Example of Secular Organum showing use of third and second.
The Workers.—Two men, as was shown in the preceding lesson, were instrumental in remarkably furthering this growth of music. Hucbald, of St. Amand, in Flanders, was born in 840 A. D. and died in 930. He was a friend of Otger of Provence, and it is through the latter that some of Hucbald’s work is preserved. Hucbald probably never wrote in organum of more than two parts, though mention is made of an organum credited to him and having in addition to the two voices, a third singing a pedal-point, or a bass on one single tone. His principal work is a manuscript on organum, a work of great reference value. Guido of Arezzo, born 990, died 1050, is of even more importance. Unlike Hucbald and Otger, he seems to have been more than a secluded monk, for he visited Rome and was a well-known figure in the church. He was a most active teacher, and while his chief work was in developing notation, he nevertheless contributed important material in the form of organum, writing in as many as four parts, though in respect to the use of the less perfect consonances he was very little freer than Hucbald.
A short example, extracted from an 11th century three-part composition, is given here as a specimen of the combinations and successions that were tolerated by the ears of the Middle Ages, and to show the tendency toward greater freedom in the direction of the motion of the parts, pointing toward those principles which later formed the science of Counterpoint.
Several interesting points may be seen in this barbarous composition: First, the imitation by the second tenor of the phrase given by the first tenor. This is evidently intentional, as this phrase occurs three times in the course of the composition and is imitated in the same way every time. This same phrase occurs near the end of the bass part (which is the theme or Cantus) and it may have been chosen for this very reason for use in the Discant parts. Secondly, the initial and final chords, viz.: root, fifth and octave—are familiar to all students of Strict Counterpoint. Writers as late as Cherubini call this combination the best for beginning and ending Three Part Counterpoint.
Development Determined by the Church.—The Church and its beliefs were responsible for this singular yet not illogical development. Considering the peculiar monastic conditions, the evolution could not be expected to occur along lines which it would have taken had it been developed among the people and under the influence of the Folk-song. The learning of these monks was largely in church lore, and this, with a desire for a peculiar church music, led to the discarding of the natural and vivacious melodies and rhythms of the people, for the scientific and ascetic music and discipline of monastic religion. The one great advantage of this period to modern music was the constant association with the principal intervals of the scale; an association which may be partially responsible for our modern Tonic and Dominant harmonies. On the whole, this period represents the marking out of the lines of musical development for the eight centuries following, though the men responsible for this beginning could hardly have known or appreciated the impetus which was to be given polyphonic music by the invention of their simple devices to accommodate voices of different compass and to secure concerted singing.
- References.
- Oxford History of Music, Vol. I.
- Naumann.—History of Music, Vol. I.
- Grove.—Dictionary of Music and Musicians, articles on Harmony,
- Schools of Composition, and Organum.
- Hope.—Mediæval Music.
- Williams.—Music of the Ancient Greeks. Hymn to Apollo.
- (Note small compass of the melody.)
- Rowbotham.—History of Music. Chapter on “Music in the Monasteries.”
- Dickinson.—History of Music in the Western Church.
- Parry.—Evolution of the Art of Music, Chapter IV.
Questions and Suggestions.
What is meant by Monophony? Polyphony?