View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications: School of Music Music, School of 5-1988 Subtilitas in the tonal language of Fumeux fume Peter M. Lefferts University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/musicfacpub Part of the Music Commons Lefferts, Peter M., "Subtilitas in the tonal language of Fumeux fume" (1988). Faculty Publications: School of Music. 46. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/musicfacpub/46 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Music, School of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications: School of Music by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in Early Music, Vol. 16, No. 2 (May, 1988), pp. 176-183. Copyright © 1988 Oxford University Press. Used by permission. Subtilitas in the tonal language of Fumeux fume Peter M. Lefferts Figure 1. Groups of singers depicted in the manuscript containing Fumeux fume (Chantilly, Musée Condé, Ms lat 1047, f.37) he late 14th-century French repertory contains mu- a new edition, together with a defense of its idiosyncra- Tsic characterized by an ingenuity and great subtle- cies. Of necessity, such an edition constitutes a version ty whose terms of reference are entirely derived from that irons out the source’s ambiguities, and interprets within the art itself. One of the best-known French chan- its pitch notation as an indication of how this chanson sons of the period, the rondeau Fumeux fume by Solage, was meant to go. It clearly accepts the presumption that contains a superabundance of artifice, a wide variety of most of the composer’s intentions with respect to pitch clever and audacious musical techniques. But in con- can be recognized and restored from the existing source trast to the extravagances of notation and rhythmic lan- evidence; the problem is not so much the intractable one guage that are the familiar hallmarks of the ars subtilior of musica ficta as the soluble one of musica recta. in music, the most striking feature of Fumeux fume is the Fumeux fume has appeared in two recent scholar- proliferation of accidentals, and the bizarre tonal behav- ly publications that present careful transcriptions from ior they indicate. In addition to F, C, G, D, A, E and B, its unique source, the famous Chantilly codex.2 Neither the pitches notated include B, E, A, D and G, as well of these can be recommended to performers, as neither as F#, C# and G#.1 These accidentals are the cause of vir- fully addresses the interpretation of the source acci- tually all the editorial problems in Fumeux fume, and in dentals; in some ways both are an edition of the source order to assess clearly just what subtilitas there may be but not an edition of the piece. Though the need for a in its tonal language, this article presents (as Example 1) strong editorial hand is clearer in the case of Fumeux 176 SUBTILITAS IN THE TONAL LANGUAGE OF FUMEUX FUME 177 fume than in many other examples that could have the light of as much knowledge and experience of the been chosen, the principle demonstrated is a gener- sources, the music, and contemporary theory as can be al one. An editor needs actively to use his intelligence assembled. There is no avoiding the fact that choices and musical insight in order to make informed choices have to be made even when, as here, only one source is where intervention is necessary; he must make them in concerned.3 Example 1. Solage, Fumeux fume. 178 PETER M. LEFFERTS IN EARLY MUSIC 16 (1988) Example 1. Solage, Fumeux fume (cont.). Indeed, a ‘mere’ transcription or diplomatic facsim- sual image both of the source and of his transcription, ile must resolve some ambiguities, even though this and be constantly alert to the results, both melodic and would not be its prime intention. But a scholarly edition harmonic, of this process. in modern notation that is intended to be a kind of ‘Ur- Problems arise at several crucial points in Fumeux text’ simply giving a clean reading of the source is not fume, where choices must be made that are not simply acceptable in later 14th-century polyphony. As a con- axiomatic, usually because of awkward melodic or har- cept ‘Urtext’ is unthinkable for such a piece as this chan- monic intervals, but also because of the lack of consis- son, even if it is imagined that the performer is experi- tency in the execution of some tonal design. The ed- enced in modifying the printed text in order to produce itor may be compelled to revise a decision about the a performable piece. intended position of an ambiguous accidental, per- Fumeux fume illustrates the difficulties both in estab- haps to refuse to accept a source accidental altogether, lishing a transcription and in going on to produce an or to override its continued effect where not cancelled edition. Even the initial act of transcription is no mere in the source, or indeed to add further accidentals. All mechanical task, but one in which the editor must face the manuscript accidentals given for Fumeux fume in up to the resolution of a host of problems, for the Chan- the Chantilly manuscript are listed in the Appendix to tilly manuscript is notorious for its scribal inconsisten- this article; for the edition some have been accepted and cy with respect to the position of accidentals on the staff. some amended without remark, but comments have Editorial decisions immediately have to be made: is this been supplied for the more significant points where a an A or a B, an Eor a D? Some interaction is imme- choice of pitch is involved. diately set off between the process of transcribing and The version of Fumeux fume to emerge from this ed- the end product envisaged, in which choices are colored itorial process is not so very different from the familiar by anticipation; in order to make these choices, the edi- one, and it is still perhaps not entirely well-determined, tor must hold some notion, however flexible, of what he or as the composer imagined it in every detail. Yet the imagines the end product to be like, or in other words, reading is reliable and secure enough to form the basis what the composer intended. Temporarily settling these for an examination of the tonal behavior of the work, choices, he arrives at an intermediate point (somewhat which demonstrates an economy of materials, a diver- like the published editions of Apel and Greene) where sity in their handling, and a consistency of harmonic some decisions have been made, but the editorial task idiom and of broader gestures that together define its cannot be considered completed. Next, in respect of unique features and special position within the chanson those accidentals, he must operate ficta like the medi- repertoire. eval singer, presuming that from the point at which an The most striking and memorable moments of the accidental is entered into the staff, the hexachordal sys- chanson are the rhythmically vigorous, descending me- tem that it implies remains in force until over-ridden lodic and harmonic sequences found in each half, and by a subsequent accidental.4 In this instance, to follow in particular the triple-time passage from bars 16 to 21 through the full hexachordal implications of these ac- and the duple one from bars 28 to 35. The former pres- cidentals would have been a rigorous exercise for the ents the same rhythmic motif six times in each voice; the singer, and it is certainly a major task to be faced by the contratenor, true to its role as harmonic filler, is varied modern editor. In this respect he must transcend the vi- melodically, while the tenor matches the melodic rigor SUBTILITAS IN THE TONAL LANGUAGE OF FUMEUX FUME 179 of the cantus after a bar and a half. At no point, even in the structural cantus and tenor parts, is the sequence of tones and semitones repeated exactly. In fact, it con- sists of an elaboration of the diatonic descending scale G-F-E-D-C-B, strictly harmonized in minor 3rds. This is shown most clearly by Example 2a, which presents a reduction of the music to the bare bones of the cantus- tenor framework, written in breves. Example 3. Le mont Aon, reduction of sequence, bars 49-58. Example 2a. Fumeux fume, reduction of sequence, bars 16-22. In bars 29-30 and 33-34 of the second sequence, the singer is confronted with a sharp disjunction between The sequence in bars 28-35 is of another kind, with the hexachords in which the same sounding pitch must two statements of a four-bar phrase, the second a 5th be sung, changing from mi to fa between G# and A lower than the first. The phrase is exactly transposed and C# and D. This is the most dramatic consequence in cantus and tenor (save for the necessary octave dis- of the tonal content and rigor of the sequence, in which placement of the tenor in bars 34–35), while the con- the cantus negotiates a similarly sharp disjunction from tratenor is again rhythmically but not melodically strict. a flat to a sharp hexachord within each two-bar unit, as Each phrase consists of two two-bar units in the cantus, well as being confronted with the E-E cross relation of of similar but not identical tonal content, spanning a di- bars 31-32.