# A Dictionary of Music and Musicians/Sumer is icumen in

​SUMER IS ICUMEN IN (Latin words, Perspice Χρίcola = Christicola). A 'Rota,' or Round, of great antiquity, the original MS. of which is preserved in vol. 978 of the Harleian Collection, in the British Museum.
So important are the questions raised by this document, in connection not only with the history of the English School, but with that of Mediæval Music in all other European countries, that we cannot too earnestly recommend them to the consideration of all who are interested in tracing the development of our present system to its earliest sources. We thought it desirable, in the article on Schools of Composition, to present our readers with an accurate facsimile of the original MS., reduced, by photography, from 7 7/12 × 5 5/12 in., to 6⅝ × 4½, and accompanied by a description of the colours employed by the mediæval illuminator. We now subjoin a solution of the Canon, in modern Notation, but otherwise scored in exact accordance with the Latin directions appended to the original MS. The only characters employed in the original are, the C Clef; the B rotundum ( = B♭); square black tailed notes, sometimes perfect by position, and sometimes imperfect; one square black note without a tail; and black lozenge-shaped notes, also without tails, except in one solitary case which we can scarcely conceive to be accidental—the first of the three notes sung to the word 'in.' These we have replaced, in our reduction, by the G Clef for the four upper Parts, and the F Clef for the two lower ones, forming the Pes; by dotted Semibreves for the tailed notes, when perfect, and Semibreves without dots for those that are imperfect; by a Semibreve without a dot for the single untailed square note; by Minims for the untailed lozenge-shaped notes; and by a dotted Minim, followed by a Crotchet, for the solitary lozenge-shaped note with a tail. For the Time-Signature, we have used the Circle, and the Figure 3, indicative of Perfect Time, in combination with the Lesser Prolation—a form closely corresponding with the Signature 3-2 in modern Music.
We have thought it necessary to print the solution of the Canon in extenso, because, to the best of our belief, no correct Score has hitherto been published. Hawkins clearly misunderstood the two Ligatures in the Pes, and misprinted the passage, at every repetition. Burney corrected this mistake: but both historians have given an erroneous adaptation of the text to the notes, in bars 41 et seq., at the words 'Wel singes thu cuccu ne swik thu nauer nu'; and both, in bar 40, have systematically misprinted the note sung to the second syllable of 'cuccu,' giving G instead of A every time it occurs. It is true that, in certain bars, G agrees better than A with Hawkins's misprinted Pes, but, with Burney's correct Pes, it makes a horrible discord. The only modern copy we have met with omits the Pes altogether, thereby reducing the number of Parts to four.
With the facsimile and its solution before them, our readers will be able to criticise the opinions hazarded, from time to time, on the antiquity of the Rota; which opinions we shall now proceed to consider in detail.
The MS. was first described by Mr. Wanley, the famous Antiquary, who, acting in the capacity of Librarian to the Earl of Oxford, wrote an account of it in his 'Catalogue of the Harleian MSS.' about the year 1709; assigning to it no positive date, but pronouncing it to be by far the oldest example of the kind he had ever met with—an assertion which must be received with all respect, since Mr. Wanley was not only a learned Antiquary, but an accomplished musician.
In the year 1770, Sir John Hawkins mentioned the Rota, in the first volume of his 'History of Music'; illustrating his description by a copy of the Guida, in the original square black notes, followed by a not very correct solution of the canon, scored for six voices, including those which sing the Pes. Hawkins imagines the term 'Rota' to apply to the Latin rather than the English words; and refers the MS. to 'about the middle of the 15th century, on the ground that the Music is of the kind called Cantus figuratus, which appears to have been the invention of John of Dunstable, who wrote on the Cantus mensurabilis, and died in 1455.' This statement, however, involves an anachronism which renders Hawkins's opinion as to the date of the MS. absolutely worthless.
Dr. Burney, in the second volume of his History, described the composition as not being much later than the 13th or 14th century; printed a copy of the Canon, in the original mediæval Notation; and subjoined a complete Score, more correct than that supplied by Hawkins, yet not altogether free from errors.
Ritson referred the MS. to the middle of the 13th century; and fancied—not without reason—that neither Hawkins nor Burney cared to risk their reputation by mentioning a date which could scarcely fail to cause adverse criticism.
In 1819 Dr. Busby reprinted the Rota, following Burney's version of the Score, note for note, including its errors, and referring the MS. to the 15th century.
In April 1862, Sir Frederick Madden wrote some memoranda, on the fly-leaf of the volume, referring the entire MS., 'except some writing on ff. 15–17' (with which we are not concerned) to the 13th century; and stating his belief that a certain portion of the volume ' was written, in the Abbey of Reading, about the year 1240.'
Commisso notario munera suffunde, Statim causse subtrahet, quando, cur, et unde, Et formæ subjiciet canones rotundæ.
Apud avaros, 69–71.
Now, the significance of this venerable pun, as a proof of the antiquity of the Rota, is very remarkable. In a Poem, transcribed, as Sir Frederick Madden assures us, long before the middle of the 13th century, Walter Mapes, an English Ecclesiastic, speaks of 'subjecting Canons to the form of (the) Round,' with a homely naïveté which proves that his readers must have been too familiar with both Round and Canon, to stand in any danger of mistaking the drift of the allusion. This form of Music, then, must have been common, in England, before the middle of the 13th century. Walter Mapes bears witness to the fact that the First English School, as represented by the Rota, is at least a century and a half older than the First Flemish School as represented by the works of Dufay, and we are indebted to Mr. Chappell for the discovery of the jeu d'esprit in which the circumstance is recorded.
Turning from English to Continental critics, we first find the Rota introduced to the German musical world by Forkel, who, in the year 1788, described it in his 'Allgemeine Geschichte der Musik'; reproducing Burney's copy of the Guida, in the old black square-headed Notation (Gros-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 next German critic to whom it occurred to touch on the subject was Ambros, who, in volume 2 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 is 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 122—or, at the latest, 1236—by John of Fornsete, '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 History, confessed himself convinced by the arguments of Coussemaker, and undoubtingly 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.
[W. S. R.]
To be continued.
* ↑ The references are to our own Score, the bars in which are numbered tor the reader's convenience.
* ↑ See 'Catalogue of the Harleian MSS.' (vol. 1. no. 978), in the Library of the British Museum.
* ↑ On this point, he gives the authority of Du Cange, who says that the term 'Rota' was antiently applied to certain Hymns.
* ↑ 'A General History of Music,' vol. i. pp. 385–401 (London, 1819).
* ↑ We have given Sir Frederick Madden's remarks, verbatim, in foot-note, at p. 268a.
* ↑ Popular Music of the Olden Time,' 2 vols. (London, 1855–9).
* ↑ See Wanley's remarks, in the Catalogue of the Harl. MSS.
* ↑ Harl. MSS. 978, fol. 85a (formerly numbered 83a, and 106a).
* ↑ When thou art sent to the Notary pour in thy gifts. He will then at once extricate thee from the cause, when, why, or whencesoever it may have arisen, And will subject the Canons to the form of the Round.
* ↑ See ante, p. 260a.
* ↑ Allg. Geschichte d. Musik,' ii. 490–500. (Leipzig, 1788.)
* ↑ 'Geschichte der Musik,' Tom. ii. pp. 473–475. (Breslau, 1862.)
* ↑ 'L'Art harmonique aux xii et xiii siècles.' 144, 150. (Paris, 1865.)
* ↑ 'Les Harmonistes des xii et xiii siecles,' p. 11.
* ↑ 'Geschichte der Musik.' Tom. iv. pp. 440–141. (Breslau. 1883.)
​SUMER IS ICUMEN IN (continued from vol. iii. p. 768).
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, de Coussemaker, nor Ambros, ever saw the original document; their statements, therefore, tend rather to confuse than to enlighten the enquirer. Still, great as are the anomalies with which the subject is surrounded, we do not believe them to be irreconcileable. 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 all—the character and condition of the MS.
1. The style of the handwriting corresponds so closely with 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 palæographers of the present century—did not hesitate to express his own conviction, in terms which leave no room for argument. 'The whole is of the thirteenth century,' he says, 'except some writing on ff. 15–17.' And, in a later note, comparing this MS. with the 'Cartulary of Reading' (MSS. Cott. Vesp. E. v.), he states his belief that, 'in all probability, the earlier portion of this volume'—i.e. that which contains the Rota—'was written in the Abbey of Reading, about the year 1240.' The present librarian, Mr. E. Maunde Thompson, unhesitatingly endorses Sir F. Madden's judgment; and the Palæographical Society has also corroborated it, in connection with an autotype facsimile—Part VIII, Plate 125 (Lond. 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 note on Stave 1 was originally an F. The first and second notes on Stave 4 were originally two Cs; 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 a 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 both may be found in the autotype of the Palæographical Society.
