Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T05:10:23.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relationship of perfect and imperfect time in Italian theory of the Renaissance*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Anna Maria Busse Berger
Anna Maria Busse Berger
Affiliation:
Boston University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Music of the Renaissance abounds in instances of successive and simultaneous use of perfect and imperfect time. When they occur simultaneously, the intended relationship can usually be determined without much difficulty. It cannot be assumed, however, that horizontal relationships of mensurations were always identical with the vertical ones. On the contrary, we know, for example, that many theorists advocated that major prolation signify augmentation only when it occurred simultaneously with minor prolation in another part, and not when minor and major prolations followed one another in the same part. Similarly, the sign of diminished perfect time always indicated diminution by half when it occurred simultaneously with undiminished perfect time; otherwise it might also indicate diminution by a third. Consequently, when imperfect time is followed by or follows perfect time, the question arises which value should remain equal under both tempora: breve, semibreve or minim? It is striking that not a single modern scholar considers the possibility of semibreve equivalence. It will be readily seen that semibreve equivalence is an independent possibility only when combined with different prolations (see Example lc–d); when prolations are the same, it is indistinguishable from minim equivalence (see Example la–b). Anticipating the results of the investigation that follows, I should say at once that I have not found a single theorist who would advocate semibreve equivalence in . The fact that modern scholars do not consider semibreve equivalence either means, presumably, that notational practice of the Renaissance does not suggest it.

Type
Research Article
Information
Early Music History , Volume 5 , October 1985 , pp. 1 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

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

References

1 See, in particular, Praetorius, E., Die Mensuraltheorie des Franchinus Gafurius (Leipzig, 1905), pp. 98–105Google Scholar; Mendel, A., ‘Some Ambiguities of the Mensural System’, Studies in Music History: Essays for Oliver Strunk, ed. Powers, H. (Princeton, 1968), pp. 137–61Google Scholar; Brown, H. M., ‘Performing Practice’, The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Sadie, S., 20 vols. (London, 1980), xiv, p. 380.Google Scholar

2 Op. cit., p. 153.

3 De musica, ed. Massera, G., Historiae Musicae Cultores 14 (Florence, 1961), p. 170.Google Scholar See also G. Massera, ‘Il “de Musica” di Giorgio Anselmi parmense dal manoscritto H 233 Inf. della Biblioteca Ambrosiana di Milano’, Ibid., pp. 42–55.

4 Ibid., p. 197.

5 ‘Semibrevis vero nomen habet ex re, cum brevis in duas semibreves secetur; cum vero in ires, appellantur minores.’ Bartolomeus Ramis de Pareia, Musica practica, ed. Wolf, J., Publikationen der Internationalen Musikgesellschaft 2 (Leipzig, 1901), p. 80.Google Scholar

6 ‘Inde in hac parte tertia numerorum species habemus tres, ut sit modus, tempus, et prolatio. Et sicut modus potest duplicari, ita prolatio medio dividi. Cum igitur modos coniungimus invicem, modum maiorem appellamus. E contra vero, cum prolatio secatur, maior prolatio nuncupatur. Si enim tempus pro unitate in medii digiti ponamus sum-mitate, modus in indice correspondebit ex augmento minori prolationi in medio posita ex divisione. Sic et in pollice modus maior, in auriculari prolatio maior recte collocabuntur.’ Ibid., p. 78.

7 Op. tit., pp. 98–105.

8 Op. cit., pp. 137–61.

9 Handwörterbuch der musikalischen Terminologie, ed. Eggebrecht, H. H. (Wiesbaden, 1971), p. 9.Google Scholar

10 Ibid. (1972), p. 5.

11 (Venice, 1531); facsimile in Monuments of Music and Music Literature in Facsimile, ser. ii, 88 (New York, 1979).

12 London, British Library, Cod. Add. 4920, written 1510; modern edn in Vecchi, G., ‘Le utile e breve regule di canto di Giovanni Spataro nel Cod. Lond. British Museum Add. 4920’, Quadrivium, 5 (1961), pp. 5–68.Google Scholar

13 (Bologna, 1521).

