Society for Music Theory

Anonymous XI and Questions of Terminology in Theoretical Writings of the Middle Ages and
Renaissance
Author(s): Richard J. Wingell
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Music Theory Spectrum, Vol. 1 (Spring, 1979), pp. 121-128
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society for Music Theory
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/745783 .
Accessed: 01/03/2013 16:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press and Society for Music Theory are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Music Theory Spectrum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:01:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Anonymous Xl and Questions
Terminology in Theoretical
Writings of the Middle Ages
and Renaissance
by RichardJ. Wingell
The terminologyused in writingsaboutmusic at any point in
history is a mirror of the motivations and background the
theoristbrings to the process of musical inquiry. Terminology
reflects the writer'sspecial viewpoint, his philosophic and aes-
thetic stance, the audiencefor whom he writes, and his particu-
lar purpose. Terminology alerts the reader not only to the
theorist's message, but also to his underlying premises, his
intellectualmilieu, andhis place in the historyof the discipline.
Sensitivityto the nuancesof terminologyis especially critical
in understandingtheoreticalwritings of the Middle Ages and
Renaissance because of the lack of an extensive and generally
understoodvocabulary to describe complicated concepts and
sophisticatedmusical phenomena. Terminology in treatises of
this time is, furthermore, a basic category of evidence for
assemblinginformationon the provenance,dating, and sources
for the documents themselves.
Between 500 and 1500, the fundamentalquestions aboutthe
natureand purposeof music and musical study were discussed
over and over again. Like twentieth-centurycomposers, medi-
This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:01:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
of
eval theorists recreatedthe natureand function of their disci-
pline every time they wrote about music. The intellectualex-
plosions of Scholasticism and Humanismcaused every disci-
pline to questionits premisesanew, and rapidlyevolving musi-
cal styles invited theoretical discussion. Some theorists were
proud of their "modern" practicalviewpoint; others chose to
ignore the questions raised by currentpractice and returnto
basic issues, each adding another layer of philosophical or
mathematicalspeculation.Terms denotedentirely differentre-
alities, dependingon their time in historyand the viewpoint of
the author.Modus, for example, may have referredto a melodic
interval,one of the four (or eight) Churchmodes, one of the six
rhythmicmodes, or the relationshipbetweenlonga andbrevis in
mensural notation. The first step toward understandingthe
viewpoint and contentof an early theoreticaltreatiseis to study
the terminology the author uses, and what he means by his
terms.
Existing studies provide at least a starting point for ter-
minological studies of early theoreticalwritings. Dissertations
 122 MusicTheorySpectrum
by M. Appel and Hans Peter Gysin discuss selected terms as
they are used by some theorists. The articles on early theoreti-
cal terms in the Eggebrecht Handworterbuch presently in prog-
ress are more helpful, but one wonders whether the inclusive-
ness of the project will allow detailed discussions of all the
medieval and Renaissance terms one might wish.2
The purpose of this paper is to study questions of terminology
in one of Coussemaker's Anonymi, Anonymous XI, from his
third volume.3 Terminological evidence can be used to support
the hypothesis that the work known as Anonymous XI, pre-
sumed to be a unified work by a fifteenth-century theorist, is
actually a compilation of several unrelated treatises, some of