2. The mixed character of the Part-Writing has puzzled many an able commentator; for, side by side with passages of rudest Discant, it exhibits ​progressions which might well have passed uncensured in the far later days of Palestrina. The 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 24th bars are in Strict Two-Part Counterpoint of the First and Second Order, of irreproachable purity. But, in passing from the 9th to the 10th, and from the 13th to the 14th bars, a flagrant violation of the First Cardinal Rule results in the formation of Consecutive Fifths between the First and Third Cantus Parts, in the one case, and between the Second and Fourth Cantus, in the other. The same Rule is broken, between Cantus II, and Bassus I, in passing from bar 17 to bar 18; and, in bars 37, 38, 39, a similar infraction of the Rule produces no less than three Consecutive Fifths between Cantus I, and Bassus II. Between bars 29 and 30, Cantus I and II sing Consecutive Unisons; and the error is repeated, between bars 33, 34, by Cantus II and Cantus III, simultaneously with Consecutive Fifths between both these Parts and Cantus I. Similar faults are repeated, as the Rota proceeds, with persistent regularity.
Now, the smooth progressions shown in the 4th, 8th, and 24th bars, are as stringently forbidden in the Diaphonia of the 11th and 12th centuries, as the Consecutive Fifths in bars 37, 38, and 39, are in the Counterpoint of the 15th and 16th, or even in that of the 14th century. To which of these epochs, then, are we to refer the Rota? The peculiarity of the Part-Writing clearly affords us no means whatever of answering the question, but is calculated rather to mislead than to throw new light upon the point at issue.
3. Turning from the Part-Writing to the Melody, we find this pervaded by a freedom of rhythm, a merry graceful swing, immeasurably in advance of any kind of Polyphonic Music of earlier date than the Fa-las peculiar to the later decads of the 16th century—to which decads no critic has ever yet had the hardihood to refer the Rota. But, this flowing rhythm is not at all in advance of many a Folk-Song of quite unfathomable antiquity. The merry grace of a popular melody is no proof of its late origin. The dates of such melodies are so uncertain, that the element of Chronology may almost be said to have been eliminated from the history of the earlier forms of National Music. In most cases, the original Poetry and Music owed their origin, in all probability, to the same heart and voice. The melodies were not composed, but inspired. If the verses to which they were indebted for their existence were light and tripping, so were they. If the verses were gloomy, the melodies naturally corresponded with them. And, because their authors, however unskilled they might be in the Theory of Music, were in the constant habit of hearing Church Melodies sung in the Ecclesiastical Modes, they naturally conformed, in most cases, to the tonality of those venerable scales. We believe the Melody of the Rota to be an inspiration of this kind—a Folk-Song, pur et simple, in the Transposed Ionian Mode, owing its origin to the author either of the English or the Latin verses to which it is wedded.
Now, some Folk-Songs of great antiquity possess the rare and very curious peculiarity of falling into Canon of their own accord. An old version of 'Drops of brandy' forms a very fair Canon in the unison for two voices. In the days of Madame Stockhausen, three independent Swiss melodies were accidentally found to fit together in the same way, and were actually published in the form of an English Round, which soon became very popular.
The melody of the Rota—if we are right in believing it to be a genuine Folk-Song—possesses this quality in a very remarkable degree. What more probable, then, than that a light-hearted young Postulant should troll it forth, on some bright May-morning, during the hour of recreation? That a second Novice should chime in, a little later? That the effect of the Canon should be noticed, admired, and experimented upon, until the Brethren found that four of them could sing the tune, one after the other, in very pleasant Harmony? There must have been many a learned Discantor at Reading, capable of modifying a note or two of the melody, here and there, for the purpose of making its phrases fit the more smoothly together. So learned a musician would have found no difficulty whatever in adding the pes, as a support to the whole—and the thing was done. The Harmony suggested, in the first instance, by a veritable 'Dutch Concert,' became a Round, or Canon, of the kind proved, by Mr. Chappell's opportune discovery of the Latin pun [see vol. iii. p. 768 a], to have been already familiar to English ears; for which very reason it was all the more likely, in a case like the present, to have been indebted for its confection to a happy accident.
The foregoing suggestion is, of course, purely hypothetical. We do not, however, make it with the intention of evading a grave chronological difficulty by a mere idle guess. The influence exercised, by the point we are considering, upon the history of Mediæval Music in general, and that of the Early English School in particular, is of so great importance, that the element of conjecture would be altogether out of place in any chain of reasoning professing to solve the difficulties of an enigma which has puzzled the best Musical Antiquaries of the age. We venture, therefore, to propose no conjectural theory, but simply to epitomise the results of a long course of study which has rendered the Reading MS. as familiar to us as our own handwriting; submitting it to our readers with all possible deliberation, as a means of accounting for certain peculiarities in the Rota which would otherwise remain inexplicable. It accounts for a freedom of melody immeasurably in advance of that attained by the best Polyphonists of the 15th century, whether in the Flemish or ​Italian School. It accounts for the transcription, in a handwriting of the 13th century, of progressions which were not sanctioned by scholastic authority until the 15th; and, at the same time, for the admixture, with these, of other progressions, which, in the 15th century, would have been peremptorily forbidden; in other words, it accounts for simultaneous obedience to two distinct Codes of Law diametrically opposed to each other; two systems of Part-Writing which never were, and never could, by any possibility be, simultaneously enforced—viz. the Law of Counterpoint, which, in the 14th and 15th centuries, forbade the approach to a Perfect Concord in Similar Motion; and that of Diaphonia, which, in the 11th and 12th, practically enjoined it, by employing no other Intervals than doubled Fourths, Fifths, and Octaves. It accounts for the erasures to which we have already called attention; placing them in the light of improvements, rather than that of necessary corrections. Moreover, it accounts, with still greater significance, for the otherwise inexplicable absence of a whole army of familiar progressions, conventional forms of ornamentation, Cadences true, false, plain, diminished, modal, or medial, and of Licences innumerable, which, after the substitution of Counterpoint for Discant, never failed to present themselves, at every turn, in Polyphonic compositions of every kind, produced in every School in Europe. These anomalies have not been accounted for by any critic who has hitherto treated the subject. Yet, surely, those who doubt the antiquity of the Rota, on the ground of its advanced construction, owe us some explanation as to the presence of this advanced style in certain passages only. We sorely need some information as to how it came to pass that the piece was written in three distinct styles: two, of part-writing, separated by an interval of two or three centuries, at least; and one, of melody, which, if not the result of an inspired Folk-Song, of remotest antiquity, must bring us down to a period subsequent to the invention of Monodia in the 17th century. Our theory, if admissible at all, explains all these things. A learned Musician, deliberately intending to write a Canon for six voices, would, had he lived in the 12th century, have adopted the style observable in bars 37, 38, and 39, as that of the entire composition. Another, flourishing in the 15th century, would have confined himself to that shown in bars 4, 6, 8, and 24. But, though the later savant would never have passed the Fifths and Octaves, the earlier one, had he possessed sufficient natural genius to enable him to rise above the pedantry of the age, would surely have excused a great deal of what he considered, and taught, to be licence. Finding that a Popular Melody of the day fitted together, in certain places, in a—to his ear—delightful succession of similar Perfect Concords, he would surely have forgiven certain other passages which defied his rules, but, judged by his natural instinct, did not 'sound bad.' Whether John of Fornsete did really construct the Rota on this principle, or not, we can never know for certain: but, since the accident we have suggested certainly has happened, and been turned to advantage in other cases, there is nothing improbable in the supposition that it may have happened before, in that which we are now considering.
The fact that no other English Rota of equal antiquity with this has as yet been brought to light, proves nothing. The wonder is, not that we can find no similar examples, but, that even this one should have escaped the wholesale destruction which devastated our Cathedral and Monastic Libraries, first, during the reign of King Henry VIII, and afterwards, during the course of the Great Rebellion. Moreover, we must not forget that the Reading MS., though it contains only one Rota, contains no less than three Latin Antiphons, two for three Voices, and one forfour; and that the Chaucer MS., of very little later date, contains several Compositions for two Voices, all tending to prove the early date at which the Art of Polyphonic Composition was cultivated in England.
[ W. S. R. ]
* ↑ See vol. iii. p. 268a (note); and 765b (note).
* ↑ Compare with facsimile, vol. iii p. 269.
* ↑ In this, and all other cases, the references apply to our own Score in modern Notation, vol. iii. p. 766.
* ↑ See Strict Counterpoint, vol. iii. p. 741–743.
* ↑ Ib. p. 741 a.
* ↑ See vol. iii, p 270a.
* ↑ Arundel MSS. No. 248. See vol. iii. p. 427b. The Montpellier MS. is certainly no older than this, and probably not so old.
* ↑ Fosbroke, in his 'British Monachism' (vol. ii. p. 113), tells us that the Song of the Anglo-Saxon Monks consisted of a method of figurate Discant, in which the various Voices, following one another, were perpetually repeating different words, at the same time. Surely, this savours strongly of the 'form of the Round.'