That's an interesting summary and very generous of you to say that you find
Lex's and my discussion important as I often feel I am wasting everyone's
time and getting very cross in the process. The etymology of the term
"motet" is a fascinating topic in its own right. But we had better not
start a discussion on that.
Best
Monica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nelson, Jocelyn" <nels...@ecu.edu>
To: "Vihuelalist" <vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 6:48 PM
Subject: [VIHUELA] Virgil, Vergil, & the usefulness of etymology or bourdon
details
Dear List,
I listened to an entertaining talk yesterday afternoon on how research
worked in the renaissance (it seems research didn't work so well,
according to the speaker, who gave us some good laughs during his
talk). The poet and scholar Poliziano (1454-1494) made a strong case
for the correct spelling of the Roman poet's name, "Vergil
(Vergilius)." His evidence, which was better than the evidence on the
opposing side according to the professor giving the talk (such as the
poet's spelling preference for his own name), has been ignored ever
since--most of us know the poet as "Virgil." The talk centered on why
the truth was ignored and the difference between truth and influence:
we consistently sacrifice truth forusefulness and custom, which is more
influential. Some classicists in the room did bring up Virgil's word
plays on his own name, and some other Latin and Italian spelling
issues, but people generally appreciated his basic premise: that this
sacrifice--usefulness over truth--is eventually to our detriment, even
when the truth in the short run seems like it doesn't matter.
Which brings me back to our conversation about etymology. I was
surprised to read Ralf eschew the importance of the original meaning of
a style, genre, or technique in musicbecause I happen to come to that
particular question from the opposite direction: why wouldn't a
performer or scholar in the field of early music want to understand a
term's origins?
"Etymology might be interesting in itself and
important in the study of language, but is of no use in a
terminological discurse. In what way is the fact that the top voice of
a polyphonic piece once was considered a texted version of an untexted
clausula (and hence named 'motetus' - with words) relevant to the
study of, say, Motets by Marc-Antoine Charpentier?"
We could argue the relevance of understanding the origins of the motet
to an understanding of Charpentier's motets, and we could each make
good points (perhaps while entirely convinced the other is wrong).
But I'm more interested in how we decide to explore early musical
techniques and performance practices. If we're brazen enough to perform
music of the distant past, every detail and item of evidence we can
find is vital to an understanding of any certain genre or performance
practice, even when the final answer doesn't always seem to include
many of the details. That's why I wouldn't want to teach the 17^th
century French motet literature to students who haven't been through
the earlier lectures on the substitute clausulae; in fact, the earlier
course is officially a prerequisite for the later course at my school
for just that reason.
And that's why I find the evidentiary details in the discussion on
bourdons between Monica and Lex and others on this list important. I'm
grateful to them for taking the trouble to defend their viewpoints with
specifics.
Best wishes,
Jocelyn
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
