usage cannot be stud-
ied in Miller's translation.Miller's earlier
translation of Glarean's Dodecachordon
was criticized by Edward F. Houghton2
for inconsistencies in rendering terms,
and the same problems have been carried
over into the present work. The careless-
ness about designation of intervalsis fur-
ther compounded by the poor style of
such a sentence as the following (Miller,
p. 50): "A melody of the first Tone is
formed from the first fifth-species, ex-
tending from D sol re to a la mi re, and
the first fourth-species, extending from
a la mi re to high d la sol re." Young's
"First diapente species" (p. 45) avoids
Miller's ambiguous combination of ordi-
nal numbers, as well as reproducing the
terms properly.
Young's terminology is not without
fault, though. His reproduction of pitch
names in the Guidonian system is seri-
ously flawed by his use of Roman G
rather than the Greek letter or word in
the pitch name, Gamma ut, and his lack
of proper distinction between the b and
? signs in the name, b fa ? mi. Both b and
are reproduced as "b," and the distinc-
tion is not trivial. Gafori uses "b" for b,
which would have been acceptable, but
"b" for ? surely is not. There is even
some indication that Young does not un-
derstand Guido's system fully. Gafori's
discussion of musica ficta (III, 13) says,
"Inde si in Elami gravem permutaveris
mi in fa: deponetur fa maiore semitonio
in grave: cuius Exachordum in ? mi
gravem acquiret exordium." For this
Young gives (p. '57), "When you change
mi into fa on the grave e la mi, fa will
be set a major semitone lower, and its
hexachord will begin on the grave B fa."
A footnote to this sentence adds, "The
Latin here reads B mi, but this is obvi-
ously an error and has been corrected to
read B fa in translation.With Eb as fa,
the acquired hexachord must commence
on Bb." The hexachord must indeed be-
gin on Bb, but Gafori's text is not in
error. Since no hexachord began on low
F in Guido's system, the lowest B had
2This JOURNAL, XX (1967), 293.
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 14:15:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
only the syllable mi, and theorists would
refer to any B, natural or flat, in this
octave by the name B mi, which was all
the system gave them. They might some-
times say something like "fa acquisitum
in B mi," but even though Gafori did not
say this, his text is correct as it stands.
Only an explanatoryfootnote was neces-
sary.
Another questionable term is Young's
use of "mode" for tonus, in the sense of
church tone. Since tone and mode have
multiple meanings both in Gafori's Latin
and our English, it would seem prefer-
able to keep the original terminology and
let any ambiguity be charged to Gafori
rather than his translator. A footnote
could clarify any such confusion. On p.
I30, the reference to the "most perfect
system"would have been rendered better
by the standard English term, "Greater
Perfect System." One wonders why
Young did not use it.
Occasional anachronismsin Young are
distressing.He speaks on p. I27 of a har-
monious mean within the interval of the
sixth which is a third up from the lower
extreme and also "sounds as the root of
the diatessaronabove." Gafori has, "quae
scilicet tertia est ad graviorem et diates-
saron subsonat ad acutam" (III, 2). The
term root surely has no place in a fif-
teenth-century treatise.Another anachro-
nism results from false cognates; where
Gafori says that the B-molle hexachord
"quartamdisponit chordam fa quae toni-
aeam scindit distantiaminter A la mi re
et ? mi . . ." (III, 13), Young gives, "em-
ploys the fourth chord degree fa, divid-
ing the whole tone distance between a
la mi re and b-mi, . . ." (p. I56). "Chord
degree" is as inappropriate as "root";
quartam chordam means simply "fourth
pitch" in the hexachord.
Both Young's and Miller's translations
are annotated; Young's comments are
more copious and more useful for that
reason, although Miller's article includes
much commentary that might otherwise
have appearedas notes. A few of Young's
comments are unsatisfactory,though. On
p. 69 he gives a note for a quotation of
Bede by Gafori (II, x), but fails to ob-
 REVIEWS 147
serve that Gafori quotes Bede incom- The introductions to the two transla-
pletely and thus incorrectly; Young also tions are of disproportionatelength. Mil-
fails to indicate that the quotation is lit- ler's is slightly more than two pages long,
eral. Miller puts the passage in quotation while Young's runs to thirty-six pages.
marks and indicates Gafori's omission; The real introduction to Miller's edition
his note, however, refers to Volume 93 is his article mentioned above, in which
of Migne's Patrologia Latina, whereas he discusses the Practica and its back-
Young gives the correct Volume 90. ground quite a bit more extensively than
Young, p. 77, indicates that Tinctoris' Young, although Young is more informa-
writings do not contain the term, "minim tive on some points, notably Gafori'spub-
in quadruple proportion," where Miller lisher and the various reissuesof Practica.
correctly identifies its source in Tinc- It is unfortunate that Miller's article was
toris' Proportionale. not in fact used as his introduction; it
A few of Young's comments on tuning belongs with and should be used with his
and intervals require correction. In note translation.
8, p. 128, to Gafori's III, 2, where Gafori It should be clear already that Young's
hasmentioneda need to temperthe tone translation contains a large number of
which forms a mean between the ex- serious flaws. It emerges as
decisively un-
tremes of a major sixth, Young states that acceptable in its treatmentof the musical
Gafori achieves this by lowering the examples in which Practica abounds. To
mean by a Didymic comma, so that a just begin with, they are not numbered;Mil-
major third of the ratio 5:4 and a perfect ler adds consecutive numbering to them,
fourth of 27:20 result as the intervals which makes reference much easier. The
which comprise the major sixth. This telling
point against Young is that abso-
may be what Gafori did, but he nowhere lutely no indication is given of the origi-
describes the exact nature of the tem- nal notation: no mensural
sign, no incipit,
peramentin Practica,and Young gives no indication of ligatures or coloration,
no reference to any other work by Gafori no indication of
proportional signs or
that may include this information. An numeralswhich occur
during the course
even more serious error is found in note of an
example. Since so many of the ex-
12, p. 133-4, in which Young comments amples illustrate particulars of notation,
on Gafori's famous statement that organ- this lack is inexcusable.If the
purpose of
ists temperthe fifth in practice(III, 3). translatinga treatiseis to makeits thought
Young correctly notes that this may be accessible to those who do not read the
one of the earliest references to a tem-
original language,this purpose is defeated
perament, and then goes on to say that if such a significant part of the work's
it "anticipatesthe meantonesystem ad- content is so
thoroughly obscured.Amaz-
vocated by the blind organist Arnold
ingly enough, even the examples which
Schlick in his Spiegel der Orgelmacher indicate the basic mensural
relationships
und Organisten." Schlick's tuning, ac- in Book II,
Chapters 7 to 9, are tran-
cording to all recent studies, can by no scribed into reduced values, so that when
means be construed as a meantone sys- the translation on
p. 89 reads, "Illustra-
tem; it is in fact closer to equal tempera- tions of perfect and imperfect tempus
ment. A meantone system was first de- are set down
quite clearly in this exam-
scribed by Pietro Aaron in his Toscanello,
ple," the example is in either 3/4 or 2/4
1523.3 meter with half and quarter notes, and
'
J. Murray Barbour, Tuning and Temper-
there is nothing clear about it at all as
ament, 2nd ed. (East Lansing, 1953), pp. 26, far as Gafori's meaning is concerned.
137; Heinrich Husmann, "Zur Character- Miller manages all of this much better.
istik der Schlickschen Temperatur," Archiv
fiur Musikwissenschaft, XXIV (1967), 253- of its Relationship to the Organ in the Six-
265. See also Elizabeth Berry, "Arnolt teenth Century," M.A. thesis, University of
Schlick's Spiegel der Orgelmacher und Or- Oregon, 1968. Young cites only an article
ganisten: a Translation and Consideration of 1939 as a source for his information.

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 14:15:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
148 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN NIUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY
In the chapters in question and through-
out his translation,short examplesare re-
produced in facsimile from the original
edition, so that one sees the original
breves and semibreves and circle and
semicircle in the above example, all in
their proper relationships.
Young devotes three pages of his pre-
face to explaining his methods of tran-
scription, at the end of which he says
(p. xxxvi): "Students of music will un-
doubtedly wish to compare these tran-
scriptions with the original examples. A
parallel text may be found in the facsim-
ile edition of the Practica published by
Gregg International Publishers, Ltd.,
Farnborough, England." Undoubtedly
they will wish to compare them, but it
should not be necessary to purchase a
facsimile edition for some forty-odd dol-
lars in order to do so. Few "students of
music" of my acquaintance, or professors
of music, for that matter, have budgets
of such amplitude. I would insist strongly
that the translation should be self-con-
tained, usable and understandable with
no need for such extensive outside refer-
ence. Ideally the original notation should
be reproduced in full, facing the tran-
scriptions; the expense involved probably
prevented this in either translation. Mil-
ler does, however, give the incipits, pro-
portional signs, changes of mensural signs,
and ligatures, though not, unfortunately,
coloration; the examples serve their
proper function of illustration. In the
latter chapters of Book II, Miller supple-
ments the examples illustrating alteration,
perfection, imperfection, and dots by
showing the crucial notes in their origi-
nal values above the staff. This is neces-
sary because Gafori's text often refers to
specific notes in the examples by their
value, not their pitch; Young's omission
of any clear indication of where to find
these notes makes these chapters in his
edition almost useless.
It goes without saying that the chapters
on proportions which comprise Book IV
are unsatisfactory in Young because of
the examples. Only in the more complex
proportions which cannot be notated by
means of dots, ties, and triplets can one
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 14:15:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
get a clear visual image of the relation-
ship involved. In these Young places notes
in smaller type under a bracket in which
is inscribed the proportion, e.g., 10:7, 9:5;
these smaller notes in the cantus are
spaced against the necessary number of
notes in the tenor, whose integer valor
remains in normal-sized notes. Since the
mensuration in the tenors generally re-
mains constant, and since Young tran-
scribes this mensuration carefully, these
complex examples are more comprehensi-
ble than many simpler ones. When Young
uses dots and ties rather than the large
brackets, it is often hard to tell where
the proportion begins, unless there is a
sharp increase in rhythmic complexity.
The vertical alignment between staves is
sometimes careless, so that notes which
coincide are displaced diagonally.
When Young transcribes notes under a
proportion in the meter which preceded
the proportion, errors sometimes creep in.
Several missing or superfluous dots and
ties may be passed over, but a few larger
errors should be noted. On p. 244 in the
example for the proportion 4:17 (IV, 1o,
last example), the proportional section in
the cantus begins in bar 4 of Young's
transcription. The values of each note or
group of tied notes to the middle of bar
i2, where the proportion is cancelled, are
as follows in multiples of eighth-note
triplets: 7, 7, 3, 3, 7, 2, I, II, 3, 7.
This is not a correct transcription of
C
Similar errors are to be found in the 6.
example of 4: 1, p. 255, and the example
in Chapter 14, p. 262. These examples,
however, are surpassed in inaccuracy by
another, that on p. 168, the last example
in IV, i. Young has apparently ignored
the proportional signs altogether and has
come up with a completely garbled tran-
scription. Unfortunately, he adds a foot-
note which says, "Here Gafurius de-
liberately proves his point by negative
illustration. This is the only musical ex-
ample in the Practica in which the parts
cannot be synchronized, where there is
no fit." Miller's correct transcription (his
Example 45, P. iss) shows that the parts
can indeed be synchronized. Gafori's
 REVIEWS
"point" was the undesirability of a sesqui-
altera proportion applied to perfect time
in one part while the other part is in im-
perfect time. The relationship is compli-
cated, but his example shows how it can
be fitted together, though it may in fact
have been intended as a "negative illus-
tration."
Apart from these unfortunate exam-
ples, Young's transcriptions as such are
quite accurate. Both he and Miller have a
few minor errors, mostly obvious; Miller
has no examples so grossly incorrect as
Young's noted above. Young's reduction
of time values in the scale of 1:4 results
in a blacker page than Miller's I:2, and
the crowded layout does not help legibil-
ity in Young. Miller's examples are more
readable; more important, they show the
original relationships adequately. A tran-
scription alone is insufficient.
Young is far too generous in adding
musica ficta. It is remarkable to find that
he states (p. xxxv), "In view of the con-
voluted aspect of the musica ficta prob-
lem, a policy of editorial reserve seems
indicated," since his policy is of anything
but reserve. B-flats are supplied so liber-
ally that almost every polyphonic exam-
ple that cadences on G, for example, is
changed from Mixolydian to Dorian, es-
pecially those in which the upper voice
approaches the final G from above. A
large proportion of his added B-flats can
be justified by none of the usual criteria;
at times it seems that every B was low-
ered. This policy is even applied to the
monophonic examples in Book I, where
almost any accidental would seem out of
place. Some of the examples in Book I,
by the way, are indicated at the wrong
octave; an 8 below the treble clef should
be omitted or added as the case may be.
Several general considerations about
translation emerge from comparing these
two samples. In addition to those already
discussed, I should like to consider the
question of when to translate a term and
when to leave it in the original language.
Young translates almost everything to the.
extent of referring, for example, to "sub-
duple superbipartient fifths proportion."
"Proportion of subduple . . ." might be
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 14:15:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
149
better English style, but I think much
may be said for putting such terms into
English rather than leaving them, as Mil-
ler does, in Latin. Occasional pages in
Miller seem to use more italic than roman
type, and one begins to wonder whether
this is in fact a translation. Some terms in
Latin and other languages have no sim-
ple equivalents in English or may be con-
fused with a false cognate; these are
probably best left in the original, but
surely this is not true of such as "perfect
time" or "perfect prolation," for example,
which seem no more or less clear than
tem pus perfectum or prolatio perfecta.
I submit that most terms in notation, a
field in which non-translation flourishes
especially vigorously, can perfectly well
be rendered in English, or at least con-
sidered as English words by adoption. No
greater confusion should result from
translation than from a profusion of Latin
terms, and the latter very possibly may
discourage students and performers who
would profit from closer study of the
subject of notation. One assumes that
translations, after all, are made for a
general readership rather than for spe-
cialists who will continue to want to use
the originals, so why should the transla-
tions be unnecessarily forbidding?
In this respect, and in his attempt to
follow Gafori's text more closely, I find
Young's intentions commendable. It is
doubly a pity then that his execution is
marred by so many errors in translation
and by the nearly useless musical exam-
ples, to the extent that the translation
cannot be recommended for any sort of
serious study. Miller is in general satis-
factory, though caution is always in or-
der. A comparison of the two translations
can help to locate passages in which
Miller is less accurate, but for the most
part he may be taken as reproducing
Gafori's thought adequately if not pre-
cisely. Specialists must continue to use
the original to be sure of knowing ex-
actly what Gafori said.
Finally, something remains to be said
about the simultaneous appearance of two
translations of the same major text. Had
there been prior agreement among those
 150 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICALSOCIETY
involved in issuing these two books, we at 15, then was ordained in 1539 or 1540;
might have had one translation each of from the evidence of his contemporaries,
two treatises instead of two of the same he was devotedly religious all his life,
one. The sticky question of who de- serving his faith not only as a musician,
fers to whom certainly defies any general but also as Canon of the Cathedral of
rules; was Young's fifteen-year old dis- Chioggia, his native city. He was at one
sertation on Gafori or Miller's more re- time considered as the major candidate
cent translationof another major treatise for the bishopric of that city, but was
the more valid claim to priority on Prac- denied the place through political influ-
tica? One wants to protest the duplica- ence of a rival. His education was thor-
tion of time and effort, but the more one oughly humanistic, for he was a student
considers, the less easy it is to decide of theology and philosophy as well as
where to direct the protest. Equal cen- music; he had close connections with the
sure (which may amount to none at all) Venetian painters Tintoretto and Titian,
seems the only possibility without more and we have today some wood-cuts from
knowledge of the circumstances. The his hand. In his writings, published in
more important issue is, after all, the Venice in a complete edition in 1589,
quality of the translations,and the exist- there are many quotations in both Greek
ence of two versions which may readily and Hebrew, suggesting the range of his
be compared is a unique contribution, erudition.
however negative at times, to the art of As a practicing musician, he was a
translation. Perhaps we should content composer of both secular and sacred
ourselves with this thought and hope in works, with the emphasis on the latter.
the future for better communication as Most of his compositional activity seems
well as better translations. to have come in the I560's, although his
PETERBERGQUIST first published collection, the Quinque
vocum moduli, is from 1549. But Zarlino's
University of Oregon
fame is not due to his compositions,
which are more academic than inspired;
Gioseffo Zarlino. The Art of Coun- it is the series of volumes on music theory
terpoint. Part Three of Le Istitu- to which he owes his reputation. His
tioni Harmoniche, I558. Translated major works in this field are Le istitu-
by Guy A. Marco and Claude V. tioni harmoniche,first published in Ven-
Palisca. New Haven: Yale Univer- ice in 1558, reprinted without change in
sity Press, 1968. xxvi, 294 PP. 1562, and with revisions and additions
in 1573 and 1593, and Dimostrationi bar-
THE POSITION of Gioseffo Zarlino (1517- moniche, first
printed in Venice in 1571
1590), director of the chapel of St. Mark's and reprinted in 1578 and i579. As a
at Venice from I565 until his death, has
reply to certain critics, in 1588he brought
been mostly aptly summarized in the out his Sopplimenti musicali, a
repetition
statement that, "... probably no theorist of much that had
already been treated in
since Boethius was as influential upon his first two books, but here with fur-
the course of the development of music ther
explanation.The I588 edition of Le
theory."I He received the tonsure in 1532 istitutioni has been reprinted in facsimile
1Robert W. Wienpahl, "Zarlino, the by Broude Brothers (New York, 1965)
Senario and Tonality," in this JOURNAL, and the 1573 edition by Gregg Press
XII (1959), 27; this article is not mentioned
by Marco and Palisca. On the implication of
(Ridgeway, New Jersey, 1966); the Dim-
Zarlino's ideas for future generations, see ostrationi harmoniche (1571) has also
Imogene Horsley's authoritative and lengthy been reproduced in facsimile by Broude
reviews of the Broude Brothers facsimiles Brothers (New York, 1965). In 1589, his
of both Le istitutioni and Dimostrationi in works were collected under the title De
MLA Notes, XXIII (1967), 515-19. I have
tried in this review not to cover the same tutte l'opera del R. M. Zarlino, published
ground, for her review is magistral. at Venice in two volumes; this collection

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 14:15:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions