The study of the development of music from 1300 to 1600 is largely the study of the art or science of polyphony. Polyphony, or counterpoint, is primarily the art of combining two or more voice parts so that they shall maintain their independent character and individual interest, and still harmonize with each other. Early musical notes were written as dots, or points, one voice under or against another, whereby the term contra punctum, meaning simply note against note, originated. As has been previously explained, the first or more important melody, called subject, theme, or cantus firmus, was generally placed in the tenor, so called from tenere (to hold), on account of its holding the melody: and the addition of one or more melodies to the cantus firmus, or theme, under strict rules and regulations, is the art of counterpoint.[84]
One of the most important devices for enhancing interest in the principal melody is known as ‘imitation’; that is, the repetition of a theme or phrase, or parts thereof, either at a different pitch from the original, or in a different voice part, with or without rhythmic or other modifications, which, however, must not be so great as to destroy the resemblance. Combining, as it does, variety with unity of impression, and offering the composer opportunity for the display of great ingenuity, the art of imitation grew rapidly in importance, and became one of the chief and most characteristic beauties of polyphonic writing.[85] To trace the growth of that style of writing, which has been called the Netherland style, is our present purpose.
In Chapter VI we traced the beginnings of polyphony in the stiff organum, and the growth of the so-called mensural system by which all music was reduced to triple rhythm and bound by mathematical laws, indifferent to beauty, relentlessly rigid and monotonous. During this period the musical centre of Europe was Paris, where the organists of Notre Dame were the most influential composers. Here the reaction against the system found voice in theoretical discussion, though this again was probably only the reflection of what had been going on in actual practice, both in France and elsewhere. Indeed, it is claimed by some writers (notably Riemann) that certain composers of Florence, under the direct influence of Troubadour song, were the first to throw off the fetters of musical dogma; England, too, has a serious claim for priority in the new movement,[86] which was influenced everywhere by the spontaneous florescence of secular song. But the name ars nova, by which the reform was designated by its protagonists in contradistinction to the ars antiqua of their Franconian predecessors, has led historians to connect it with the probable author of the treatise entitled ‘The Ars Nova.’ Philippe de Vitry, bishop of Meaux (1290-1361), is said to be the author of this treatise, as well as of several others dealing with measured music, ‘proportions’ and the relative value of the symbols of notation. In it he advocates counterpoint for several voices, rhythmic variety of a free use of chromatic alterations. None of his own compositions has been preserved to us, however. Another writer, known by the name of Jean de Muris, left several works of similarly radical character. He is not to be confused, however, with a theorist of the same name designated as ‘the Norman,’ who taught at the Sorbonne from 1321 on, and whose teaching was so conservative as really to constitute a reaction against the new method—the ars nova. This effort toward freedom was characterized, first by the reintroduction of duple time into church music, in which triple time, on account of its symbolistic connection with the Trinity, had long held the field; secondly, by the emancipation of individual voices by means of a greater variety of rhythm; thirdly, by the prohibition of parallel octaves and fifths;[87] and lastly, by the differentiation between half and full cadences,[88] which, in homophonic music—in plain-chant and in secular song—had long been recognized.
The introduction of the natural duple rhythm into music written for the church demanded the addition of new signs to the mensural system of notation (cf. Chap. VI, pp. 177 ff.), for it was necessary that singers should be informed whether they were to sing according to the triple or double scheme. Thus there appear about this period new time signs. Of these a semi-breve, still called, by the way, tempus perfectum circle,
, signified the division of the breve into three or perfect time. A half-circle,
, signified the division of the breve into two semi-breves, and this was imperfect time. A dot within the circle or the half-circle,
