Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T09:34:50.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A central European repertory in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 14274*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Tom R. Ward
Tom R. Ward
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Codex latinus monacensis 14274 of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich, the so-called St Emmeram codex, has been well known to musicologists since its discovery and description by Karl Dèzes in the late 1920s. Since Dèzes's very perceptive study, however, its contents have been explored only insofar as individual pieces were related to a particular task: the study of another manuscript, the preparation of an edition, or the exploration of a genre. In this way much has been learned about the works of major composers such as Dufay and Dunstaple and the manuscript has been seen as similar in many ways to other contemporaneous manuscripts in its presentation of a collection of works by major continental and English composers within a context of music of its more immediate surroundings. These more immediate surroundings, the place of origin of the manuscript, have yet to be securely established.

Type
Research Article
Information
Early Music History , Volume 1 , October 1981 , pp. 325 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Dèzes, K., ‘Der Mensuralkodex des Benediktinerklosters Sancti Emmerami zu Regensburg’, Zeitschrift für Musikwissenschaft, 10 (1927–1928), pp. 65–105Google Scholar. (The manuscript will hereafter be referred to as Munich 14274.)

2 This is Dèzes's Scribe 6.

3 For example, the sign used here to indicate prolation is used by Ciconia as one of three methods of indicating modus (de la Fage, A., Essais de dipthérographie musicale (Paris, 1864), p. 387)Google Scholar; by Prosdocimus as a general indication of two or three, without specific reference to modus, tempus or prolation (Prosdocimus de Beldemandis, A Treatise on the Practice of Mensural Music in the Italian Manner, ed. and trans. Huff, J. A., Musicological Studies and Documents 29 (n.p., 1972), p. 26)Google Scholar; and in a number of Italian Trecento works but never with reference to anything comparable to prolation (von Fischer, K., Studien zur italienischer Musik des Trecento und frühen Quattrocento, Publikationen der Schweizerischen Musikforschenden Gesellschaft, ser. ii. 5 (Berne, 1956), pp. 116–17Google Scholar.

4 The date is given a few lines from the end as ‘mille c ter sexagesimo nono’. The statutes refer to the Musica Muri for the first time in 1389, although music was required (without a specific text being mentioned) in 1367; See Pietzsch, G., Zur Pflege der Musik an den deutschen Universitäten bis zur Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts (Hildesheim, 1971), pp. 7–9Google Scholar.

5 The prose treatises are closely related but do not seem to be direct copies of each other or of another, lost source. There are innumerable similar passages and a few instances of identical statements. It seems more likely that the treatises came into being as the result of independent compilation of current practices, probably drawing indirectly (from notes or memory) on the substance of a treatise which is now lost. I have considered the treatise, copies of which are in the libraries of Schloss Harburg and the University of Pennsylvania, as representing a separate tradition (see Table 3). Although the descriptions of musical forms are similar to those in the other prose treatises, the repertory of pieces cited in this treatise is largely different. See Staehelin, M., ‘Beschreibungen und Beispiele musikalischer Formen in einem unbeachteten Traktat des frühen 15. Jahrhunderts’, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 31 (1974), pp. 237–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Günther, U., ‘Problems of Dating in Ars Nova and Ars Subtilior’, L'ars nova italiana del Trecento: quatro convegno internazionale, ed. Ziino, A. (Certaldo, 1978), p. 296Google Scholar.

a Ed. in Wolf, J., ‘Ein Breslauer Mensuraltraktat des 15. Jahrhunderts’, Archiv für Musik-wissensckaft, 1 (1918), pp. 331–45Google Scholar.

b Gallo, F. A., ed., Tractatulus de cantu mensurali seu figurativo musice artis, Corpus Scriptorum de Musica 16 (n.p., 1971)Google Scholar.

c Kellner, A., ‘Ein Mensuraltraktat aus der Zeit um 1400’, Anzeiger der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 94 (1957), pp. 72–85Google Scholar.

d Published after Michaelbeuern, Stiftsbibliothek, MS 95, without collation of other readings, in Federhofer, R., ‘Ein anonymer Musiktraktat aus der 2. Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts in der Stiftsbibliothek Michaelbeuern/Salzburg’, Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch, 46 (1962), pp. 43–60Google Scholar.

e Mužíková, R., ‘Pauli Paulirini de Praga Musica mensuralis’, Acta universitatis carolinae, Philosophica et historica, 2 (1965), pp. 57–87Google Scholar.

f de Coussemaker, E., Scriptorum de musica medii aevi nova series, 4 vols. (Paris, 1864–1876), iii, pp. 475–95Google Scholar (Scriptorum de musica is hereafter abbreviated as CS).

a Incipits in parentheses are those used in the Breslau treatise.

b The manuscript was lost during World War ii. The library catalogue lists two separate texts, Deo gratias papales and Deo gratias fideles, as occurring on folio 222v, ‘beides mit Noten’ It seems very likely that these are the two voices of this piece. See Günther, O., ed., Katalog der Handschriften der Danziger Stadtbibliothek, 6 vols. (Danzig, 1892–1913), ii, p. 252Google Scholar.

c For a list of sources for and citations of the thirteenth-century motet, see Anderson, G. A., ed., Compositions of the Bamberg Manuscript, Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae 75 (n.p., 1977), p. lxivGoogle Scholar.

7 Timm, E., Die Überlieferung der Lieder Oswalds von Wolkenstein, Germanische Studien 242 (Lübeck, 1972), pp. 126–57Google Scholar.

8 Ibid., pp. 137–57.

9 Harrison, F. Ll., ed., Motets of French Provenance, Polyphonic Music of the Fourteenth Century 5 (Monaco, 1968), p. xvGoogle Scholar.

10 Černý, J., ‘Die mehrtextige Motette des 14. und 15. Jahrhunderts in Böhmen’, Colloquium musica bohemica et europaea … 5, ed. Pečman, R. (Brno, 1972), pp. 71–97, esp. pp. 73–4Google Scholar.

11 Bauch, G., Geschichte der Breslauer Schulwesens vor der Reformation, Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae 25 (Breslau, 1909), p. 88Google Scholar.

12 Cerný, J., ‘Die Ars nova – Musik in Böhmen’, Miscellanea musicologica, 21–3 (1970), pp. 74–106, esp. pp. 80–2Google Scholar, and the transcription on pp. 96–102.

13 Wolf, ‘Ein Breslauer Mensuraltraktat’, p. 334.

14 Uiblein, P., Ein Kopialbuch der Wiener Universität als Quelle zur österreichischen Kirchengeschichte unter Herzog Albrecht V, Fontes Rerum Austriacarum, ser. ii, 80 (Vienna, 1973), pp. 51–66Google Scholar.

15 Pauli, Z., Ulanowski, B. and Chmiel, A., eds., Album studiosorum universitatis cracoviensis, 2 vols. (Cracow, 1887–1892), i, ed. Pauli, Ź. and Ulanowski, B., p. 9Google Scholar.

16 Uiblein, op. cit., p. 53.

17 Hüschen, H., ‘Paulirinus’, Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Blume, F., 16 vols. (Kassel, 1949–1979), x, cols. 963–4Google Scholar.

18 See below pp. 337–8.

19 All these passages make the same point; I translate this one because it is the most complete. ‘Tempus, according to the philosopher [Aristotle] in the fourth book of the Physics, is said to be the measure of motion with respect to the prior and posterior.’

20 For example: ‘Unde tempus secundum Philosophos sic difinitur: Tempus est mora [recte mensura] motus mutabilium rerum.’ (‘According to the philosopher [Aristotle] tempus is defined thus: tempus is the measure of motion of changeable things.’) (Johannes Veruli, CS iii, p: 130.) Since completing this paper I have found an additional citation in da Padova's, MarchettoPomerium (ed. Vecchi, G., Corpus Scriptorum de Musica 6 (n.p., 1961), pp. 75–6)Google Scholar.

21 CS iii, p. 479.

22 Ibid., p. 483.

23 Ibid., pp. xxxvii–xxxviii.

24 Černý, ‘Die mehrtextige Motette’, pp. 73–4.

25 Göllner, T., ‘Critical Years in European Musical History, 1400–1430’, Report of the Tenth Congress of the International Musicological Society, ed. Cvetko, D. (Kassel, 1970), p. 62Google Scholar.

26 Černý, J., ‘Petrus Wilhelmi de Grudencz’, Hudební Věda, 12(1975), pp. 195–238Google Scholar (including further bibliography).

27 Ibid., p. 196.

28 Perz, M., Sources of Polyphony up to c. 1500, Antiquitates Musicae in Polonia 13 (Graz and Warsaw, 1973), p. xxiGoogle Scholar. For a facsimile of Cracow 2464, see p. 29; the prolation sign is found at the beginning of the third staff from the bottom of the page.

29 Černý, ‘Petrus Wilhelmi de Grudencz’, p. 233.

30 The sources were drawn in part from Černý, ‘Petrus Wilhelmi de Grudencz’, p. 229.

31 ‘signum reincepcionis sic , signum autem rotule formatur’ (‘the repeat sign is made thus , or as a small wheel’), Breslau, Universitätsbibliothek, MS iv Qu 16, fol. 146v; ‘signum autem reinceptionis est circulus integer habens per modum dyametri lineam in medio circuli erectam dividentem circulum in duas equales partes, ut sic: … aliud signum … ’ (‘the repeat sign is a complete circle having a line in the manner of a diameter in the middle of the circle dividing the circle into two equal parts, thus: … another sign … ’), Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, MS 950, fol. 204v.

