A Note on the Classification of 16th-Century MusicAuthor(s): Egon F. KentonSource: The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Apr., 1952), pp. 202-214Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/739653Accessed: 08/04/2010 22:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

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

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The MusicalQuarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

A NOTE ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF 16TH-CENTURY MUSIC

By EGON F. KENTON

I

HE importance of classification in stylistic studies cannot be over- estimated. Classification is essential not only in order to gain a

perspective of different styles of one period and the historical develop- ment of individual styles and forms. Classification frequently turns out to be a source of other kinds of enlightenment also. It opens up a new

vista, points up essential differences in style, and helps to detect heretofore unnoticed particularities in some style which then would, by not fitting into existing classifications, impel one to further research and to the discovery of unexpected connections and derivations.

However, classification must be well founded and carefully defined because it is the basis of orderly knowledge. Faulty classification may cause more harm than any other error.

This short article takes issue with a new classification proposed by Willi Apel. as early as I938,1 mainly because it came to be incorporated in two widely used reference books, namely, the Harvard Dictionary of Music and the Notation of Polyphonic Music 9oo-1600, both by the same author.

The basis of classification is always a point of view. One may classify music from the point of view of periods (medieval, Baroque), from the point of view of social function (sacred, secular), of texture

(homophonic, polyphonic), of structure (sonata, rondo), etc. In the course of a historical survey we may, for convenience, resort

to some rough-and-ready classification such as vocal-instrumental, yet we would never forget that a classification of this kind is not based on the more subtle differences of style, and that certain types of two

opposed categories may be more nearly related than any other types belonging to the same category.

1 Willi Apel, The Importance of Notation in Solving Problems of Early Music, in Papers . . . of the American Musicological Society . . . 1938, 51-61.

202

A Note on the Classification of I6th-Century Music

Apel recognizes this fact, but he proposes to substitute for the broad vocal-instrumental classification one based on the difference between notations as solo and ensemble music.2 Even at first glance this classification seems to be hardly less vague than the one he wishes to supplant, based as it is on the difference between modes of execution. However, on closer scrutiny, it will be found that, while the former classification "results frequently in a separation of closely connected styles" (Apel's words), the proposed new classification leads to a separation of identical pieces, sometimes appearing in soloistic, some- times in "ensemble" setting, but often appearing in both.

To save space, I will forego quoting Apel's exposition and refer the reader to pp. 59-61 of the cited paper and pp. xx-xxii of the Introduction to Notation. At the latter place, Apel states that "his- torically, score arrangement is the earliest method of writing used for polyphonic music," and that "score arrangement gave way to part arrangement in the second quarter of the thirteenth century."3 How- ever, he does not mention the fact that the reasons for this change were purely practical ones, i.e., that even three singers were crowded when singing from a score and that valuable space was saved by writing down the few notes of the tenor on one staff, while, in score, the tenor part would need as many staves as the much longer upper parts. The two notations were not evolved because of the necessity of differentiating between polyphonic ensemble and polyphonic solo styles.

One important species of I6th-century music comprises fantasias, ricercari, and canzoni. It was a general custom of the period to perform this species either on a keyboard instrument or with an ensemble of melody instruments. Examples abound. The Fantaisies a 3, 4, 5 et 6 parties by Frangois Eustache Du Caurroy were published by Ballard in I6IO in part-books, but while some of them (such as Fantaisie No. 27) can hardly be performed on the organ, there is evidence that the composer played some of them on the organ of the Sainte Chapelle. Likewise, the Vingt-quatre fantaisies a 4 disposees suivant l'ordre des

2 Op. cit., 60; The Notation of Polyphonic Music oo-600oo, Cambridge, Mass., 1944, p. xxif; The Harvard Dictionary of Music, Cambridge, Mass., I945, article Ensemble, p. 245. In his introduction to the textbook on notation, Apel changes the word solo to soloist. We shall return to this point. -It will be obvious that the following observations are applicable not to the classification of notations, qua notations, but only to the classification of music.

3 Exceptions will be found. Bukofzer cites the hymn O redemptor (Egerton MS 3307, No. 9), two four-part stanzas of which are notated in score on four separate staves. The date is c. I426. See Manfred F. Bukofzer, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Music, New York, 1950, 136.

203

The Musical Quarterly

XII modes by Charles Guillet were published in part-books only (also by Ballard and in I60o), but in his dedication of the work to Charles de Fonsecque, Guillet reminds his patron of the latter's "tel plaisir qu'apres en avoir ouy maintes fois sonner, et a moi votre organiste [roman letters mine], encore en donneriez vous comme insatiable." Both works had been composed most probably towards the end of the 16th century, as their conservative style tends to show.

The same practice prevailed in Tudor England. The innumerable examples of polyphonic instrumental music (both of the cantus-firmus and of the free type) have been preserved in part-books as well as in keyboard and lute tablatures.

Needless to say, the same music appears with some modifications in the several notations, owing to the particular idiom of the performing vehicle. Thus, we find Taverner's In nomine in a vocal version in Tudor Church Music, Vol. I (based on B. M. MSS Add. 17802, 17803, I7805, and Oxford Bodl. MS e 5), in John Day's Certaine Notes (printed in Tudor Church Music, Vol. III, I99) and in B. M. MS Add. 30480-83; in instrumental part-books (Bodl. Music School MS 26356-60 [D 212-216] and in B. M. MS Add. 3I390);4 in the

keyboard notation of Thomas Mulliner; in another, highly florid version for keyboard in a Christ Church MS;5 in lute tablature (Cambridge University MS Dd II-II), etc. The same can be said of Parsons's In nomine for consort; and although in the rather slipshod intabulation for cittern (Cambridge University MS Dd V-7) the long rhythmic values give way to short strummed notes as the piece progresses, the music is the same as in the part-book version of N. Y. Drexel MS 4I80-85. (Ex. ia and ib. The notes of the plainsong Gloria tibi Trinitas are marked with a +.)

Ex. la l+ S + +

f r rFr rrc. PO t r r Jr r

i s ^ i n ] I M e c c_ . J 'l "1 ! i J I ; IL- ' M ;M, J~ C'- M ' 'Y !" -r-^uuu r rucr u u a X crrur T 9 4 Cf. Gustave Reese, The Origin of the English In Nomine, in Journal of the

American Musicological Society, II (1949), iof. 5 This information is given by Margaret Glyn in her Preface to Early English

Organ Music (London, 1939) without naming the source more precisely.

204

A Note on the Classification of I6th Century Music

b J j.I

15^,-w- - :t +JJM-+ rj ̂ j J i "J i j ':

? - - rFrr ':rrrre r *C - m ft

-'9b'- ?. ? r-'-4 ^ ? ^ d r Dowland's Lachrymae are of course instrumental arrangements of

his lute-song Flow my tears, but it seems reasonably certain that many of the pieces included in such keyboard collections as the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book existed also in part-versions for ensembles or in lute tablatures, and that even earlier Tudor music was performed in several ways and thus existed in different notations.

The situation was no different in Italy. Marco Antonio da Bologna's ricercari are intabulated for the organ. Cavazzoni's diverse compositions were published as "intavolatura per organo" (I542); Willaert's three- part compositions published in 1552 are called "motetta," but those published in I559 are "appropriati per cantare et sonare d'ogni sorte di strumenti," as are those of Jacques Buus (I547). The writer is inclined to believe that, in the I6th century, specific instrumental idioms were still too rudimentary to permit exclusion of either ensemble or solo performance of any given piece of music, and that it is not only the notation that makes the works of Cavazzoni or Diruta "soloist music."

A close study of I6th-century instrumental music will reveal two main driving forces shaping its meteoric development from Spinacino's and Dalza's "ricercari" (I507-08) to Giovanni Gabrieli's and Fresco- baldi's ricercari and canzoni (1587, I597 and 1628, I634, respectively) .

One was experimentation in structure, shown most dramatically in the works of Jacques Buus, Giovanni Gabrieli, and Frescobaldi. The other was improvisation, seen only in the works published in soloistic notation. What seems to be unacceptable is Apel's categorical statement that "ensemble performance calls for strict adherence to the music as written,"7 and that only the solo performer is left free to insert impro-

6From the point of view of function, we may lump these stylistically widely divergent types together for this comparison. After all, the first were "tastar de corde" for the "ricercar dietro," and many of the second served equally as intro- duction -to a motet, to a Mass, or to part of a Mass. In this respect chorale preludes belong to the same category.

7 Harvard Dictionary, p. 245.

205

206 The Musical Quarterly

vised coloraturas or divisions. We have quite a few manuals of the time

treating of coloratura (passaggi, diminuire),8 but even if we concede the point that the authors of these manuals had primarily -or exclu-

sively - solo vocal improvisation in mind, we still have the best possible information about an identical practice in ensemble music, both vocal and instrumental.

I need not dwell here on the well-known anecdote about Allegri's Miserere9 or the contemporary performances of Palestrina's vocal ensemble music by the Sistine Chapel, but will limit myself to two

examples of the theory and practice of improvisation in instrumental ensemble music.

Mersenne gives a Phantasia 5 partium ab Henrico luniore compo- sita,'0 with a second version of the superius showing one possibility of

Ex. 2 a

{9;^ : r irr[rrJ r JJ f - b rl

L4 1 0- m

&brerFi ,.,il^ ^Pfif^i'f ........~~~~~^*P^ iBE improvisation in instrumental ensemble music (Ex. 2a and 2b). His note on the example follows:

Haec autem diminutio 30 mensuris This diminution corresponds to 30 primae partis Superioris respondet, semibreves of the first part of the ex qua facile concludas qua ratione treble, and from this you may easily partes reliquae diminui possint aut draw your conclusions as to the ratio debeant.11 in which the other parts may or

should make diminutions.

8 Listed in Ernst Ferand, Die Improvisation in der Musik, Ziirich, I938, p. 262.

E.g., Girolamo della Casa: II vero modo di diminuir . . ., 1584; Richardo Rogniono: Passaggi per potersi essercitare nel diminuire, 1592; Giov. Batt. Bovicelli: Regole, passaggi di musica, 1593; Giov. Luca Conforto: Breve e facile maniera d'essercitarsi . . . a far passaggi, 1593?; Giov. Bassano: Ricercate, Passaggi e Cadentie . . ., 1598.

9 Emperor Leopold's disappointment in the lack of abbellimenti in the author- ized copy of the work Pope Urban VIII had sent him.

10 The reader may look forward to interesting biographical and bibliographical data on this little known composer, to be published in the Revue de Musicologie by Francois Lesure.

1 Marin Mersenne, Harmonicorum Instrumentorum Libri IV, Paris (1636), fol. 43. To be sure, both Mersenne's book and Henri's "Phantasia" were written in the early I7th century. However, Mersenne only corroborates a practice already codified in the Italian manuals listed in note 8.

A Note on the Classification of i6th-Century Music

This document, representative of a number of others, leaves no doubt about the practice of the period and proves that ensemble music did not call for strict adherence to the printed part. It follows that ensemble music may share in the characteristics assigned to such "soloistic" types as organ or lute music, at least in the I6th century.

These forces, experimentation and improvisation, bind I6th-century ensemble, keyboard, and lute music together, and their separation on the ground of notation is consequently arbitrary.

Claudio Merulo published in 1592 a collection of Canzoni d'intavo- latura d'organo a quattro voci, eight of which correspond to our present definition of canzoni francesi. They were reprinted in I94I by Paul Pidoux, who hailed them as perfect examples of solo music, since "every single note of the ornamentation is printed, with the utmost care as to the precise rhythm of trills, grace notes, and passages ...2 Two years after the publication of this modern reprint, Benvenuto Disertori an- nounced his discovery, in the Biblioteca Capitolare in Verona, of four part-books containing four of Merulo's eight canzoni mentioned above, set for ensemble.13 Aside from the soloistic embellishments-never notated, to the best of our knowledge, in ensemble settings - the music is identical in the two settings (Ex. 3a and 3b).

Ex.3 a

12p. Pidoux, Introduction to Canzoni d'intavolatura d'organo di Claudio Merulo, Kassel, 1941.

13 B. Disertori, Le canzoni strumentali da sonar a quattro di Claudio Merulo, in Rivista Musicale Italiana, XLVII (1943), 305.

207

The Musical Quarterly

''

?

p ^ ^ n "

i t r rrc

r" ' "' "

i i r i F l ji " ,'F r

Other solo versions of Merulo's canzoni are one intabulated for

lute, in Terzi's Intavolatura di liuto (I593), and another given by Mareschall (1639) in organ tablature.

Solo and ensemble versions of identical pieces, then, differ only in idiom, and their style - in the broader sense, having reference to more than suitability to a performing medium - is essentially the same.

Naturally, it is not because of their different media that we must

classify a keyboard toccata, a lute prelude, or a ricercare by Willaert or Padovano as separate types, but because their style - in the sense

given this term by Guido Adler - is different. We must, however, classify Willaert's and Padovano's ensemble and "organ" ricercari to-

gether with those of Banchieri, Canale, Giovanni Gabrieli, Maschera, Spongia, etc., whether in part-books or organ tablature, or with those of Di Macque in score. For it would seem that the difference between music notated in part-books and intabulated, compared to the dif- ference between thematic material, technique of composition, texture and structure in different works, regardless of notation, is not important enough to warrant the adoption of Apel's proposed classification. A modern analogy might be seen in the lumping together of Beethoven's

early and late piano sonatas in one category, and the early and late

string quartets in another. This would certainly be unsatisfactory from the point of view of style, which, after all, seems to be the essentially "musical" point of view.

The very term "soloist" or "soloistic" seems objectionable when

applied to 16th-century music. One tends to associate the term with later music. But even if we limit ourselves to the i6th century, we would designate as soloist music the concerto for trumpet by Scipione Bargagli (1587, and representing apparently the first use of the term

208

A Note on the Classification of i6th-Century Music

concerto for a work for one instrument with ripieno14 or else the varia- tions of Ortiz for one gamba with the ripieno of a cembalo.

II

The importance of classification was of course recognized by the earliest theorists. However, until about the early I7th century their ideas were governed by tradition, which compels us to trace back most of their statements to Boethius. I need not quote this classification or

specific examples of its variants as they appear up to c. I6oo, since the readers of this periodical have had the opportunity to see both

quite recently.15

What should be emphasized rather than the classification itself is its point of view. This point of view, established for centuries by Boethius, was made plain by Pietzsch.l6 Pietzsch reminds us that Boethius treats of music within the frame of the quadrivium as of the science of "multitudo per aliquid," subordinated to arithmetic, the science of "multitudo per se." These terms may be freely translated as

"diversity, applied" and "diversity, pure." Pietzsch goes on to explain that Boethius, as a rational theorist, did not care about the sensuous element of musical sound, or about the enjoyment of the sound-

phenomenon, but was concerned solely with the exploration of the

primary cause of sound, based, according to ancient theory, on a

relationship of arithmetical numbers.1 The latter, however, are per- ceptible only to the "ratio" (reason), not to the sense of hearing, which is open to manifold errors. Even though the ear perceives the sound, and this perception might delight the senses, it is only the mind that can judge the importance of the sound, its kind and quality. Boethius's classification thus covers only the field of a purely speculative examination of musical material.

A different, though contemporary, point of view appears in the famous letter of Theodoric to Boethius, the authorship of which is

14According to Fetis. The work was published in Trattanimenti ossia diverti- menti da suonare, in Venice. Eitner quotes the information, but states that he did not see this print.

15 Ernest T. Ferand, "Sodaine and Unexpected" Music in the Renaissance, in The Musical Quarterly, XXXVII (I95I), I0.

16 Gerhard Pietzsch, Die Klassifikation der Musik von Boethius bis Ugolino von Orvieto, Halle, I929, 42ff.

17 Cf. St. Augustine, De Beata Vita, Liber II, Cap. xiv, De ordinibus, 41, Musica et poetica. (Migne, Patr. lat., XXXII, col. Io03.)

209

The Musical Quarterly

generally ascribed to Cassiodorus.18 In this letter, which Cassiodorus is

supposed to have written in his youth (between the fall of 506 and

51 ), to the older Boethius, whom he highly respected, a new thought appears: effectus musicae. To be sure, Cassiodorus did not mean by this term what Schopenhauer, or Hanslick, or others enlarged upon thirteen centuries later. He was concerned with the practical use of the effect of music in Christian ritual. His idea also established a

tradition, first seen perhaps in the writings of Regino of Priim. Needless to say, all this is beyond the scope of our quest, and is mentioned only in order to show the oldest points of view serving as basis for the classification of music.

It is worthy of mention that there were fearless souls who dared to express opinions contrary to these traditions-taught in school almost like religious dogmas- and to maintain them in the face of storms of protest. One was Ramis de Pareja, an inquisitive scholar who tried his hand at classification as well:

Harmoniam atque musicam idem Many believe harmony and music esse multi credunt, verum nos longe to be identical, but we have felt dif- aliter sentimus. Ex quorundam enim ferently about it for a long time. musicorum sententiis longa investiga- After a long investigation of the opin- tione collegium harmoniam concor- ions of certain musicians we believe dium vocum esse commixtionem, mu- harmony to be the body of concords, sicam vero ipsius concordiae rationem the mixture of the parts; music, how- sive perpensam et subtilem cum ra- ever, to be the theory of this concord tione indaginem.19 and its exactly systematic research.

And two generations later Glareanus- possessed of the same revo-

lutionary spirit as was Galileo Galilei - dared to satirize the classical

explanations of the traditional seven strings by the analogy of the seven

planets; of the four strings by that of the four elements; of the three

strings by that of the three seasons (sic!). He declared flatly that "these

analogies are only subterfuges of our ignorance; my opinion: octave

species, tetrachord, trichord."20

Most of the medieval theorists kept to the beaten path and occa-

sionally resorted to scientific hocus-pocus in order to convince their readers that the traditional classification was borne out by exact science, or else to assuage their uneasy consciences. Thus, as late as 1496,

18 Pietzsch, op. cit., 46. 19 Musica Practica Rami de Pareja, ed. by J. Wolf, in Sammelbiinde der inter-

nationalen Musikgesellschaft, Beiheft II (1901), 3, I. 20 Glareani Dodekachordon, Basle (I547), ed. by P. Bohn, in Publikationen

alterer praktischer und theoretischer Musikwerke, I888, I, ii.

210

A Note on the Classification of i6th-Century Music

Franchino Gafori surrounds his classification with emblems and num- bers. Edouard Perrin, in describing a copy of the 15I2 edition of Gafori's Angelicum ac divinum opus musice, writes: "One is well aware that the representation of these symbols at the beginning of the work reflects the need for bluff and the love of complication on the

part of the musicians and theorists of this era . . .,21

The sensitive John Dowland makes a half-hearted attempt at cut-

ting out all this bluff by "affecting shortnesse, the mother of truth,"22 but -vacillating character that he is - he soon returns to the safe haven of Boethius.

"The need for bluff" did not cease, and the scales did not fall from the eyes of musicians until they became "style-conscious" in the

early I7th century. The seconda prattica, the necessity of what might be called bilingualism in music, made composers as well as theorists aware of the fact that style is a most important feature of music.23 They awoke to the importance of style as soon as they had to change their own style deliberately when they composed liturgical music. Canzoni

francesi (in stile antico) were played as late as the early I7th century in liturgical services. Not so with the stile rappresentativo. This style, as well as the related stile concitato, seemed to their first composers totally unsuited for sacred service, and even though true monody appears as early as I610 in the sacred music of Quagliati (Affetti amorosi spirituali) and Monteverdi (Sanctissimae Virginis Missa senis vocibus . . . ac vesperae pluribus decantandae, i.e., 12 motets24), "bilingualism" remains in existence as a dual practice in the works of Italian as well as German composers throughout the i7th century. In fact, this double standard is observed through the i8th and Igth centuries, the Romantic era having accentuated the "other-worldliness" of church music. A deep-rooted feeling for the classification of music from the point of view of sacred or secular style dates from the early I7th century25 and survives in Guido Adler's statement: "Our entire

21 E. Perrin, Note de bibliographie musicale: Aaron et Gafori (XVe siecle), in La Revue Musicale, VI (I906), 456.

22 In the preface of his translation of Ornithoparcus's Micrologus (i609). 23 Cf. M. F. Bukofzer, Music in the Baroque Era, New York, 1947, 64. 24 Published by Ricciardo Amadino in Venice (not in Mantua, as Bukofzer

states, loc. cit., 65). 25 Cf. the "Declaration" of Monteverdi's brother Giulio Cesare, printed at the

end of Claudio's Scherzi musicali (I607): "This my brother said, not only because of his responsibility for both church and chamber music . . ." Quoted in Oliver Strunk, Source Readings in Music History, New York, I950, 406.

211

The Musical Quarterly

musical art rests on two foundations: secular and sacred music."26

By the 2oth century, to be sure, the feeling of compulsion with regard to bilingualism became somewhat attenuated. Stravinsky com- posed his Mass in his seconda (?) prattica, as did Kodaly his Pange lingua setting. However, sacred music does not loom as large in the minds of composers in the 20th century as it did in the I7th. Style- consciousness, on the other hand, looms larger. Let us see, then, if style cannot be made a working basis for the classification of music, old and new.

In determining the style of any given musical work we examine its structure, texture, harmony, melody, rhythm, ornamentation, mode of performance, and function - in approximately that order. The structure of the piece will naturally place it in one of two categories, according to whether that structure is internal (developed out of the musical material itself) or external (given by the form of a text). The old vocal-instrumental division is thus justified from the point of view of style, and borderline cases and exceptions are easily deter- minable. Further subdivisions of vocal music will also naturally suggest themselves on the grounds of strophic and refrain forms or through- composition, etc., on the one hand, or forms employing musical artifices, such as isorhythmic, canonic, fugal, cantus-firmus, point-of-imitation, etc., on the other. In instrumental music our first care will be to find out whether the piece in question has a set form or is free. We call the first category composed, the second improvised or rhapsodic. Here is the old but still valid distinction between compositio and sortisatio, i.e., between contrapunctus artificiosus and extemporalis (naturalis).27 In the first category, musical works will fall into different classes on the basis of their form; in doubtful cases their lineage, or traces of principles (repetition, recapitulation, variation, development, transition- retransition, etc.), will show the proper classification. In the second category individual descriptions will be necessary.

III

Looking at the problem from the standpoint of notation, we find that changes in notation served practical purposes; considerations of a stylistic nature seldom entered into experiments or decisions. The

26 G. Adler, Der Stil in der Musik, I, Leipzig, 191 , 139. 27 Cf. Ferand, "Sodaine and Unexpected" Music . .., 22.

212

A Note on the Classification of I6th-Century Music

change from neumes to note shapes placed on lines served to indicate

precise pitch or intervals. Mensural notation served the practical pur- pose of indicating (relatively) precise duration. The next innovation, chronologically, is tablature notation.28 This notation has, primarily, the practical purpose of enabling the player to locate the position his

fingers must touch on the finger- or keyboard in order to produce any given sound. The German term Griffnotation expresses this admirably. The strongest proofs are given by such tablatures as a) the alphabet tablatures, b) the lyra-way notation, and c) the different modem systems.29 However, when the tablature became too difficult for the

average musician, the pieces were published en musique, i.e., in ordi-

nary keyboard notation, and tablatures fell into disuse.30 Nevertheless, as late as I720, Bach reverted to this system in his Orgelbiichlein and, as Apel himself states, he did so "when there was not sufficient space on the page to complete the piece in ordinary staff notation."31 The ne plus ultra indeed of being practical!

As for the readopted score-writing, the practical purpose i6th-cen-

tury composers had before their eyes was:

... the difficulty that arises in accommodating such a part to the continuous modulation of the motet: for it is one thing to compose all the parts at once and another to add a third part to two that are given, which is a very difficult thing.. .32

To be sure, "this change in the method of notating music coincides with a momentous change in the technique [italics mine] of composi- tion."33 However, the new method of notation still had a purely practical aim, and composers resorted to this method much earlier also if, for example, the intended vehicle warranted its use. In discussing

28 Appearing in Europe for the first time (to our present knowledge) in B. M. MS. Add. 28550, the so-called Robertsbridge Codex of c. I325, this notation was employed in the Far East in ancient times, using Chinese transcription of Sanscrit symbols used in India. (Cf. Curt Sachs, The Rise of Music in the Ancient World, East and West, New York, 1943, I44.)

29 Such as those seen in a) Carlo Milanuzzi's Ariose vaghezze da cantarsi, 1624; b) John Playford's Musical Banquet, I65I; and c) several tablatures for ukulele and guitar.

30 Cf. the music of Denis Gaultier mise en musique by the lutenist Perrine. (Bukofzer, op. cit., I68.)

31 Harvard Dictionary, 728, art. Tablature.

32Zarlino, Istituzioni harmoniche, 1558, III, 64, quoted in Edward Lowinsky, On the Use of Scores by Sixteenth-Century Musicians, in Journal of the American Musicological Society, I (I948), 2of.

33 Loc. cit.

213

The Musical Quarterly

a recently rediscovered manuscript, Plamenac remarks that "there would have been no justification for the use of score notation if the music was to be entrusted to two different instruments."34

It seems neither logical nor consistent to adopt notation, an emi-

nently practical means of preserving and communicating music, as the basis for differentiating between styles. Also, our conscience may be clear that, in keeping the old vocal-instrumental division, we are neither slaves of tradition nor dupes of hocus-pocus.

34 Dragan Plamenac, Keyboard Music of the 14th Century in Codex Faenza 117, in Journal of the American Musicological Society, IV (I951), I85.

214