<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf8'?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.1 20151215//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/archiving/1.1/JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article dtd-version="1.1" article-type="book-review">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-id>TMR</journal-id>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>The Medieval Review</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
      <issn pub-type="epub">1096-746X</issn>
      <publisher>
        <publisher-name>Indiana University</publisher-name>
      </publisher>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">14.08.08</article-id>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>14.08.08, Meyer and Lobrichon, eds., Tractatus de Musica (Jan Herlinger)</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name>
            <surname>Herlinger</surname>
            <given-names/>
          </name>
          <aff>Louisiana State University; University of Alabama</aff>
          <address>
            <email>janh@lsu.edu</email>
          </address>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date publication-format="epub" date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2014">
        <year>2014</year>
      </pub-date>
      <product product-type="book">
        <person-group>
          <name>
            <surname>Meyer, Christian and Guy Lobrichon</surname>
            <given-names/>
          </name>
        </person-group>
        <source>Hieronymi de Moravia: Tractatus de Musica, Corpus Christianorum 250</source>
        <year iso-8601-date="2012">2012</year>
        <publisher-loc>Turnhout</publisher-loc>
        <publisher-name>Brepols</publisher-name>
        <page-range>Pp. 280</page-range>
        <price>€185.00 (hardback)</price>
        <isbn>978-2-503-54210-2 (hardback)</isbn>
      </product>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright 2014 Trustees of Indiana University. Indiana University provides the information contained in this file for non-commercial, personal, or research use only. All other use, including but not limited to commercial or scholarly reproductions, redistribution, publication or transmission, whether by electronic means or otherwise, without prior written permission of the copyright holder is strictly prohibited.</copyright-statement>
      </permissions>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <p> The treatise on music of the Dominican friar Jerome of Moravia or Moray--it is
               uncertain whether the toponym refers to the area of central Europe or the Scottish
               locality--is a comprehensive study of music theory dating from the last quarter of
               the thirteenth century. It consists of a prologue and twenty-eight chapters devoted
               to the philosophy of music (chapters 1-9), its fundamentals (chapters 10-15),
               arithmetic and its musical applications (chapters 16 and 17), bells (chapter 18),
               division of the monochord (chapter 19), ecclesiastical chant (chapters 20-25), the
               composition and notation of polyphony (chapter 26), ancient Greek music theory
               (chapter 27), and the tuning and technique of stringed instruments (chapter 28). It
               fills its only source: Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale MS Latin 16663. [1] Scholars
               have been aware of it since 1828, when François-Louis Perne published in the <italic>Revue musicale</italic> a lengthy study (with French translation) of Jerome's
               chapter 28. It has proven valuable not only for its discussion of organology but for
               its treatments of plainchant, discant (the simultaneous combination of melodies), and
                  <italic>musica ficta</italic> (accidentals--i.e., sharps and flats--used, but
               inconsistently notated, in medieval music); of the greatest interest, however, has
               been the evidence it presents concerning the development of rhythmic notation, which
               in Jerome's time was at a crucial stage, approaching a truly mensural notation in
               which the durations of notes would be indicated almost as precisely as in today's
               musical notation. Jerome's chapter 26 is a small anthology of writings (<italic>positiones</italic>) on polyphony and the notation of rhythm—including, first, an
               anonymous text believed to be the earliest treatment of the notational system called
               "modal" (a system depending on the repetition of characteristic rhythmic figures);
               second, a more extensive treatment of that system (ascribed to John of Garland) that
               provided the basis for several later treatments; third, the most highly developed
               treatment of the system (ascribed here to John of Burgundy, but more commonly to
               Franco of Cologne), the immediate predecessor of truly mensural systems; and fourth,
               an abbreviated summary (ascribed to Petrus Picardus) serving as an epilogue. </p>
    <p> Jerome's treatise has been edited twice previously. Edmond de Coussemaker chose it
               to open his monumental <italic>Scriptorum de musica medii aevi nova series</italic>
               in 1864; Simon M. Cserba re-edited it in 1935. [2] Coussemaker, though important as a
               historian of music, was a lawyer by training and a magistrate by profession; he
               sometimes emended the text (always silently), but more often introduced errors by
               misconstruing abbreviations (e.g., reading <italic>partitionibus</italic> for <italic>proportionibus</italic>) and confusing one letter with another (e.g., "f"
               with the tall "s", thus reading <italic>figurata</italic> for <italic>signata</italic>); his publications also show a regrettably high incidence of typos.
               He traced the sources of more than eighty passages Jerome quoted, almost all from
               Boethius' <italic>De musica</italic>, but with several from the twelfth-century
               music theorist Johannes Cotto (<italic>olim</italic> "de Afflighem") and one from
               Isidore. For the third <italic>positio</italic> (Franco's) he recorded variants from
               concordant readings in other manuscripts. Cserba, himself a Dominican, improved
               considerably on Coussemaker. He provided an introduction of eighty-four pages dealing
               with the manuscript, the treatise and its sources, and its compiler. In the text
               edition he corrected many of Coussemaker's errors, though introducing others of his
               own. He facilitated comparison with the original or a microfilm copy by inserting
               into the text indications of page and column inside square brackets. He traced more
               than one hundred twenty quotations from earlier writers, adding to those mentioned by
               Coussemaker Al-Farabi, Richard of St. Victor, and Thomas Aquinas; by setting all
               quoted material in italics, he made it evident that the treatise is overwhelmingly
               compiled from prior sources. For Franco's <italic>positio</italic> he recorded
               variant readings from Gerbert's 1784 edition. [3] But he let stand many of the
               manifold errors in MS Latin 16663 itself; and his presentation of the text in the
               orthography of classical Latin, though understandable for a time when medieval Latin
               was seen as a degenerate form of classical Latin, does not accord with current views
               and standards of editing. </p>
    <p> The new edition by Christian Meyer and Guy Lobrichon improves mightily on Cserba's.
               Spellings duplicate those of the manuscript (even as these vary from one instance of
               a word to another), so those interested in orthography can track its variations and
               gauge the degree of its instability in MS Latin 16663. (Abbreviations are expanded
               silently; punctuation follows present-day usage.) Indications of page and column, set
               in the margins with the point of change marked with a vertical bar in the text, do
               not intrude as do Cserba's; original material and quotation are set almost entirely
               in Roman type, so that they flow in a single stream without the disruptions of
               Cserba's frequent switches between Roman and italic. (In Meyer-Lobrichon, italics are
               reserved for the titles of musical compositions; for the <italic>ut-re-mi-fa-sol-la</italic> syllables of music theory; and for words underlined in
               the manuscript, to many of which glosses are attached.) </p>
    <p> Footnotes arranged in three registers serve to identify quotations in the text; to
               record marginal and interlinear glosses; and to indicate corrections entered by the
               scribe, an early user, or the editors. Though stating that they trace only Jerome's
               "immediate" sources (xxi), the editors cite almost two hundred quotations drawn from
               twenty earlier writings--fifteen of them in editions that postdate Cserba--including
               two versions of the <italic>Musica enchiriadis</italic> and, in addition to
               Friedlein's 1867 edition of Boethius's <italic>De musica</italic>, the <italic>Glossa maior</italic> to that work recently published by Bernhard and Bower. [4] The
               editors' meticulous analysis of Jerome's sources reveals that the Boethian glosses
               stem predominantly from manuscripts of the French tradition, and from these they
               single out five specific manuscripts as its most significant representatives
               vis-à-vis Jerome (xviii); that some quotations in the prologue and chapter 1, and
               virtually the entire content of chapters 4-8 (including quotations from Boethius,
               Al-Farabi, Richard of St. Victor, and Isidore), draw on the <italic>Speculum
                  doctrinale</italic> of the Dominican Vincent of Beauvais; and that more than three
               hundred lines (21.78-113 and 22.5-288; the numbers refer to chapters and lines) are
               taken from the <italic>Tonarius fratrum praedicatorum</italic> (147-56). [5] These
               provide clear evidence of the treatise's Dominican complexion. (Cserba had already
               identified some chants in Chapter 22 as occurring in the <italic>Antiphonarium
                  O. P.</italic>) In 24.103-46, the editors identify cited chants by liturgical function
               and location (164-65), and in chapter 26 they indicate sources of some of the
               polyphonic compositions quoted. </p>
    <p> The editors emend the text of MS Latin 16663 through comparison with the texts of
               Jerome's many sources. For instance, in 7.5-7 and 7.19-21, drawn from Richard of St.
               Victor, they are able--by restoring words omitted evidently through <italic>saut
                  du même au même</italic>--to improve passages expounding the classification of the
               Boethian concepts <italic>musica mundana</italic> and <italic>musica
                  instrumentalis</italic>: </p>
    <p> "Mundana alia in elementis, &lt;alia in planetis, alia in temporibus. In
               elementis&gt; alia in pondere alia in numero, alia in mensura...Musica
               instrumentalis, alia in pulsu ut in timpanis et cordis,&lt;alia in flatu et in tibiis
               et organis,&gt; alia in uoce ut in carminibus et cantilenis" (23).</p>
    <p> (Note, though, that the <italic>et</italic> after <italic>flatu</italic> should be
                  <italic>ut</italic>, as it is in Richard's text.) [6] In one such case
               (26.1806-37) the text restored by the editors fills thirty-two lines (240-41).</p>
    <p> Not all attempts at emendation are successful. For instance, where in 24.7-8 a
               clause lacks a verb, the editors supply one as follows--</p>
    <p> "Sicut enim non omnium ora eosdem cibos &lt;capiuntur&gt;..." (161).</p>
    <p> --borrowing the verb from Jerome's source, Johannes Cotto's <italic>Musica</italic>. But what Johannes had is </p>
    <p> "Sicut enim non omnium ora eodem cibo capiuntur..." [7] </p>
    <p> The editors seem to have overlooked that where Johannes had <italic>eodem
                  cibo</italic>, Jerome has <italic>eosdem cibos</italic>; this accusative requires a
               verb that is active, not passive, of which it will be the object. </p>
    <p> One might ask whether all the editors' emendations are warranted. For instance, they
               emend a passage that Jerome took from Thomas Aquinas's commentary on Aristotle's <italic>De caelo et mundo</italic> as follows: </p>
    <p> "...primo [pro]ponit quod intendit, secundo inducit racionem aliter senciencium,
               tercio ostendit quomodo dubitacioni satisfacere nituntur" (23).</p>
    <p> The editors' square brackets indicate deletion of the prefix <italic>pro</italic>,
               bringing Jerome's text into agreement with Thomas's (they cite the <italic>editio leonina</italic>). But <italic>ponere</italic> and <italic>proponere</italic> have broad arrays of meanings, overlapping to a degree, with both
               including "to put forward for consideration or examination." <italic>Proponit</italic>, then, would seem here as suitable a choice as <italic>ponit</italic>, and how do we know that this is not what Jerome's exemplar had? Why,
               indeed, emend a thirteenth-century text to make it conform to a nineteenth-century
               edition of another text? Of course, the editors could not conceivably have consulted
               countless medieval copies of Thomas's text; nonetheless, I'd have preferred a less
               intrusive way of indicating how Jerome's text differs from the standard edition of
               Thomas's. </p>
    <p> Though the editors' introduction is admirable in providing a concise description of
               the manuscript and an account of its history, as well as information about the author
               and date of the treatise, several items normally--and appropriately--found in
               critical editions are lacking. Because of the treatise's importance for the topics of
               mode, discant, and especially mensuration, discussions of Jerome's treatments of them
               would have been welcome as part of the Introduction. Indexes of subjects and of Latin
               terms would have greatly enhanced the volume's utility for scholars. (The <italic>Index fontium</italic> can serve as an index of names.) The bibliography is
               selective rather than exhaustive; readers can augment it through consultation of <italic>Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart</italic>, <italic>Grove Music
                  Online</italic>, and <italic>The Theory of Music</italic>, Volume 6. [8]</p>
    <p> Despite these omissions, this meticulously prepared edition of an important treatise
               improves significantly on its predecessors. It will now serve as the standard edition
               of Jerome's treatise, and should find a place in all research libraries. It will
               benefit scholars interested in medieval music, music theory, codicology, and
               intellectual history.</p>
    <p> --------</p>
    <p> Notes:</p>
    <p> 1. A color scan of the manuscript is available through Gallica, the web site of the
               BNF: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8432480x.r=Latin+16663.langEN</p>
    <p> 2. Edmond de Coussemaker (ed.), <italic>Scriptorum de musica medii aevi nova
                  series</italic>, 4 vols. (Paris: Durand, 1864-1876; reprint, Hildesheim: Olms, 1963),
               vol. 1, 1-154; Hieronymus de Moravia, O. P., <italic>Tractatus de musica</italic>,
               ed. Simon M. Cserba, O. P. (Freiburger Studien zur Musikwissenschaft 2; Regensburg:
               Pustet, 1935).</p>
    <p> 3. Martin Gerbert (ed.), <italic>Scriptores ecclesiastici de musica sacra
                  potissimum</italic>, 3 vols. (St. Blaise: Typis San-Blasianis, 1784; repr. Hildesheim:
               Olms, 1963), vol. 3, 1-16.</p>
    <p> 4. Michael Bernhard and Calvin M. Bower (eds.), <italic>Glossa maior in
                  institutionem musicam Boethii</italic>, 4 vols. (Bayerische Akademie der
               Wissenschaften, Veröffentlichungen der Musikhistorischen Kommission 9-12; Munich:
               Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, C. H. Beck, 1993-2011).</p>
    <p> 5. Edited in Christian Meyer, "Le Tonaire des Frères Prêcheurs," <italic>Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum</italic> 72 (2006): 117-156, 138-145.</p>
    <p> 6. Richard de Saint-Victor, <italic>Liber exceptionum: Texte critique avec
                  introduction, notes et tables</italic>, ed. Jean Chatillon (Textes philosophiques du
               moyen-âge 5; Paris: Vrin, 1958), 108.</p>
    <p> 7. Joseph Smits van Waesberghe (ed.), <italic>Johannis Affligemensis De musica
                  cum tonario</italic> (Corpus Scriptorum de Musica 1; Rome: American Institute of
               Musicology, 1950), 109.</p>
    <p> 8. Christian Meyer, "Hieronymus de Moravia," <italic>Die Musik in Geschichte
                  und Gegenwart</italic>, 2nd ed., ed. Ludwig Finscher, Personenteil, vol. 8 (Cassel and
               New York: Bärenreiter, 2002), 1519-1521; Frederick Hammond and Edward H. Roesner,
               "Hieronymus de Moravia," <italic>Grove Music Online</italic>; Christian Meyer et al.
               (eds.), <italic>The Theory of Music, Volume 6: Manuscripts from the Carolingian
                  Era up to c. 1500--Addenda, Corrigenda, Descriptive Catalogue</italic> (Répertoire
               International des Sources Musicales, B III, vol. 6; Munich: Henle, 2003), 226-7. </p>
    <p/>
  </body>
</article>