them thirteenth-century works in approach and ideas. Before
looking at the terminological evidence, we should review what
the standard secondary sources have to say about the work, and
the paleographic evidence of the surviving manuscript.
The secondary literature generally treats Anonymous XI as a
single fifteenth-century work in two parts, one on chant and one
on polyphony, and attention is usually focussed on the striking
discussions of polyphony in the later sections. In his edition,
Coussemaker added the title Tractatus de musica plana et
mensurabili, implying that the work is a single, two-part trea-
tise. The 1909 catalog of music manuscripts in the British
Museum described the Anonymous XI section of the manuscript
as a two-part work by a fourteenth- or fifteenth-century Fren-
chman.4 Hiischen's brief notice on Anonymous XI in MGG
assigns the work to the fifteenth century, but adds the interesting
1M. Appel, "Terminologiein den mittelalterlichenMusiktraktaten,"(Re-
gensburg, 1935). Hans Peter Gysin, Studienzum Vokabularder Musiktheorie
im Mittelalter (diss. Basel, 1958; Zurich:A Kohler Ruti, 1959).
2H.H. Eggebrecht, ed., Handworterbuchder musikalischenTerminologie
(Wiesbaden:Steiner, 1972- ).
3Scriptorumde musica medii aevi novam seriem a Gerbertinaalteram col-
legit nuncqueprimumedidit E. de Coussemaker(Paris:Durand, 1864; second
ed., Graz, 1908; reprint,Bolletino BibliograficoMusicale, 1931), III, 416-75.
4Augustus Hughes-Hughes, Catalogue of ManuscriptMusic in the British
Museum (London, 1909), III, 306.
This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:01:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
comment that one of the sections on chant shows a surprisingly
thorough knowledge of the thirteenth-century musical situation
for a fifteenth-century work.5 Bartha, in the introduction to his
edition of a treatise by Ladislas Szalkai which used Anonymous
XI as a source, has shown that the assumption of French
provenance has no factual basis.6 Studies of the way vertical
combinations of notes are discussed in the polyphonic sections
may be found in Riemann's History of Music Theory7 and in an
article by Richard Crocker.8 There is litle discussion of the chant
sections in any of the secondary literature, and no one has raised
the question of the possibility of an earlier date for any of the
various sections.
The paleographic evidence of the sole surviving manuscript
copy challenges the assumptions of a single author and a single
coherent treatise. This manuscript, formerly housed in the town
library of Trier and presently in the British Library, cataloged as
Add. 34200, is a late fifteenth-century copy. Several scribal
hands were involved in the copy; the hands can be shown to be
German.9 German provenance is also borne out by the "German
dialect" of the first-mode chant examples, which use C rather
than B-flat or B-natural in the intonation formulas. The hands
are distinct versions of fifteenth-cenutry court hand. As the list
below indicates, different hands copied different sections of the
work, which can be viewed as independent treatises, several of
them having clear explicits. An outline of the entire treatise
follows:
5Denes von Bartha,Das Musiklehrbucheiner ungarischenKlosterschulein
der Handschrift von Furstprimas Szalkai (1490); Musicologia hungarica I
(Budapest, 1934).
6HeinrichHuschen, "Anonymi," MGG I: 492-503.
7Hugo Riemann,trans.RaymondHaggh,Historyof Music Theory(Lincoln:
University of NebraskaPress, 1962; reprint,Da Capo, 1974).
8RichardL. Crocker, "Discant, Counterpoint,and Harmony," Journal of
the AmericanMusicological Society 15 (1962), 1-21.
9See S. HarrisonThomson, Latin Bookhands of the Later Middle Ages,
1100-1500 (CambridgeUniversity, 1969), Plates27 and53, for similarhandsin
manuscriptsof known provenance.
 Questions of Terminology 123