32 Rajeczky, B., ‘Ein neuer Fund zur mehrstimmigen Praxis Ungarns im 15. Jahrhundert’, Studia musicologica, 14 (1972), pp. 147–68, esp. p. 149CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Members of this community appear in the matriculation lists of the University of Cracow during the fifteenth century; see Zathey, J. and Reichan, J., eds., Indeks studentów uniwersytetu krakowskiego w latach 1400–1500 (Wroclaw, 1974), p. 347Google Scholar. On the relations between Hungarian centres (Kaschau was Hungarian until 1918), including Kaschau, and the University of Cracow, see Morawski, C., Histoire de l'université de Cracovie, trans. Rongier, P., 3 vols. (Paris, 1900–1905), iii, pp. 216–18Google Scholar.

33 Rajeczky, op. cit., p. 157.

34 Erler, G., ed., Die Matrikel der Universität Leipzig, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1895), i, p. 159Google Scholar.

35 Ibid., ii, pp. 146, 153.

36 Ibid., ii, pp. 229, 231, 235, 236, 300, 310.

37 Ibid., i, p. 10.

38 It may be noted, in addition, that Petrus's music may also have been sung in Breslau. The motet Panis aevus used in eucharistic processions in the church of St Elizabeth in Breslau in 1471 (possibly as early as 1460) is probably the motet on the same text by Petrus. See Bauch, Geschichte der Breslauer Schulwesens, p. 98Google Scholar.

39 von Fischer, K. and Lütolf, M., eds., Handschriften mit mehrstimmiger Musik des 14., 15, und 16. Jahrhunderts, Répertoire International des Sources Musicales b/iv/3–4, 2 vols. (Munich and Duisburg, 1972), pp. 133, 146, 237Google Scholar.

40 The sources are: Chrudim, Městské Muzeum, MS 12580, fol. 283; Hradec Králové, Krajske Muzeum, MS ii a 6, fol. 276v; and Prague, Státní Ústřední Archív, k. Vs.376, fols. 50v–51.

41 Entries ‘Cedit hiems’, ‘Cedit meror’, ‘Nowá radost’, ‘Ay giž, zyma’, ‘Dayž mýsto’, RISM b/iv/3–4.

42 The concordances in Trent, Castello del Buon Consiglio, Biblioteca della Soprintendenza, MS 90, and Trent, Archivio Capitolare, MS 93, are without attributions.

43 Santifaller, L., ed., Die Matrikel der Universität Wien, 4 vols. (Graz, 1956), i, p. 419Google Scholar; and Pietzsch, , Zur Pflege der Musik, p. 29Google Scholar.

44 I once thought that Blasius, whose Audi nos appears on folios 9v–10 of Munich 14274, might be the Blasius Opilionis cited by Pietzsch, op. cit., p. 44, as entering the University of Cracow in 1441 while serving as cantor to Sbignei (i.e Zbigniew), Bishop of Cracow. The statement by Pietzsch is incorrect. In the facsimile of the document given in Album studiosorum, fig. ii, following p. 294, the name can be clearly read as ‘Nikasius Opilionis de Jawor’.

45 I want to thank Miss Rita Steblin for looking into several matters concerning this manuscript for me while pursuing her own research in Vienna.

46 Göllner, , ‘Notationsfragmente aus einer Organistenwerkstatt des 15. Jahrhunderts’,Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 24 (1967), pp. 171–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Ibid.

48 Ibid.

49 The manuscript can be shown to have been in the library of the monastery of St Emmeram in Regensburg only since the mid-eighteenth century when it was listed in the catalogue of the collection, see Kraus, J. B., Biblioteca principales ecclesiae et monasterii Ord. S. Benedicti ad S. Emmeramum epis. et martyr Ratisbonae, 2 vols. (n.p. [Regensburg], 1748), i, p. 111Google Scholar.

50 Hemmerle, J., Archiv des ehemaligen Augustinerklosters München, Bayerische Archivinventar 4 (Munich, 1956), p. iGoogle Scholar.

51 See the recent works by Angerer, J., Die liturgisch-musikalische Erneuerung der Melker Reform (Vienna, 1974)Google Scholar and ‘Die Begriffe “Discantus”, “Organa”, und “Scolares” in reform-geschichtlichen Urkunden des 15. Jahrhunderts’, Anzeiger der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 109 (1972), pp. 146–70Google Scholar. Walter Lipphardt has already pointed out the number of manuscripts of Augustinian provenance from this region in Report of the Tenth Congress of the International Musicological Society, ed. Cvetko, , p. 69Google Scholar.