14 Forty-eight letters are found in Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS lat. 5318, others in Vienna, Nationalbibliothek, MS S.m. 4830; Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS it. 1110; Bologna, Civico Museo Bibliografico Musicale, Lettere di Spataro. For an inventory of the correspondence, see Jeppesen, K., ‘Eine musiktheoretische Kor-respondenz des früheren Cinquecento’, Acta Musicologica, 13 (1941), pp. 3–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 See, for example, Ramis, , Musica practica, pp. 82 and 87.Google Scholar

16 J. Wolf, ‘Einleitung’, Ibid., p. ix.

17 ‘essendo el tempo (in canto mensurato) quella invariable mensura: & principio: a laquale mensura: & principio tutte le cantabile: & non cantabile figure concorrono/ overo se riducono … el modo: (elquale nasce de la aggregatione del tempo) sia producto di molti tempi inter se equali & non intra loro differenti … cosi etiam el modo si fara complecto di varii numeri di indifferenti tempi s. del binario: & del ternario: la qual cosa non accadera dividendo in parte minute la semplice unita: … imperoche: cosi come le parte medie di essa unita (ciascuna per se considerato) non sara equate a ciascuna parte tertia di essa unita, cosi etiam sara dibisogno: che accada dividendo esso tempo & principio musico in parte minute s. in parte medie: & in parte tertie: la quale divisione (ut diximus) da li musici e chiamata prolatione.’ Spataro, Tractate, ch. x.

18 Ibid., ch. iv.

19 Ibid., ch. xvi.

20 Ibid., ch. xvi. Phillippon is probably identical with Philippe Basiron. See Picker, M., ‘Basiron, Philippe’, The New Grove Dictionary, ii, p. 240.Google Scholar

21 Spataro, Tractate, ch. xvi. Ubrede is known as Johannes Wreede or Urrede and came probably from Bruges, where he was in the service of the Duke of Alba in the 1470s. Later he is found at the Spanish court. Since Spataro does not identify his Mass it is difficult to verify his statements. Spataro's Spanish-born teacher Ramis admired Ubrede greatly. See Pope, I., ‘Urreda, Johannes’, The New Grove Dictionary, xix, pp. 467f.Google Scholar

22 ‘la quale positione di segno vogliono: che dimostri proportione sesquitertia: come da molti Antiqui e stato usitato: Ma tali moderni, hanno male considerato tale segno semicirculare converso da li Antiqui posito per dimostratione de la sesquitertia comparatione: imperoche da li Antiqui tale segno semicirculare converso: non e stato inteso producere sesquitertia per se considerato: ma si quando e relato over comparato a questo segno O overo a questo suoi antecedenti come per le compositione di tali docti Antiqui si prova.’ Spataro, Tractato, ch. xxiv.

23 Spataro, Errori di Franctiino Gafurio da Lodi, fol. 39.

24 ‘perche per la ignorantia: & mala consuetudine de alcuni moderni scriptori tutti le segni exercitati … se possono riducere: & cantare per un solo segno: & questo adviene: perche non fanno alcuna differentia intra la semibreve del tempo imperfecto: & la semibreve del tempo perfecto: similmente: non fanno alcuna differentia: intra la minima de la prolatione imperfecta: & la minima de la prolatione perfecta’. Spataro, Tractato, ch. v.

25 ‘a tempi nostri li segni ordinati da li antiqui sono tenuti in poco praetio … solo usono questo segno et de la proportione solo usano sesquialtera’. Spataro, letter to Giovanni del Lago, Bologna, 4 January 1529; Vatican, lat. 5318, fol. 143r.

26 (Bologna, 1516), fol. 34r.

27 (Venice, 1523), bk I, ch. 38 (rev. edn with supplement published as Toscanello in musica, 1529, 1539 and 1562; all references are to the 1539 edition).

28 ‘tra questi segni O C non cade altra differenza circa la battuta, ma si ne la quantita de la breve’. Aaron, , Toscanello, bk i, ch. 38, trans. Bergquist, P., Translations 4/i (Colorado Springs, 1970), p. 54.Google Scholar

29 See Bergquist, P., ‘The Theoretical Writings of Pietro Aaron’ (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1964), pp. 125f and 21 1ff.Google Scholar

30 Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Mus. ms. autogr. theor. MS 1, fols. 2r and 2v

31 ‘le semibreve del tempo perfetto et imperfetto son tutte equate. Per la qual cosa lui grandemente se inganna, perche apresso tutto il mondo un terzo non sara mai ditto essere equale a un mezzo.’

32 (Venice, 1545).

33 ‘gli antichi & dotti Musici sesquialteravano le note de questo segno O. comparate al seguente C. perche per un tempo di questo C. pronuntiavano due semibrevi, & sotto questo O ne passavano tre, la qual cosa è impossibile, volendo procedere per vie ragionevoli, che altrimenti sia considerato, non ostante che dannoi sia stato in contrario osservato al cap. 38 del primo libro del nostro Toscanello non ad altro fine, che per osservare quello, che molti innanti noi hanno usato’. Lucidario, fol. 12v; trans. Bergquist, , ‘The Theoretical Writings of Pietro Aaron’, p. 213.Google Scholar

34 ‘Similmente il circolo & il semicircolo del Musico è alcuna volte intese per tempo perfetto, & imperfetto, & alcuna volta per termine proportionate.’ Lucidario, fol. 12r.

35 (Brescia, 1533); Eng. trans, in Lee, B., ‘Giovanni Maria Lanfranco's Scintille di Musica and its Relation to Sixteenth-Century Music Theory’ (Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, 1961).Google Scholar

36 Lanfranco, , Scintille, pp. 35 and 40.Google Scholar

37 Ibid., p. 77.

38 ‘Prima etiam fractio potest cognosci secundum aliquos per aliud signum, scilicet per semicirculum transversum sive dextrum respicientem partem sinistram, ut hic: O. Et hoc signum ponitur communiter a modernis.’ Expositiones tractatus pratice cantus mensurabilis magistri Johannis de Muris, ed. Gallo, F. A., Antiquae Musicae Italicae, Scriptores 3 (Bologna, 1966), p. 142.Google Scholar

39 Quid est proportio, London, Lambeth Palace, MS 466, fol. 26r.

40 Faenza, Biblioteca Comunale, MS 117, fols. 26v–27. For a modern edition, see Hothby, , The Musical Works, ed. Seay, A., Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae 33 (n.p., 1964), pp. 4–7.Google Scholar

41 Seay misread the last proportion as 18:3.

42 De preceptis artis musicae, ed. Seay, A., Corpus Scriptorum de Musica 11 (n.p., 1965), p. 26.Google Scholar

43 (Bologna, 1487). For modern edition, see Burtius, , Florum libellus, ed. Massera, G., Historiae Musicae Cultores 28 (Florence, 1975).Google Scholar

44 Burtius, , Florum libellus, p. 137.Google Scholar

45 Wolf Frobenius has placed him, on the basis of the arrangement of mensurations, in the same group as Spataro: ‘Vor dem Hintergrund der geschilderten Entwicklung ist die Darstellung der prolatio durch Ramos de Pareja und seine Nachfolger N. Burzio, G. Spataro, G. M. Lanfranco und P. Aron zu sehen. Diese gehen von der theoretischen Gleichheit des tempus (statt der minima) in den Grundmensuren aus und verstehen prolatio im Sinne von Unterteilung des tempus.’ ‘Prolatio’, Handwörterbuch der musikalischen Terminologie (1972), p. 5.Google Scholar

46 Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, MS 2146, fols. 42v–94v.

47 Ibid., fol. 94r.

48 Ibid., fol. 94r.

49 ‘Circulus cum virgula per medium dividente suum ut cito notulas cucurrerit ut loco prolationis semibrevis habebit, idest has minimarum trium loco dividendas.’ Ibid., fol. 72r.

50 Ars musicorum (Valencia, 1495)Google Scholar. Modern edition by A. Seay, Critical Texts 8 (Colorado Springs, 1978), p. 31.

51 Ibid., p. 30.

52 Picitono, Angelo da, Fior angelica di musica (Venice, 1547), bk ii, ch. 1Google Scholar; Brescia, Illuminato Aiguino da, Il tesoro illuminato (Venice, 1581), bk iii, ch. 10.Google Scholar

53 Angelo da Picitono, op. cit., bk ii, ch. 28; Aiguino da Brescia, op. cit., bk iii, ch. 11.

54 ed. A. Seay, Corpus Scriptorum de Musica 7, 3 vols. (Rome, 1960–2).

55 ‘Aliis etiam signis moderni cantores utuntur ostendae diminutionis causa, quorum unus est semicirculus … qui talis est O, … et eum sexquitertiae proportioni attribuunt.’ Ugolino, , Declaratio, ii, p. 210.Google Scholar

56 For a transcription, see Seay, A., ‘Ugolino of Orvieto, Theorist and Composer’, Musica Discipline, 9 (1955), pp. 111–66.Google Scholar

57 Piece i, bar 1, Ibid., p. 152.

58 Perugia, Biblioteca Comunale, MS 1013, fols. 47r–123r. For a detailed description of the manuscript, see Blackburn, B. J., ‘A Lost Guide to Tinctoris's Teachings Recovered’, Early Music History, 1 (1981), pp. 29–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59 Ibid., fol. 81r.

60 Ibid., fol 60r.

61 Ibid., fol. 79r. In the manuscript C is not cut, either because of an error or in deference to English usage. See Hamm, C., A Chronology of the Works of Guillaume Dufay Based on a Study of Mensural Practice (Princeton, 1964), pp. 92–6.Google Scholar

62 ‘Item, quod per quamvis proportionem, aliquae notae sive aequaliter sive inaequaliter ad alias simpliciter referri dicuntur, intelligendum est ut sint eiusdem valoris, puta dum tres semibreves ad duas comparantur, si quaelibet illarum valet duas minimas, quaelibet istarum etiam duas valere debet. Et quamvis notae proportionaliter relatae sint unius quantitatis et notae ad quas referuntur alterius, istae tamen per quandam suppositionem secundum quantitatem illarum erunt computandae. Aliter enim saepe numero falleremur, nempe si verbi gratia cupientes sesquialteraliter 3 ad 2 referri, tres breves temporis imperfecti contra duas pertecti componeremus non sesquialteram immo nec proportionem aliquam inaequalitatis, sed aequalitatis, videlicet 6 ad 6 efficeremus, ut hic: Nee si e converso tres breves temporis perfecti ad duas imperfecti referantur, sesquialtera con-ficietur, sed dupla sesquiquarta. Erunt enim 9 ad 4 eiusdem, prout decet valoris, in quo Dufay in suo “Qui cum patre” de Sancto Anthonio mirabiliter erravit, nam ibi proportionem ipsam, scilicet duplam sesquiquartam, quoniam tres breves perfectas ad duas imperfectas retulit signo quo ipse ac fere omnes alii sesquialteram licet diminutae signant signare voluit ut hie …

Quodquidem, ita signasse debuit O , nam non sesquialtera immo, ut praemissimus, de seque patet, dupla sesquiquarta est.’ Tinctoris, , Proportionate musices, in Opera theoretica, ed. Seay, A., Corpus Scriptorum de Musica 2a (Neuhausen-Stuttgart, 1978), p. 57Google Scholar, trans. A. Seay, Translations 10 (Colorado Springs, 1979), p. 45. Hamm (op. cit., p. 109) is not convinced of the authenticity of the Missa Sancti Anthoni, because there are numerous departures from Dufay's usual notational practice. David Fallows, on the other hand, attributes the Mass again to Dufay in his Dufay (London, 1982), pp. 182–92.Google Scholar

63 ‘et sesquitertiam per signum temporis imperfecti minorisque prolationis similiter sic reversum O, ut illi quos nominare vereor signare non erubesarunt. Sed mihi deprecor parcant quoniam haec signa adeo frivola, adeo erronea adeoque ab omni rationis apparentia sunt remota ut nec exemplo digna crediderium.’ Tinctoris, , Proportionate musices, p. 48Google Scholar, trans. Seay, op. cit., p. 36.

64 ‘Errant insuper qui semibrevem imperfecti temporis quia dimidium brevis comprehendat maiorem vocant. earn vero quae tertiam brevis perfectae continet partem: putant minorem: cum unaquaeque semibrevis eadem prolatione computata alteri semibrevis sit semper aequalis. nee obstat quia una dimidiam: altera tertiam brevis notulae possideat partem: cum breves ipsae dissimili sint quantitate disposite.’ Gaffurius, , Practica musice (Milan, 1496), bk ii, ch. 8Google Scholar, trans. C. A. Miller, Musicological Studies and Documents 20 (n.p., 1968), p. 88.

65 Gaffurius, Practica musice, bk iv, ch. 3.

66 Ibid., bk iv, ch. 1.

67 Ibid., bk iv, ch. 5.

68 ‘tal similtudine di note debbe esser intesa cader nelle figure d'un medesimo segno, come qui O , e non ut hie , perche anchora che quanto al nome l'una delle breve predette non sia dissimile dall'altra, mentedimeno l'una non sara misurata … minor, come sara l'altra’. Giovanni del Lago, letter to Giovanni da Legge, Venice, 24 January 1520; Vatican, lat. 5318, fol. 105r.

69 (Florence, 1520).

70 ‘alcuni vogliono sia 2 terzi del circolo e giustamente’. Bonini, Acutissime observations, ch. v.

71 ‘la semibreve sempre e equale di forma ne sia una semibreve grande et una piccola come si fa la massima’. Cimello, , Delta perfettione [c. 1545]Google Scholar, Bologna, Civico Museo Bibliografico Musicale, MS b57, fol. 2V.

72 ‘non fa altro se non accrescere il valore a la semibreve, & fa, che vaglia tre minime’. Lusitano, , Introdutione facilissima et novissima de canto fermo (Rome, 1561), fol. 7r.Google Scholar

73 ‘Die minima verfestigt sich zur elementaren Werteinheit, und von ihr ausgehend beginnt eine Umdeutung der bisherigen tempus-Teil-Namen in solche, die die semibreves in ihren nach minimae messenden Werten bezeichnen.’ Frobenius, , ‘Semibrevis’, Handwörterbuch der musikalischen Terminologie (1971), p. 4.Google Scholar

74 ‘Im italienischen Mensuralgesang des Trecento, der zunächst nicht zur ars nova iibergeht, sondern das Prinzip der brevis-Fraktion beibehält, erscheint das tempus, welches hier in bis zu zwölf bzw. acht semibreves minimae unterteilt wird, als zentrale rhythmische Grösse (was bei Lambertus und Franco die perfectio war), und die brevis wird geradezu als Angelpunkt des Notensystem betrachtet: durch ihre Vervielfältigung entstehen die longae perfecta und imperfecta, durch ihre Unterteilung die semibreves.’ Frobenius, ‘Longa-brevis’, Ibid., p. 7.

75 See de Padua, Marchettus, Pomerium, ed. Vecchi, G., Corpus Scriptorum de Musica 6 (Florence, 1961), p. 143Google Scholar; Guido, , Ars musice mensurate, ed. Gallo, F. A., Mensurabilis Musicae Tractatuli 1 (Bologna, 1966), pp. 19fGoogle Scholar; Frobenius, , ‘Semibrevis’, Handwörterbuch, p. 7Google Scholar; Bent, M., ‘Notation’, The New Grove Dictionary, xiii, p. 365.Google Scholar

76 Apel, W., The Notation of Polyphonic Music, 900–1600 (Cambridge, Mass., 1953), p. 376.Google Scholar

77 Pirrotta, N., ‘Introduction’, The Music of Fourteenth Century Italy, ed. Pirrotta, N., Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae 8 (Amsterdam, 1954), p. ii.Google Scholar

78 Long, M. P., ‘Musical Tastes in Fourteenth-Century Italy: Notational Styles, Scholarly Traditions, and Historical Circumstances’ (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1981), p. 50.Google Scholar

79 Op. cit., p. 161.

80 Planchart, A. E., ‘The Relative Speed of Tempora in the Period of Dufay’, Royal Music Association, Research Chronicle, 17 (1981), p. 41.Google Scholar