I. De Musica in Genere: Miscellany:

folios lr.-7v.; hand A folio 40v., bottom: hand E
Contents: the importance of music, musicus and cantor, the additionalmaterialon the eight modes.
Guidonianhand, scales and hexachords, mutation, intervals.
VII. De Proporcionibus:
II. De Coniunctis: folio 41r.: hand C
folios 7v.-O1r.;hand A Contents:proportions,treatedas intervalratios.
folio 37r.-38v.; hand C
Contents: explanation and examples of coniunctae. These two Miscellany:
sections are copies of the same treatise. folio 41r., bottom: hand F
additionalmaterialon proportions

III. Tonarium:
The paleographic evidence, then, raises the possibility of a
folios lOv.-33v.; hand A
Contents:notation, the eight modes, startingnotes anddijfferen- compilation by several scribes, of a collection of unrelated
ciae for various classes of chants in each of the modes, materials, probably for monastic use; the separate materials
Benedicamus tropes. therefore could have been written much earlier than the manu-
script copy. We know that Szalkai copied the chant sections as
IV. De Musica Figurativa: part of his compilation in 1490,10 that date serving as the latest
folios 34r.-35v.; hand B possible date for the authorship of the Anonymous XI treatises.
Contents:consonance and dissonance, rules for writing counter- Internal evidence provides us with an early boundary. In the
point in two and three parts. tonarium, Innocent III is cited as an authority supporting clerical
study of music.11 Since Innocent III reigned from 1198 to 1216,
the early thirteenth century is the earliest possible date for the
Miscellany:
folios 34v. and 35v.; hand C; added materialon consonance. chant sections of Anonymous XI. The citation of Innocent III in
folio 36r.: hand C; a graph of the scale, and verses concerning itself supports the early origin of the chant sections, since
modes and startingnotes. fulminations about chant issued regularly then from Rome. It is
folio 36v.: handB; a diagramof note values anddiminutionsigns unlikely that a fifteenth-century writer would cite a pope that
in mensural notation, repeated later in the manuscriptin the remote in a routine citation of auctoritas in the introduction to
Anonymous XII section. his tonary.
folios 38v.-39r.: handC (?); textless polyphonyin white notation. It is possible, then, on the grounds of the paleographic evi-
dence and the citation of Innocent III to set up a hypothesis that
V. De Modis et Tonis: what we call Anonymous XI is actually a compilation of
folio 39v.: hand C (?) thirteenth-century writings on chant and fifteenth-century writ-
Contents: additionalmaterialon intervalsand the eight modes. ings on polyphony and proportions. The chief means of testing

VI. De Proporcionibus:
folios 40r.-40v.; hand D 10Bartha,Das Musiklehrbuch.
Contents:proportions,treatedas rhythmicdevices. 11Add.34200, f. 12r.

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:01:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
124 MusicTheorySpectrum

this hypothesis is terminology. If the various sections were first
written over a long span of time, that fact should be reflected in
different approaches and different layers of terminology.
The first category of terminological evidence is the existence
of different sets of terms for the same musical realities. The
following synoptic table (Figure 1) lists three distinct sets of
terms for intervals from different sections of Anonymous XI.
These three lists are quite distinct in approach, purpose, and
place in the evolution of theoretical writings on music. List A is
a standard enumeration found in Carolingian theorists as early as
the tenth century; it lists melodic intervals a singer of chant
should know. List B is speculative, dealing with theoretically
interesting but impractical intervals that do not appear in the
chant repertory. It resembles the lists of speculative theorists of
the fourteenth century. List C deals with harmonic intervals in
the standard terms of later discant treatises. The divergent ter-
minologies indicate different authors writing at different times
with different purposes.

Figure 1: IntervalLists in Add. 34200

A. Folio 5r. B. Folio 39v. C. Folio 34r.

Modi minus principales:

cisma
coma
dyacisma
dyeseos
apothome

Modi: Modi principales: Species contrapuncti:

unisonus unisonus unisonus
semitonium semitonium
secunda
tonus tonus
semiditonus semiditonus
tercia
ditonus ditonus
tritonus
dyatessaron dyatessaron quarta
dyapente dyapente quinta
semitoniumcum dyapente exacordum
sexta
tonus cum dyapente semitoniumcum exacordo
eptacordum septima
dyapason dyapason octava
Modi principalescompositi Reiteraciones

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:01:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Questionsof Terminology 125

