1 While repetition as a cultural and theoretical phenomenon has received scholarly attention, explorations of its history in visual terms lag behind. As Peter Kivy observes, literal repetition and, by extension, its instructions in scores ‘for the most part [remain] unremarked and unexplained both by philosophers and by others who write on musical aesthetics in a philosophical vein’. Kivy, The Fine Art of Repetition: Essays in the Philosophy of Music (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 328. For broader study of repetition in music, see Elizabeth Hellmuth Margulis, On Repeat: How Music Plays the Mind (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014).

2 See, for example, the embedded repeat cues analysed in Michael Burden, ‘To Repeat (or Not to Repeat)? Dance Cues in Restoration English Opera’, Early Music, 35 (2007), 397–417.

3 I am not concerned here with musical (as opposed to musical and textual) repetition in forms such as the sequence or French lai, but instead in the cueing of the simultaneous return of text and music. Similarly, I will not broach the issue of tenor repetition in the thirteenth-century motet, although I am grateful to one of the anonymous readers of this article for pointing to the use of both textual and visual cues in motet tenors in sources such as F-Pn n.a.f. 13521 (the La Clayette Manuscript). On tenor cueing in this manuscript, see Sean Curran, ‘Reading and Rhythm in the “La Clayette” Manuscript (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, nouv. acq. fr. 13521)’, Plainsong and Medieval Music, 23 (2014), 125–51 (p. 135).

4 Margaret Bent usefully suggests that ‘in one sense, music exists only in sound, but paradoxically, sound is its least stable element. But also, visual presentation may be an important or essential ingredient, even to the extent of constituting part of the structure or at least of the aesthetic.’ Bent, ‘Editing Early Music: The Dilemma of Translation’, Early Music, 22 (1994), 373–92 (p. 392).

5 See, for example, Sylvia Huot, From Song to Book: The Poetics of Writing in Old French Lyric and Lyrical Narrative Poetry (Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell University Press, 1987); Ardis Butterfield, Poetry and Music in Medieval France: From Jean Renart to Guillaume de Machaut (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Helen Deeming, ‘The Song and the Page: Experiments with Form and Layout in Manuscripts of Medieval Latin Song’, Plainsong and Medieval Music, 15 (2006), 1–27; Deeming, ‘Observations on the Habits of Twelfth- and Thirteenth-Century Music Scribes’, Scriptorium, 60 (2006), 38–59; and Deeming, ‘Isolated Jottings? The Compilation, Preparation, and Use of Song Sources from Thirteenth Century Britain’, Journal of the Alamire Foundation, 6 (2014), 139–52. For musical sources, layout is always a significant concern, with multiple levels and systems of signs required for the notation of even a simple musical work.

6 As Jan Ziolkowski notes: ‘Mechanisms evolved gradually for signaling the special nature of poetry through indentation, offsetting of initial letters, and employment of majuscules for initial letters in lines or stanzas.’ Ziolkowski, Nota Bene: Reading Classics and Writing Melodies in the Early Middle Ages (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), 91. Poetry holds its own place within the history of writing, layout and punctuation; see Pascale Bourgain, ‘La poésie lyrique médiévale’, Mise en page et mise en texte du livre manuscrit, ed. Henri-Jean Martin and Jean Vezin (Paris: Éditions du Cercle de la Librairie-Promodis, 1990), 164–8; Bourgain, ‘Les chansonniers lyriques latins’, Lyrique romane médiévale: La tradition des chansonniers: Actes du colloque de Liège, 1989, ed. Madeleine Tyssens (Liège: Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l'Université de Liège, 1991), 61–84; and Malcolm B. Parkes, Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1992), 97–114.

7 As Butterfield writes: ‘Moments of inconsistency in layout offer perhaps some of the most interesting glimpses of scribal thinking.’ Poetry and Music, 179.

8 Although Judith Peraino's point regarding terminology around the refrain and its italicization is well taken, in so far as she prefers to avoid italicization of ‘refrain’ when referring to its ‘autonomous’ as opposed to its structural role, for the purposes of clarity in this article I shall use italics to refer to French refrains as opposed to roman type for Latin refrains. See Peraino, ‘Et pui conmencha a canter : Refrains, Motets and Melody in the Thirteenth-Century Narrative Renart le nouvel’, Plainsong and Medieval Music, 6 (1997), 1–16 (1, n. 1).

9 On the disjunction between the written page and performance (with specific reference to refrain forms), see Elizabeth Randell Upton, Music and Performance in the Later Middle Ages (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 99.

10 For overviews, see Bourgain, ‘La poésie lyrique médiévale’; Butterfield, Poetry and Music, 171–90; Deeming, ‘Observations’; and Malcolm B. Parkes, ‘Layout and Presentation of the Text’, The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, ed. Nigel Morgan and Rodney M. Thomson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 55–74.

11 For example, identifying a French refrain can be challenging at times, as is the case in F-Pn fonds fr. 19152, fol. 73^r, with the structural refrain of the rondet C'est la jus, desoz l'olive. Here, the refrain is not visually distinguished at all from surrounding text. In comparison, an intertextual refrain such as ‘Aimi aimi amoretes m'ont traï ’, no. 34 in Boogaard's catalogue, is set apart within its parent work, the pastourelle avec des refrains En une praele, solely by a single point of punctuation at the conclusion of the penultimate strophe in F-Pn n.a.f. 1050, fol. 222^r. For the numbering of refrains, see Nico H. J. van den Boogaard, Rondeaux et refrains du XII ^e siècle au début du XIV ^e (Paris: Klincksieck, 1969). See also Ardis Butterfield, ‘Repetition and Variation in the Thirteenth-Century Refrain’, Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 116 (1991), 1–23.

12 Narratives, too, frequently insert both notated and unnotated refrains, and the various lofty and base upper voices of motets freely incorporate the pithy interjections. Bibliography on the French refrain is extensive: for recent treatments, see Butterfield, Poetry and Music, 75–102, and Jennifer Saltzstein, The Refrain and the Rise of the Vernacular in Medieval French Music and Poetry (Woodbridge and Rochester, NY: D. S. Brewer, 2013). See also the recent online database on the refrain aptly entitled ‘REFRAIN’ run by Mark Everist, Adam Field and Anne Ibos-Augé, <http://refrain.ac.uk/information.html> (accessed 18 May 2018).

13 Edited and translated in The Old French Ballette, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms Douce 308, ed. Eglal Doss-Quinby, Samuel N. Rosenberg and Elizabeth Aubrey (Geneva: Droz, 2006), 124–7.

14 See the discussion of refrain cueing in GB-Ob Douce 308 in The Old French Ballette, ed. Doss-Quinby et al., LXII–LXIII; see also ibid., Tables XIA and XIB. The ballette in question is transcribed and translated ibid., 376–9. Two other ballettes (called ‘anomalies’ by Doss-Quinby et al.) likewise illustrate the absence of the refrain preceding or following the initial strophe and its presence instead only after subsequent strophes: Amours, a cui je me rant pris (fol. 219^r) and Cis qui contre mal bien rent (fols. 230^v–231^r). Ibid., 202–5 and 410–11.

15 The refrain is ‘C'est li malz, li malz d'ameir, qui nos prent / Ameir a la fin, dous a comancement’. The final word, ‘comancement’, appears at the top of fol. 229^r, separated spatially from the remainder of the refrain.

16 A later example of ambiguity in cueing repetition by means of a signum congruentiae in French song is discussed in Maureen Epp, ‘Reading the Signs: Notation and Performance in the French Popular Song Repertory’, The Sounds and Sights of Performance in Early Music: Essays in Honour of Timothy J. McGee, ed. Maureen Epp and Brian E. Power (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), 103–22. See also Robert Judd, ‘Repeat Problems in Keyboard Settings of Canzoni alla francese’, Early Music, 17 (1989), 198–214.

17 See Butterfield, Poetry and Music, 182–4 and (for another similarly inscribed ballade with refrain, Si plaisamment m'avés pris, inserted into the same work, La prise amoureuse by Jehan Acart de Hesdin, on fol. 138^r) Figure 7b. The italicization of ‘et’ refers to its representation in the manuscript as a ligature.

18 See ibid., 171–90 on the inscription of vernacular song in manuscripts, including refrains of both the structural and the intertextual type.

19 This refrain family (catalogued in Boogaard as no. 1859) is discussed in relation to its relatively stable melodic tradition in Saltzstein, The Refrain and the Rise of the Vernacular, 20–2. For a complete list of sources for this refrain, see <http://refrain.ac.uk/view/abstract_item/1859.html> (accessed 18 May 2018). For other case studies of ‘refrain families’, see Butterfield, ‘Repetition and Variation’, and Mark Everist, French Motets in the Thirteenth Century: Music, Poetry and Genre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 54–66. On the term enté and its implications for text, music and repetition, see Everist, French Motets, 75–89; Butterfield, ‘Enté: A Survey and Reassessment of the Term in Thirteenth- and Fourteenth-Century Music and Poetry’, Early Music History, 22 (2003), 67–101; and Yolanda Plumley, The Art of Grafted Song: Citation and Allusion in the Age of Machaut (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 21–4.

20 Saltzstein, The Refrain and the Rise of the Vernacular, 23, Example 1.

21 This is the case, too, in the other manuscripts in which the motet circulates.

22 Saltzstein, The Refrain and the Rise of the Vernacular, 14.

23 Butterfield, ‘Repetition and Variation’, 2–3 and passim.

24 The Latin refrain has received scant attention, but see Andreas Haug, ‘Musikalische Lyrik im Mittelalter’, Musikalische Lyrik, ed. Hermann Danuser, Handbuch der musikalischen Gattungen, 8 (Laaber: Laaber-Verlag, 2004), 120–5; Haug, ‘Ritual and Repetition: The Ambiguities of Refrains’, The Appearances of Medieval Rituals: The Play of Construction and Modification, trans. Jeremy Llewellyn, ed. Nils Holger Petersen, Mette Birkedal Bruun, Jeremy Llewellyn and Eyolf Østrem (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), 83–96; Margaret Switten, ‘Versus and Troubadours around 1100: A Comparative Study of Refrain Technique in the “New Song”’, Plainsong and Medieval Music, 16 (2007), 91–143; and Mary Channen Caldwell, ‘Singing, Dancing, and Rejoicing in the Round: Latin Sacred Songs with Refrains, circa 1000–1582’ (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 2013). Both Switten and Haug are concerned primarily with repertories of Latin song predating the Latin conducti central to my discussion here, although a lineage can be traced from the refrain forms of ‘old songs’ as described by Haug (including liturgical genres such as hymns) through to the ‘new songs’ of the twelfth century (including troubadour song, versus and Benedicamus domino songs) and onwards to the conducti and cantilenae of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The standard perspective on the difference between Latin and French refrains in the thirteenth century in particular is outlined by John Stevens: ‘There is, it should be made clear, no repertoire of Latin refrains quite in the sense defined for the French. Of course many Latin songs and all the rondelli (by definition) have refrains in the purely formal sense, but these are not of the individualized, aphoristic kind with their own tunes. They may be found to have taken their origin from favourite hymns or antiphons or sequences; they are even more likely to repeat the thousand clichés of medieval devotional verse.’ Stevens, Words and Music in the Middle Ages: Song, Narrative, Dance and Drama, 1050 –1350 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 186.

25 The Latin to vernacular move for refrain forms is argued for in Hans Spanke, ‘Das lateinische Rondeau’, Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur, 53 (1930), 113–48. For other theories regarding the relationship between the Latin and French poetic forms, see Yvonne Rokseth, ‘Danses cléricales du XIIIe siècle’, Mélanges 1945 des Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de Strasbourg, ed. Université de Strasbourg, Faculté des Lettres (Paris: Ophrys, 1947), 93–126 (p. 103); Gilbert Reaney, ‘Concerning the Origins of the Rondeau, Virelai and Ballade Forms’, Musica disciplina, 6 (1952), 155 –66; and Patrick S. Diehl, The Medieval European Religious Lyric: An Ars poetica (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1985), 94–5, in which Diehl sees Latin poetry ‘turning formal devices that already existed in popular lyric to its own ends’.

26 The most exhaustive work to date on cataloguing and analysing sources transmitting Latin song (specifically the conductus but also including closely related Latin and vernacular examples) has been carried out by the research team at the University of Southampton as part of the project Cantum Pulchriorem Invenire: Thirteenth-Century Music and Poetry (hereafter CPI), led by Mark Everist and Gregorio Bevilacqua (<http://catalogue.conductus.ac.uk>, accessed 18 May 2018). This follows the extensive work found in Notre-Dame and Related Conductus: Opera omnia, ed. Gordon A. Anderson, 9 vols. (Henryville, PA: Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1979–); it should be noted that Anderson typically edits only the refrain as it appears in the first strophes of conducti, and does not commment on or indicate the nature of its cueing thereafter. Although my central focus in this article is on the conductus, the repertory of Aquitanian versus and nova cantica of the twelfth century more broadly demonstrates similar issues around layout and the notation of the refrain, although with far less variety (refrains when indicated tend to be recued following strophes by a textual and musical incipit; see, for example, the cueing of the refrain ‘Fulget dies ista celebris’ of the versus Castitatis lilium in F-Pn fonds lat. 1139, fol. 42^r). On some of the more ambiguous moments of refrain cueing in the versus repertory, see Rachel Golden Carlson, ‘Devotion to the Virgin Mary in Twelfth-Century Aquitanian Versus’ (Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2000), 331– 4, and Switten, ‘Versus and Troubadours’, 99 n. 26 and 103– 4. The earlier versus collection in F-Pn fonds lat. 1154 illustrates another approach to cueing refrains using both abbreviation and green highlighting; see, for example, Iudicii signum on fols. 122^r–123^r. On this well-known sibylline versus, see Sam Barrett, ‘Music and Writing: On the Compilation of Paris Bibliothèque Nationale lat. 1154’, Early Music History, 16 (1997), 86–93.

27 Johannes de Grocheio, Ars musice, ed. and trans. John N. Crossley, Catherine Jeffreys, Leigh McKinnon, Constant J. Mews and Carol J. Williams (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute, 2011), 66–73.

28 The category of cantilena includes rotundellus, stantipes and ductia, while cantus includes gestualis, coronatus and versiculatus. Ibid., 66–7. For further examination of these categories, see Christopher Page, ‘Johannes de Grocheio on Secular Music: A Corrected Text and a New Translation’, Plainsong and Medieval Music, 2 (1993), 17–41.

29 On the conducti in the final fascicle, see Caldwell, ‘Singing, Dancing, and Rejoicing’, 15–27.

30 On this manuscript and its Latin songs, see Mary Channen Caldwell, ‘“Pax Gallie”: The Songs of Tours 927’, The Jeu d'Adam: MS Tours 927 and the Provenance of the Play, ed. Christophe Chaguinian, Early Drama, Art, and Music Monograph Series (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute, 2017), 87–176.

31 1289 is the terminus post quem for at least the portion of the manuscript containing these lyrics; see Barthélémy Hauréau, Notice sur le numéro 15131 des manuscrits latins de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1889).

32 As discussed above, in a French lyrical context, paraphs are similarly used to mark out refrains; see Butterfield, Poetry and Music, 182–5.

33 The prime example is the ordering of the conductus fascicles in I-Fl Plut. 29.1, which proceeds according to number of voices, concluding in fascicles X and XI with monophony.

34 On the rithmus, see Margot E. Fassler, ‘Accent, Meter, and Rhythm in Medieval Treatises “De rithmis”’, Journal of Musicology, 5 (1987), 164–90, and Ernest H. Sanders, ‘Rithmus’, Essays on Medieval Music: In Honor of David G. Hughes, ed. Graeme M. Boone (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), 415–40.

35 Bourgain, ‘La poésie lyrique médiévale’, 165.

36 For a case study focused on the interpolation of song in F-Pn fonds fr. 146 (Le roman de Fauvel), see Emma Dillon, Medieval Music-Making and the Roman de Fauvel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 216–82. See also the works by Butterfield and Deeming cited in note 5 above.

37 On hymn and sequence layout, see Susan Boynton, ‘Glossed Hymns in Eleventh-Century Continental Hymnaries’ (Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University, 1997), 44–106, and Lori Kruckenberg, ‘Neumatizing the Sequence: Special Performances of Sequences in the Central Middle Ages’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 59 (2006), 243–317.

38 On the development of the formes fixes, including the rondeau, see Butterfield, Poetry and Music, 273–90. See also, however, Everist, ‘Souspirant en terre estrainge: The Polyphonic Rondeau from Adam de la Halle to Guillaume de Machaut’, Early Music History, 26 (2007), 1–42.

39 See Butterfield, Poetry and Music, 189, and Deeming, ‘Observations’, 59. As Deeming notes with reference to the habits of insular twelfth- and thirteenth-century scribes, ‘most striking of all is the flexible approach of these scribes to layout. Those responsible for preparing the music page seem to have been constantly aware of the demands of legibility, elegance and economy of space, and continuously working to resolve them satisfactorily. If a chosen layout presented difficulties, they would adapt it or try out another; within the course of a single musical source, we can see evidence of the scribe experimenting with different design solutions.’ See also Deeming, ‘Isolated Jottings?’

40 On liturgical and festive sources for conducti, see Caldwell, ‘Singing, Dancing, and Rejoicing’, 44–53.

41 More unusual and often unique methods for notating repetition can be found in liturgical books; see, for example, the symbol (more accurately, a stylized abbreviation), which may mean either ‘denuo’, ‘duplex’ or ‘dupliciter’, used in E-L 8; see Robert Stevenson, Spanish Music in the Age of Columbus (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1960), 17, who references Louis Brou, ‘L'Alleluia dans la liturgie mozarabe: Étude liturgico-musicale d'après les manuscrits de chant’, Anuario musical, 6 (1951), 49–52. Rebecca Maloy most recently identifies the symbol as ‘dupliciter’ in ‘Old Hispanic Chant and the Early History of Plainsong’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 67 (2014), 1–76 (p. 17 and n. 42). On a related repeat sign in the same repertory which closely resembles a modern ‘repeat bar’ sign (the second of the symbols on p. 273 above), see Emma Hornby and Rebecca Maloy, Music and Meaning in Old Hispanic Lenten Chants: Psalmi, Threni and the Easter Vigil Canticles (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2013), 114, 206 and 253.

42 On liturgical refrains, see Andrew Hughes, Medieval Manuscripts for Mass and Office: A Guide to their Organization and Terminology (Toronto and London: University of Toronto Press, 1982), §§ 207–8.

43 However, in the Ordo romanus, rubrics for Introits and Communions include the phrase versus ad repetendum to indicate the addition of verses to prolong the chant. It is sometimes seen, too, with hymns that have refrains. Additionally, it is the term used by the editors of the index to Analecta hymnica medii aevi, ed. Guido Maria Dreves and Clemens Blume, 55 vols. (Leipzig: Reisland, 1886–1922; hereafter AH) to indicate texts with refrains. ‘Repetendo’ also appears in tropes, where it can indicate the return of the original chant text. See, for example, the two Introit tropes for Sts Philip and James (AH, xlix (1906), 341); the two texts indicate the repetition of the initial line of the Introit with the phrase ‘nunc iterum dulcis repetendo carmina laudis’.

44 On the use of ‘R’ to refer to rithmus in a medieval drama, for example, see Renate Amstutz, Ludus de decem virginibus: Recovery of the Sung Liturgical Core of the Thuringian Zehnjungfrauenspiel (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2002), 28–9. Amstutz notes that ‘in a non-liturgical context, however, the “stroked” R can stand for several other frequently used words beginning in R’, citing the variety of forms in Adriano Cappelli, Lexicon abbreviaturarum: Dizionario di abbreviature latine ed italiane usate nelle carte e codici specialmente del medio-evo, 6th edn (Milan: Hoepli, 1973), xii–xiv.

45 Although this is unverifiable, some scholars have suggested that refrain forms including the rondeau originated with responsorial forms in the liturgy, noting structural parallels. See, for example, Marie-Henriette Fernandez, ‘Notes sur les origines du rondeau: Le “répons bref” – les “preces” du Graduel de Saint-Yrieix’, Cahiers de civilisation mediévale, 19/75 (1976), 265–75.

46 In reference to the refrain in song, Grocheio uses the term refractus three times: ‘Cantilena vero quelibet rotunda vel rotundellus a pluribus dicitur eo quod ad modum circuli in seipsam reflectitur et incipit et terminatur in eodem. Nos autem solum illam rotundam vel rotundellus dicimus cuius partes non habent diversum cantum a cantu responsorii. vel refractus et longo tractu cantatur velud cantus coronatus’ (‘But any round or rotundellus is called a cantilena by many in that it turns back on itself like a circle and begins and is terminated at the same place. We only call it a round or rotundellus if the parts do not have a cantus different from the cantus of the response or refrain or if it is sung in drawn-out longs, like the cantus coronatus’); ‘Cantilena que dicitur stantipes est illa in qua est diversitas in partibus et refractu’ (‘A cantilena which is called a stantipes is that in which there is diversity between parts and the refrain’); and ‘Partes autem eorum multiplices dicuntur. ut versus. refractorium. vel responsorium. Et additamenta’ (‘Multiple parts of these are spoken of, such as verse, refrain or response, and supplements’). Grocheio, Ars musice, ed. and trans. Crossley et al., 68–9, 70–1. At least twice Grocheio uses responsorium rather than refractus to refer to the refrain; the first of these is ‘Responsorium vero est quo omnis cantilena incipit et terminatur’ (‘The response is that by which every cantilena begins and is terminated’). Ibid., 70–1. On the refrain as a kind of ‘rupture’ related to the verb refringere, see Michel Zink, ‘Le lyrisme en rond: Esthétique et séduction des poèmes à forme fixe au Moyen Age’, Cahiers de l'Association Internationale des Études Françaises, 32 (1980), 71–90. For a response to this, see James R. Terry, ‘Contingency and Connotation in the Thirteenth-Century Refrain’ (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 2010), 19–21.

47 The passage is translated in Philip Weller, ‘Vox–littera–cantus: Aspects of Voice and Vocality in Medieval Song’, Music in Medieval Europe: Studies in Honour of Bryan Gillingham, ed. Terence and Alma Santosuosso Bailey (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 239–62 (p. 244). The Latin text is edited in Giraldi Cambrensis opera, ed. J. S. Brewer, James F. Dimock and George F. Warner, 8 vols. (London: Longman, 1861–91), ii (1862), 120.

48 Zink, ‘Le lyrisme en rond’, and John Hollander, ‘Breaking into Song: Some Notes on Refrain’, Lyric Poetry: Beyond New Criticism, ed. Chaviva Hošek and Patricia Parker (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985), 73–89.

49 While little concrete evidence exists to argue for the choral or responsorial performance of refrains in Latin song, D-Mu Cim. 100 offers some evidence with its use of the rubric ‘chorus’ in place of ‘R’ or ‘repetitio’ (see, for example, fols. 249^v–250^r). See also Figure 18 on p. 311 below, which shows similar rubrics suggesting choral responses in A-Gu 756 and CH-SGs 392.

50 For this derivation, see Olive Sayce, ‘Carmina burana 180 and the Mandaliet Refrain’, Oxford German Studies, 2 (1967), 1–12 (p. 2); Sayce, Plurilingualism in the Carmina burana: A Study of the Linguistic and Literary Influences on the Codex (Göppingen: Kümmerle, 1992), 22, n. 24; and Charles E. Brewer, ‘Vacillantis trutine libramine : The Problem of Tetrardus Melodies in Latin Cantilene’, Cantus planus: Papers Read at the 6th Meeting, Eger, Hungary, 1993, ed. László Dobszay, 2 vols. (Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences Institute for Musicology, 1995), ii, 799–817 (p. 804). Conversely, Butterfield interprets the abbreviation ‘refr.’ as ‘refractus’, the perfect passive participle of refringo, refringere. Butterfield, Poetry and Music, 187. For a recent reconsideration of D-Mbs clm 4660, including reference to seminal bibliographical items, see Gundela Bobeth, ‘Wine, Women, and Song? Reconsidering the Carmina burana’, Manuscripts and Medieval Song: Inscription, Performance, Context, ed. Helen Deeming and Elizabeth Eva Leach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 79–115.

51 For a recent overview of abbreviations in Latin, albeit with an emphasis on encoding, see Alpo Honkapohja, ‘Manuscript Abbreviations in Latin and English: History, Typologies and How to Tackle Them in Encoding’, Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English, 14: Principles and Practices for the Digital Editing and Annotation of Diachronic Data (2013), <http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/14/honkapohja/> (accessed 1 May 2018). The standard resource for Latin abbreviations remains (in a variety of more recent editions) Cappelli, Lexicon abbreviaturarum. For a discussion of suspension abbreviations in particular and their function as mnemonic cues, see Paul Saenger, Space between Words: The Origins of Silent Reading (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997), 64–5.

52 The abbreviation of ‘Alleluia’ is found both in the liturgy proper and in tropes and devotional songs. See, for example, the two-part Benedicamus domino song for Easter in I-AO D16, fols. 68^v–69^r, which concludes with a fragmented and repeated Alleluia: ‘Alle, alle, alleluya, / Alle, alle, alleluya’; and a tenth-century sequence (AH, vii (1886), 98) that tropes its origins in the liturgical Alleluia by beginning the first line with a division of ‘Alleluia’ into two parts: ‘Alle – celeste necnon et perhenne – luia’. The former is transcribed in Frank Ll. Harrison, ‘Benedicamus, Conductus, Carol: A Newly-Discovered Source’, Acta musicologica, 37 (1965), 35–47 (p. 45), no. 11. The latter is edited in Margot E. Fassler, The Virgin of Chartres: Making History through Liturgy and the Arts (New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press, 2010), 392–3.

53 On the tradition of ‘deposing’ or burying the Alleluia, see Eugène Martin, ‘Les adieux à l'Alleluia: Souvenir du moyen âge’, Revue du clergé français, 9 (1896), 551–3; Martin, ‘Les adieux à l'Alleluia’, Revue du chant gregorien, 16 (1907–8), 130–1; Franz Xaver Weiser, Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs: The Year of the Lord in Liturgy and Folklore (New York: Harcourt Brace, [1952]), 157–60; and Michel Robert, ‘Les adieux à l'Alleluia’, Études grégoriennes, 7 (1967), 41–51. See also the warm farewell to the Alleluia advocated in the twelfth century by Durandus in Rationale, CC140a, book 6, chapter 24, paragraph 18, trans. in Weiser, Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs, 158.

54 Mary Carruthers, The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 106 and 127. Note that ‘u’ and ‘v’ are interchangeable, hence ‘uir’ or ‘vir’.

55 The use of similar symbols and formatting to indicate refrain forms is found throughout the lyrics of IRL-KEp n.s. (the Red Book of Ossory); see, for example, fol. 70^v (En Christi fit memoria) and fol. 71^r (Iubila rutila mater ecclesia). On these symbols and their development beginning in the twelfth century, see Parkes, Pause and Effect, 41–9 and 305. The ¶ (paraph or pilcrow) is a symbol derived ultimately from ‘C’ or ‘K’ indicating a new chapter (capitulum), but eventually indicated new sections, paragraphs, stanzas and so on, while § (paragraphus) typically indicated the beginning of a new paragraph or section. On the use of paraphs and braces in verse, see Introduction to Manuscript Studies, ed. Raymond Clemens and Timothy Graham (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2007), 87–9.

56 Chronologically and geographically removed from the repertory of Latin song discussed here is the English carol, whose notational conventions include the burden (the repeated portion of text and music akin to a refrain) notated only once within a given lyric. Its repetition throughout the carol is thus assumed. Occasionally, certain cues will be used, such as ‘& cetera’, to indicate the burden's return throughout a carol. On the English carol burden, see The Early English Carols, ed. Richard L. Greene, 2nd edn (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), cxxxiii–cxlv.

57 Gordon A. Anderson, ‘Thirteenth-Century Conductus: Obiter dicta’, Musical Quarterly, 58 (1972), 349–64; Walther Lipphardt, ‘Zur Herkunft der Carmina burana’, Literatur und Bildende Kunst im Tiroler Mittelalter: Die Iwein-Fresken von Rodenegg und andere Zeugnisse der Wechselwirkung von Literatur und bildender Kunst, ed. Egon Kühebacher (Innsbruck: Institut für Germanistik der Universität Innsbruck, 1982), 209–23; Charles E. Brewer, ‘In Search of Lost Melodies: The Latin Songs of Graz 756’, Dies est leticie: Essays on Chant in Honour of Janka Szendrei, ed. David Hiley and Gábor Kiss (Ottawa: Institute of Mediaeval Music, 2008), 93–111. On liturgical sources from St Lambrecht, see Stefan Engels, ‘Die liturgischen Handschriften aus St. Lambrecht (Steiermark)’, Cantus Planus: Study Group of the International Musicological Society: Papers Read at the 16th Meeting, Vienna, Austria, 2011, ed. Robert Klugseder (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Kommission für Musikforschung, 2012), 135–42. The Graz sources are also referenced in Rudolph Flotzinger, ‘Non-Mensural Sacred Polyphony (Discantus) in Medieval Austria’, Le polifonie primitive in Friuli e in Europa: Atti del Congresso Internazionale Cividale del Friuli, 22–24 agosto 1980, ed. Cesare Corsi and Pierluigi Petrobelli (Rome: Torre d'Orfeo, 1989), 43–61 (pp. 47–8).

58 In A-Gu 258 the lyrics are found on fol. 2^r–v; in A-Gu 409 on fols. 1^r–2^v, 70^v–72^v and 273^r. Many include the rubric ‘conductus’. The total of 54 texts includes three sequences; these are not counted as conducti in the discussion that follows. Anderson suggests that the hand might be the same for the lyrics in both sources: ‘If the hand which wrote these two appended collections in manuscripts issuing from the same monastery at approximately the same period is not identical, then it is very similar indeed.’ ‘Thirteenth-Century Conductus ’, 356. Anderson also provides a listing of the lyrical additions: ibid., 355–6 and 358–9. CPI contains the most recent updates of these lists, including current accounts of concordances.

59 Since the Graz sources frequently cue the refrain only by means of an incipit, there is some ambiguity concerning how each individual refrain would be expanded. For example, the refrain cue ‘Gaud.’ (also appearing as ‘Gaudeat’ and ‘Gad.’) could refer to either ‘Gaudeat omnis homo’ or ‘Gaudeat, gaudeat, gaudeat ecclesia’. Only in three instances in either A-Gu 258 or 409 is the refrain fully expanded (in Sancta pia fert Maria for the former and Novi partus gaudium for the latter). None of the other ‘Gaudeat’ cues is either resolved fully or has concordances that utilize the same refrain. There is at least one concordance for the refrain ‘Gaudeat omnis homo’ in a versus not transmitted in the Graz sources: Regi nato domino (F-Pn fonds lat. 1139, fols. 41^v– 42^r). Two possible forms exist for the ‘Eia’ refrains, while the remaining refrain families (Sonet, Apparuit, Hei and Felix) function more regularly; see Appendix 2.

60 As scholars have recently observed, however, not all French refrains have concordances, nor is their definition completely reliant upon their inclusion in song forms. See, for example, Saltzstein, The Refrain and the Rise of the Vernacular, 1–4 and 8–29. Boogaard's catalogue of refrains and their concordances, Rondeaux et refrains, remains the seminal work in this area; it has, however, been updated and expanded in the ‘REFRAIN’ database referenced in note 12 above.

61 These exceptions, all of which have concordances outside the Graz sources, are Lux optata claruit (fol. 2^r–v), Verbum patris humanatur (fol. 71^r) and Nove geniture (fols. 1^v–2^r). One of the few musicologists to consider these two sources in any depth refers to the appended refrains only as follows: ‘The acclamations Gaudeat and Sonet vox letitie [sic] frequently occur at the end of these pieces.’ Anderson, ‘Thirteenth-Century Conductus’, 361, n. 318.

62 On this song and its intricate dissemination, see Konrad Ameln, ‘“Resonet in laudibus” – “Joseph, lieber Joseph mein”’, Jahrbuch für Liturgik und Hymnologie, 15 (1970), 52–112; Walther Lipphardt, ‘“Magnum nomen domini Emanuel”: Zur Frühgeschichte der Cantio “Resonet in laudibus”’, Jahrbuch für Liturgik und Hymnologie, 17 (1972), 194–204; and Brewer, ‘In Search of Lost Melodies’, 98.

63 Ave maris stella divinitas does appear notated in two later sources, the 1582 and 1625 printings of the Piae cantiones (see Appendix 2) with music for the refrain that is related to Example 1. The refrain beginning ‘Apparuit’ appears also within a Resonet in laudibus complex in D-Mu Cim. 100, fols. 246^r–247^r, albeit without clear indication of the ‘Apparuit’ text and music as a refrain. Fulget dies hec pre ceteris is unique to D-Mu Cim. 100, while Nove lucis hodie is also transmitted (with the same refrain) in A-Gu 756, fol. 187^r as part of Resonet in laudibus, in CH-SGs 1397, p. 22, and in CH-SGs 392, pp. 88–9. A strophic conductus with text also related to Resonet in laudibus is transmitted in both I-AO C3 and D16, with the same refrain. On the Aosta sources and their contents, see Kurt von Fischer, ‘Neue Quellen zur Musik des 13., 14. und 15. Jahrhunderts’, Acta musicologica, 36 (1964), 79–97 (pp. 87–90), and Harrison, ‘Benedicamus, Conductus, Carol’.

64 On the songs in A-Gu 756, see Wolfgang Irtenkauf, ‘Das Seckauer Cantionarium vom Jahre 1345 (Hs. Graz 756)’, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 13 (1956), 116–41, and Brewer, ‘In Search of Lost Melodies’.

65 Parkes, ‘Layout and Presentation of the Text’, 55.

66 As Deeming and Leach likewise note: ‘These manuscript witnesses both strongly suggest that the gatherers of song took care to avoid redundancy in the form and extent of their musical inscriptions, and were acutely aware of the degree of musical knowledge (or foreknowledge) they could expect of those using the books that they assembled […]. Numerous other cases of musical notations that seem – from our perspective – to be incomplete, partial, or inadequate, can be shown instead to represent scribes inscribing only so much as was required for a given purpose.’ Helen Deeming and Elizabeth Eva Leach, ‘Songs, Scattered and Gathered’, Manuscripts and Medieval Song, ed. Deeming and Leach, 271–85 (pp. 273– 4).

67 Edward A. Levenston, The Stuff of Literature: Physical Aspects of Texts and their Relation to Literary Meaning (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1992), 108.

68 ‘Innovations in layout of the manuscript page are surely the most highly visible of all the twelfth-century aids to study – such techniques as running headlines, chapter titles in red, alternating red and blue initials and gradation in the size of initials, paragraph marks, cross-references, and citation of authors quoted. One cannot give a precise terminus ante quem for general acceptance of the individual elements, save to say that by about 1220 they were all standard.’ Mary A. Rouse and Richard H. Rouse, ‘Statim invenire: Schools, Preachers, and New Attitudes to the Page’, Authentic Witnesses: Approaches to Medieval Texts and Manuscripts, ed. Rouse and Rouse (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991), 191–220 (p. 198).

69 This adds a third possible interpretation of refrains in Latin song to Haug's two-part categorization of ‘real’ and ‘virtual’ refrains; see Haug, ‘Musikalische Lyrik im Mittelalter’ and ‘Ritual and Repetition’.

70 Bent, ‘Editing Early Music’, 392.