By Adam Whittaker
Reblogged from The Conveyor.
‘Writing about music is like dancing about architecture’, or so the famous phrase goes. And yet, we have been writing about music for centuries. We are fortunate to have such a range of medieval and Renaissance writings on music that survive, from luxurious presentation volumes to scrappy single sheets pasted into miscellaneous collection. Although we often see quite stable transmission of texts across multiple sources (sometimes across centuries), we see much greater variation in the examples and diagrams. These, it seems, were fair game for change, revision, and emendation for specific readerships and local contexts, or simply at the whim of the scribe. My research explores why these differences matter.
In the autumn of 2019 I was in Oxford as the Albi Rosenthal Visiting Fellow in Music at the Bodleian Libraries. During my fellowship, I consulted a number of music theory manuscripts, including MS. Bodley 515 and MS. Digby 90. These manuscripts contain the famous Quatuor principalia musice [Four Fundamentals of Music], most likely authored and/or compiled by the English friar John of Tewkesbury in the late fourteenth century.
First, let’s look at one similarity. Early in the text, the theorist uses a monochord (a theoretical instrument of a single string) to explain the interval of a tone; a musical step in layman’s terms, as though moving from G to A on a piano. Both sources have a functionally similar diagram, even if there are some subtle visual differences.
Bodleian MS. Bodl. 515, fol. 10r (detail)
Bodleian MS. Digby 90, fol. 11v (detail)
We can see that both manuscripts show a monochord (horizontal line representing a string); both indicate the interval of a tone between G (low G) and A with an arc labelled ‘tonus’; and both have the indication ‘monochordu[m]’ at the left-hand edge of the diagram. Bodl. 515 shows a more artistic approach to this diagram, with its coloured labels and decorative circles, whilst MS. Digby 90 favours equal tonal spacing with notches. Despite these differences, which might be attributed to scribal taste more than anything else, the reading experience across the two sources is near identical.
However, such similarity isn’t always present. If we look at the depiction of the Guidonian hand – a kind of conceptual map for musical space that is commonplace in music theory texts – we see both similarities and differences. The Guidonian Hand mapped the six-note intervallic pattern (ut-re-mi-fa-sol-la) onto physical locations on the body which a singer could use as a memory aid while they sang. To think about how the Hand works in practice, The Sound of Music’s ‘Do-Re-Mi’ is especially helpful. Let’s consider the diagrams presented in the two sources.
Bodleian MS. Digby 90, fol. 21r (detail)
Bodleian MS. Bodl. 515, fol. 23r (detail)
There are some important differences here. You’ll notice that MS. Bodl. 515 is missing labels on joints, whilst these are clearly visible in MS. Digby 90. These are crucial! Without the syllabic markings on the joints of the thumb and fingers, this diagram serves little demonstrative function, beautiful as it is. Such a scenario poses some interesting questions and might have left fifteenth-century readers scratching their heads. Is this just a scribal error? Was this aspect of the diagram to be entered in a different layer? Did the scribe not understand the diagram they copied? Was there an error in the exemplar copy that a scribe couldn’t resolve? What use is the diagram when it is missing such key information?
This last question is of particular importance for the final comparison I want to make here. The relationship between musical durational values is a fundamental building block of music notation. Early musical notations were more context-dependent, with the same note shape being worth two or three counts depending upon the context. Theorists found many intriguing ways to discuss this phenomenon, but the most interesting for the present discussion is the idea of a note value tree.
Some contemporaneous musical treatises refer to the ‘arbor’ of Johannes de Burgundia, a figure about whom we know nothing except for a passing reference to his ‘arbor’ in a musical treatise by Petrus de Picardia (fl. 1250). Both our sources include a diagram of this type, though we see some divergence in approach. In MS. Digby 90, we see the relationships made clear in a quasi-tabular format (largest values at the bottom), with lines connecting the related mensural levels. Working from the bottom up we see that the largest note value divides into three parts, which itself is divided into three smaller parts etc.:
Bodleian MS. Digby 90, fol. 45r (detail)
By comparison, we see something which takes the tree much more to heart in MS. Bodl. 515:
Bodleian MS. Bodl. 515, fol. 49v
The visual appeal of this is important. MS. Bodl. 515 offers hatched details on the trunk of the diagram, with additional coloured detailing which has faded over time. In this way, the longest note becomes the ‘root’ of the tree, and its subdivisions into smaller notes become represented as branches, themselves with sub-branches. Although both sources adequately demonstrate the theoretical point, the subtly different diagrams change the nature of the text–image relationship. The tree-like construction of MS. Bodl. 515 creates a sharp mental picture for a reader to recall. MS. Digby 90, though equally clear, establishes a different mensural picture. These diagrams demand different reading practices and present theoretical material in divergent ways.
My point here is not to assign greater value to either source, but to demonstrate that what might be dismissed as ‘minor scribal variants’ really matter when we consider how a reader might engage with a text in a specific manuscript source. If a diagram containing such foundational information that was common knowledge to expert readers, then why did a scribe go such significant effort to present this in a visually appealing manner? The reader’s experience of the same text in these two sources would have been quite different. Through this lens we begin to see the way that the materiality of music theory texts is at least as important as the contents of the texts themselves, and that the diagrams and examples give us an unparalleled insight into this. These theoretical ideas are alive in the manuscripts that preserve them.
Adam Whittaker is Head of Pedagogy and Lecturer in Music at the Royal Birmingham Conservatoire.
Na Adam Whittaker Reblogged kutoka The Conveyor. "Kuandika juu ya muziki ni kama kucheza juu ya usanifu", au hivyo msemo maarufu huenda. Na bado, tumekuwa tukiandika juu ya muziki kwa karne nyingi. Tuna bahati ya kuwa na aina ya maandishi ya muziki ya enzi za kati na za Renaissance ambayo yameokoka, kutoka kwa vitabu vya uwasilishaji wa kifahari hadi karatasi za moja zilizopigwa kwenye mkusanyiko mbalimbali. Ingawa mara nyingi tunaona usambazaji thabiti wa maandishi katika vyanzo vingi (wakati mwingine katika karne nyingi), tunaona tofauti kubwa zaidi katika mifano na michoro. Yaonekana, hizo zilikuwa za kubadilishwa, kurekebishwa, na kurekebishwa kwa ajili ya wasomaji fulani na muktadha wa mahali fulani, au kwa sababu tu ya mapenzi ya mwandishi. Utafiti wangu unachunguza kwa nini tofauti hizo ni muhimu. Mwaka huu, alitumikia kama Albi Rosenthal Visiting Fellow katika Maktaba ya Bodleian. Katika kipindi cha masomo yangu, nilitafuta hati kadhaa za nadharia ya muziki, ikiwa ni pamoja na MS. Bodley 515 na MS. Digby 90. "Makumbusho hayo yanaitwa ""Quatuor principalia musicae"" na ni ya kiingereza na ilitoka kwa John of Tewkesbury, mtawa wa Uingereza." Kwanza, hebu tuangalie kufanana moja. Mwanzoni mwa maandishi, mwanasayansi hutumia monochord (chombo cha kinadharia cha kamba moja) kuelezea muda wa sauti; hatua ya muziki katika maneno ya layman, kana kwamba kusonga kutoka G hadi A kwenye piano. Vyanzo vyote viwili vina mchoro sawa wa kazi, hata kama kuna tofauti ndogo za kuona. Bodleian MS. Bodl. 515, fol. " (trg) =""10""> Kwa mfano, kitabu cha Bodleian MS, cha Digby, cha mwaka wa 90, kinasema hivi:" "Makumbusho ya ""Monochord"" (mstari wa usawa unaowakilisha kamba) na ""Monochord"" (mstari wa usawa unaowakilisha kamba) ni alama ya sauti kati ya G (G ya chini) na A (A) na alama ya ""Monochord"" (m) iko upande wa kushoto wa mchoro." Bodl. "Mstari wa 515 unaonyesha mbinu ya kisanii zaidi kwa mchoro huu, na lebo zake za rangi na duru za mapambo, wakati MS. Digby 90 inapendelea ""sawa ya tonal"" na notches." Licha ya tofauti hizi, ambazo zinaweza kuhusishwa na ladha ya mwandishi zaidi ya kitu kingine chochote, uzoefu wa kusoma katika vyanzo viwili ni karibu sawa. Hata hivyo, kufanana kama hiyo si daima sasa. Kama sisi kuangalia katika picha ya mkono Guidonian <unk> aina ya ramani ya dhana kwa ajili ya nafasi ya muziki ambayo ni ya kawaida katika maandishi ya nadharia ya muziki <unk> tunaona wote kufanana na tofauti. Mkono wa Guidonian uliweka ramani ya muundo wa muda wa noti sita (ut-re-mi-fa-sol-la) kwenye maeneo ya kimwili kwenye mwili ambayo mwimbaji angeweza kutumia kama msaada wa kumbukumbu wakati walipokuwa wakiimba. Ili kufikiri juu ya jinsi Mkono hufanya kazi katika mazoezi, The Sound of Music's ‘Do-Re-Mi ni muhimu hasa. Hebu tuchunguze michoro iliyotolewa katika vyanzo hivyo viwili. M.S. Digby, F.L. 90 21 (detail) Bodleian MS. Bodl. 515, fol. 23 (details) Kuna tofauti muhimu hapa. Utaona kwamba Bi. Bodl. "Mstari wa 515 unaonyesha kwamba ""maelezo ya viungo"" hayapo, lakini haya yanaonekana wazi katika MS. Digby 90." Hizi ni muhimu sana! Bila alama za silabi kwenye viungo vya kidole gumba na vidole, mchoro huu unafanya kazi kidogo ya kuonyesha, ingawa ni mzuri. Hali kama hiyo husababisha maswali fulani yenye kupendeza na huenda ikawa iliwafanya wasomaji wa karne ya kumi na tano wachukue mawazo yao. Je, hii ni kosa la mwandishi tu? Je, kipengele hiki cha mchoro lazima kiingizwe katika safu tofauti? Je, mwandishi huyo hakuelewa mchoro waliokuwa wamekopa? Je, kulikuwa na kosa katika nakala ya mfano ambalo mwandishi hangeweza kusuluhisha? Ni matumizi gani ya mchoro wakati ni kukosa taarifa muhimu kama? Swali hili la mwisho ni muhimu hasa kwa kulinganisha mwisho nataka kufanya hapa. Uhusiano kati ya maadili ya muda wa muziki ni msingi wa ujenzi wa notation ya muziki. Nambari za muziki za mapema zilitegemea zaidi muktadha, na umbo la noti moja lilikuwa na thamani ya hesabu mbili au tatu kulingana na muktadha. Theorists kupatikana njia nyingi intriguing kujadili jambo hili, lakini ya kuvutia zaidi kwa ajili ya majadiliano ya sasa ni wazo la noti thamani mti. Baadhi ya maandishi ya muziki ya wakati huo yanarejelea "mti" wa Johannes de Burgundy, mtu ambaye hatujui chochote juu yake isipokuwa kumbukumbu ya kupita kwa "mti" wake katika maandishi ya muziki na Petrus de Picardia (fl. 1250), na Vyanzo vyetu vyote viwili ni pamoja na mchoro wa aina hii, ingawa tunaona baadhi ya kutofautiana katika mbinu. Katika MS Digby 90, tunaona mahusiano yaliyoelezwa wazi katika muundo wa karibu-tabula (maadili makubwa chini), na mistari inayounganisha viwango vya mensural vinavyohusiana. Kufanya kazi kutoka chini hadi juu tunaona kwamba thamani kubwa ya noti hugawanywa katika sehemu tatu, ambayo yenyewe imegawanywa katika sehemu tatu ndogo nk. "Bodleian MS. Digby, 90 "" (Kifungu cha 9) " " (trg) =""45""> Kwa mfano, katika kitabu cha M." 515 - M.S. Bodleian 515, fol. 49v Uvutia wa kuona wa hii ni muhimu. Ms. Bodl. 515 inatoa maelezo ya hatched kwenye shina la mchoro, na maelezo ya ziada ya rangi ambayo imezorota kwa muda. Kwa njia hiyo, noti ndefu zaidi inakuwa "mizizi" ya mti huo, na sehemu zake ndogo-ndogo za noti hizo huwakilishwa kama matawi, yenyewe yenye matawi madogo. Ingawa vyanzo vyote viwili vinaonyesha vizuri uhakika wa nadharia, michoro tofauti kidogo hubadilisha asili ya uhusiano wa maandishi na picha. Ujenzi wa msitu wa MS. Bodl. 515 huunda picha kali ya kiakili kwa msomaji kukumbuka. MS. Digby 90, ingawa ni wazi sawa, huanzisha picha tofauti ya mensural. Mchoro huo unahitaji mazoea tofauti ya kusoma na unaonyesha mambo ya nadharia kwa njia tofauti-tofauti. Jambo ninalotaka kusema hapa si kwamba ni muhimu zaidi kutaja chanzo chochote, bali ni kuonyesha kwamba kile ambacho kingeweza kuondolewa kuwa 'tofauti ndogo za mwandishi' ni muhimu sana tunapozingatia jinsi msomaji awezavyo kushiriki na maandishi katika chanzo fulani cha hati. Ikiwa mchoro ulio na habari kama hiyo ya msingi ulikuwa unajulikana kwa wasomaji wenye ujuzi, basi kwa nini mwandishi alifanya jitihada kubwa sana kuionyesha kwa njia yenye kuvutia? Uzoefu wa msomaji wa maandishi yaleyale katika vyanzo hivyo viwili ungekuwa tofauti sana. Kwa njia hii, tunaanza kuona jinsi nyenzo za maandishi ya nadharia ya muziki ni muhimu kama maudhui ya maandishi yenyewe, na kwamba michoro na mifano inatupa ufahamu usio na kifani katika hili. Mawazo hayo ya nadharia yanaonekana katika hati-mkono ambazo zimehifadhiwa. Adam Whittaker ni Mkuu wa Pedagogy na Mhadhiri katika Muziki katika Royal Birmingham Conservatoire.