Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:06:17.074Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2009

David Hiley
Get access

Extract

This joint article on aspects of the manuscript Wolfenbüttel, Herzog-August-Bibliothek, Helmstedt 628 (Heinemann catalogue 677), known to musicologists as “W1”, is designed to supplement the recent lengthy essay by Edward Roesner, ‘The origins of W1’, with discussions of topics where an advance on Professor Roesner's authoritative account was felt to be possible.

Type
Further Observations on W1
Information
Journal of the Plainsong & Mediaeval Music Society , Volume 4 , January 1981 , pp. 53 - 54
Copyright
© The Plainsong and Medieval Music Society 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

Notes

1 Roesner, Edward H.: ‘The origins of W1’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 27 (1976), pp.337–380 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Ludwig, Friedrich: Repertorium organorum recentioris et motetorum vetustissimi stili (Halle, 1910), pp.7–42 Google Scholar

3 The arrangement of fascicles 8–10 is unaccountably mangled in my description in ‘Sources, MS, IV/4’, The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (London, 1980), vol.17, pp.653–4Google Scholar. It should be corrected from the Appendix to this article, from Ludwig, op.cit., or from Reaney, G.: Manuscripts of Polyphonic Music, 11th – early 14th Century, RISM [Répertoire International des Sources Musicales], B/IV/1 (1965), p.98 Google Scholar.

4 See my summary descriptions in The New Grove, vol.17, pp.652–5. Baxter's opinion was given in his introduction to the facsimile of the manuscript, Baxter, James H.: An Old St.Andrews Music Book (Cod. Helmst. 628) (London, 1931), pp. v–xiii Google Scholar. The date suggested in the present article supports the estimates reported by Handschin, (Musica Disciplina, 5, 1951, p.113)Google Scholar and Apel, (The Notation of Polyphonic Music, 900–1600, 5th edn., Cambridge, Mass., 1953, p.200)Google Scholar. Reaney, op.cit. (see note 3), gives simply ‘13th century’.

5 See the sensitive discussion of the ‘house-style’ of W1 and the other principal polyphonic sources in Roesner, Edward H.: ‘The problem of chronology in the transmission of organum duplum’, Music in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Patronage, Sources and Texts, ed. Fenlon, I. (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 365–399 Google Scholar.

6 It is not often possible to distinguish between English and Scottish practice in musical and paleographical matters, and unless the context makes a clear distinction, “English” should be understood in this article in the sense of “English (or Scottish)”, i.e. as equivalent to “British”.

7 Roesner, op.cit. (note 1), p.378

8 Watt, D.E.R.: A Biographical Dictionary of Scottish Graduates to A.D.1410 (Oxford, 1977), p.43 Google Scholar. I am most grateful to Professor Watt for much helpful information and many interesting suggestions made during the writing of this article.

9 Barrow, G.W.S.: The Kingdom of the Scots (London, 1973), ch.7Google Scholar. McRoberts, D.: The Medieval Church of St Andrews (Glasgow, 1976)Google Scholar

10 For Malcarston, see Watt, op.cit. (note 8), pp. 370–3. Of equal interest is Watt's entry for William Wischard (1), pp.590–4, who was master in Paris of W. de Bernham, a canon of St.Mary's, papal chaplain, Chancellor under Alexander III, and eventually Bishop of St.Andrews 1273–9.