To What Extent Was Notre Dame Central to the Development of Polyphony

Lucie Chapman lc0166

To what extent was Notre Dame central to the development of polyphony, or is the claim a modern

construct, underplaying the role of other institutions and repertoires.

Notre Dame Polyphony is often regarded as ‘the first great ‘classical’ flowering of Western art music’1 due

to its development of harmony, counterpoint styles and mensural notation. However such progressions are

no more significant than those from institutions and repertoires of previous centuries, as without them the

styles of Notre Dame, as recorded in the Magus Liber Organi would not have come about. Due to the

integral role of oral tradition within medieval music we cannot know whether Notre Dame (and indeed all

other institutions and repertoires) specifically developed polyphony in this way or instead were ‘merely’

the first written recordings. However, the unreliability this suggests is far outweighed by Notre Dame’s

invaluable development of modal rhythmic notation. This has enabled musicologists to transcribe the

music into modern notation in turn enabling more understanding a close analysis. Thus it could be right to

say from a modern viewpoint that the writings of Notre Dame are central to understanding medieval

organum without underplaying the role of other institutions and repertoires, such as Guido of Arezzo and

Aquitainian organum, in the actual development of polyphony.

Claiming Notre Dame Style as the beginning of ‘polyphonic composition in the modern sense’2 is not

completely fallible due to its significant development of rhythmic modes, harmonic and counterpoint

development, all of which are detailed in Johannes de Garlandia’s treatise (De Mensurabili Musica c.1240)

and the Vatican Organum Treatise (c.1250). Furthermore they are illustrated in the 13th century liturgical

collection of chant and responsorial settings coined the ‘Great Book of Organum’ (Magnus Liber Organi) by

Anonymous IV in his treatise De Mensuris et Discantu. The three versions of the Magnus Liber (W1, W2 and

F) which date from 13th to 14th century and were written for the Office and Mass, have been attributed by

Anonymous IV to Leoninus ‘the best creator of organum’ and ‘Perotinus the Great, who ‘abbreviated’ it and

made many better substitute sections...because he was the best composer of discant’3. The most significant

feature of Notre Dame Polyphony is the development from free to modal rhythm which gives clear

indication of rhythmic value, enabling accurate transcription and sight-reading. The most frequently used

rhythmic modes are the trochaic (mode 1 ), dactylic (mode 3 ) and spondaic (mode 5 ). It is

interesting that these rhythmic patterns relate closely to natural speaking and poetic rhythm highlighting

the importance of the texts and word-setting in Notre Dame polyphony.

1 Richard, Taruskin, Music from the Earliest Notations to the Sixteenth Century, ‘The Oxford History of Western Music Volume 1’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) p171

2 Edward, Roesner, ‘Who ‘Made’ the Magnus Liber?’ Early Music History 20 (United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2007) p232

3 Anonymous IV quote

Lucie Chapman lc0166

The use of mensural rhythm is significant to the progression of polyphony as it distinguishes the three

styles of Notre Dame counterpoint: Organum per se (free rhythm with no mensural notation), Copula

(modal rhythm above the plainsong set to long notes in the tenor) and Discant (note-against-note modal

rhythmic writing in all voices). In addition the Magnus Liber illustrates progressions in harmonic and

melodic practice which edge towards a greater sense of tonal harmony and autonomy of individual

melodic lines. The Vatican Organum Treatise sets out ‘rules’ for the polyphony of Notre Dame: contrary

motion; opening and closing clausulae with a consonance; dissonances before final consonance and

prohibition of parallel consonances (eg 5th and 8th). Further characteristics include longer melismas (helping

to increase melodic autonomy); use of repetition; sequences; parallel dissonances and voice changing.

Although not all exclusive to Notre Dame, (highlighting the importance of preceding organum) the

characteristics were used more frequently and in a more developed manner through the development of

multiple voice writing (up until now organum was 2 part). The Alleluya Posui Adiutorium4 attributed to

Perotinus clearly exemplifies the features of Notre Dame Organum. The three-part chant setting

interchanges between Copula, Discant and Organum styles, and uses the stylistic features listed above to

create melodic and harmonic interest.

Example 2: Copula style and contrary motion Example 3: Discant style and voice-changing

During the 12th and 13th centuries Paris was the intellectual and economic centre of Europe which

encouraged foreign scholars and intellectuals to visit. Notre Dame Cathedral itself was important in

encouraging scholarship, creating Episcopal schools since 6th century and helping to establish Universitas

Societas Magistorum Discipulorumque (Paris Sorbonne University) passed by a papal bull in 1215.

Therefore it is not surprising that the Notre Dame style was widespread (eg W1 version of the Magnus

Liber was compiled in St. Andrews, Scotland). Through the development of mensural notation, Notre Dame

Polyphony encouraged a move away from organum per se enabling greater harmonic, melodic and

rhythmic interest giving way for the development of the Renaissance madrigal and motet.

4 Edward, Roesner, ‘Le Magnus Liber Organi de Notre Dame de Paris Volume 1’, Le Quadrupla et Tripla de Paris (Les Remparts: Éditions de l'Oiseau-Lyre, 1993) p189-94

Lucie Chapman lc0166The problem with viewing Notre Dame Style as central to the development of polyphony not only

underplays the role of other institutions and repertoires, but fails to recognise the problems which

surround the Magnus Liber and thus question its reliability as a pivotal moment in music history. The lack

of primary sources and uncertainty surrounding Anonymous IV’s writings do not help the debate over who

wrote the Magnus Liber and the order in which the three versions were written. Roesner and Taruskin

both point out the difficulty of translating Anonymous IV’s Mesuris et Discantu correctly (eg abbreviavit

means abbreviated, edited and written down, all of which give different meanings to Perotinus’ role in

Notre Dame organum). Furthermore Anonymous IV’s references to the Magnus Liber date a century after

the manuscript was written as a ‘rhetoric gesture’5 which he states is secondum quod dicebatur (hearsay6)

as part of his historical narrative of mensural notation. Although this seems to degrade the importance of

the Magnus Liber it is important to recognise that Anonymous IV’s writings seem to be a developed version

of Garlandia’s treatise and thus imply its validity. Craig Wright7 attributes Anonymous IV’s Leoninus to

Leonius the poet and canon active in Notre Dame c.1150-1202. He cites signatures from Cathedral

documents (including a contract indicating how much wine the chapter was due!8) and similarities between

Leonius’ poetry and the Magnus Liber’s text (eg dactylic foot and rhythmic modes) as proof for his

argument. However his argument is unreliable for his connections are tenuous (he argues the name

Leonius to be a nickname for Leoninus, none of Leonius’ fairly well-known poetry is used in the Magnus

Liber and no references are made to Leonius as a composer) and he ignores the crucial fact that the

Magnus Liber (as we know it today) was not actually written until after Leonius’ lifetime. Wright, like

Anonymous IV, exemplifies society’s desire to attribute great developments with historical figures (ie

Classical/Romantic crossover –Beethoven) leading to what Taruskin coins a ‘creation myth’9. The

importance of oral tradition during the medieval period encourages the idea that the three versions of the

Magnus Liber and indeed other repertoires of this time are in fact the collective composition of ‘the

organista, the singer and the scribe’10. Roesner offers a close analysis of ‘Alleluia, Adorabo ad Templum’

and highlights the importance of the musically informed scribe in changing settings as shown in example 1

where the scribe of W2 shortened the clausula because there was no room left on the page.

5 Edward, Roesner, ‘Who ‘Made’ the Magnus Liber?’ 6 ibid., p2897 Craig, Wright, ‘Leoninus, Poet and Musician’, Journal of the American Musicological Society 39 (United States of America:

University California Press, 1986)8 ibid., p109 Taruskin, op. cit., p17410 Edward, Roesner, ‘Who ‘Made’ the Magnus Liber?’

Lucie Chapman lc0166Example 5 11

Berger similarly highlights the significance of oral tradition and notes the Magnus Liber’s importance as a

mnemonic tool. Here she touches upon the greatest significance of the Magnus Liber and Notre Dame

treatises as they were the first writings that could be understood from the score without prior knowledge

due to the mensural notation. Despite the questionability of the Magnus Liber’s origins, the very fact that it

can be clearly read and transcribed makes it a central and invaluable source to any musicologist.

While the works of Notre Dame are significant to our understanding of medieval organum, the polyphonic

styles are clearly developed from earlier schools which all make significant changes in the development of

polyphony as a whole. It is clear that the Notre Dame Style was greatly influenced by Aquitaine polyphony

and the Codex Calixtinus. It was from Aquitaine polyphony that the distinction between Discant and

Organum developed. The Aquitaine 12th century manuscripts of non-liturgical songs (known as versus)

collected in Limoges at St. Martial exemplify two development polyphonic styles: Melismatic (in which the

top voice sings melismatically over long notes of the lower voice) and Note-Against-Note style (mostly

syllabic which all voices moving homophonically). Similar styles (although perhaps a little more free-

composed) are illustrated in the Codex Calixtinus (c.1140) which came from Saint ‘Iago di Compostela. It is

clear how the three Notre Dame Styles evolved from this organum thus indicating their equal importance

in the development of polyphony. Similarly Aquitaine and Calixtinus were influenced by innovatory styles

beforehand, highlighting the inability to declare one aspect more central than another to the development

of polyphony, for they are all inextricably linked. The earliest known music treatise (which Roesner equals

in importance to the Magnus Liber for establishing Gregorian chant as the centre of 9th century liturgical

song12) is the Musica Enchiriadis thought to have been written by Hucbald of St. Amand. Using Daseian

notation it sets out rules to avoid the tritone and characteristics of ending and beginning in unison (which

adds complexity to the parallel movement) and the idea of joining tetrachords. The Cologne treatise

(c900), however, abandoned such rigid rules by allowing exceptions. It is this treatise which greatly

impacted the work of Guido of Arezzo whose development of pitch notation matches in significance to

Notre Dame’s mensural notation in musicological understanding of polyphonic development. Furthermore

Guido introduced principles which became the features of 11th century polyphony and can be seen in the

Winchester Tropers (early 11th century liturgical chant book) and Chatres manuscripts which founded the

New Style Organum.

11 Edward Roesner, ‘Who ‘Made’ the Magnus Liber?, p24212 ibid., p232

Lucie Chapman lc0166

Example 6: Alleluia, Angelus Domini from

the Winchester Troper showing

traditional and new features of

Guidonian techniques13

1. Parallel 4th movement

2. Organum suspensum (allowing

the vox principalis above the vox

organalis as long as the vox organalis remains on the same note)

3. Cadential extension

4. Extension of the boundary note beyond the tetrachord of which it began

5. Occursus (crossing of voice parts)

It is the greater melodic interest and harmonic exploration that influenced the development of Melismatic

and Note-Against-Note style which thus shaped the Notre Dame Styles. As a result, it is unfair to assert

Notre Dame as central to the advancement of polyphony. Instead it is of equal importance, as were it not

for the preceding polyphonic progressions Notre Dame Style would not have existed.

It is clear that Notre Dame had a significant role in the development of polyphony by furthering harmonic

practices, counterpoint styles and introducing mensural notation, all of which impacted upon the music of

the Renaissance which followed. However it is no more influential to the development of polyphony than

the institutions and repertoires that preceded it, who equally established innovatory polyphonic

characteristics of their time. What is more significant about Notre Dame polyphony (and equally Guido’s

development of pitch-notation which also enabled this) is that it allows musicologists to clearly transcribe

music into current notation and understand the development of polyphony in a clearer, more accurate

manner.

Word Count: 1,996

13 Fritz, Reckow, et. al, ‘Organum’, Grove Music Online (accessed 4th November 2010) www.oxfordmusiconline.com