8. GUIA DE IMPLEMENTACIÓN DEL MODELO
8.3 EJEMPLO DE APLICACIÓN DE LA GUIA DE IMPLEMENTACION
1.4 Hyperstrophic Melody as Evidence
The next example shows the reverse of the situation just discussed. Near the end of the sixth gathering, on fol. 48r, V provides song 112 (L’autrier touz seus chevauchoie
RS 1362/1709) more music than there normally would be for a strophic piece (again, this is the clearest example among several, most of them unica).354 Where the copying of text is concerned, this is consistent with the examples we have just seen: the scribe relied on guesswork when determining the ends of stanzas. In this case, when the scribe reached the end of the first stanza, instead of switching to prose format according to the usual procedure, he or she continued leaving room for staves. The second stanza is not finished: after two and a half verses, the staves and text are truncated and the third verse of stanza two is immediately succeeded by the third stanza, in prose layout and opening with a small decorated initial. The text scribe’s error is easy to explain here through an examination of the verse structure (as mentioned above, we are assuming transmission from a source that made no obvious demarcation between stanzas).
The scheme of the poetry is unusual in having eleven syllables per line: this may have flummoxed the text scribe, and prompted some confusion around the placement of the caesura, evident in the punctuation. When arriving at the second stanza, (verse 8, col. b staff II in V) he or she subdivided the long verses into alternating verses of 7 and 4 syllables, attested by the insertion of puncta. (The format remains in prose; the verse divisions represented in the transcription above reflect a hypothesized interpretation of the text scribe, not the representation actually present
354See the critical edition of the melody based on K’s notation in Susan Johnson, The Lyrics of
Richard de Semilli: A Critical Edition and Musical Transcription (Binghamton: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1992), song 8, pp. 65–9; see ibid., p. 20 for her explanation of the choice of base manuscript.
on V’s page.) This parsing fails in the first stanza, where, in verse 1, the eighth syllable falls in the middle of the word chevauchoie. The music later fell into the same trap, missing the fact that gente should elide with en in verse 3. The result is that there are insufficient notes for the i of iceste in the following verse and it is left unsung (see transcription and proposed correction, Example 5.2).
When divisions are considered as caesurae, the disagreement between stanzas is nothing out of the ordinary; according to Dragonetti, the placement of the caesura often varied, and in stanzas following a regular pattern of breaks ‘la suppression de la coupe métrique régulière a évidemment une valeur expressive’.355 It is only when interpreted as verse divisions that the fluctuating caesurae cause difficulty. Because of the mistaken subdivisions of the verse, the scribe failed to notice the structural repetition between stanza 2’s seven-syllable and four-syllable hemistichs and the eleven-syllable verses of stanza 1. But before finishing stanza 2, an additional clue alerted the scribe to the error: a refrain recurs every stanza, marking off the divisions. This refrain would have recurred in the following staff, had the scribe kept copying. A quick glance ahead would have been enough to reveal the mistake clearly. Had the scribe finished out the second stanza with music, she or he would have wasted enough space for five lines of music or 15 lines of text (roughly three stanzas). As it is, the additional staves take up enough space for twelve lines of text. The second stanza in prose format would have needed only five lines. The scribe then finished the song with a deficit of roughly seven lines: if anything, it is surprising to see no greater trouble taken to curtail the remainder of the song.
355
Example 5.2 Scribe A Misreading, RS 1362 V fol. 48r Johnson, song 8 (pp. 65–9)
I. Lautrier . touz seus chevauchoie mon chemin . 1. L’autrier tout seus chevauchoie mon chemin;
a lissue de paris par .i. matin . A l’oissue de Paris, par un matin,
oï dame bele et gente en .i. jardin . Oï dame bele et gente en un jardin
iceste chançon noter . Ceste chançon noter:
dame . qui a mal mari . “Dame qui a mal mari, s’el fet ami,
sel fet ami . N’en fet pas a blasmer.”
nen fet pas a blamer .
vers li me tres si li diz . 2. Vers li me tres, si li dis: “Suer, dites moi
seur dites . moi .
porquoi pallez . vous dami . Pour quoi parlez vous d’ami? Est ce desroi?”
est ce desroi .
sire le vous dirai . mout bien […] “Sire, je le vous dirai mult bein porquoi,
Ja ne.l vous quier celer:
Dame [qui a mal mari, s’el fet ami,
N’en fet pas a blasmer].”
II. Li . vilain mont donnee . mi parent . 3. “A un vilain m’ont donee mi parent
qui ne fet fors auner . or et argent . Qui ne fet fors aüner or et argent
et me fet danui . morir . assez souvent Et me fet d’ennui morir assez souvent,
quil ne mi lest jouer’ Q’il ne me let jöer
Dame et cetera Dame [qui a mal mari, s’el fet ami,
N’en fet pas a blasmer].”
III. Je li diz ma douce seur se diex me saut . 4. Je li dis: “Ma douce suer, se Dex me saut,
vez ci vostre douz ami qui ne vous faut . Vez ci vostre douz ami qui ne vous faut
venez vous en aveuc mi et ne vous chaut Venez vous en avec moi et ne vous chaut,
si lessiez ester Si le lessiez ester.
V folio 48r
1. L 'au-trier touz seus che-vau - choi-e m on che-m in 2. a l'i-ssu-e de pa-ris par .i. m a - tin.
V
[V edited]
3. O - ï da-m e be-le_et gen - te en .i. jar-din 4. i - ces-te chan-çon no - ter:
3. O - ï da-m e be-le_et gen - te_en .i. jar-din 4. i - ces-te chan-çon no - ter:
V
“D a - m e qui a m al m a - ri, s'el fet a - m i n'en fet pas a bla - m er.”
V
[V edited]
Vers li m e tres si li diz: ‘Seur, di - tes m oi:
1. Vers li m e tres si li diz: ‘Seur, di - tes m oi:
V
[V edited]
por - quoi pa - llez vous d'a - m i? E st ce de - froi?’
2. por - quoi pa - llez vous d'a - m i? E st ce de - froi?'
V
‘Si - re je le vous di - rai: m out bien...
&
‹
E x. 5.2 Proposed C orrection to H yperstrophic M elody in V
L’autrier touz seus chevauchoie m on chem in, R S 1362/1709
&
‹
&
‹
&
‹
&
‹
&
‹
&
‹
&
‹
&
‹
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ œœ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ œœ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ œœ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ œœ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ œœ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
Where this explanation falls short is in accounting for the music notator’s reaction to the error in layout. The most surprising aspect of this piece is the music provided for the beginning of the second stanza. It has very little in common with the melody of the first stanza, nor is it any more similar to the completely different version in the other chansonniers.356 Is it possible that the music provided is no accident, but reflects the scribe’s and notator’s desire to display to full effect a melody that evolved from stanza to stanza? One of the celebrated late mensural additions in chansonnier M provides different musical settings for every stanza, again, unrelated to the music in other sources.357 Even in that case, the division between stanzas is clearly marked by a decorated capital.
Unlike the heterostrophic melodic insertions of M,there is an abrupt lacuna in V’s text between the third verse of stanza 2 and the beginning of stanza 3. The only sensible explanation seems that the additional melodic material was provided only to excuse the textual mistake, not as a reflection of the song’s through-composed nature. As we have seen above, inventing melodic material to fill gaps is out of character for V’s first notator. Perhaps the notator was simply taking advantage of the mistake to display prior knowledge of a non-strophic piece; discovering that a poem whose caesuras changed from stanza to stanza was accompanied by a through-composed melody would certainly be intriguing.
The simplest hypothesis is that V’s scribe and notator inherited the mistake: V’s first scribe and second notator read from a source where the notator and scribe
356
Susan Johnson goes so far as to define V’s stanzas each as a unique version: ‘As always, MS V has a different melody. In fact, it presents two different melodies: the manuscript provides musical notation for the first three lines of the second stanza, and this melody does not correspond to the one given for the first stanza.’ Johnson, Lyrics, p. 69.
357Hans Tischler, ‘A Unique and Remarkable Trouvère Song’, The Journal of Musicology 10 (1992),
pp. 106–112. Tischler provides little in the way of context for the song, treating it like any other piece in M. See also Judith Peraino’s summary of the mensural insertions, including RS1503, and the chronology of chansonnier M in her Giving Voice, pp. 159–63.
(possibly the same individual) misinterpreted the length of the first stanza and had no qualms in re-composing the melody to fit the expected length. Such a hypothesis of inherited error might explain many of the inconsistencies of V, and fits well with the evidence so far, which suggests that the entire project of V involved greater expenditure and attention than its exemplars had done.
1.5 Miscopy and Erasure as Evidence
The clearest evidence that some melodies were copied from a lost notated source exists thanks to Notator 2’s errors and corrections. One erasure by this notator shows, through an example of eyeskip and mistaken transposition, that notated exemplars were still employed for songs in later gatherings. When copying song 185, Li nouviaus tens et mais et violete (RS 985 fol. 75r–v), Notator 2 erred by copying two binaria on C and B on the sixth and seventh syllables of verse 3 (Plate 5.5).358 The notator then erased both of these ligatures in order to insert a single note C, followed by the same two note-groups transposed up a third. Because the corrected melody leaps up by a third, from C to E, it is likely that third transposition was prompted by horizontal eye-skip, leaving out the repetition of the note C. The notator saw that the descending binaria began on the same note as the previous single note (on a line) and, seeing that he or she had just copied a note on a line, continued from there with the ternaria. It was precisely at the end of the verse that the notator realized the mistake. We can surmise then that the notator was able to determine where the end of the verse fell, without the help of diacriticals in the text. The dots on either side of i are, of
Plate 5.5 Li nouviaus tans et mais et violete with Erasure in V: