MELODIC FUNCTION AND MODAL PROCESS IN GREGORIAN CHANT by RICHARD PORTERFIELD A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Music in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The City University of New York 2014 ii © 2014 RICHARD PORTERFIELD All Rights Reserved iii This manuscript has been read and accepted by the Graduate faculty in Music in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Codex hic lectus acceptusque est William Rothstein ____________________ ___________________________________ Date Chair of Examining Committee Norman Carey ____________________ ___________________________________ Date Acting Executive Officer Ruth DeFord ___________________________________ Anne Stone ___________________________________ Joseph Straus ___________________________________ iv Abstract MELODIC FUNCTION AND MODAL PROCESS IN GREGORIAN CHANT by RICHARD PORTERFIELD Advisor: Professor William Rothstein This study proposes a theory and method of analysis for voice leading in the melody of Gregorian chant. It draws on historical theories and practices, particularly those of the cantus tradition which 1) pre-dates the imposition on Western ecclesiastical chant of scale theories based in the Ancient Greek science of harmonics, 2) observes and predicts actual melodic behavior, and 3) remains basic to pedagogy through the centuries. Central to cantus-tradition doctrine is the investment of melodic tones with structural functions which articulate modes as melodic archetypes; idiomelic antiphons are analyzed according to five melodic functions derived from formulaic psalmody in a framework modally conditioned by the qualitative and intervallic relationship of final and tenor. Medieval sources put forward this functional dyad as essential to modal cognition—sometimes as the basis of modal construction—through a widespread mnemonic I call the “Re-la, re-fa” Rule; these dyads are also embedded in the ninth- century Noanoeane and eleventh-century Primum quaerite melodic prototypes. Evidence gathered from sources including the Metz tonary, De octo tonis, Musica Enchiriadis, Commemoratio Brevis, and treatises of Aurelian, Hucbald, Guido, Johannes, Amerus, Petrus de Cruce, Marchetto, Coclicus, Wollick, and Ornithoparchus is examined in light of the predicables v (genus, species, differentia, proprium, accidens) of Aristotelian dialectic, leading to critical re- evaluation of concepts such as repercussio. The dissertation draws upon the Schenkerian tradition, demonstrating structural levels and prolongation in dyadic contrapuntal progression. Melodic-functional analysis employs modern staff notation to trace directed motion of a structural voice of tenor function from a state of consonance to one of unity with a second structural voice of final function; hexachordal voces (ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la) identify the qualities of structural tones as well as their order in the tenor- function Urlinie which passes through modal degrees toward the final-function Urpunkt; secondary modes projected by local, in-process dyads are noted in lower-case Roman numerals i–viii. Tenor and final remain inseparate in monadic structures logically preceding the dyadic (Claire’s “modes of a single element). Other key terms: concinnity, tenorization, finalization, transfer of function, occursus, Hollywood kiss. vi MELODIC FUNCTION AND MODAL PROCESS IN GREGORIAN CHANT PREFACE How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life!—Ludwig Wittgenstein In the late 1990s I was juggling three musical professions: as a member of the vocal ensemble Lionheart I was researching and performing medieval and Renaissance chant and polyphony; as music director and organist for a traditional-minded Roman Catholic parish I was conducting a choir in similar repertoire, and playing a lot of Baroque organ music besides; I was also teaching tonal harmony and counterpoint at the Mannes College of Music. In the Scherman Library at Mannes I discovered Murray C. Bradshaw’s analysis of keyboard Intonazioni by Andrea and Giovanni Gabrieli as elaborations of psalm-tone harmonizations,1 and a paper David Loeb read at a Mannes symposium inspired me to try applying modal theory to the analysis of J. S. Bach’s Orgelbüchlein preludes.2 Studying the chorale melodies on which Bach based these settings brought to my attention points of contact with the psalm tones. Sometime after Joel Lester sat down with me to discuss my Bach project, the thought struck me—how small a thought, and how dependent on a peculiar mix of interests and experiences!—that the psalm tone presents a structural summary of its mode, along with characteristic embellishments, that in a way the psalm tone virtually is the mode. I soon began to see that the psalm-tone tenor functions 1 Bradshaw, The Origin of the Toccata. Musicological Studies and Documents 28 (American Institute of Musicology, 1972). 2 Loeb, “Dual-Key Movements,” in Schenker Studies, ed. Hedi Siegel (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 76–83. vii remarkably like Schenker’s Kopfton—and that this was but one of several similarities between psalmodic practice and the upper voice of the Schenkerian middleground. This Anschauung soon led to further realizations: first that the Bach project would have to wait for the theoretical ground to be prepared with treatment of monophonic melody; second, that someone must have heard and described this virtual identity of recitation tone and mode before me. When I finally read the article by Harold S. Powers that Joel Lester had recommended, I found the following: “by the end of the 11th century, in a passage at the beginning of chapter 11 of the De musica of Johannes Afflighemensis, the practical distinction of mode and psalm tone is obliterated with respect to the tenor.”3 I offer this autobiographical vignette in order to emphasize that although the De musica of Johannes and other historical treatises have confirmed my idea and guided its further development, what I present here ultimately stands or falls depending on how well it accords with the repertoire. With or without the intervention of theorists, the melodies of Gregorian chant speak to those who have ears to hear. I owe a debt of gratitude to others who have aided, encouraged, or challenged me in this project: to Carl Schachter, George Fisher, and Robert Cuckson; to Ian Bent, Susan Boynton, Matthew Cheung-Salisbury, David Cohen, Andrew Hughes, Cristle Collins Judd, Patrick McCreless, Stefano Mengozzi, Robert P. Morgan, Luca Ricossa, William Renwick, and Daniel Zimmerman; to Kyle Adams, Jason Hooper, Ève Poudrier, and Alan Richtmyer; to my gracious advisor William Rothstein and to the other members of my dissertation committee Joseph Straus, Ruth DeFord, and Anne Stone; also to Mark Anson-Cartwright, Allan Atlas, Stephen Blum, Poundie Burstein, David Gagné, and Chadwick Jenkins; to Margot Fassler, who alerted Yale 3 Powers, “Mode,” in The New Grove’s Dictionary of Music and Musicians (New York: Macmillan, 1980), 386. viii undergraduates they could hear Gregorian chant performed live at the church down the street; to the choir of that church and its directors Nicholas Renouf and Britt Wheeler; also to Harold Chaney; to my colleagues in Lionheart; to Tom Beckett, David Hyder, Vincent Renzi, and Maggie Robbins. I am grateful to directors and staff of the Scherman, Mina Rees, and Bobst libraries; to those of online databases including the Indiana University School of Music THESAURUS MUSICARUM LATINARUM and Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften online Lexicon musicum Latinum; to the folks at Google; to my mother and to my father, to my sister, and to my wife and son, who for the sake of this project have endured many sacrifices. Finally, I wish to thank my high school Latin teacher, Pamela Raschio Brown. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ...................................................................................................... iv Preface and Acknowledgements ..................................................................................... vi Epigraphs ...................................................................................................... xiv Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... xv Examples and Tables ...................................................................................................... xvi General Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Chapter One: A Simple Office Antiphon §1.1 Grammar, rhetoric, levels of structure .................................................... 6 §1.2 Origins, transmission, aesthetics ............................................................. 14 §1.3 Tonal trajectory, liturgical usage, mode ................................................. 27 Chapter Two: Modal Theory in the Cantus Tradition §2.1 The scale-based concept of mode in the Latin West ............................... 43 §2.2 Rival theoretical traditions ...................................................................... 46 §2.3 Melodic prototypes and modal qualities of the oktōēchos ...................... 49 §2.4 Introduction to Aristotelian division ....................................................... 69 §2.5 Epistemology of the cantus tradition ...................................................... 73 §2.6 Johannes and the theory of melodic functions ........................................ 82 Chapter Three: