Grove's dictionary of music and musicians

—
—;
;
752 SUMER IS ICUMEN IN
in the old black square-headed notation {6ros-
Fa), and also his modernised score, in semibreves
and minims, accompanying these by Wanley's
remarks, copied from the Harleian Catalogue.
To this he added a corollary of his own to the
effect that though the MS. proves this species of
Canon to have been well known in the middle
of the 15th century, and probably much earlier,
the musicians of that period were not sufficiently
learned to combine it with good harmony
assertions which lose much of their weight from
the self-evident fact that they rest upon information
obtained entirely at second-hand, and not
even corroborated by examination of the original
MS., which it is clear that Forkel never saw.'
The nejt German critic to whom it occurred
to touch on the subject was Ambros, who, in
volume ii. of his great work, follows Forkel's
example, by quoting Wanley's description, and,
on the authority of Hawkins, referring the MS.
—which he himself clearly never saw—to the
middle of the 15th century.^ It i« indeed quite
certain that at this period at least Ambros's
knowledge of the history of English art was
derived entirely from the pages of Hawkins and
Burney.
In 1865 the subject was taken up by the
Belgian savant Coussemaker, who described the
MS. as written in the year 1226—or at the
latest, 1236—by John of Fomsete, ' a Monk of
the Abbey of Reading, in Berkshire.'' But the
statement rests entirely on information derived
from Mr. Chappell, Coussemaker himself never
having seen the MS. True, in another work,*
he speaks more independently ; and in his own
name asserts the Rota to have been written by
'the Monk of Reading,' before the year 1226.
But he nowhere tells us that he examined the
MS. for himself.
In 1868 the argument was resumed by Ambros,
who, in the fourth volume of his Sistory,
confessed himself convinced by the arguments
of Coussemaker, and undoubtedly refers the Rota
to the year 1226. But here again it is clear
that the opinion is not his own ; and that he
himself never saw the original MS.^
And now, having compared the views entertained
by the best historians of the past with
those set forth by the latest and most competent
critics of the present day, it remains
only that we should place before our readers the
results of our own careful and long-continued
study of the original MS.*
While receiving with due respect the judgment
of the writers already quoted, we cannot
but feel that in most cases their authority is
weakened, almost to worthlessness, by the certainty
that it rests on evidence collected entirely
at second-hand. Neither Forkel, Coussemaker,
> Alls. aeiehlcMe d. IfuHk, 11. 490-BOO. (Leipzig, 1788.)
a Oeschichte der Mustje, torn. 11. pp. 473-475. (Breslau, 1862.)
3 L Art harmoTdgue auz xii, at xiU. aidcles, pp. 144, ISO. (Paris,
1865.1
* LetSarmoniitesd^xii. et xiii. sUclea, p. 11.
B Qesehichte der Stutik, tom. It. pp. 440-441, (Breslau, 1868.)
nor Ambros ever saw the original document
their statements, therefore, tend rather to eonfuse
than to enlighten the inquirer. Still,
great as are the anomalies with "which the
subject is surrounded, we do not believe them
to be irreconcilable. Some critics have trusted
to the peculiar counterpoint of the Rota, as the
only safe guide to its probable antiquity.
Others have laid greater stress upon the freedom
of its melody. We believe that the one quality
can only be explained by reference to the other,
and that the student who considers them
separately, and without special reference to the
caligraphy of the MS., stands but a slender
chance of arriving at the truth. We propose
to call attention to each of these three points,
beginning with that which seems to us the
most important of aU—the character and condition
of the MS.
1. The style of the handwriting corresponds
so closely vrith that in common use during the
earlier half of the 13th century that no one
accustomed to the examination of English MSS.
of that period can possibly mistake it. So
positive are the indications on this point, that
Sir Frederick Madden—one of the most learned
palseographers of the 19th century—did not
hesitate to express his own conviction, in terms
which leave no room for argument. The present
librarian. Sir E. Mannde Thompson, unhesitatingly
endorses Sir F. Madden's judgment ; and
the Palseographical Society has also corroborated
it, in connection with an autotype facsimile
Part "VIII. Plate 125 (London, 1878)—referred
to the year 1240.
Fortunately the MS. is in such perfect preservation
that the corrections made during its
preparation can be distinctly traced. In a few
places the ink used for the Antiphon on the
preceding page can be seen through the Vellum ;
but apart from the spots traceable to this cause,
there are a considerable number of evident
erasures, clearly contemporary with the original
handwriting, and corrected by the same hand,
and in the same ink. The second noteT on
stave 1 was originally an F. The first and
second notes on stave 4 were originally two C's ;
the fourth note was a D ; and the fifth a C.
Between the sixth and seventh notes, in the
same Stave, there are traces of a D, and also of
an F : the D has certainly been erased to make
room for the present notes ; the appearance of
the F is produced by » note showing through
from the opposite side. The eighth note on
this stave was an E. Over the ligature which
immediately follows there are traces of a C
and, towards the end of this stave, a last
erasure has been made, for the insertion of
the solitary black square note. The marks
which show through the vellum are to be found
near the beginning of stave 3, and in several
other places. Neither these nor the erasures
are to be seen in our facsimile, though traces of