| Concerning the Genetic Relationship Between Notre Dame Clausulas And Their Motets by WOLF FROBENIUS trans. Rob C. Wegman |
| 音楽エッセイのページへ戻る | 初期多声音楽 | St.マーシャル楽派へ |
| Leoninのページへ | ノートルダム楽派（conductus)のページへ |
ペロタン（Viderunt Omnes) |
| ペロタン（Alleluja Nativitas) | ペロタン Clausulaのページ | まうかめ堂さんのページへ |
| substitute clausulaのページへ | 中世音楽のページへ | 前のページへ |
| 次のページへ |
| 1. A Discounted Question The music historian Charles Edmond de Coussemaker established the foundationfor historical motet research with L’art harmonique au XIIe et XIIIe siecles (Paris1865), in which he transcribed, translated, and most knowledgeably commentedupon a selection of fifty motets from the manuscript Montpellier. For more thanfour decades this selection served as virtually the only illustrative musical materialfor the genre. Not only did it provide the basis for an extensive study by OswaldKoller, but it was still commented upon ? albeit from a different perspective ? byFriedrich Ludwig in 1903/04. 音楽史学者Charles Edmond de Coussemakerは、L'art harmonique au XIIe et XIIIsiecles（Paris1865）で歴史上のモテット研究の基盤を確立し、モンペリエ写本から50のmotetsを選択して翻訳、翻訳した。 40年以上にわたり、この選択は事実上、この分野の唯一の例示的な音楽素材として役立った。 Oswald Kollerによる広範な研究の基礎を提供するだけでなく、1903/04年には、別の見解からではあるが、Friedrich Ludwigによっても注釈された。 However, the subsequent course of nineteenth-century motet research would bedetermined largely by philologists, who focused their attention on the texts andedited these in grand style.These scholars discovered that French motetsregularly incorporate refrains; indeed, that these refrains often appear to haveserved as the compositional starting point and focus of the motet. In thisconnection they also emphasized that the word motet , in French romances fromthe thirteenth century, often had the meaning “refrain.” しかし、19世紀のモテット研究のその後の過程は、主に学者がテキストに注意を向け、壮大なスタイルでこれを編集することによって決定された。これらの学者は、フランス語モテットは規則的にrefrainと関連していることを発見した。こうしたrefrainはしばしば作曲のスタート地点として機能し、モテットの焦点となった。こうした結びつきで、彼らはまた、13世紀からのフランス語ロマンスにおけるmotetという言葉は、しばしば「“refrain」という意味を持つことを強調した。 G. Raynaud highlighted the refrains he had identified in motets by printing these in italics, a practice which K. Bartsch welcomed in his review of this edition.5 H. Lavois delved more deeply into the question of refrains in his own essay:6 he emphasized their frequency, distinguished the onomatopaeic ones from those that presented a complete phrase, and stressed that the respective tunes had found their way into the motets along with the texts themselves: G. Raynaudは、彼がモテットで識別したrefrainsを、イタリック体で印刷することによって強調した.K.Bartschは、これを歓迎した。。H. H. Lavoisは、彼自身のエッセイでrefrainsの問題に深く掘り下げた。 彼はその頻度を強調し、完全なフレーズを提示したものから擬似的なものを区別し、それぞれのtuneがテキスト自体と一緒にモテットに入りこんでいくことを強調した。 “The Montpellier manuscript contains a large number of [refrains], whether stating a complete phrase or made up of meaningless words . . . Our manuscript abounds in such refrains, which carry their tunes along with them. I’m not even citing those which present a complete phrase. These double songs, so to speak, enter into the very composition of the counterpoint, which is equally as important as the tune.” モンペリエ写本には、完全なフレーズを示すか無意味な単語で構成されているかを問わず、数多くのrefrainsが含まれている。 写本には、そのようなrefrainsがたくさん存在する。 私は完全なフレーズを提示するものを引用していない。 これらの二重の歌は、言い換えれば、曲と同じくらい重要な対位法の構成に入る。 K. Bartsch underlined the historical interest of refrain quotations in motets: K. Bartschはモテットにおけるrefrainの引用の歴史的関心を強調した。 “There is no other genre, other than perhaps the romance and pastourelle, where so many popular elements found a home, [elements] that survive here as remains of a popular lyrical art that has otherwise perished for the most part . . . I want to focus attention particularly on this point [i.e. the use of refrains], precisely because it demonstrates the connection between motets and popular poetry.” 「おそらくromance やpastourelle以外のジャンルはなく、人気の高い要素が居場所を見つけたところで、他のジャンルは存在しない。 。 。 特にこの点に注意を向けたいと思う。 モテットと人気のある詩のつながりを示しているからである。 And E. Schwan noted the fundamental significance of refrains for all forms of French polyphony in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries: そしてE. Schwanは、12世紀と13世紀のフランス語のポリフォニーのすべての形態に対するrefrainの根本的な意義を指摘した。 “French popular song possesses the characteristic feature, evident already in the oldest surviving examples (incorrectly called pastourelles), that every stanza contains one or more verses that regularly recur, and that stand out as especially characteristic both with regard to content and music, [verses] that we commonly refer to as ‘refrains’ but which are called ‘motets’ (little words) in courtly romances and pastourelles, where they are found scattered in large numbers. These ‘motets’ which (to judge from their frequent occurrence in isolation) were also sung apart from the song itself, formed the new element that was added to the secularized discantus voice part, and effected its musical and poetic recasting. For while the tenor resounded the festively measured notes of the cantus firmus, the top voice, once independent, was singing light, graceful ‘motets’ of this kind, for which reason that voice received the designation motetus, a name which was subsequently . . . transferred to the genre as a whole. . . .9 Once the top voice became separate from the tenor, it was shaped ever more independently and extensively, and accordingly, the discantor, who until then had been only a musician, became a poet. But no matter in how many ways it was shaped, the foundation of his poem remained the old popular ‘motet,’ which brought polyphonic singing into the realm of vernacular art, and from which it received its name. A range of widely differing forms sprouted from this one germ; in all of them, the word ‘motet’ appears as the point towards which everything is aimed.”10 "フランスの人気曲は、過去に生き残った最も古い例（pastourellesと誤って呼ばれている）にはっきりと見られる特徴を持っていて、すべての節が定期的に出現する1つ以上の節を含み、私たちは一般的に「refrain」と呼んでいるが、宮廷のロマンスやパストゥレルではモテットと呼ばれている。多くの人がこうしたロマンスなど散在している。「モテット」も歌そのものとは別に歌われ、世俗化されたdiscantusの声部に加えられた新しい要素を形成し、その音楽的および詩的な再編に影響を与えた。テノールは、cantus firmusの計量音符を響かせていたが、独立した上声部は、この種の軽く優雅な「モテット」を歌っていた。そのため、声部はmotetusという名前を受けた。 。 。ジャンル全体に移った。 。上声部がテノールから分離されると、それはより独立して広範囲に形作られ、それに伴い、それまでは音楽家だけであったdiscantorが詩人になった。しかし、どのように形作られたのかに関わらず、詩の基礎は古典芸術の領域に多声の歌をもたらし、その名前を受けた古いモテットのままであった。この1つの胚芽から広範囲に異なる形の範囲が広がった。それらのすべてにおいて、モテットという言葉は、すべてが目指されている点として現れている。 Questions were formulated and tasks set for future research. For Bartsch it was especially the rhythm and the verse articulation of the motet texts that continued to pose difficulties. It was hoped that the solution might come from the elucidation of the musical side of the motet: 将来の研究のために疑問が策定され、タスクが設定された。 Bartschにとってはそれは、難題を引き起こしてきたモテットテキストのリズムとverseのつながりであった。 その解決策は、モテットの音楽面の解明から来ることが期待された。 The rhythmic side is most difficult, and cannot be separated from the musical side; it is especially the verse articulation that will often appear dubious: the question where to assume end rhyme, and where internal rhyme, can only rarely be answered with any certainty. Hopefully Jacobsthal’s detailed work, which has been in preparation for years, will shed light on all these points.11 リズムの側面は最も難しく、音楽的側面から分離することはできない。 それは、たびたび疑問が出現する特に詩の分節の問題がある。終わりの韻をどこに置くのか、そして内部の韻をどこで確実にすることはほとんどできないのかという疑問。 Jacobsthalの詳細な作業は、何年も前から準備が整っていれば、これらの点をすべて明らかにしてくれることを願っている。 Interest in the textual forms of the motet guided also the philologist W. Meyer, who worked on the Latin motet, a genre that had until then received much less attention: モテットのテキスト形式へは、ラテンモテットに取り組んだ言語学者W. Meyerも関心を寄せた。彼は、それまでほとんど関心を持たれていなかったラテン語モテットに取り組んでいた。 Meyer discovered that the motet originated within the framework of Notre Dame plainchant elaborations. And he viewed the creation of the genre as analogous to the creation of the sequence by Notker. Apparently the motet had come into being as the result of the addition of Latin texts to the top voices of discant sections (“Klauseln”; a designation introduced only by Friedrich Ludwig) in plainchant elaborations. It was this historical background that might explain, in his view, the “dithyrambic forms” and the trope-like character of the Latin motet. Meyerは、モテットがノートルダムの精巧なプレインチャントの枠組みの中で生まれたことを発見した。 そして彼は、Notkerによるセクエンツィアの創造に類似したジャンルの創作を見た。 明らかに、モテットは、discantセクション（ "Klauseln";Friedrich Ludwigによる定義）の上声部にラテン語のテキストを加えた結果としてできたものであった。 彼の見解では、これは "ひどく熱狂的な形式"とラテン語モテットのトロープス様の特徴を説明するかもしれない歴史的背景であった。 This conception of the origin of the motet seems to have sprung from a rash idea about the Magnus liber and the clausula fascicle of the manuscript Florence, rather than from an examination of the relationship between musically identical clausulas and motets. Meyer ? unlike Fr. Ludwig ? placed remarkably little emphasis on the determination of those musical identities. He neither documented them with references to the manuscript upon which he drew, Florence, where they would probably have been familiar to him (as, for example, with the motets [216], [231], [524] and [254/6]), nor did he avoid examples for which no clausulas were known at the time (as, for example, with the motets [692/3] and [129/30]). モテットの起源についてのこの概念は、音楽的には同一のクラウズラとモテットとの関係を調べるのではなく、Magnus liberとF写本のclausula 冊子についてのせっかちな発想から生まれたようである。 Meyer は Fr. Ludwig とは異なり- これらの音楽的アイデンティティの決定にはほとんど重点を置かなかった。 彼は自身が調べた写本を参照してこれを記録していたわけではない（例えば、モテット[216]、[231]、[524]、[254/6 ]）、また、彼は、その時に（例えば、モテット[692/3]と[129/30]のように）クラウズラが知られていない例を避けることはしなかった。 The hypothesis that the motet had its origin in the Latin texting of Notre Dame clausulas lacked adequate foundation at least in this regard, that there had been no consideration of the alternative possibility, that the distinctive form of the motet might perhaps be explained by the constraints of the cantus firmus setting, and that, when there are musically identical clausulas and motets, it might equally well be the latter that represented the original version (something which the source situation does not rule out by any means). モテットがノートルダムクラウズラのラテン語歌詞化にその起源を持っていたという仮説は、モテットの独特の形式がcantus firmusの制約によって説明されるかもしれないというような代替可能な考えがないという点に関して少なくとも十分な証拠がなかった。音楽的に同一なクラウズラとモテットがある場合、オリジナルな版（ソースの状況が何らかの手段で排除されていないもの）を代表するのが後者（モテット）である可能性も等しくあったのである。 Also lacking in support was Meyer’s view that the Latin motet was historically prior to the French motet, a view which he motivated only with his fundamental assumption that “he who wants to view the Middle Ages clearly . . . should begin with Latin and ecclesiastical texts.”16 Yet Meyer did not show in what specific ways sacred and secular matters were demarcated from each other in the thirteenth century (and that this is certainly a question worth asking is shown by the manuscript MuA, where the ? by current norms “secular” ? motets are arranged in liturgical order and accordingly could conceivably have been destined for liturgical use).17 Aside from this there are plenty of examples of sacred adaptations of secular songs, examples that contradict Meyer’s fundamental assumption and show it to have at least no universal validity. That the Latin motet historically preceded the French motet may still, to be sure, remain a fundamental assumption in more recent motet scholarship, yet to this day no compelling case has been made for it. This is true also of P. Aubry, who evidently ended up agreeing with Meyer: また、Meyerの見解では、ラテン語モテットは歴史的にフランスのモテットに先立っているとのことであった。「彼は、中世をはっきりと見たいと思っており、ラテン語と教会のテキストとともに研究を始めた」。しかし、Meyerは、13世紀にどのような具体的な方法で聖と俗の問題の境界を定めるか、を示していなかった（そして、これは確かにMuA写本中に示されている価値ある疑問である。現在の規範では「世俗的」であるモテットは、典礼的な順序で整理されているため、おそらく典礼的な使用のために運命づけられていた可能性がある）.17これ以外にも、世俗歌の聖なる適応例がたくさんある.Meyerの基本的な前提に矛盾し、少なくとも普遍的な妥当性がないことを示す例がたくさんある。ラテン語モテットが歴史的にフランス語モテットに先立つという事実は、さらに、最近のモテットに関する研究における基本的な前提として残っていたかもしれないが、今日までそれを強いるケースはなかった。これは Ｍｅｙｅｒ説への同意に達したP. Aubryについても正しい。 And yet, while we have good reasons for believing that the Latin motet stands at the origin of the genre, we also lack reasons for denying the French motet very old ancestry. In fact the manuscript lat. 15139 of the Bibliotheque nationale at Paris [ = the manuscript of the St Victor clausulas] supplies the incipits of French motets to melismas corresponding to organum sections in Florence and Wolfenbuttel. The motets with vernacular texts in the manuscripts franc. 844 and 12615 are written in a musical hand that is equally archaic as that of the oldest Latin motets. ? Nevertheless, we feel that the French type must be a derivation from the Latin prototype しかし、ラテン語モテットがジャンルの起源であると信じる理由があるにもかかわらず、フランス語モテットが非常に古い祖先であることを否定する理由もない。事実、Ｓｔ．Ｖ写本はＦ写本やＷ写本のオルガヌム部門に相当するメリスマにフランス語モテットのincipitsを供給している。franc. 844 and 12615中の世俗歌詞を持つモテットは、もっとも古いラテン語モテットと同様に古い古典的な音楽の手で書かれている。 Meyer’s interpretation, which would prove so fateful for the history of motet research, received a more qualified judgement only from Riemann, it seems.24 He aptly characterised the interpretation as “ideas.”25 Riemann agreed that the motet had originated within the framework of plainchant elaborations. Yet he remained sceptical about the view that the motet’s genesis lay in the a posteriori addition of texts to clausulas: モテット研究の歴史のためにとても運命的であると思われる Meyerの解釈は、Riemannからのより合理的な判断しか受けていないようである.24彼はこの解釈を「アイデア」としてか特徴づけていなかった。25Riemannはモテットが精巧なプレインチャントのフレームワーク内で生まれたことに同意したが、モテットの起源がクラウズラへの事後のテキスト化であるという見解については懐疑的であった。 Meyer assumes that the polyphonic elaborations of these bits of chant were at first textless, and that it was only the subsequent writing of poetry for the voices that called the poetic genre of the motet into being. Whether this was in fact the actual course of events will be hard to prove. It would surely be easier to assume that the motet did not have its origin in the addition of texts to musical settings of organum, but much rather that it was an independent genre of these firstlings of polyphony over extended chant melodies.26 Meyerは、これらのチャントの巧みなポリフォニーは、まず最初にテキストがあったのではなく、モテットの詩的ジャンルと呼ばれた声部に続いて詩をつけたにすぎない、と仮定している。これが事実であるかどうかは、実際に証明するのは難しいあろう。 モテットの起源はオルガヌムの音楽へのテキスト追加ではないというよりは、むしろ拡張したチャントのメロディを超えて、ポリフォニーの最初の結果としての独立したジャンルであったと考えることの方が容易なことだろう。 Absolutely: this possibility, which Meyer left out of consideration, ought to be examined before his view of the origins of the motet is given out as established knowledge. That possibility, contrary to what Fr. Ludwig thought,27 is not ruled out by the countless cases where a motet is musically identical with a clausula, for such identity by itself does not necessarily imply anything about the genetic relationship. 確かに、マイヤーが考慮しなかったこの可能性は、モテットの起源についての彼の見解が確立された知識として与えられる前に検討されるべきであった。 その可能性（Ｍｅｙｅｒと逆の見解）は、Fr. Ludwiの考えとは反対に、モテットが音楽的にクラウズラと同一であるという無数の事例では除外されない。なぜなら、そのようなアイデンティティそれ自体は、必ずしも発生論的関係について何も示唆していないからである。 Fr. Ludwig, too, embraced W. Meyer’s view that the motet originated from the addition of Latin texts to discant clausulas, without considering that the case for privileging this view over conceivable alternatives was yet to be made. The very many cases of musical identity between Notre Dame clausulas and motets which he was able to demonstrate30 might well have tempted him to such consideration. But no, in all these cases he presupposed the genetic priority of the clausula, as if Meyer’s discussions had made that conclusion all but unavoidable. It seems consistent with this rather less than careful handling of Meyer’s theses, which have been foundational for the modern image of an entire music-historical epoch, that Ludwig made only the most fleeting references to Meyer’s discussions. Fr. Ludwigも、モテットの起源はディスカントクラウズラに対してラテン語を付加したことであるというW. Meyerの見解を受け入れた。この考えを代替する権威ある案を考えることもなく。ノートルダムクラウズラとモテットの間の音楽的同一性の非常に多くの事例が、彼をそのような考察に誘惑させたかもしれない。 しかし、これらのすべての事例において、Meyerの議論が結論をすべて避けられないようにしたかのように、彼はclausulaの発生論的優先順位を前提としていた。 これは、 Ludwig がMeyerの議論の中でもっとも一瞬しか言及していない、音楽歴史的な時代の現代的なイメージの根底にあるMeyerの論文の慎重な取扱いとは一貫していないようである。 Without any apparent basis, Ludwig also considered the so-called St Victor clausulas to have been the musical sources for the French motets whose incipits are written in the margins, and he explicitly ruled out the alternative possibility that these might rather be de-texted arrangements of those motets, even though their liturgical origin seemed dubious also to him: 明白な根拠なしに、 Ludwig は、Ｓｔ.Ｖ写本中のクラウズラがフランス語のモテット（その incipitが写本の脇に書かれているにもかかわらず）の音楽源であると考えていた。そして彼は、こうしたモテットのテキストを外された編曲が存在するかもしれないという代替案（その典礼的起源が彼自身にもまた疑われたにもかかわらず）を、明白に除外した。 But these melismas are indeed merely the sources of the French motets indicated in the margin, to whose texts the top voices of the melismas cannot be snugly fitted quite as easily as is usually the case with Latin motets; instead they frequently require considerable alterations in the melodic and rhythmic disposition of the top voices of the melismas. Among these du[pla] and tri[pla] we do not as yet find motet voices that are readily usable for the French motet texts, at least not for the most part ? Nos. 15 and 40 are exceptions to the rule. If this explanation of the musical relationship between the melismas of St Victor and a greater number of French motets [i.e. the genetic priority of the former] were not to hold true for the majority of these melismas, then one would have to assume that the melismas are rearrangements, indeed successive and ever more deeply invasive rearrangements, of a series of French motets into liturgical melismas, something that seems to me to be completely out of the question.35 しかしこうしたメリスマは、実際には脇に示されたフランス語モテットの単なる源であり、メリスマの上の声は、ラテン語モテットの場合のように簡単にぴったりとフィットすることはできない。 その代わりに、彼らは頻繁にmelismasのトップ声の旋律的かつリズムの配置にかなりの変更を必要とする。St V写本のメリスマとより多くのフランス語モテットとの間の音楽的関係のこの説明（つまりメリスマの発生論的priority)が、もしもメリスマの大多数に対して当てはまるものではなかったとしたら、メリスマは、一連のフランス語のモテットを典礼的なメリスマに再編成、実際には連続的かつ深く侵略的に再編成したものと仮定しなければならない。それは私にとってはまったく問題外のことだ。 It is true that Ludwig himself referred to the many refrains that are found in the motets related to these clausulas. Yet he still proceeded strictly―both here, and in the many cases where a Notre Dame clausula agrees musically with a French motet in the more narrow sense―ｆrom the [assumption of the] priority of the clausula, without taking into account the older theory, according to which a French motet normally originated in a refrain36 and thus would not have been derived from a clausula. He was also quite emphatic in tracing back the original refrain melodies to the clausulas: Ludwig自身が、これらのclausulasに関連するモテットに見られる多くのrefrainsを参照したことは事実である。 しかし彼は、（ノートルダムクラウズラとフランス語モテットが狭義に考えても音楽的に同一である多くの事例があり）古典理論を考慮に入れずに、フランス語モテットが通常refrainに起源があり、それゆえそれがクラウズラから由来しているわけではないという、クラウズラのpriorityに関する仮定からさらに進んでいた。彼はまた、オリジナルなrefrainのメロディーをclausulasに戻すことをかなり強調した。 With the help of a few examples taken from this repertory, let us offer, at the end of this examination of the Saint Victor melismas, a contribution to the question of the musical origins of the melodies of the so-called “refrains,” [refrains] that pervade especially the French motets of this period. For there is a whole series of such “refrain” melodies which go back ultimately to musical phrases in the duplum melodies of the Saint Victor melismas, [melodies] which were at first conceived as [textless] melismas, but received refrain-like text underlay during the recasting of these works into motets, and which, with these texts, rapidly spread more widely as “refrains.”37 このレパートリーのいくつかの例を参考にして、Ｓｔ．Ｖ写本中のメリスマのこの調査の終わりに、この時期のフランス語モテットに特に広まっていたいわゆる「refrain」のメロディーの音楽的起源の問題を提供したい。 なぜなら、このような "refrain"メロディーの全体の流れがあり、それは究極的にはＳｔ．Ｖ写本のメリスマのduplumのメロディの音楽的フレーズに戻るのである。そうしたメロディ、メリスマは当初はテキストのないメリスマとして生まれたが、これらの作品をモテットとして再編成する際には、これらのテキストとともに、refrainとしてより広範囲に普及したのである。 Because of Ludwig’s authority, which rested on exceptional repertorial knowledge and an immense research achievement, but also provided cover for apodictic pronouncements like this one, the hypothesis of the origin of the motet in the addition of Latin texts to Notre Dame clausulas became a veritable dogma, one that has received as little critical discussion as it has been properly argued. 例外的なレパートリー知識と膨大な研究成果に頼っていたLudwigの権威によって、このような自明の宣言のためのカバーを提供したため、ノートルダムクラウズラにラテン語のテキストを追加することによるモテットの起源についての仮説は、ほとんど批判を受けることのない 真実のドグマとなった。 On the other hand, Ludwig’s assumption of the genetic priority of clausulas before motets did not remain uncontested. Y. Rokseth, for example, in 1939 viewed the St Victor clausulas as draft versions for sacred motets, having been stripped of their secular texts, and she also expressly contradicted the view that the refrains in those motets can be musically traced back to the clausulas: 他方、このLudwigの仮定は、無条件に議論の余地がないままではなかった。 例えば、1939年にY. Roksethは、世俗的なテキストを丸裸にして、Ｓｔ．Ｖ写本のクラウズラを聖なるモテットの草稿と見なた。そして彼女は、モテットにおけるrefrainは音楽的にクラウズラにさかのぼることができるという見方に反駁した。 The “SV melismas” do not exactly present the same picture as the “Notre Dame clausulas” of the manuscript F, which did in fact serve the function of musical sources [for motets]. Wouldn’t it be a strange combination of events that while none of the “melismas” failed to generate its own motet, all those motets happened in fact to be secular? Such is not the case with the clausulas, of which many remained unused as motets, and which yielded Latin pieces just as well as French ones. Is it not odd, also, that all, or almost all, motets that are claimed to have been constructed after the “melismas” were known to the person who added the incipits of the corresponding motets in the margin next to each piece? The reverse hypothesis has a greater chance of having probability. A cleric who sought to enlarge the religious repertoire and who had already noted a certain number of sacred pieces in the first gatherings of SV, would naturally have kept only the music of forty French motets that were suited to being converted into pious works. . . . "Sｔ.V 写本のメリスマ"は、実際にはモテットのための音楽ソースの機能を果たしたＦ写本の "Notre Dame clausulas"と同じ絵を正確に提示していない。メリスマのどれもが自分のモテットを生み出すことはできなかったが、実際にはすべてのモテットが世俗的であったということの奇妙な組み合わせではないだろうか？そのようなものは、多くがモテットとして使われないまま残っていて、フランス語作品だけでなくラテン語作品も生み出していたクラウズラの場合には当てはまらない。 メリスマの後に作られたと主張されているすべての、またはほとんどすべてのモテットが、各作品の隅に、対応するモテットのincipitを付け加えた人に知られていたのは奇妙ではないか？逆の仮説の方が確率が高い可能性が高い。宗教的なレパートリーを広げようとしていた聖職者、Sｔ.V 写本の最初のgatheringの既にある種の聖なる作品に注目していた聖職者は、敬虔な作品に変化させるのにふさわしい40のフランス語のモテットの音楽だけを自然に保持していた。 If the “melismas of SV” are not musical archetypes of motets but rather, in conformity with my hypothesis, outlines drawn after the model of secular motets, with the aim of upgrading new motets into religious ones, then this would better explain the fact that they contain refrains of songs. Does one not find there, notably, the music (No. 6) of a motet which resulted from the expansion of a dance song already cited in a poem which dates from around the year 1200, the Roman de la rose ou de Guillaume de Dole? Lines 5092?97 of that roman (Servois edition, p. 152) do in fact constitute a stanza whose lines reappear, treated as a refrain, in a motet in W2 (fol. 243v; cf. Gennrich, Rondeaux, I, No. 16 and II, pp. 9?11), which in turn returns in SV without words, with only the designation Immolatus in the tenor. Eight melismas from the same manuscript, six of which are found also as motets in Mo, incorporate in this manner musical formulas that are otherwise known as refrains. It is impossible to explain this reasonably if one insists that the melisma must be a musical model chronologically prior to the text. If, on the other hand, it is a skeleton, divested of its text for ecclesiastical purposes, and somewhat simplified melodically, from a French motet, nothing strange remains.38 もしもSｔ.V 写本のメリスマが、モテットの音楽的に古い型ではなく、私の仮説に従って、新しいモテットを宗教的なものにアップグレードすることを目指して、世俗的なモテットのモデルの後に描かれたアウトラインであるならば、これらが歌のrefrainを含んでいる事実をよく説明できるだろう。1200年頃の詩Roman de la rose ou de Guillaume de Doleに引用されているダンス・ソングの拡張によるモテットの音楽（No. 6）を考えて見よう。 そのroman（Servois版、p152）中の行5092‐97は、再出現し、W2写本中のmotetでrefrainとして取り扱われるスタンザを実際に構成する（243v; Gennrich、Rondeaux、I、No. 16とII、pp。9-11）。それはSｔ.V 写本中に言葉を伴わずに、単にテノールにおいてImmolatusという名称を繰り返す。同じ写本中の8つのメリスマのうち、モンペリエ写本中のモテットとしても見いだされているものが6つで、このようにして、refrainとして知られている音楽様式を取り入れている。メリスマが時系列的にテキスト化される前の音楽モデルでなければならないと主張するなら、これを合理的に説明することは不可能である。 ｐ９ Naturally, in those cases where we posses, for refrains in motets, Notre Dame clausulas in the stricter sense of the term, Rokseth deferred to the dogma of the priority of the clausula, for which she provided as little underpinning as Fr. Ludwig: 当然のことながら、モテット中のrefrainに対して、我々が考えているケースでは、厳密な意味でのノートルダムクラウズラは、Roksethがクラウズラの優先順位のドグマを繰延にし、彼女がFr. Ludwigを支持することはほんどない。 Sometimes, at the beginning of certain motets, more frequently as a kind of conclusion, though sometimes also in the course of the piece, one encounters a short phrase that accompanies one or more lines which deal with the subject of love in a general sense, and often assume a sententious tone. Since many of these lines reappear in other poems, in places that lend them the character of a quotation, or incorporated in rondeaux for they consistute the refrain, one has long taken as axiomatic that we are dealing, also in the motets, with refrains borrowed, along with their music, from dance rondets. Whether in fact a borrowing had taken place seems plausible in works composed in the second historical phase of the motet. The same is not true for motets generated from clausulas, where the music existed before words were added to them.39 時には、あるモテットの始まりで、ある種の結論としてより頻繁に、時には作品の中で、一般的な意味での愛の対象を扱う1つ以上の行に付随する短いフレーズに遭遇することもある。 しばしば堅実な音階を取る。 これらの行の多くは他の詩にも現れるので、引用符の性質を与える場所では、あるいはrefrainを構成しているロンドーに組み込まれている場所では、借用されたrefrainとともに、その音楽とともに、dance rondetから、長い間モテットで扱っている公理的なものとして取り上げられている。 実際に借用が行われたかどうかは、モテットの第2の歴史的段階で作られた作品では妥当と思われる。 同じことは、言葉がそれらに加えられる前に音楽が存在していたclausulasから生成されたmotetsについては当てはまらない。 In 1947, Rokseth considered eleven three-part clausulas in F and the hoquetus In saeculum to have been compositional sketches (canevas) for motets (and in nine of these cases we do in fact still have motets):40 1947年、Roksethは、Ｆ写本中の１１の３声クラウズラとhoquetus In saeculum を、モテットに対する作曲上のスケッチ（カンバス）として考えていた。 I regard these eleven pieces as canvases for motets, canvases deliberately constructed on familiar tenors that were subjected to rhythmic games: repetitions and various recombinations. Such motivic repetitions in the tenor are among the distinctive traits of the motet during its first historical phase . . . If this interpretation of the clausulas is correct, then this group of works appears to represent a situation that is exactly the opposite of what we must assume for the “melismas” in the manuscript latin 15139 of the Bibliotheque nationale [SV], which should be regarded as drafts for religious motets, sketched on the model provided by secular motets.41 私はこれらの11個のクラウズラを、モテットのキャンバスとして、リズム・ゲームの対象となった親しみやすいテノールに故意に構築されたキャンバスと見なす。 テノールにおけるモチベーションの繰り返しは、最初の歴史的局面のモテットの独特な形質の1つである。 。 。 もしもクラウズラのこの解釈が正しいとすれば、この作品グループは、Ｓｔ.Ｖ写本中の "メリスマ”として見做されるようなものとは完全に正反対な状況を示すように見える。そのメリスマは、宗教的なモテットの草稿とみなされ、世俗的なモテットによって提供されるモデルをスケッチしていた。 Of course the view of motet origins that is connected with these interpretations of the St Victor clausulas and the eleven clausulas in F, would be untenable in the case of genuinely French motets,42 and lacks probability for motet contrafacts to the extent that these would have been easier to fashion after texted models than textless copies. This interpretation, too, can be understood, above all, as an attempt to clarify the function of clausulas, which has thus far remained contradictory, but is not, for that reason, any more convincing. もちろん、St V写本中の clausulasとF写本中の11のclausulasが、これらの解釈に関連して、モテットの起源であるとする見解は、真のフランス語モテットの場合には支持されず、歌詞のないものより歌詞のついたモデル後の方がより簡単に流行した度合からしても、モテットcontrafactumの可能性も否定できる。この解釈は、とりわけ矛盾したままであるが、その理由から、それ以上の説得力をもたないクラウズラの機能を明らかにする試みとして理解することができる。 And W. G. Waite regarded twenty clausulas in F, on the grounds of their notation, as transcriptions from motets (and in sixteen of these cases we do in fact still have motets):43 そして、W.G. Waiteは、記譜法の根拠に基づいて、F写本中の20個のクラウズラをモテットからのtranscriptionと見做した（そして、これらの例のうち16個は実際にまだモテットが現存している）。 These substitute clausulae seem to be in notation sine littera, i.e. they are written primarily in ligatures. However, they do not lend themselves easily to transcription and one can only transcribe them by the most arbitrary distortion of the laws of modal ligatures. The problematic nature of these pieces arises from a not very successful attempt to convert motets into substitute clausulae by omitting the text of the motets and changing the notation cum littera into the ligatures of notation sine littera . . . In these derivatory clausulae the treatment of the text as well as the notation points to an origin in the motet. In the motet the text of the tenor is usually written at the beginning of the piece rather than placing each syllable under the note to which it properly belongs. Accordingly, in the process of converting the motet into a clausula it would be necessary to realign the syllables of the text under their proper notes. The scribe has endeavored to do this but oftenly quite carelessly.44 これらの代替クラウズラは、sine litteraの記譜中に見られる。すなわち、それらは当初からは連結符で書かれている。しかしながら、それらは簡単にtranscriptionすることはできず、モーダル連結符の法則から逸脱することによってしか、transcribeはできない。これらの作品の問題となる性質は、モテットの歌詞を省略し、cum littera記譜法をsine littera記譜法の連結符をへと変えることによってモテットを代替クラウズラへと転換させるような失敗するべき試みから生じている。これらの派生的なクラウズラにおいては、歌詞の取り扱いは記譜法同様、モテットに起源があることが示されている。モテットでは、テノールのテキストは通常、各音節を適切に属する音符の下に置くのではなく、作品の先頭に書かれている。従って、モテットをクラウズラに変換する過程で、テキストの音節を適切な音符の下で再整理する必要がある。筆記者はこれをやろうと努力しましたが、しばしば非常な不注意があった。 This view met with opposition from R. Flotzinger,45 G. A. Anderson,46 and J. Stenzl.47 It is true that the problem of the genetic relationship between clausulas and motets can hardly be resolved on the level of notational technique alone. Anderson puts forward, against derivation of clausulas from motets, the fact that the endings of clausulas feature, for the most part, transitional melodic figures that are lacking in motets, figures that have been known since Franco as “copula non ligata”: such figures [he objects] would have to have been added by the scribes of the clausulas. Absolutely ‐ why shouldn’t they have? Firstly, we are dealing with movable bits of music that are highly stereotypical in nature, and that could scarcely be seen as substantially a part of the clausula itself; secondly, notators were by no means mere copyists, but generally acted also as editors of the pieces they wrote down (something that can be observed quite well, as it happens, in F; see below). This objection seems hardly insurmountable, then. この見解には、R. Flotzinger、 G.A. Anderson、およびJ. Stenzlの反対意見がある。clausulasとmotetsとの間の発生論的関係の問題は、記譜法のレベルだけではほとんど解決できないことは事実である。 Andersonはモテットからのクラウズラの派生に反対して、クラウズラの終止部分は多くの場合、モテットでは欠けている過渡的旋律形の特徴を持っており、その形はFranco 以来、“copula non ligata”として知られているものであるが、そうした形（Andersonは反対）はクラウズラの筆記者によって付け加えられたものであろう、としている。 絶対に？なぜそうであるべきではないのか？第1に、我々は本質的に非常にステレオタイプの音楽の動きを取り扱っており、実質的にクラウズラの一部と見られることはほとんどない。第２に、記譜者たちは決して単なる写譜屋ではなく、一般的には書き下した部分の編纂者としても働いていた（F写本中でかなりよく観察できる、下記参照）。この反対は、ほとんど解決困難なように思われる。 45 Flotzinger certainly acknowledges “that individual clausulas are more melodically ornate in the top voice and would be hard to renotate,” and he even mentions twenty-four further examples, for which there happen to be musically identical motets in fifteen cases. Yet he nevertheless proceeds: “But that doesn’t mean we should immediately go as far as to assume that these represent ‘back-transposed’ motets: it suffices to note (and will scarcely need further proof) that what is going on here is simply that these pieces were originally written, not in modal, but in mensural notation, and that, for the sake of consistency, and only with great difficulty, they were forced into modal notation, which means that they would in any case surely have come from outside Notre Dame” (p. 69; H. Husmann seems also to have posited mensurally-notated exemplars). Yet is there really greater plausibility to the idea that the melismas were available to the F scribe, and evidently also to the composers of the motets in question, in mensural notation? What speaks for Waite’s interpretation, in any event, is the fact that for most of these clausulas there exist motets. Of course his interpretation does compel a revision of the assumption that when clausulas and motets are identical, its is necessarily the latter that must have been derived from the former. フロッツィンガーは、「個々のクラウズラが上声部で音楽的に華やかであるが、そうしたクラウズラは再度記譜されることは、困難である」と確信し、さらなる２４の例を挙げている。音楽的に同一のモテットが、１５のケースで生じている。彼はそれにもかかわらず、次のように突き進む： 「しかし、それは、これらが‘back-transposed’モテットであると仮定する限り、直ちに進むべきであるということを意味するものではない。これらの作品は、もともと書かれていたものであり、モーダル記譜法ではなく、計量記譜法であり、一貫性のために、大きな困難を伴って、モーダル記譜法に強制された。それは、 Notre Dameの外からやってきたのだ、ということ意味する」（p。69; H. Husmannもまた、計量的に記譜された例を挙げたように見える）。しかし、計量記譜法において、メリスマがF写本の作者や最後には問題のモテットの作曲家にも利用可能であったという考えにより大きな妥当性があるのだろうか？いずれにしても、Waiteの解釈については、これらのclausulasのほとんどにmotetsが存在するという事実がある。もちろん、Waiteの解釈は、clausulasとmotetsが同一である場合、モテットはクラウズラから由来することが必然であるという仮定の改訂を強いるのである。 However, the hypotheses of neither Y. Rokseth nor Waite prompted a more wideranging reconsideration of Ludwig’s view that when clausulas and motets are musically identical, it is the former that are genetically prior. In the case of the St Victor clausulas this can be explained by the fact that with one (merely apparent) exception48 they survive as unica, and might thus seem to represent an exceptional case. In the case of the eleven clausulas in F it can be explained by the fact that these belong to the later Notre Dame period, and might thus appear unrepresentative. In the case of the pieces cited by Waite it can be explained by his inadequate argumentation, which was waved aside without due consideration of the more fundamental problem signalled by Waite. しかし、Y.RoksethとWaiteのどちらの仮説も、clausulasとmotetが音楽的に同一である場合、前者は発生論的に先行しているというLudwigの見解のより広範な再考を促した。 St V写本中のclausulasの場合、それらがunicaとして現存している1つの（単なる見かけの）例外とともに、例外的な場合を表すように見える事実によって説明することができる。 F写本中の11個のクラウズラの場合、これらは後期ノートルダム時代に属しているという事実によって説明することができるがそれゆえに、典型的ではなくなるかもしれない。 Waiteによって引用された作品の場合、それは彼の不十分な議論によってでも説明することができるが、それはWaiteによって伝えられたより根本的な問題を十分に考慮することはなかった。 While Meyer’s and Ludwig’s hypotheses concerning the origins of the motet and the genetic relationship between musically identical clausulas and motets thus remain unproven at best, the older view that had been pushed aside―the view according to which French motets are usually rooted in a refrain- has gradually come to be newly elaborated. モテットの起源に関するMeyer’s と Ludwigの仮説と音楽的に同一のクラウズラとモテットの間の発生論的関係はそれゆえに証明されていないが、脇に寄せられたより古い見方（フランス語モテットが通常refrainに根ざしているという）は、徐々に新たに精緻化されてきた。 はるかに画期的なのは、Yvonne Roksethがrefrainにおけるモテットの旋律的依存性への言及である。とりわけKlaus Hofmannのrefrainの構造的重要性への洞察である。Hofmannによれば、refrainとは/// がモテットのメロディック依存に対する彼らの言及した鎮圧に対するクラウディオ・ホフマンの洞察である。ホフマンによると、 evidently not just brought in quite casually, but rather forms the very starting point of the musicopoetic conception of the whole. Once the refrain has been chosen, it determines the theme of the poetry as well its formal details, in equal measure as it determines the essential traits of the motet setting―from the rhythmicization of the tenor sequence (which, after all, has to be shaped in such a way that refrain tune and tenor, together, make up a duo that is correct in terms of the techniques of polyphonic composition) up to the very details of the melodic and rhythmic elaboration of the top voice. The compositional difficulties that are characteristic of this refrain‐tenor combination, in connection with the mostly sententious refrain turns of the texts, can be found also the many motets whose refrains are not attested elsewhere. Towards the end of the thirteenth century, apparently, every vernacular motet was normally given a refrain.53 （refrainとは）明らかにちょうど偶然にもたらされたのではなく、むしろ全体の音楽創作概念の出発点である。 refrainがいったん選択されると、それはモテット設定の本質的な特性を決定するのと同等の尺度で、詩のテーマを決定する。テノールのリズム化から（結局のところ、refrain音調とテノールが共に多声部作成技術の点で正しい２声部を作り上げるやり方が形成される） トップ声部の旋律とリズムの精緻化の詳細まで。 このrefrain-tenorの組み合わせを特徴とする作曲の困難性は、歌詞のうちで概ね思慮深いrefrain部分と結びついて、多くのモテットにも見られる。そのrefrainは他の場所では見られない。13世紀の終わりに向かって、明らかに、あらゆる母国語のモテットは通常的にrefrainが存在するようになった。 Hofman also pointed to the significance that his conclusions might have for the question of the genetic relationship between Notre Dame clausulas and their motets: Hofmanはまた、彼の結論がNotre DameクラウズラとNotre Dameモテットとの間の発生論的関係の問題を持つことについての意義を指摘している。 The problem of the priority of the clausula will have to be reinvestigated, taking into account the refrain’s compositional significance, in the truly manifold cases of clausulas and motets (both vernacular and Latin-texted) that differ with regard to their texts, but are musically identical.5 clausulaの優先順位の問題は、歌詞に関して異なるclausulasとmotets（母語とラテン語の両方）の真の多様なケースにおいて、refrainの作曲上の重要性を考慮に入れて再調査されなければならないだろう。しかし、音楽的には 同一である。 It is indeed true that it would be hard to derive a motet of the kind just described from a pre-existing setting that had been conceived independently from it. For 98 of the altogether 140 Notre Dame and Saint Victor clausulas we know of the existence of French motets. If these display signs of the mode of origin that we just described (the possibility of French contrafact cannot be a priori excluded55), then this will indicate their genetic priority over the respective clausula, just as it would for any Latin versions (which exist in 63 of those 98 cases).56 これとは独立して構想されていた既存の環境からちょうど記述された種類のモテットを導き出すのは難しいことは確かである。 ノートルダムとＳｔ．Ｖ写本中の全部で140のクラウズラのうちの98に対して、我々はそれがフランス語モテットであることを知っている。 これらが、先に説明した起源様式の兆候を示している場合（フランス語の contrafactumの可能性はa prioriには除外されない）、これは各ラテン語版と同様に発生的優先度を示す。 これら98例中63例）. 2. Clausulas With French Motets As a matter of fact, it is possible to make a plausible case for the genetic priority of motets vis-a-vis clausulas in the case of at least 64 of the 98 clausulas for which there are French motets.57 Among the relevant indications for this, aside from the presence of one or more refrains (which, to be sure, cannot always be established with certainty58),59 are structural symptoms like: tenor manipulation60 or particularities of tenor disposition that can be explained as originating in the motet rather than the clausula,61 the trope-like structure of the motet,62 divisions into periods that are evidently determined by the motet text,63 the tendency for clausulas to obscure the clarity of those divisions,64 the conceptual connectedness of motet voices (especially when that connectedness is not in evidence in the clausula),65 the relationship between text and music,66 the respective transmission of clausula and motet,67 the notation of the clausula (which may preclude it from having served as a motet source),68 the more advanced nature, in terms of its stylistic development, of the clausula vis-a-vis the motet,69 and so on. 事実、フランス語モテットがある98のクラウズラのうち少なくとも64の場合には、クラウズラとモテットとの発生的優先順位について、もっともらしいケースを作ることが可能である57。これは、1つ以上のrefrain（必ずしも確からしさを確立することができない）の存在を除いて、このindicationに相当するもののうち、次のような構造的象徴がある。テノールの操作、クラウズラよりもモテットにオリジナルであるように説明され得るテノールの配置の特殊性、モテットのトロープスのような構造、モテット歌詞によって明らかに決められた間隔の分割、こうした分割の明瞭さを曖昧にするクラウズラの傾向、モテット声部の概念的なつながり（このつながりはクラウズラにおいては証明されない）、歌詞と音楽の関係、クラウズラとモテットのそれぞれのtransmission、クラウズラの記譜法（モテットソースとしての供給を排除する）その他云々。 Sm 2 OMNES No. 10 [L. 10] [8] En mon chant deslou Thus, in Sm 8/[8] the nine-fold statement of the cantus firmus, which functions as an ostinato, would seem to argue for the priority of the motet. Sm 19 VENIMUS No. 2 [L. --] [54] Ja pour longue desirree [54] is a refrain cento. The chant segment on which it is based has been modified through the omission of notes, and towards the end it no longer regulates the structure; the second statement differs from the first in that additional notes or rests have been inserted, and also with regard to the shaping of its ending. This favors the priority of the motet over the clausula Sm 19. Sm 8 DOMINE No. 5 [L. 7] [62] En mai que naist la rosee In [62], the ending of the second tenor statement has been expanded to accommodate the citation of a widely transmitted refrain which is found, with the same melody, in motets [188] J’ai les biens/IN SECULUM, [403] C’est la jus/PRO PATRIBUS, and [433] Cele m’a la mort/ALLELUYA, as well as in the pastourelle R 2041 Pensis com fins amourous by Pierre de Corbie. This rules out the possibility that clausula Sm 8 was the musical source for motet [62], something that was in itself already highly implausible, yet was assumed without question by Ludwig, Gennrich, and Kuhlmann. Sm 7 DOMINE No. 3 [L. 4] [63] Tout le premier jour de mai In [63] it seems that the peculiar musical rhythm for verse 6 was determined by the text (which has the exclamation “E! las!”). Verses 7 and 11 are textually and melodically related, evidently because of the citation of a refrain. Gennrich, Boogaard, and Tischler disagree as to where, exactly, the quotation began and ended; yet they agree that verse 11, at least, must have been a part of it. This conclusion would seem to favor the priority of the motet over clausula Sm 7. SV 2 MANERE [L. 3] [74] De la ville issoit pensant; [75] A la ville une vieille a What argues in favor of the priority of [74/75] over SV 2 is the fact that the two motet voices are related in terms of their subject matter, that the tenor was freely rhythmicized, and that there is a refrain quotation at the end of [75], which evidently involved the melody as well (in [74] it seems that only the text of the refrain was quoted). SV 3 MANERE [L. 11] [78] En douce dolour de grief desirree In [78] it is the refrain “Se je n’ai s’amor, / la mort m’iert donee, / je n’i puis faillir” (which was widely disseminated and used with the same melody in [46] Tout leis enmi/DOMINUS) that, with its metrical scheme A5B6C5, determined the structure of the motetus: a5b6c5a5b6c5A5B6C5c5 Its 10 × 3 measures are congruent with the 6 × 5 measures of the tenor. The evidently structural significance of the refrain argues in favor of the priority of the motet over SV 3. Sm 16 SURGE No. 4 [L. 4] [100] Quant li noviaus tans repaire In [100] the priority of the motet over clausula Sm 16 is supported by the tenor disposition (involving the repeat of the more freely treated second half of the cantus firmus) and the quotation of a refrain. Sm 18 ET ILLUMINARE a3 [L. 1] [104] Entre Robin et Marot; [105] Je vous salu, Dame, selonc mon savoir Sm 18 is related to [101] (Latin: Et illumina eximia mater), as well as [104] and [105] (French). What is noteworthy about the clausula is the fact that the tenor is stated twice and that the second statement omits the first five notes of the tenor. This cannot easily be explained as stemming from the composition of a clausula, but quite well from the composition of a motet. To be sure, [104] no longer allows us to determine the specific cause for this tenor disposition, for despite the refrains that have been identified (Boogaard 21, 99; Gennrich 1379, 1394, 1570), this motet has proved to be a contrafact. Yet the disposition described here is clarified by [101] as well as [105]: their texts both begin with the five tenor syllables ET ILLUMINA, and present their own texts only after this; and even from thence onward the tenor is stated twice. The 2 × 4 four-measure periods of the tenor correspond to the 2 × 4 melodic units, into which especially the motetus of [105] is thoughtfully articulated (whereas the articulation remains unclear in the clausula because of the absence of rests between phrases). In the Latin motet [101], which has two stanzas, the two statements (reckoned from the sixth note of the tenor) are actually even repeated. Still, the more distinctly articulated French motet [105] seems to be the original, and the Latin motet [101] the contrafact. The triplum of the clausula does little to call in question the priority of at least one of the motets over the clausula; Husmann 135 already considered it a later addition. Sm 23 HEC DIES No. 4 [L. 4] [115] Ne quier d’Amours a nul jour chanter Clausula Sm 23 (transmitted only in F) was unequivocally a derivation from one of the motets, in all probability from the sacred French (Marian) motet [115]: the tenor HEC DIES is stated four times, with the verse endings sharing assonance, first on the vowel e, then on the vowel i, and then, finally, it is the syllable -es that resounds on the repeated last note of the cantus firmus; so we are dealing here with a trope to the “Hec dies” of the tenor that was structurally conceived as such, involving a redistribution of the tenor text: “Hec” is heard during the first and the beginning of the second statement, “di-” in the continuation until the end of the fourth statement, and “-es” on the repeated final note. Sm 24 HEC DIES No. 5 [L. 5] [122] Hui main au douz mois de mai The priority of [122] over clausula Sm 24 (once again a setting transmitted uniquely in F) is indicated by the fact that the third statement is incomplete (a compositional choice for which there could have been no compelling reason in a clausula), as well as by the harsh sonorities when the refrain is quoted. Sm 27 DOMINO ... QUONIAM No. 7 [L. 8] [135] Quant froidure trait a fin The priority of [135] over clausula Sm 27 (which is transmitted only in F) is supported by the quotation of a refrain, which evidently necessitated the introduction of a six-measure unit in the otherwise consistently four-square periodization of the motetus, and probably also the change of mode in the tenor, and not least the unusual tenor disposition (repetition of the DOMINO part before continuing with the QUONIAM part). SV 5 IN SECULUM [L. 15] [144] Trop m’a Amours assaillie The notation of SV 5 alone would seem to argue in favor of the priority of [144], and additionally also the circumstance that the refrain quotation necessitated the introduction of six-measure periods in the otherwise four-square periodization, with a corresponding orientation of the second statement. Kl. Hofmann used [144] as an example of tenor scrambling necessitated by the refrain,70 for the influence of the refrain on the shaping of the text,71 and for the attempt to accommodate a metrically divergent refrain.72 Sm 28 IN SECULUM No. 3 [L. 5] [165] Lonc tens ai mon cuer assis What would seem to argue in favor of the priority of motet [165] over clausula Sm 28 is the fact that the clear six-measure periodization was obscured in the clausula through the functional redefinition of the first note into some sort of “initium” (which corresponds to the “copula” [in the Franconian sense] at the end of the clausula).73 Sm 32 NOSTRUM a3 [L. 1] [217] Hui matin a l’ajournee me levai The priority of motet [217] over clausula Sm 32 is suggested by the a text-music relationship as well as the quotation of a refrain; motet [216] may, on the other hand, have been created through the addition of text to Sm 32, since its text-music relationship seems characteristic rather of a later period. Sm 31 NOSTRUM No. 4 [L. 6] [218] Qui d’Amours bien joir [219] Qui longuement porroit joir d’Amours The priority of [218]/[219]/NOSTRUM over Sm 31 (= F 98) [and F 97] is suggested by its transmission (the putative three-part clausula that is supposed to have served as motet source has not come down to us: there are only two two-voice clausulas), and also by the cantus firmus manipulations that were evidently necessitated by the refrain (insertion of notes, omission of the final two notes, conclusion on F rather than E). Sm 37 IMMOLATUS EST No. 9 [L. 9] [233a] Mout soloie chant et joie The priority of motet [233a] is suggested by the quotation of a refrain (transmitted with the same melody also in motet [642] L’autrier en mai/TANQUAM), which with its five measures evidently occasioned the departures from the clear-cut four-measure periodization of this motet. Sm 38 IMMOLATUS EST No. 10 [L. 10] [235] Quant voi le douz tens venir; [236] En mai, quant rose est florie Clausula Sm 38, which likewise survives only in F, cannot possibly be the musical source for [235]. The first setting in the surviving complex was probably motet [236], which was as yet still structured in a straightforward “square” fashion. Its chronolical priority is suggested also by the refrain (which is transmitted with the same melody in motet [813] M’amie a doute/DOMINO), for whose sake the last tenor period was expanded. (This, too, argues against the priority of the clausula, since there would have been no compelling reason for such expansion in a clausula alone). The motetus voice [235] might have been added later on as a triplum: it seems stylistically more recent, and it apparently quotes only the text of the refrain (transmitted also in R 73 V, Ier matin pensis chevauchai), whose subsequent removal could have produced clausula Sm 38. The priority of motet [235] (which is of course identical to the first stanza of Robert de Rains’s three-stanza song R 1485, Quant voi le dous tans venir) over clausula Sm 38 is indicated also by the song-like articulation, metrically if not melodically speaking, of the top voice (verse and rhyme scheme: a7 b5 a5 a7 b5 a5 a1 a7 a1 a7 a3c7a4a7c6 d (= 4 3 3 4 3 3 1 4 1 4 2 4 2 4 4 measures) Likewise, the precise formal correspondence between text and music, especially in the echo verses (which are musically demarcated by rests), would seem to confirm that text and music were conceived at the same time. SV 6 IMMOLATUS [237] Que demandes vous, quant vous m’aves The priority of [237] over SV 6 is suggested by the fact that the refrain quotations (which are melodically always identical) occur persistently at the beginnings of the tenor statements, and that the third tenor statement was continued only as far as was necessary to accommodate the third refrain quotation. Sm 41 ET TENUERUNT No. 3 [L. 3] [250] Quant voi la flour en l’arbroie The priority of [250] over clausula Sm 41 (which survives only in F) is suggested not only by the refrain quotations (which P. Aubry even regarded as fragments of a French popular song74), but also by the circumstance that the clear four-measure periodization of the motet, which undoubtedly belonged to the original conception, became heavily obscured by the recasting of the opening into an introductory clausula formula (corresponding to the transitional melodic gesture at the end). SV 7 ET TENUERUNT [L. 4] [251] Ne sai ou confort prendrai [251] is, to judge from the melodic correspondence between the first and last verse, a “motet ente” (that is, a motet created through interpolation between the two phrases of a refrain), as Tischler recognized, something which in itself already argues for the motet’s genetic priority over clausula SV 7; the refrain is not the one indicated by Gennrich and Boogaard, but rather “Ne sai, ou confort prendrai / puisqu’ele ne me veut amer” (the melodically identical verse at the beginning of the second statement “Ne d’aillors mieux aventurer” surely cites only the refrain tune and does not textually belong to the refrain). The priority of the motet is moreover indicated by the fact that the second statement breaks off after the refrain quotation has been completed. SV 35 PORTARE [L. 3] [272] Douce dame sans pitie Anomalies (octave parallels) in the musical setting of the refrain quotation, the two-measure phrase which interrupts the otherwise four-measure periodization, evidently to complement the refrain, and the notation in SV (see below), argue for the priority of [272] over SV 35. 74 La chanson populaire, p. 7 (quoted after Kuhlmann [see n. 35] II, 233). Sm 49/SV 15 ET GAUDEBIT [L. 2] [319] Al cor ai une alegrance What speaks in favor of the priority of motet [319] over clausula SV 15 is the notation of the latter, which in this case also concerns (especially at the ends of phrases) the melodic content (for other notational peculiarities in the St Victor clausulas, see below, p. 17f.). As Y. Rokseth already observed,75 SV 15 and Sm 49 must have been created independently from one another; Sm 49 follows the motet much more closely, and much better clarifies the periodization in particular. Sm 14 IN BETHLEEM No. 2a [L. 2a], No. 2b [L. 2b] [326] De jolif cuer doit venir; [327] Je me cuidai bien tenir What speaks in favor of the priority of [327] (and [326]) over SV 14 is the fact the setting is based on three cantus firmus statements, of which the third is incomplete. This would be difficult to explain in an original clausula composition, but readily so in a motet that closes with a pre-existing refrain which agrees harmonically only with one particular section of the cantus firmus. In the motet, the melody also appears to be shaped more compellingly and coherently than in the clausula, where it is to some extent lacking in musical sense. The clausula is surely an awkward reduction of the motet, hardly its model. Sm 54 HODIE PERLUSTRAVIT No. 4 [L. 4] [342] Quant voi iver repairier; [343] Au douz tens plaisant The priority of [343] (and [342]) over clausula Sm 54 (once again a piece uniquely transmitted in F) is suggested by the refrain quotation in [342], which appears with the same melody in the rondeau-motet [754] Ne m’oublies mie/DOMINO. The treatment of the tenor (involving the two-fold statement of the second part of the cantus firmus) argues in favor of the priority of the motet as well. Sm 57 DOCEBIT No. 6 [L. 6] [347] Pour coillir la flour en mai The priority of [347] over clausula Sm 57 (likewise transmitted uniquely in F where, due to the loss of a number of folios, only a small part of it survives) is proved by an extensive quotation from a refrain (“lai”). SV 8 ILLE VOS DOCEBIT [352] Je m’estoie mis en voie The priority of motet [352] over SV 8 is suggested by the fact that after a complete statement of the cantus firmus, a smaller portion of it is repeated to accommodate the quotation of a refrain (which was used with the same melody in motet [509] Ne sai ou confort trouver/ET SPERAVIT76) and then elaborated up to the end in freely-composed fashion. SV 9 DOCEBIT [L. 7] [353] Pour quoi m’avez vous doue The priority of motet [353] over SV 9 is indicated by the easily recognizeable design of the “motet ente,” and by tenor manipulation that would have been pointless in a setting conceived from the beginning as a clausula (the first statement begins with the third note of the melisma ? CEBIT, the second presents VOS DOCEBIT). SV 11 DOCEBIT [L. 9] [358] Encontre le nouvel tans d’este The priority of [358] over SV 11 is suggested by the refrain quotation and the omission of a group of three cantus firmus notes from the tenor, which proceeds in longas without rests. Sm 59 AMORIS No. 2 [L. 3] [361] He (Dieus), quant je remir son cors le gai The priority of [361] (and possibly also [362] and [363]) over clausula Sm 59 (once again a piece transmitted only in F) is suggested by the tenor arrangement, involving four cantus firmus statements whose rhythmicization is conditioned by the constraints of the refrain quotations. SV 12 AMORIS [L. 6] [366] Amours m’a asseure de gent secours The priority of [366] over SV 12 is suggested by the quotation of a refrain (which is transmitted also in R 13 III Quant li dous tens). Sm 58 AMORIS No. 2 [L. 3] [368] A cele ou j’ai mon cuer mis Arguing in favor of the priority of [368] over clausula Sm 58 are the tenor manipulations (the specific order of the tenor notes is not only repeated, with omissions and insertions, as in the cantus firmus, but appears four times, the fourth of which accompanies the quotation of an adage, and remains incomplete beyond that quotation; the end of the melisma is appended in the clausulas as a tenor for the transitional closing formulas). SV 22 JOHANNE [L. 6] [384] Pour noient me reprent on The priority of [384] over SV 22 is indicated not only by the refrain quotation, but also by the circumstance that the motet is cast in the (stylistically older) first mode, whereas the clausula proceeds in the more recent second mode. SV 21 JOHANNE [L. 5] [393] Mainte dame est desperee The priority of [393] over SV 21 is suggested by the quotation of a refrain, which also appears in melodically identical fashion in motets [342] (see above) and [754] Ne m’oublies mie/DOMINO. Sm 64 PRO PATRIBUS No. 3 [L. 3] [396] Se j’ai servi longuement; [397] Trop longuement m’a failli Refrain quotations and tenor manipulations (in the second cantus firmus statement, notes 19?22 have been replaced by five other notes) argue in favor of the priority of [397] and [396] over clausula Sm 64, which is transmitted only in F. SV 23 PRO PATRIBUS [401] Je n’amerai autrui que vous In favor of the priority of motet [401] over clausula SV 23 would seem to argue the notation of the latter, which, as so often in this manuscript, obscures the original melodic articulation?to be discussed in what follows by way of example. There is no question that the articulation as found in the motet must be the original one. If that articulation was meant to be conveyed also in the clausula (which need not be the case by any means, for there appears also to have been a ? historically later ? aesthetic aimed precisely at the avoidance of four-square structures), then the dashes between binaria and ternaria (322. . .2'322. . ., thus at the end of verses 2 and 4) are to be interpreted not as rests, but rather in the sense of the later “signum perfectionis” (not but . . .). If the notation in SV was historically prior, then we would have to attribute a very peculiar “musicality” to its users, which we surely cannot reckon with without question. Sm 65 PATRIBUS No. 4 [L. 4] [402] L’autrier quant me chevauchoie The priority of [402] over Sn 65 is suggested by the quotation of the refrain, which appears also in melodically identical fashion in motet [406] Se longuement ai/BENEDICTA, the clausula’s more advanced style compared to the motet (a structure made up of smaller parts, and a tendency to level the play of melodic correspondence), and its transmission (the putative motet source does not match even half of the motet): evidently the notator of F never finished the reworking of the motet into a clausula. Sm 67 VIRGO No. 2 [L. 4] [413] Deduisant m’aloie hier matin As far as clausula Sm 67 is concerned, the priority of one of the three motets [411] O Maria mater pia, [412] Virgo plena gracia, or [413] is already indicated by the circumstance that the cantus firmus is stated twice. Yet there is also textual sense to the way the two-measure period, right after the beginning of the second statement, shifts the four-measure pattern in the second statement in all three motets on the interjection “O!” which suggests that the connection with a text was there from the beginning. And it is in fact the French text that appears to be the original one; the Latin texts come across rather as somewhat amorphous sequences of attributes. Sm 69 VIRGO a3 No. 2 [L. 2] [415] Pour conforter mon corage The priority of the two-stanza motet [415], ascribed to the trouvere Ernoul le Viel de Gastinois as song R 19, over the three-voice clausula Sm 69, which survives only in F, is indicated by the twofold statement of the cantus firmus, the fact that the second statement is incomplete (something for which there would be no obvious reason in a setting conceived from the beginning as a clausula), and above the song structure with its three-fold parallelism in the Aufgesang of the meter and also of the melody in an approximate sense, after the manner of the lai, and with its arrangement of the refrain-based Abgesang at the end: Aufgesang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abgesang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . α β π β' μ μ σ Π γ Π γ' ? a7'b5' a7'b5' c3'c3'b5' d3'd3'b5' e3e4e8 f3f4f8 g3'g3'g5' R3e7R3h5i7h5 8 8 8 8 8 3 4 2 3 4 4 measures cantus firmus statement I . . . . . . . . . . cantus firmus statement II What speaks also in favor of an original connection between text and music is the fact that the two series of longas appear compositionally motivated by the onomatopoietic vowels. The clausula, by the way, must be derived from the French motet, as shown by the careful preservation of feminine and masculine phrase endings, and not from the Latin contrafact [414] Crescens incredulitas which is freer in this respect. SV 31 VIRGO [L. 16] [424] En tel lieu s’est entremis The priority of [424] over SV 31 is indicated already by the refrain, which appears with identical melody in [388] La bele en cui/JOHANNE. SV 30 VIRGO [L. 15] [426] Je les ai tant quises le loiaus Amours The priority of [426] over SV 30 is indicated by the quotation of the refrain, for whose sake the ending of the second cantus firmus statement was expanded. Sm 70, 71 REGNAT Nos. 2, 3 [L. 2, 3] [437] Flos de spina rumpitur; [438] Quant repaire la verdor The clausulas Sm 70 and Sm 71 (REGNAT No. 2 and 3 [W1,F]) cannot in any way be the musical source for motet [437], but rather are discant settings resulting from the detexting of the latter. It is no coincidence that they are always copied together. Also, it is not the two-part (in F three-part) motet [437]/REGNAT that should be regarded as the original version, but rather the three-part motet [437]/[438]/REGNAT (which survives in this particular arrangement only in Mo). This follows from the fact that the periodization in [438] ? this voice belongs to the same stylistic layer as [437] ? settles in metrically “better” places at least at the beginning, and that [437] is metrically “shifted.” Apart from this, [438] contains several refrain quotations that could hardly have been incorporated afterwards. SV 34 REGNAT [L. 22] [446] Dusque ci ai plus Amours honoree The priority of [446] over SV 34 is indicated by the refrain (which occurs in melodically identical fashion also in [433] Cele m’a la mort donee/ALLELUYA, [445] Nus ne sait/REGNAT, R 157 I Pour mon cuer, and R 1509 IIa Main se leva) and by the tenor disposition, in which it is not just the incompleteness of the second cantus firmus statement that attracts notice, but also the overall arrangement. SV 26 PROPTER VERITATEM [458] Quant se siet bele Ysabeaus The priority of [458] over SV 26 is indicated by the tenor manipulations and the refrain quotation. SV 1 ET VIDE ET INCLINA [479] Dieus, je fui ja pres de joir; [480] Dieus, je n’i puis la nuit dormir In favor of the priority of [479]/[480] over SV 1 argue the easily recognizeable design of the “motet ente” in [480] and the departures from the order of the notes in the tenor during the quotation of the refrain. SV 36 ET SPERABIT [L. 5] [510] Que por moi reconforter The priority of [510] over SV 36 is suggested by the quotation of the refrain, which appears also in melodically identical fashion in [509] Ne sai ou confort trouver, and which rules the double motet [509]/[510]/ET SPERA in its totality (see especially the ending) and shows it to be a single conceptual entity. Sm 86 QUI CONSERVARET No. 7 [L. 7] [515a] Quant l’aloete saut et monte en haut The priority of [515a] over clausula Sm 86 (once more a setting surviving only in F) is argued by the quotation of the refrain, which appears in melodically identical fashion in [84] Au dous tans/MANERE. SV 38 ET EXALTAVI [L. 8] [519] Bele sans orgueil et jone sans folie The priority of [519] over SV 38 is suggested already by the quotation of a refrain at the end, a refrain that appears with identical melody also in [433] Cele m’a la mort donee/ALLELUYA. The motet’s beginning probably also involves the quotation of a refrain (cf. Boogaard 642); that beginning does, in any event, set itself apart, with its seven measures, from the subsequent four-measure periods, and only finds its complement in the five-measure period before the refrain at the end. SV 40 AGMINA [L. 2] [537] L’autrier cuidai aber druda Ludwig already expressed doubts about the priority of clausula SV 40 over [537] (or [535]), because of the generally “idiosyncratic nature of the St Victor clausulas” and because “the expansion of the two-voice melisma into a three-part motet by means of an added middle voice (motetus) would not have remained singular but involved, as customary elsewhere, a new top voice (triplum).”77 SV 25 ET IN FINES [L. 2] [544] Amours qui tant m’a greve; [545] Desconfortes ai este longuement Tenor manipulation (reordering and repetitions in the cantus firmus) argues in favor of the priority of [544] (and [545]) over SV 25. SV 24 ET SUPER [L. 1] [547] D’Amours sont en grant esmai; [548] Renvoisiement irai/ET SUPER What speaks against the priority of SV 24 over [547] is the clausula’s notation (cf. above, under [401]) and the motet’s quotation of a refrain that occurs with the same melody in [288] Si com aloie jouer/SUSTINERE (in variant form in [190] Se gries m’est au cors/IN SECULUM). The double motet [548]/[547]/ET SUPER should surely be regarded as the original. Sm 97 TAMQUAM No. 12 [L. 1] [637] Quant naist la flour en la pre; [638] Debonairement attendrai merci; [639] Que voudroit feme esprouver The priority of [637] and [638] (and possibly also [639]) over Sm 97 (whose triplum was not written out, and which therefore remains incomplete) is indicated not only by the clausula’s peculiar state of transmission, but also by the refrain quotations. Sm 100 FLOS FILIUS EIUS a3 No. 3 [L. 3] [651] L’autrier jouer m’en alai What argues against the priority of Sm 100 over [651] is the refrain at the end of the motet, which is found with the same melody in Guillaume d’Amiens’s rondeau No. 9 (Gennrich Rondeau No. 49, Boogaard Rondeau No. 92), and also by the tenor manipulation: of the cantus firmus FLOS FILIUS EIUS, the section EIUS by itself is stated twice, with an expansion of the last notes to accommodate a refrain quotation. SV 28 FLOS FILIUS EIUS [L. 10] [657] He! bergier, si grant envie j’ai de toi; [658] Par un matinet l’autrier; [659] He! sire, que vous vantes What speaks against the priority of SV 28 over [657] is the fact that the complex [658]/[659]/[657]/EIUS represents a single conceptual entity. The quadruplum [658] ends with a refrain which, with the same tune, also frames the “motet ente” [671] and constitutes the ending of the quadruplum [798] Cest quadruple sans raison. The triplum [659] concludes with a refrain which is found also in R 962 VI L’autrier par un matinet. The motetus [657] is also transmitted as pastourelle R 1139 E bergiers si grant envie. Sm 99 FLOS FILIUS EIUS No. 4 [L. 8] [663] En mai, quant rose est florie; [664] Amours qui me font souffrir peine a It is, once again, the state of transmission that points to the priority the motet [663] (and [664]) over the only partially transmitted clausula Sm 99 (erased at several places by the notator and evidently never finished) (cf. above under [638] and [650]/[651]). The ending of the second cantus firmus statement is slightly different from that of the first. In [663] a refrain has been incorporated at the beginning of the second cantus firmus statement, a refrain which also frames the “motets entes” [1105] Dont vient li maus d’amer and [1106] Bel jouer fait a s’amie (which unfortunately survive without musical notation). SV 27 FLOS FILIUS EIUS [L. 9] [666] On dist que j’ai ame The quotation of a refrain which is found with the same melody in R 1963 III, A la virge qui digne est de s’amour, argues in favor of the priority of [666] over SV 27, as does the tenor manipulation which would have appeared unmotivated in a setting conceived from the beginning as a clausula (the section EIUS from the cantus firmus FLOS FILIUS EIUS is restated, and the ending ?IUS treated more freely at the end), and the notation of the clausula (cf. above, under [401]). SV 29 FLOS FILIUS EIUS [L. 10] [673] Quant de ma dame part apres toutes doucours What argues against the priority of SV 29 over [673] is the notation of the clausula (cf. above under [401]), the cantus firmus (two-fold statement of the melisma on the syllable E[IUS] minus the first note), and the arrangement of the second statement as well as the refrain at the end, which is repeated more than once. [673] could well be a “motet ente”; for the opening “Quant de ma dame part” corresponds to the verse “Dolent m’en part,” which precedes the refrain in the other three traditions and apparently belongs to it. If this interpretation, which is also musically more convincing, were to be correct, then this would speak for the priority of the motet. Sm 105 DOMINO No. 14 [L. 14] [750] Hier main trespensis d’Amours m’en alai What would argue in favor of the priority of [750] over clausula Sm 105, which survives only in F, is the tenor design at the very least (which would appear unmotivated in a setting conceived from the beginning as a clausula: the cantus firmus is stated incompletely at first, and then stated completely). Sm 104 DOMINO No. 12 [L. 12] [754] Ne m’oublies mie, bele et avenant The priority of [754] over clausula Sm 104 (once again a piece surviving only in F) is demonstrated by the applications of refrains, which are especially spectacular in this case: the twelve-measure refrain at the beginning is found with the same melody at the end of [567] La plus bele riens vivant; and the refrain at the end is found with the same melody also at the end of the triplum [342] (see above) and the motet [393] (see above). Gennrich and Boogaard perceived the rest of a rondeau (Boogaard No. 111) in the last four verses of [754]. Sm 106 DOMINO No. 16 [L. 16] [755] Pucelete, bele et avenant; [756] Je langui des maus d’Amours The priority of [756] (and [756]?) over clausula Sm 106, which survives uniquely in F, is indicated by the text-music relationship (expressive musical rendering of the text) and the treatment of the cantus firmus (note repetations and insertions). Sm 107 DOMINO a3 [764] Hier matin a l’enjournee toute m’ambleure Motet [764] is an especially problematic case. Refrain, text-music relationship (the hocket passages have the same text in all four versions, and four-square periodization in the first, but unsquare periodization in the second cantus firmus statement), and tenor repetitions argue in favor of the priority of the motet over the clausula Sm 107. The hocket passages would however suggest that the piece was originally in three parts; yet no triplum text is known to us. Fr. Ludwig already suspected that the -Latin - motet [762] Alpha bovi et leoni was originally a three-part setting, because of its position in Ma and because the clausula is in three parts;78 accordingly he places it chronologically before the clausula.79 Yet in view of the unusual setting, with its numerous note repetitions and triplications and its half-hocketings in the triplum, it seems also possible that this is not the original triplum, but rather one composed afterwards for the chant setting. That is to say, the composer would have incorporated the motet (without the triplum, which might already have been lost at that stage) into the chant setting and have added a new triplum. The tone repetitions and half-hocketings mentioned earlier would also, however, allow the possibility that the setting was originally in four parts. Still, what speaks for the completion a posteriori of the triplum is the fact that it does not partake in the four-square periodization of the motets, but rather covers it over, and that the chant setting, as a result, is quite homogenous. SV 19 FIAT [L. 3] [791] En espoir d’avoir merci qu’a meschief atent The priority of the the motet [791] over SV 19 is indication by the number of cantus firmus statements, and the arrangement as well as the elongation of the notes at the end of the refrain quotation. The clausula is barely intelligible, even without the help of the motet. SV 18 FIAT [L. 2] [792] Merci, de qui j’atendoie secours et aie The priority of [792] over SV 18 is suggested by the tenor treatment (cf. above under [791]), especially the elongation of the notes at the end, to which a refrain is sounded. Whether this refrain is complementary to the refrain at the beginning of the motet, discovered by Boogaard as well as Gennrich, and whether, consequently, this could be a “motet ente,” must remain an open question. SV 17 FIAT [L. 1] [795] J’ai trouve qui m’amera The priority of [795] over SV 17 is indicated by the easily recognizeable design of the “motet ente,” and the three-fold statement of the cantus firmus FIAT, FIAT, with an expansion at the end of the third statement. Sm 84 IUSTUS No. 2 [821] A grant joie chevauchoie The priority of motet [821] over clausula Sm 84 (which survives only in F) is indicated by the conclusion, unequivocally clear from the point of view of the history of style, that the motet reveals a four-square structure when verses and music are precisely matched to one another, but that the clausula features an asymmetrical structure (limping rhythm), which is later from the viewpoint of rhythmic history. The addition of a transitional formula at the end seems consistent with its functional redefinition as a clausula. Since we may assume a uniform process of creation for the St Victor clausulas (that is, derivation from the motets cited in the margin), the “unproved” cases in this manuscript only add to the case; similarly, whenever a clausula is transmitted uniquely in F (especially in the clausula fascicles), the possibility would seem especially attractive that the clausula was created ad hoc by the scribe of the manuscript (that is, through the de-texting of motets), something that can be observed especially clearly in the clausulas to motets [402], [638], and [663]. Only the Magnus liber in W1 has no explicit connection to the French motet (only for one of its 118 clausulas a corresponding Latin motet has been documented); yet the clausula fascicle of this manuscript (which comprises 101 items altogether) already contains eleven clausulas for which there are French motets, while the Magnus liber in F contains fourteen (seven in the Magnus liber of W2) and the clausula collections in F altogether 43; and there are 39 French motets for the socalled St Victor clausulas.80 If the genetic relationship between clausula and motet, made plausible by the indications cited here, were to be correct, then it would appear that the clausula repertory had fed increasingly on the melismas of French motets.81 St V写本の clausulas（すなわち、写本の脇に記されたモテットからの派生）の創造の統一された過程を仮定することで、写本中の証明されていないケースが追加となる。同様に、ClausulaがF写本中で唯一transmitされればいつでも、クラウズラがad hocに写本書記によって創造されること（すなわちモテットの歌詞除去過程）は特に魅力的に映ることだろう。motets [402], [638], and [663]に対してクラウズラ中には特別な何かが認められる。 W1写本のみがフランス語モテットへのかかわりを持っていない。（１１８のクラウズラのうちのわずかひとつに、関連したラテン語モテットが記録されている）。しかし、この写本のクラウズラ冊子（総計101項目に及ぶ）はすでに１１のクラウズラを含んでいる。Ｆ写本では１４のクラウズラを含んでいるが。Ｆ写本中のクラウズラコレクションは全部で４３、Ｓｔ．Ｖ写本中には39 のクラウズラがある。もしもここで引用された徴候によってもっともらしいと思われるクラウズラとモテットの発生的関係があるのなら、クラウズラのレパートリーはフランス語モテットのメリスマ上に増加していったことだろう。 81 There are of course settings for which the priority of the corresponding French motets is improbable. This is the case in Sm 77 (Ex semine from Perotin’s Alleluia Nativitas): here, the clausula could well have been the original, being at first texted in Latin (motet [483] Ex semine Abrahe). Motet [485] Se j’ai ame appears to be a contrafact of the Latin motet, and [486] Hier main trespensis a contrafact of the Latin or French motet. The refrain pointed out by Gennrich (Boogaard does not recognize it) is quoted textually in all cases. The new ending of the motet is noteworthy: Perotin’s clausula ends with a copula (in the Franconian sense), which transitions into the following sustained-note section, yet the motet ends in the style of discant. Yet neither counter-examples of this kind, nor the many undecided cases, cannot disprove the hypothesis represented here; they merely suggest that the received picture of the genetic relationship between clausula and motet should not be turned mechanically into its opposite. 当然のことながら、対応するフランス語モテットの優先順位を決めることはできません。これはSm 77（PerotinのAlleluia NativitasのEx semine）のケースです：ここでは、clausulaは当初はラテン文字で書かれていたはずです（motet [483] Ex semine Abrahe）。 Motet [485] Se j'aiameはラテン系モテットの反作用に見え、[486] Hier main trespensisはラテン系やフランス系のモテットに反する。 Gennrich（Boogaardはそれを認識しない）によって指摘された控え目はすべての場合にテキストで引用されます。モテットの新しい終わりは注目に値する：Perotinのclausula（フランコニアンの意味で）コピュラで終わり、それは次の持続ノートセクションに移行するが、モテットはdiscantのスタイルで終了する。しかし、この種の反例や多くの未定事例は、ここに示された仮説を裏付けることはできない。彼らは単に、雲母とモテットとの間の遺伝的関係の受信された画像を機械的にその逆に変えてはならないことを示唆しているだけである。 3. Clausulas With Latin Motets Only In the case of the forty-two clausulas to which only Latin motets are known to correspond82 (one need hardly reckon with excessively large losses of French versions) it is far more difficult to establish unambiguous evidence as to the genetic relationship between clausula and motet, since refrain construction drops out of the picture now. Still, here, too, there are convincing examples of the priority of the motet. ラテン語モテットのみが一致することが知られている42のクラウズラの場合（フランス語版の大規模な紛失は考えにくい）には、クラウズラとモテットとの間の発生的関係について明白な証拠を確立することははるかに困難である。それでもなお、モテットのpriorityに対する確固たる例はある。 Sm Sm 9-12 MANERE Nos. 3‐6 [L. 6‐9] [69] Serena virginum; [70] Manere vivere Thus the motet [70] ([69], as J. Handschin determined, is a contrafact83) was undoubtedly not created by the addition of texts to four mutually independent clausulas (Sm 9?12), but rather these four clausulas were created by stripping texts from the motet. That these four clausulas originally constituted a single entity, and that text and music were conceived together, is shown by the beginnings and endings of the altogether five cantus firmus statements of the motet, which are quite conspicuously crafted (highlighted in their immediate context, and for the most part identical melodically), with the beginnings of statements always rhyming with the ending of the preceding statement; only the transition from the penultimate to final statement was cast as a connection (for which reason these two statements together constitute a single clausula). Sm 14 IN BETHLEEM No. 2a‐b [L. 2a?b] [98] In Bethleem Herodes iratus; [99] Chorus innocentium Against the priority of clausula Sm 14 over motet [98] argues the tenor disposition (two statements of the cantus firmus and repetition of the first two notes at the end), which could scarcely be explained if the music was conceived as a clausula from the beginning, but is clearly connected with the conception of the motet (textual-musical parallelism between the transition from the first to second statement, on the one hand, and the ending of the motet, on the other). The three-part motet [99]/[98]/IN BETHLEEM should be considered the original; [99a] Amours mi font rejoir is surely a contrafact of [99], for it lacks the latter’s thematic connection with the other voices and is apparently without a refrain. That the original was originally conceived in three parts is apparent not only from the very close thematic connection between [99], [98] and the tenor, but also the fact that the triplum joins the other voices in creating the connection between the endings of the first and second statements, thereby revealing itself to be a part of the original conception. This connection between the endings of the two statements would also seem to argue for the priority of the motet over the clausula, or more correctly, the clausulas. For the clausulas in W1 and F were evidently created independently from each other: W1 follows the chief tradition in the endings of the statements, but involves modal transmutation from the fifth mode to the first; F, on the other hand, follows its own version of the motet (without modal transmutation). Sm 20 AUDIVIMUS No. 4 [L. 4] [108] Novus nove legis nuncius Priority of motet [108] over clausula Sm 20 is indicated not only by the fact that there are two cantus firmus statements, but also by the close rhythmic-motivic fit of the text, a fit that could hardly have been achieved after the fact. Sm 26 DOMINO ... QUONIAM No. 7 [L. 8] [133] Virgo gignit genitorem prolis sue filia What argues in favor of the priority of motet [133] over clausula Sm 26 is the tenor disposition (repetition of the tenor section DOMINO before continuing with the section QUO-), which is characteristic of the composition of motets, but difficult to explain in terms of the clausula, the irregularity of the tenor rhythm at the end of the second statement of DOMINO, and the notation of the clausula, which involves a few rest strokes that are hard to explain. In W2 the tenor continues with two notes beyond the duration of the motet: was the scribe of this manuscript (or its exemplar) the composer? Noteworthy is the structure of the setting: it begins firmly four-square and ends likewise, but in the middle parts there are structures that deviate, and introduce irregularities. Sm 25 DOMINO No. 2 [L. 3] [131] Deo confitemini qui sua clemencia The section DOMINO of clausula Sm 25 DOMINO QUONI-, transmitted in the Magnus liber of F and W2, is taken to have been the musical source for motets [131] (Latin) and [132] (French: Mout est fous qui femme croit), and its section QUONI- as the musical source for the Latin motet [140] Laudes referat. Yet these two sections are stylistically quite heterogeneous: DOMINO is kept in a four-square style, whereas QUONI shows irregular periodization. That Sm 25 was not a single, unified composition is confirmed by the transitional melisma between the two sections, which is inserted in F. Against the priority of the clausula version of DOMINO over the first of its motets (surely the French one, to which the scribe of W2 actually refers in the margin of the Latin version) would argue the two-fold statement of the cantus firmus; the same holds for the section QUONI-. Sm 29 IN SECULUM No. 9 [L. 11] [141] In serena facie sol splenduit glorie What argues in favor of the priority of [141] over Sm 29 is the twofold cantus firmus statement. The motet is a trope, whose text is made to utter the syllables IN SE- -CULUM in exact synchronicity with the tenor during the first cantus firmus statement (whereas these syllables make up the conclusion in the second statement). Sm 30 NOSTRUM No. 1 [L. 3] [215] Gaudeat devotio fidelium In favor of the priority of [215] over Sm 30 argues already the arrangement of the tenor (two cantus firmus statements, of which the second omits the last three notes, and after the first of which half a rhythm period is abandoned for the sake of a rhythmically identical repetition).84 The precise agreement between the textual and musical structures also pleads in favor of the simultaneous creation of text and musical setting, and thus of the priority of the motet. 84 An extensive analysis of the setting is offered by Fr. Reckow, Processus and structura, Musiktheorie I, 1986, 22?24. 28 Wolf Frobenius Sm 35 IMMOLATUS EST No. 5 [L. 5] [228] Latex silice mel petra profluit Of the four-part motet [228] in F, the three upper voices are by themselves alone better-sounding and for this reason―as H. Tischler85 and J. Handschin86 assumed because of the harsh sonorities that are heard when the tenor is included ―was classed as such [i.e. a three-part tenorless piece] among the conducti in W1 (consistent with this genre are also the three strophes and the final melisma after the manner of the conductus “cauda”). Since clausula Sm 35 supposedly formed the basis for the tenor-motetus setting, the three scholars regard the triplum and quadruplum as later, and possibly English, additions to the motetus as a fundamental voice. E. H. Sanders, against this, views the W1 version as the original; the tenor in F would have been added afterwards, as the harsh sonorities would seem to indicate as well, and the clausula created later through the de-texting of the tenor-motetus setting.87 W. Arlt in turn objects that the tenor-motetus setting is quite normal in its dissonance treatment, and was evidently crafted quite carefully; undoubtedly it would have been the first to have been created.88 Quite so―but not in the formal shape of a clausula (as Handschin and Arlt assume), but in the formal shape of a two-part motet. What speaks in favor of the latter’s priority over the clausula is the fact that the peculiar structure of this setting can only be explained with reference to the text: the tenor, taking careful account of the textual structure, first presents three groups of three longas with rests, then three groups of four longas (without rests), and then again three times three groups of three longas with rests (only the last note of this grouping is extended into a sustained note for the melisma, which functions as the conductus “cauda”, and which consists of four four-measure periods and a concluding five-measure period). The clausula in F, by the way, leaves out two measures (along with the corresponding three cantus firmus notes) whereas the setting is complete in W1. That F would assign this scrambled tenor to the three upper voices of the motet could possibly indicate that the exemplar for this manuscript was a tenorless version just as in W1. Sm 34 IMMOLATUS EST No. 4 [L. 4] [231] Homo quam sit pura The text of the three-stanza motet [231] (for which there is a four-stanza contrafact [232] Stupeat natura) is attributed to Chancellor Philip. Ludwig rejected the possibility that the musical setting by Heinrich of Pisa (c.1243―45), reported by Salimbene,89 might have been identical with motet [231], since the latter was obviously created [or so he assumed] through the addition of text to a clausula. However this may be, the text was conceived as a trope to Alleluia Pascha nostrum over the melisma -LATUS, and this in the simplest formal way: the eighteen three-note groups of the LATUS melisma correspond to the eighteen verses of the strophe. The product is characterised by such musical monotony that it would be easiest to explain as being conditioned by the formal conception of the text, something that in turn would argue for the priority of the motet over clausula Sm 34. Sm 39 IN AZIMIS SINCERITATIS [L. 2] [244] Exilium parat transgressio The two statements in motet [244], which is musically identical with Sm 39, appear originally to have been independent ? two motets or two clausulas? The first motet is not among the earliest examples of the genre (mode 6). The second is characterized by such a close relationship between musical and textual form that these seem to have been conceived together, something that would seem to argue in favor of the priority of the motet. In that case there would have been a successful detexting, in the Magnus liber of F, of the motet that comprises both statements. Sm 43 MORS a4 [L. 1] [254] Mors que stimulo; [255] Mors morsu nata; [256] Mors a primi patris The case of the clausula Mors (Sm 43) and its motets is particularly interesting. The motets reveal in drastic fashion ? in the combination of a long-limbed, slow-moving motetus [255] and a short-sectioned, fastmoving triplum [254] ? that the composition is a work of that already advanced phase in which it became customary to differentiate the upper voices with regard to rhythm and tempo. Was the quadruplum [256], which moves mostly in synchrony with the triplum and seems textually relatively weak, a later addition? Was the motet [254]/[255]/MORS the original (as would seem to be indicated by the conspicuously good text-music relationship)? Sm 45 CAPTIVITATEM No. 3a?b [L. 3a?b] [308] Hostem superat et infernum reserat What speaks in favor of the priority of [308] over Sm 45 are the tenor disposition (two cantus firmus statements, of which the second uses only 36 of the 49 notes; arrangement in five-note groups) and the textual form. Sm 46 CAPTIVITATEM No. 6 [L. 6] [309] Salve, mater, (virgo), fons hortum The priority of [309] over Sm 49 is suggested by the rigid four-square “Quadratismus,” which corresponds precisely with the text, and by the disposition in two statements. Sm 44 CAPTIVITATEM No. 1 [L. 1] [310] Si quis ex opere propriam laborat querere gloriam The priority of [310] over Sm 44 is suggested by the text-music relationship. Sm 56 DOCEBIT No. 2 [L. 2] [345] Doce nos hodie viam prudentie What pleads in favor of the priority of [345] over Sm 56 is the twofold cantus firmus statement in different arrangements (in which the first becomes irregular at the end) and the general character of a declamatory setting (unison-chains in the fourth period of the second statement). Sm 61 MULIERUM No. 3 [L. 3] [376a] Mulier misterio sterilis mire fit in senio fertilis The character of a declamatory setting is also apparent in [376a], something that would seem to argue in favor of its priority over clausula Sm 61. Sm 63 PATRIBUS No. 1 [L. 1] [400a] Patrum sub imperio status stat ecclesia The priority of [400a] over Sm 63 is indicated by the twofold presentation of the cantus firmus, which comprises 27 notes, in successive groupings of seven notes whose repetition transgresses the boundaries of a single statement, with the second statement inserting two notes and having a different ending from the first, and also by the somewhat monotonous “Quadratismus” in the clausula, which could be explained as arising from the text. Sm 66 TUIS No. 2 [L. 1] [1049b/405d] Tu, claviger etheris magister ceteris What argues in favor of the priority of motet [1049b/405d] over clausula Sm 66, which survives uniquely in F, is the threefold statement of the cantus firmus (with pitch variations). The tenor ? consisting of a series of “simplices” ? has been articulated in agreement with the upper voice, which closes five times on c and then four times on e or f and which constantly proceeds ? in accordance with the dactylus-like meter of the text ? in a powerful third mode. Sm 76 REGNAT No. 13 [L. 13] [439] Ad solitum vomitum ne redeas The priority of [439] over clausula Sm 76, which is transmitted only in F, is suggested by the tenor disposition: the cantus firmus is stated twice and cast in the third mode, and consists of twice ten twomeasure periods. The motetus which is likewise cast in the third mode, reflecting the dactylic text, comprises ? in accordance with the textual articulation ? seven three-measure periods, then two fourmeasure ones, then three two-measure ones, and finally on three- and one two-measure period. Sm 74 REGNAT No. 7 [L. 7] [441] Hodie Marie concurrant laudi mentes pie The priority of [441] over Sm 74 is indicated by the fact that the melodic articulation of the cantus firmus was adopted by the motetus in its own melodic and textual articulation. Sm 72 REGNAT No. 4 [L. 4] [442] Rex pacificus unicus matris unice honorifice What argues for the priority of [442] over Sm 72, aside from the twofold statement of the cantus firmus, is the construction of the top voice, which resembles that of [439] and evidently follows the textual form. Sm 75 REGNAT No. 8 [L. 8] [443] Infidelem populum, amam ad patibulum The “Quadratismus” of [443] was surely a response to the text, which would appear to favor the priority of this motet over Sm 75. Sm 73 REGNAT No. 6 [L. 6] [444] Deus omnium turba gentium circumstantium The priority of motet [444] over clausula Sm 73 is indicated by the “Quadratismus” and the echo relationship, which corresponds to the rhyme, between the first and second halves of the phrase. Sm 78 INQUIRENTES AUTEM No. 2 [L. 2] [487] Deum querite deum totis viribus In Sm 78/[487] it seems that the tenor was articulated in response to the needs of the motetus, which for its own part musically observes the textual form (especially its parallelisms). This correspondence of textual and musical structure is no longer maintained even in motet [488] Juste vivere, which is evidently a contrafact of [487]. This would seem to indicate the priority of [487] over Sm 78. Sm 79 DOMINE No. 2 [L. 3] [490] Tua glorificata, Deus, opera The priority of [490] over clausula Sm 79 (which is transmitted only in F) is indicated not only by the twofold statement of the cantus firmus, but also by the fact that the clausula, in the second statement, employs, instead of the stylistically older first mode (as in the motet), the second mode that was more often preferred at a later time. Sm 85 ET SPERABIT No. 2 [L. 2] [505] Letetur justus, glorietur in Domino The priority of [505] over Sm 85 is suggested not only by the twofold cantus firmus statement, but also by the close correspondence between textual and musical structure. The parallelism between the two statements (which open in different arrangements, but in the last third jettison their formulas in favor of a concluding section that is identical in both statements, and is noteworthy for its rhythm) corresponds to the textual parallelism especially of the final lines (“veneretur lux hodierna” ? “ubi nos serenat lux aeterna”; “lux” being marked off, on both occasions, by rests). Sm 93 ET IHERUSALEM No. 2 [L. 2] [632] Gaude Syon filia regis in presentia What argues against the priority of clausula Sm 93 over motet [632] in F = [633] in MuA (the text of [632] is declaimed here in the triplum) is, firstly, the fact that the clausula comprises only one cantus firmus statement (whereas the motet ? at least in MuA ? is based on two statements plus a continuation of the cantus firmus [in F there is, instead of the second statement and the continuation of the cantus firmus, a sustained note, as also in the clausula to the melisma on the penultimate note]). Composition of the motet would have required here, apart from the purely poetic activity of texting the clausula, the compositional task of extending the musical setting. Secondly, it seems that the clausula (just as the two-part motet transmitted in F) consists of the tenor and triplum (not the motetus) of the original setting, which we evidently still possess in the MuA version. Whether this setting was originally bi-textual, as in MuA, or, as possibly in the exemplar for F, monotextual (a motet type that is, after all, represented in large numbers in F and W2), may be left open here. 4. Results and Conclusions Of course there are also cases where a known clausula setting could have been functionally recast as a motet through the addition of text.90 Yet purely from the statistical point of view, these could scarcely represent the normal state of affairs; it seems similarly unlikely (even if it cannot be ruled out completely) that the genesis of the motet (“motet” in its later, expanded sense, discussed above91) was rooted in this practice.92 More plausible, it seems, would be to assume a practice of troping, as H. Riemann already did,93 in which the motet is composed not only as a poem but also fashioned, just like the clausula alone would otherwise have been, as a musical setting (for there should be no doubt that the motet, even the Frenchtexted one, was originally a trope). もちろん、知られているクラウズラの設定が、テキストを追加することによって、モテットとして機能的に再構成されたケースもある.90しかし、純粋に統計的な観点からは、こうしたケースは、正常な状態をほとんど表せていない。 同様に、モテットの起源（後に拡大された意味でのモテット）が、こうした実践に根ざしているとは考えにくい。モテットが詩としてではなく流行として作られたこと、クラウズラのみが音楽設定として他のやり方で作られたことは、すでにH. Riemann が考えたように、トロープス化の実践であると考えられたことであろう（なぜなら、モテットやフランス語テキストそれでさえ、もともとはトロープスであったわけだから）。 What needs to be reconsidered as well is the prevailing view of the chronology of Latin and French motets. It is not that tropes of the kind discussed a moment ago cannot possibly have been Latin-texted (what might actually even speak in favor of this possibility is the fact that of the 42 Latin motets that do not appear to be contrafacts, a greater percentage also features the evidently more archaic foursquare periodization than is the case with the 98 French motets); yet as far as we can determine from stylistic criteria, the French motet does not, by any means, seem appreciably later than the Latin motet.95 Above all, the French-texted form stands at the center of interest right from the beginning, whereas the Latin motets are made up almost two-thirds merely of contrafacts of French motets. What seems to confirm the more powerful creative impulse behind the French motets is that fact there are twice as many clausulas that can be traced back to French motets rather than Latin ones. The large number of contrafacta of French motets that are found among the Latin pieces in the repertoire treated here could be explained by this scenario, namely, that the (at last by current norms) often too “worldly” French motets fell victim,96 to the extent that they were sung in church, to more rigorous tendencies and were replaced by unoffensive Latin contrafacta. 再考する必要があるのは、ラテン語とフランス語のモテットの時系列の一般的な見方である。それは、一昔前に議論されたような類のトロープスがラテン語の歌詞を使っていないことはない。しかし、形式的な基準から判断する限り、フランス語モテットは、ラテン語モテットよりもかなり後に作られたように見える。とりわけ、フランス語歌詞の形式は、最初から興味のある中心に立っている。一方、ラテン語モテットは、フランス語モテットのcontrafactumのほぼ3分の2を占めている。フランス語モテットの背後にあるより強力な創造的衝動を確信するように見えるのは、ラテン語のモテットよりもフランス語のそれに遡ることができるクラウズが2倍多くあるということである。ここで取り扱われたレパートリー中のラテン語作品の間に見られるフランス語モテットのcontrafactuaの多くは、以下のようなシナリオによって説明される。すなわち、しばしばあまりにも "世界的な"フランス語モテットは、それらが教会で歌われた程度に応じて、より厳しい傾向で犠牲者になり、ラテン語のcontrafactaに置き換えられた。 So the received view of a closed repertoire of clausulas from the Notre Dame period, of which more and more parts would supposedly have been converted to motets at a later date, must be revised: the clausula repertoire is evidently neither closed, nor merely the supplying party in the compositional exchange; rather, it fed to a considerable extent on the dramatically flourishing motet production of the thirteenth century;97 and in every case its contents extend right up to the copying dates of the manuscripts in which they survive, whose notators evidently help create that repertoire at least in part (not least through the de-texting of motets). And the Notre Dame manuscripts, which, as well known, were not copied before the middle of the thirteenth century,98 are not just late examples because of some fluke of transmission, but represent, at every historical stage, the then current state of the repertoire.99 That the late date of the Notre Dame manuscripts is not due to an accident of transmission, but that they mirror the state of production and its notation at every time, may also have ramifications for our view of the history of notation. According to that history, mensural notation as notation “cum littera” and modal notation as notation “cum littera” existed side by side for a long time, until finally the notation sine littera was reformulated in the sense of mensural notation; mensural notation certainly did not develop out of modal notation.100 Finally, for the history of Notre Dame chant elaborations the following conclusions may be drawn: not only were the chant arrangements made to incorporate, again and again, pieces that already existed as motets at the time; but the non-mensural initia and transitional formulas at the end (“copulae” in the Franconian sense, which tellingly were first described only by him) were inserted, so that one must speak of a process of creation and rearrangement that continued during the entire time frame whose music is transmitted here (as mirrored by the Notre Dame manuscripts). それで、ノートルダム時代からのクラウズラの閉鎖的なレパートリーについて受け入れられている見解は、より多くの部分が後でモテットに変換されたはずであると考えられているが、改訂されなければならない。クラウスラ・レパートリーは明らかに閉鎖的ではなく、作曲上の交換における単なる供給源でもない。むしろ、それは13世紀の劇的に活気に満ちたモテットの生産にかなりの程度のものをもたらした。 97 Following this line of reasoning one could roughly distinguish two states in the known history of the Magnus liber: that of W1 and that of F (to which the one in W2 agrees). The first of these has ― with the exception of a clausula used twice ― no point of contact with the motet repertoire; the latter has numerous points of contact. Similarly one could posit two historical states for the clausula repertoire: one without points of contact with the motet repertory (as in the fourth and fifth groups in F) and one with numerous points of contact with it (as in W1 and in the first, second, third, and sixth groups of F). In the first clausula repertoire, Office chants are well represented, comparatively speaking, but in the later repertoire only weakly so. (The motet repertoire involves about 3.7 times as many Mass chants as Office chants.) The points of contact between clausula and motet repertoires were admittedly known to Ludwig, but have never been considered in an attempt to clarify the historical development of the Magnus liber. 97 この推論の行に続いて、Magnus liberの知られている歴史の中で、W1写本とF写本（W2のものが同意する）の2つの状態を大まかに区別することができた。これらの最初のもの（Ｗ１写本）は - クラウズラ中に2度使われたものを除いて - モテットレパートリーとは接触点がなく、後者（Ｆ写本）は多くの接触点を有する。同様に、クラウスラレパートリーの2つの歴史的状態がある。すなわちモテットレパートリーとの接触点がないもの（F写本の第4および第5のグループとして）およびそれとの多数の接触点を有するもの（W1写本として、およびF写本の第1、 第2、第3、および第6のグループ）である。最初のクラウズラレパートリーでは、聖務日課のチャントがその代表であるが、後のクラウズラレパートリーではほとんどない（モテットレパートリーは聖務日課のチャントの約３．７倍のミサチャントを含んでいる）。クラウズラとモテットのレパートリーの間の接触点は、Ludwigには明らかに知られていたが、Magnus liberの歴史的発展を明らかにするためには考えられなかった。 そしてすべての場合において、その内容は現存している写本の写譜日まですぐに拡大し、その記譜者は明らかに、少なくとも１パートにおいてはそのレパートリー作成を助けている（少なくともモテットの脱歌詞化を通して）。13世紀半ばまでに写譜されなかったNotre Dameの写本は、transmissionのflukeのために後の例ではなく、歴史的状態、それからレパートリーの現在の状態を表す。その歴史によれば、"cum littera"として記譜された計量的記譜法 と"cum littera"として記譜されたモーダル記譜法は長い間併存していた。最後に、ノートル・ダムチャントの歴史のために、以下の結論が導き出されるかもしれない：チャントの編成は、モテットとしてすでに存在していた作品を何度も組み込むだけでなく、非計量的な初期の、あるいは過渡期のフォーミュラが末尾に（copulaeはフランコ風の意味では、彼によって初めて記述された）組み込まれた。そのために、その音楽がここでtransmit（ノートルダム写本で反映された）された全体の時間枠の間に続いた創造と再編成の過程について話さなければならない。 Fundamentally one should consider that poet-musicians, among the composers of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, were less the exception than the norm, as for example Adam de la Hale, Petrus de Cruce, Jehannot de l’Escurel, Philippe de Vitry, Guillaume de Machaut, and so on; and that was probably no different before Adam de la Hale. As far as our problem is concerned, we should reckon not so much with texted clausulas but rather with, on the one hand, unified poetic-musical compositions and, on the other, with purely textual contrafacta of already existing motets. ? Philip the Chancellor exemplifies very well the role division of poet and composer: the musical settings of his works sound quite monotonous without text, and are intelligible only in terms of the textual form. Those who were only poets achieved better results with contrafacts of already existing motets, less so with the creation of texts that were yet to be set to music, no matter whether these were, in themselves, as important as those of Philip (this applies specifically with regard to the production of motets). 基本的には、13世紀から14世紀の作曲家の中では、詩人‐作曲家がアダム・デ・ラ・ハレ、ペトゥラ・デ・クルース、ジェハノット・デ・エスキュール、フィリップ・デ・ヴィトリー、ギヨームマチャート、など。それはアダム・デ・ラ・ヘールの前には違いはなかったでしょう。私たちの問題が問題になる限り、文章付きの句ではなく、一方では統一された詩的な音楽の構成と、それ以外のところでは、既に存在するモテットの純粋にテキストのcontrafactaを考慮する必要があります。 Philip the Chancellorは、詩人と作曲家の役割分担を非常にうまく例示しています。彼の作品の音楽設定は、テキストなしでは単調であり、テキスト形式でしか分かりません。唯一の詩人であった人々は、すでに存在しているモトエトの矛盾でより良い結果を達成しました。フィリップスほど重要ではないにしても、まだ音楽に設定されていないテキストを作成することはあまりありませんでした。モトセットの生産に関して）。 |