Anotherexample of conflicting lists of terms appearsin two
discussions of proportionslate in the collection (Figure2). One
authordeals with proportionsas rhythmicdevices, the second
with proportionsas they relateto intervalratios. Not only do the
two lists differ in numberand order, but they also use different
terms for the same proportions.A thirdhand has added to the
second list two complex proportionswe could well have done
without. As is the case with the lists of intervals, the different
terminology points to a difference of approachand emphasis,
and two different authors.
Figure2: Proportion
Lists
A. Folio40r. B. Folio41r.
Music is defined thus:it is the artof harmony,developed for
the purpose of singing correctly for the glory of God.
B. Dialogus de Musica (c. 935)
D. Quid est musica?M. Veracitercanendi scientia, et facilis
ad canendi perfectionemvia.13
Whatis music?The science of singing correctly,andthe easy
path to perfection in singing.
C. Johannesof Grocheo (c. 1300)
. . .ars vel scientia de sono numeratoharmonicesumptoad
cantandumfacilius deputata.14
. . .the artor science of numberedsound, understoodin the
sense of harmony, designed for greaterease in singing.

dupla(2:1) epogdous (9:8) D. Walter Odington (c. 1340)

tripla (3:1) epitrita(4:3)
emiolia(3:2) Quoniamde musica praesensest pertractatio,et ipsa quidem
quadrupla(4:1)
est de numero relato ad sonum, prius de arithmeticaarbitror
sesquialtera(3:2) dupla(2:1)
(4:3)
sesquitercia tripla(3:1) exponendum.15
sesquiquarta(5:4) quadrupla (4:1) Since this present discussion deals with music, and music
superbiparciens(5:3) in anotherhand: deals with numberas it relates to sound, I think we must first
sesquioctava (9:8) duplasuperbiparciens (16:6) discuss mathematics.
sesquiterciain gravi
superparticulari(9:6) E. Engelbertof Admont (1250-1331)
Musica generaliter sumendo est scientia inquirendiet dis-
Anotherway of using terminologicalevidence is to compare cernendisecundumproportionesharmonicas,concordantiamet
terms in definitions from the treatise in question to the same consonantiamin contrariiset dissimilibus rebus sibi coniunctis
terms in other treatisesof known date. The definition of music aut collatis.16
from the first treatiseof Anonymous XI, for example, may be Taken in the general sense, music is the science of studying
compared to several definitions from the works of other and distinguishingrealities accordingto theirharmonicpropor-
theorists:

A. Add. 34200 (Anonymous XI) 13MartinGerbert,Scriptoresecclesiastici de musicasacrapotissimum(Typis

Musica sic diffinitur:est ars armoniaerite canendi ad hon- San-Blasianis, 1784; reprint, Milan, 1931), I, 352.
14Ed.JohannesWolf, Sammelbandeder internationalenMusikgesellschaft1
orem Dei finaliter adinventa.12
(1899-1900), 81.
15Ed FrederickHammond,Corpus scriptorumde musica 14, 44.
12FolioIr. 16GerbertII, 268.

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:01:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
126 MusicTheorySpectrum
tions, their concord, and the consonance between contraryand
distinct realitiesjoined together or consideredtogether.
F. Jacobus of Liege (c. 1330)
Est autemmusica, secundumBoethiumquintoMusicae suae
libro, facultas harmonicaacutorumsonorumgraviumquecon-
cordiamperpendens,id est scientia, qua quis potens est faciliter
acutorum sonorum graviumquesimul collatorum perpendere
concordiam et, de ea, qualis sit, iudicare . . . Musica est scien-
tialis animaeperfectio, quoadcognitionem armonicaemodula-
tionis rerumquarumcumquealiquamodulationeinvicem coap-
tarum. 17
Accordingto Boethius in Book Five of his Musica, music is
the harmonicfaculty by which one understandsthe concordof
high andlow sounds-that is, the science by which one is able to
understandthe concord of high and low sounds considered
together, and to judge what sort of concord it is .... Music is
the scientific perfectingof the soul, with respect to the knowl-
edge of harmonicorderingof any realities which arejoined to
each other by some ordering.
The definition from Anonymous XI resembles the Caro-
lingian definitionfrom theDialogus much morethanit does the
other four from the fourteenthand fifteenthcenturies. Whereas
the first two speak quite briefly of singing correctly, the others
speak at much more length of number,science, andproportion.
Whereasthe first two seem pre-Scholastic,intendedfor practi-
cal use in cathedralschools, the last foursmackof Scholasticism
andthe university.Of course it is truethatintellectualtrendsare
no more symmetricallylinear or geographicallyuniversalthan
musical styles; still, it seems objectively possible to speak of a
fourteenth-centurystyle of theoreticalwriting.
Evidence of scribalconfusion aboutterminologycan further
supportthe hypothesisof a considerablelapse of time between
the writing of the original treatise and the productionof the
17Ed. Roger Bragard,Corpus scriptorumde musica 3, I, 14.
This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:01:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
copy. There is an intriguingerror repeated twice in the first
treatise of Anonymous XI, in a discussion of melodic inter-
vals.18 The language in this section is quite similar to that of
Carolingiantreatises:the intervalsarecalledmodi anddiscussed
in very traditionalterms. At one point in the list, a sentence
begins "Quintus modus est ditonus"-the fifth intervalis the
majorthird. The scribe wrote tonus for modus, then crossed it
out and wrote modus. He did the same thing a little later, in a
sentence beginning "Octavus modus dicitur semitoniumcum
dyapente." In both cases the scribe correctedhis own error,
since the correctword follows the mistakeimmediately, rather
thanbeing addedin a differenthandin the marginor above the
line of text. The question is why the scribe would make this
particularmistake. Tonus was the standardword for one of the
Churchmodes, andnevera generaltermfor interval,althoughit
was, of course, the standardterm for the interval of a major
second. But the way the mistake appears-"Quintus tonus est
ditonus," and "Octavus tonus dicitur semitonium cum
dyapente"-indicates a differentsortof confusion. I would put
forwardas a hypothesis that the scribe was aware that he was
copying a list of modi, and that when his attentionflagged he
naturallyused a termthatat his time was a synonymfor modus.
Modus to him meant "mode," not "interval," and his mistake
would thereforebe quite logical. If this explanationis true, then
the errorsupportsthe hypothesisof a lapse of time between the
time when the treatisewas first writtenand the time the scribe
copied it.
Some terms develop a history of their own, and change in
ways we can clearly trace throughhistory. One such term in
Anonymous XI supportsthe hypothesis of a thirteenth-century
datefor the chantsections. The distinctionbetweenmusicus and
cantor appearsas follows in the opening section of Anonymous
XI:
18Folios 5v. and 6r.

Sed heu nunc pauci inveniunturmusici, multi vero cantores. Est
enim differentiainter musicum et cantorem;musicus enim diciturille
qui a musica denominatur[(vel)] appelatur,sed cantorproprieusualis
dicituresse, quiamusicusperartemrecte semperincedit, cantorrectam
aliquociens viam solummodoex usu tenet. Cui ergo cantoremmelius
comparaverim,quam ebrio, qui viam reperitsive arripuerit,sed quo
calle revertatur omnino ignorat; quia et molaris rota discretum
aliquando efficit sonum, sed tamen nescit quid agit, quia est res
inanimata.19
But alas, few musici are found nowadays, but manycantores. There
is a difference between the musicus and the cantor: a musicus is so
namedor called frommusic. One who sings by rote is properlycalled a
cantor, because the musicus always proceeds correctly from knowl-
edge, whereas the cantor sometimes holds to the right path, but only
from habit. The cantor can best be comparedto a drunkenman who
finds or happensuponthe rightway home, but has no idea which street
he took to get there. Even a millstone sometimes makes a distinct
musicalsound, butis unawareof whatit is doing since it is an inanimate
object.
The author goes on to quote Guido as the authority on whom
this idea is based. Actually, Guido's version of the distinction is
much more brief. The comparisons to the drunkard and the
millstone are touches added by intermediaries between Guido
and this version. John of Afflighem cites Guido's original ver-
sion and adds the comparison to the drunkard and the mill-
stone.20 Jerome of Moravia, early in the thirteenth century, has a
version very close to John's.21
After Scholasticism began to affect musical discussions, the
musicus/cantor distinction took on quite different shape. The
musicus in the later treatises is described as one having philo-
sophical knowledge of music, and Boethius rather than Guido is
19Folio1r.
20Johannes AffligemensisDe Musicacumtonario,ed. JosephSmitsvan
Waesberghe, Corpus scriptorumde musica 1, 52.
21Jeronimide MoraviaTractatusde musica, CoussemakerI, 2.
This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:01:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Questions of Terminology 127
cited as auctoritas.22 It is possible therefore to identify the
treatment of the musicus/cantor idea in Anonymous XI as a
twelfth- or thirteenth-century version.
A single unusual term from one of the chant sections of
Anonymous XI corroborates the hypothesis of thirteenth-
century origin for the chant sections and also points to Jerome of
Moravia as the most likely source for that particular section. The
following passage shows the term in context.
Item notandum:cantus est triplex, scilicet naturalis,b duralis, et b
mollis . . . et illi tres cantus subdividunturin septem: quae b duralis
diciturin tres secundumtriag in manu, scilicet gammaut,G sol re ut, gg
sol re ut; naturalisin duos secundumduo CC in manucontenta, scilicet
C fa ut et c sol fa ut; b mollis eciam in duos dividiturcantusprincipales
duo FF in manu contenta .. .23
One should likewise note that there are three hexachords-namely,
natural, hard b, and soft b .... And those three hexachords are
subdivided into seven: the one called hardb is divided into three, as
therearethreeG's in the hand, namely, gammaut, G sol re ut, andg sol
re ut; the naturalis divided into two, as there are two C's containedin
the hand, namely, C fa ut and c sol fa ut; the soft b is also divided into
two mainhexachords,as therearetwo F's containedin the hand ....
Clearly the author uses cantus to mean hexachord. The sec-
tion is considerably longer than the excerpt cited, and at no time
does any other term for hexachord appear except cantus. Cantus
is a very unusual term for hexachord; the common terms during
the thirteenth century are deductio and proprietas. There is one
other theorist, Jerome of Moravia, who uses cantus to mean
hexachord-in fact, Appel states erroneously that he is the only
theorist to use the term in this way.24 We have already seen that
the Anonymous XI version of the musicus/cantor discussion
22For example, Johannes Gallicus, Ritus canendi vetustissimuset novus,
CoussemakerIV, 344.
23Folios 2v.-3r.
24Appel, "Terminologie," 76.
128 MusicTheorySpectrum

points to a concordancewith Jeromeof Moravia;in this case, a

single unusualuse of a term points to the same conclusion.
Studies of terminology, then, can be of considerablehelp in
questions of dating, provenance, and sources for theoretical
writingson music. The terminologyof a treatisecan be studied
by internalcomparisonfor consistency or difference;it can be
comparedto the terminologies and approachesof treatises of
established date and provenance;in some cases, terms can be
identified and placed in an establisheddevelopmentalhistory;
even scribalerrorscan testify to a lapse of time and a change in
terminology;and a single unusualterm can identify a concor-
danceor sourcebeyondquestion. In the case of AnonymousXI,
terminological evidence supports the hypothesis of an early
thirteenth-century originfor the chantportionsof this collection
of writings. Lacking copies of these portions which could be
clearly dated before 1350, the hypothesis still stands convinc-
ingly, I think, on the evidence providedby study of the termi-
nology. The better we understandthe terms, the better we
understandhow early theorists thought and worked, and the
closer we come to understandingthe history of music theory.

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:01:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions