¹ The wide range of genres that would constitute such an inquiry are discussed in Everist, ‘Origins of Polyphonic Song II’.

² Diplomatic facsimiles, texts and music of these compositions are given in de Coussemaker, C. E. H., ed., Oeuvres complètes du trouvère Adam de la Halle (poésies et musique) (Paris, 1872), pp. 207–35Google Scholar and, more recently, Wilkins, N., ed., The Lyric Works of Adam de la Hale (Chansons, jeux partis, rondeaux, motets), Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae, 44 ([Rome], 1967), pp. 49–59Google Scholar. Texts alone are found in ***Raynaud, G., ed., Recueil de motets français des xii^e et xiii^e siécles publiés d'après les manuscrits, avec introduction, notes, variantes, et glossaires, 2 vols., Bibliothèque Française du Moyen Age (Paris, 1881–1883Google Scholar; R Hildesheim and New York, 1972; R Geneva, 1974), vol. ii, pp. 108–14, and van den Boogaard, N. H. J., Rondeaux et refrains du xii^e siècle au début du xiv^e; Collationnement, introduction, et notes, Bibliothèque Française et Romane, D:3 (Paris, 1969), pp. 51–6Google Scholar. The dating of the manuscript is problematic. A secure terminus post quem is provided by a reference in the Dis du Vrai Aniel (F-Pn fr. 25566, fols. 232–235) to the capture of Acre by Moslem forces under Sultan al-Ashraf on 18 May 1291 after six weeks of siege (Runciman, S., A History of the Crusades, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1954Google Scholar; Harmondsworth, 1971), vol. iii, pp. 412–23: page numbers refer to the 1971 edition); the manuscript must therefore have been copied after that date. The editor of the Roman de Renart, Henri Roussel, further noted that the full-page miniature of the Wheel of Fortune (F-Pn fr. 25566, fol. 175^v) was decorated with the arms of Guy de Dampierre, Count of Flanders, and those of the Hangest family. If such a conjunction of arms represented cordial relations between the Hangest and Dampierre families, these could not have lasted beyond 1297. Although this latter date is more speculative than the former, together they seem to imply a time between 1291 and 1297 (Roussel, H., ed., Renart le nouvel par Jacquemart Gielee publié d'apŕes le manuscrit La Vallière, Société des Anciens Textes Français (Paris, 1961), pp. 8–9)Google Scholar.

³ Summary lists of contents in Segre, C., ed., Li Bestiaires d'amours di Maistre Richart de Fornival e Li Response du Bestiaire, Documenti di Filologia, 2 (Naples and Milan, 1957), pp. xxxiii–xxxviiGoogle Scholar, and Reaney, G., Manuscripts of Polyphonic Music (11th-Early 14th Century), Répertoire International des Sources Musicales, BIV₁ (Munich and Duisberg, 1966), pp. 395–401Google Scholar.

⁴ Such a position is familiar from work on the Machaut manuscripts. See Williams, S. J., ‘An Author's Role in Fourteenth-Century Book Production: Guillaume Machaut's “Livre ou je met toutes mes choses”’, Romania, 90 (1969), pp. 433–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Huot, S., From Song to Book: The Poetics of Writing in Old French Lyric and Lyrical Narrative Poetry (Ithaca, N.Y., and London, 1987)Google Scholar.

⁵ In this respect, the position is similar to the organa quadrupla ascribed to Perotinus by Anonymous IV (Reckow, F., ed., Der Musiktraktat des Anonymus 4, 2 vols., Beihefte zum Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 4–5 (Wiesbaden, 1967) vol. i, p. 46Google Scholar. Indeed, the absence of any comparative material has meant that the chronological implications of the dates apparently associated with these works (see most recently Everist, M., Polyphonic Music in Thirteenth-Century France: Aspects of Sources and Distribution (New York and London, 1989), pp. 5–6) have been hotly debatedGoogle Scholar. See, for a representative sample of this argument, Tischler, H., ‘The Dates of Perotin’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 16 (1963), pp. 240–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘Perotinus Revisited’, Aspects of Medieval and Renaissance Music: A Birthday Offering to Gustave Reese, ed. J. LaRue (Oxford, 1967), pp. 803–17; Sanders, E., ‘The Question of Perotin's Oeuvre and Dates’, Festschrift für Walter Wiora zum 30. Dezember 1966, ed. Finscher, L. and Mahling, C.-H. (Kassel etc., 1967), pp. 241–9Google Scholar. At the time of writing, a further contribution to the question is forthcoming (Pinegar, S., ‘Between Pope and Monarch: A Return to Dating Pérotin's organa quadrupla’, American Musicological Society Annual Meeting,Minneapolis,26–30 October 1994)Google Scholar.

⁶ Adam de la Halle's motets – edited in Wilkins, , Lyric Works, pp. 58–69Google Scholar – have received less attention than they deserve. They exhibit large stylistic inconsistencies both within the group and between Adam's works and the rest of the thirteenth-century motet repertory. For a view of the texts of Adam's motets, see Huot, S., ‘Transformations of Lyric Voice in the Songs, Motets and Plays of Adam de la Halle’, Romanic Review, 78 (1987), pp. 148–64Google Scholar.

⁷ The poems were edited in Raynaud, , Recueil de Motets, vol. ii, pp. 94–107Google Scholar. Ludwig, Friedrich mentioned them briefly (Repertorium organorum recentioris et motetorum vetustissimi stili, vol. i, part 2, pp. 616–17)Google Scholar and Gennrich, Friedrich published as much of the musically related material as was known in 1921 (Rondeaux, Virelais und Balladen, vol. i, pp. 74–87)Google Scholar. Ludwig, F., Repertorium organorum recentioris et motetorum vetustissimi stili, 2 vols.: vol. i, part 1, Halle, 1910Google Scholar; R ed. Dittmer, L. A., Musicological Studies, 7 (Brooklyn, N.Y. and Hildesheim, 1964)Google Scholar; vol. i, part 2, pp. 345–456, ed. F. Gennrich, Summa Musicae Medii Aevi, 7 (Langen bei Frankfürt, 1961; including reprint of Ludwig, ‘Die Quellen der Motetten altesten Stils’, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 5 (1923), pp. 185–222 and 273–315); vol. i, part 2, pp. [345–456], [457–783, R ed. Dittmer, L. A., Musicological Studies, 26 (Binningen, 1978)Google Scholar; vol. ii, pp. 1–71, ed. Gennrich, F., Summa Musicae Medii Aevi, 8 (of which pp. 65–71Google Scholar in page proof only) (Langen bei Frankfört, 1962); R pp. 1–155 (of which pp. 65–71 corrected), ed. Dittmer, L. A., Musicological Studies, 17 (Brooklyn, N.Y., and Hildesheim, 1972)Google Scholar. Gennrich, F., Rondeaux, Virelais und Balladen aus dem Ende des xii., dem xiii., und dem ersten Drittel des xiv. Jahrhunderts mit den überlieferten Melodien, 3 vols.: vol. i, Gesellschaft für Romanische Literatur, 43 (Dresden, 1921)Google Scholar; vol. ii, Gesellschaft füür Romanische Literatur, 47 (Göttingen, 1927); vol. iii (titled Das altfranzösische Rondeau und Virelai im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert), Summa Musicae Medii Aevi, 10 (Langen bei Frankfurt, 1963). Both Ludwig (Repertorium, vol. 1, part 2, p. 616) and Gennrich, (Rondeaux, Virelais und Balladen, vol. ii, p. 90)Google Scholar noted that the music for these lyrics would have been in three parts. The poetry is also edited, with no indications of music, in van den Boogaard, Rondeaux et Refrains, pp. 81–90. The dating of the manuscript is much less specific than that of F-Pn fr. 25566. The early fourteenth-century date advanced in Walters, L., ‘Chrétien de Troyes and the Romance of the Rose: Continuation and Narrative Tradition’ (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1986), pp. 363–87Google Scholar, is based on a private consultation with François Avril of the Bibliothèque Nationale. This dating cannot be supported by the decoration in the manuscript (because it was never executed), and is therefore based mostly on precarious paleographical assessments. Raynaud (Recueil de Motets, vol. ii, p. xii) places the manuscript at the end of the thirteenth century.

⁸ The Roman de la rose is edited by Langlois, E., Le Roman de la rose par Guillaume de Lorris et Jean de Meun publié d'après les manuscrits, Société des Anciens Textes Français, 5 vols. (Paris, 1914–1924)Google Scholar; the Roman de la poire is edited by Nizia, C. M., Le Roman de la poire par Tibaut, Société des Anciens Textes Français (Paris, 1984)Google Scholar.

⁹ The term additamenta originated with Johannes de Grocheio (Ernst, Rohloff, ed., Der Musiktraktat des Johannes de Grocheo nach dem Quellen neu herausgegeben mit Übersetzung ins Deutsche und Revisionsbericht, Media Latinitas Musica, 2 (Leipzig, 1943), pp. 50–1Google Scholar; idem, Die Quellenhandschriften zum Musiktraktat des Johannes de Grocheio im Faksimile herausgegeben nebst Übertragung des Textes und Übersetzung ins Deutsche, dazu Bericht, Literaturschau, Tabellen und Indices (Leipzig, [1972]), pp. 74–5 and 132). See also Page, C., ‘Johannes de Grocheio on Secular Music: A Corrected Text and a New Translation’, Plainsong and Medieval Music, 2 (1993), pp. 17–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ The text of the poem's three-line refrain is the same in the two versions; so is that of lines 4 and 5. In place of the following three lines in F-Pn fr. 25566 (‘Ne m'en partiroie/Pour les iex crever/Se s'amour n'avoie’), F-Pn fr. 12786 has two lines only (‘Jamais cuer n'avroie/De nule autre amer’). Both poems close with a full statement of the refrain.

¹¹ The scribe has left 16mm for the notation of the monophonic refrains, and 48mm for the three-part notation of the polyphonic rondeaux.

¹² The section of F-CA 1328 devoted to the four polyphonic rondeaux by Adam has little to do with the rest of the manuscript, for which see Lerch, I., Fragmente aus Cambrai: Ein Beitrag zur Rekonstruktion einer Handschrift mit spätmittelalterlicher Polyphonie, 2 vols., Göttinger Musikwissenschaftliche Arbeiten, 11 (Kassel etc., 1987)Google Scholar, which supersedes previous accounts of the subject. Coussemaker, , Histoire de I'harmonie au moyen age (Paris, 1852; R Hildesheim, 1966), p. xxxiGoogle Scholar, gives a facsimile of the recto of the leaf on which ‘Li dous regars’ is found, and a transcription on p. xxxv. Both versions of the composition are edited in Wilkins, , Lyric Works, p. 50Google Scholar.

¹³ In Example 1, all three voice-parts have been reduced to a single stave for each version of the piece, and doublings are not noted (hence the apparent mixture of two- and three-part sonorities). The reduction also filters out middleground voiceleading and foreground ornamentation; it is in these domains that the two versions differ greatly. The criteria for executing such a reduction as this are problematic in mode II compositions, even (as here) where the text declamation follows the modal rhythms of the music. Example 1 uses sonorities on the longa for its principal entries, and those on the second brevis for its single subsidiary entry. What the graph does not show, for reasons of space, is a comparison between the two versions that takes account of all the sonorities on the second brevis. Differences between the two versions spill over into this dimension. Users of the edition in Wilkins, , Lyric Works, p. 50Google Scholar, should note that the final pitch in the top part of the version from F-Pn fr. 25566 is given as d (thus creating a 6−5 sonority). The manuscript evidence that it should be f is clear. See pp. 93–5 below for a consideration of the tessitura of the voice parts in the two versions.

¹⁴ The table also includes, for the sake of completeness, the well-known rondeau by Jehannot de L'Escurel and the two less well-known anonymous works in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Collection de Picardie 67; the latter are edited in Gennrich, , Rondeaux, Virelais und Balladen, vol. ii, pp. 262–4Google Scholar. They are excluded from the current discussion because, despite their superficial similarity to the works by Adam de la Halle, they exhibit different patterns of texting and, in one case, an initial polyphonic, melisma that invites comparison with later fourteenth-century chansons. They are important witnesses in an ongoing study of the emergence of polyphonic song in the early fourteenth century.

¹⁵ The most complete statement, and most articulate elaboration, of this position is Huot, From Song to Book. The discussion of F-Pn fr. 12786 is on pp. 16–19, and that of F-Pn fr. 25566 on pp. 64–74.

¹⁶ Thibaut de Navarre's collections are discussed in Raynaud, G., Bibliographie des chansonniers français des xiii^e et xiv^e siècles comprenant la description de tous les manuscrits, la table des chansons classées par ordre alphabétique de rimes, et la liste des trouères, 2 vols. (Paris, 1884), p. vGoogle Scholar, and in the introductions to the inventories of the several manuscripts, passim, and also in Wallensköld, A., ed., Les chansons de Thibaut de Navarre, Roi de Champagne: Édition critique, Société des Anciens Textes Français (Paris, 1925), pp. xxviii–xxxviii and xliGoogle Scholar. It should also be noted that examples of the grouping of Adam de la Halle's chansons alone survive (most notably the single eight-leaf quire that constitutes fols. 2^r–9^v of F-Pn fr. 25566, but also F-Pn fr. 1109, fols. 311–325, F-Pn fr. 847, fols. 211–218, and F-Pn fr. 12615, fols. 224–233). Although Stevens, John (‘The Manuscript Presentation and Notation of Adam de la Halle's Courtly Chansons’, Source Materials and the Interpretation of Music: A Memorial Volume to Thurston Dart, ed. Bent, I. (London, 1981), pp. 29–64)Google Scholar gives much attention to the sources for the grands chants of Adam de la Halle, the concept of an author corpus is avoided.

¹⁷ Roussel, Renart le nouvel.

¹⁸ Huot, , From Song to Book, p. 68Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Ibid., p. 70 (whence most of the ideas in this paragraph are also taken). The suggestion that these lines were part of the conjunction of these two texts in this manuscript alone was made in Langlois, E., ed., Le jeu de Robin et Marion par Adam le Bossu, trouvère artésien du xiii^e siècle (Paris, 1896), pp. 76–82Google Scholar.

²⁰ Huot, , From Song to Book, p. 73 n. 37Google Scholar.

²¹ Ibid., p. 73.

²² Ibid.

²³ The frame ruling of the manuscript is consistent throughout the manuscript (155mm X 200mm), although three different internal ruling patterns are found: verse in columns, prose in columns, and presentation across the full width of the written block; this latter format is found in the Fournival Bestiaire (fols. 31–42) and in the rondeau collection (fols. 76–82). The handwriting is also consistent: i is dotted in minim groups and in isolation; double l is joined at the top but not crossed; a is in two compartments.

²⁴ The quiring is as follows: i⁸, ii⁸, iii⁸, iv⁶ (lacks 7 and 8), v–ix ⁸, x ⁵ (lacks 4–6), xi–xiii⁸.

²⁵ Langlois, E., Les manuscrits du Roman de la rose: Description et classement, Travaux et Mémoires de l'Université de Lille, Nouvelle Série, I: Droit, Lettres, 7 (Lille, 1910), pp. 49–52Google Scholar.

²⁶ From Song to Book, p. 17.

²⁷ Pannier, L., Les lapidaires français du moyen âge des xii^e, xiii^e et xiv^e siècles, Bibliothèque de l'École des Hautes Études, 52 (Paris, 1882), pp. 291–7Google Scholar, gives the text of the lapidary and observes (ibid., p. 289) that the text is ‘incomplet du dernier feuillet’. However, Sue, F. (‘Contribution à l'étude des lapidaires anonymes en prose français’, Ph.D. diss., École National des Chartes, 1975), pp. 20, 371–2 and 393–4)Google Scholar shows that it is possible to view the version of the text in F-Pn fr. 12786 as complete. I am grateful to Dr Sue for discussing this matter with me in March 1994.

²⁸ Bibliographical orientation for these texts is in Segre, , Bestiaires d'amours, pp. xxxix–x1Google Scholar.

²⁹ Useful introductions to this subject are Fowler, M. V., ‘Musical Interpolations in Thirteenth- and Fourteenth-Century French Narratives’, 2 vols. (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1979)Google Scholar; Coldwell, M. V. [née Fowler], ‘Guillaume de Dole and Medieval Romances with Musical Interpolations’, Musica Disciplina, 35 (1981), pp. 55–86Google Scholar. See also Ladd, A. P., ‘Lyric Insertions in Thirteenth-Century French Narrative’ (ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1973)Google Scholar; Boulton, M. B. McC., ‘Lyric Insertion in French Narrative Fiction in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries’ (M.Litt. diss., University of Oxford, 1979)Google Scholar; idem, The Song in the Story: Lyric Insertions in French Narrative Fiction, 1200–1400 (Philadelphia, 1993). It should be stressed, however, that these studies only begin to address this question; an exhaustive survey of all manuscripts of thirteenth- and early fourteenth-century romance that either contain music or were designed to contain music (this category is almost completely ignored in the studies cited above) is to be published by Ardis Butterfield (University College, London) and myself.

³⁰ The Roman de la poire is a typical case. Of its three manuscript sources, F-Pn fr.12786 leaves space for the refrains, F-Pn fr. 2186 supplies stave-lines for the refrains, and F-Pn fr. 24431 supplies notation for the three refrains that survive in this fragmentary source.

³¹ Both Segre, (Bestiaires d'amours, p. xxxix)Google Scholar and Huot, (From Song to Book, p. 16) make this errorGoogle Scholar.

³² There is a summary description in Ludwig, , Repertorium, vol. I, part 2, pp. 617–18Google Scholar.

³³ Ibid., p. 618; Gennrich, F., Bibliographie der ältesten französischen und lateinischen Motetten, Summa Musicae Medii Aevi, 2 (Darmstadt, 1957), pp. 99 and 103Google Scholar.

³⁴ A curious characteristic of this poem is its allusion, in lines 7–9, to one of the more common type cadres found in rondets de carole (usually lines 2, 5 and 6 of a six-line model). The technique used here, of embedding elements of the rondet de carole into a larger structure, bears comparison with the motet (46) ‘Tout leis enmi les prez’, discussed from this perspective in Everist, M., French Motets in the Thirteenth Century:Music, Poetry and Genre, Cambridge Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Music (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 114–16Google Scholar.

³⁵ The conventions governing the composition of French texts to newly composed and reworked motets are outlined in Everist, French Motets, pp. 43–54.

³⁶ Ludwig, , Repertorium, vol. i, part 2, p. 618Google Scholar.

³⁷ No concordances for ‘Por vous douz viaire cler’ are known. The son poitevin survives with multiple stanzas in two other manuscripts: Arras, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 657, fol. 186^v, and F-Pn fr. 844, fol. 100^v. See the edition in Brakelman, J., Les plus anciens chansonniers français (xii^e siècle) publiés d'après tous les manuscrits (Paris, 1870; R Geneva, 1974), p. 26Google Scholar.

³⁸ Although the two poems are isometric – heptasyllabic in ‘Por vous douz viaire cler’, decasyllabic in ‘Puis qu'en moi’ – the refrain in ‘Por vous douz viaire cler’ uses, as is normal, contrasting lines of seven and five syllables.

³⁹ The leaf at the beginning of the quire in which the rondeau collection and prefatory pieces are found is only half filled, with a large amount of white space at the top of the page. Once the first two (incomplete) pieces are reconstructed, it is clear that this leaf would originally have been filled with text and (if the manuscript had been completed) with music. That still leaves open the question of why the top part of fol. 76 was erased. There is still the possibility that, after reaching the stage of construction at which the manuscript was abandoned, someone thought that fol. 76 might be a good place for an elaborate half-page miniature, and that this quire should begin the manuscript. The fact that such a procedure damaged the first two pieces might well have triggered the decision to abandon work on the book.

⁴⁰ Problems of reconstruction abound in these freer structures. In ‘ Diex, vez les ci’ and ‘Trop me regardez’, both from F-Pn fr. 12786, it is far from clear exactly how the incipits for the refrains should be realised; in the latter case there is disagreement as to how to interpret the lines of five and ten syllables. Gennrich (Rondeaux, Virelais und Balladen, vol. i, p. 86) emends to create a ten-line rondeau, without comment (ibid., vol. ii, p. 98), whereas van den Boogaard (Rondeaux et refrains, p. 89) leaves a poem with refrain lines of ten syllables and additamenta lines of five. In the case of Adam de le Halle's ‘Dieus soit’, Wilkins, (Lyric Works, pp. 58–9)Google Scholar and Raynaud, (Recueil de motets, vol. ii, pp. 113-14)Google Scholar disagree radically over the structure of the poem. Neither Falck's description of this poem as a ‘ballade with initial refrain’ nor his identification of ‘Fines amouretes’ as a virelai has anything to recommend it apart from the dubious authority of Gennrich (Rondeaux, Virelais und Balladen, vol. ii, p. 85, where he chastises Raynaud for not having recognised ‘den Bau der Ballade’). Nevertheless, this view is still duplicated in Earp, L., ‘Lyrics for Reading and Lyrics for Singing in Late Medieval France: The Development of the Dance Lyric from Adam de la Halle to Guillaume de Machaut’, The Union of Words and Music in Medieval Poetry, ed. Baltzer, R. A., Cable, T. and Wimsatt, J. I. (Austin, TX, 1991), p. 103Google Scholar. ‘Fines amouretes’ consists of four complete statements of a refrain separated by three four-line sections that constitute the additamenta. Of the two remaining freer poems, ‘Qu'ai je forfet’ lacks an internal statement of the refrain, and ‘Li jors m'a trové’, although its refrain functions normally, has new lines grouped in threes.

⁴¹ Earp, ‘Lyrics for Reading and Lyrics for Singing’, p. 109.

⁴² An example of the freer, mixed-modal, type of declamation is discussed below, pp. 82–3.

⁴³ It is for these sorts of reasons that the reconstructions in Gennrich, Rondeaux, Virelais und Balladen need to be treated with a degree of circumspection.

⁴⁴ Motet voices are identified according to the listings in Gennrich, Bibliographie der ältesten französischen und lateinischen Motetten.

⁴⁵ Motets with French tenors are discussed in Ludwig, Repertorium, passim, and usefully collected together in Walker, T., ‘Sui tenor francesi nei motetti del ‘200’, Schede Medievali: Rassegna dell'Officina di Studi Medievali, 3 (07–12 1982), pp. 309-36Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ The differences in function and presentation between intertextual and intratextual refrains are discussed in Everist, , French Motets, pp. 54–66Google Scholar. It must be stressed, however, that this difference is not generic but functional (and this distinction has been recently criticised verbally as being a poor generic description, though it was never intended as such). In other words, the same refrain (text and/or music) can behave intertextually (being present in two or more different poems) or intratextually within the same poem. The great value of this distinction is epistemological: the methods of identification of refrains are different for the two types.

⁴⁷ The compositions in which this technique is found are sometimes known as motets entés. See ibid., pp. 77–89, for a critique and an alternative interpretation.

⁴⁸ The structure and chronology of F-MO H 196 are problematic. Traditional views identified three main layers of activity, fascicles 2–6, fascicles 1 and 7, and fascicle 8; scribal activity was seen to spread over a period from perhaps 1260 to the early fourteenth century (see the sources cited in Everist, , Polyphonic Music, pp. 110–19)Google Scholar. This additive construction may be explained in terms of a book-producing culture that attempted to produce multiple copies of single texts and that predated the appearance of the pecia system (Everist, , ‘Polyphonic Music in Thirteenth-Century France: Aspects of Sources and Distribution’, 2 vols. (D.Phil, diss., University of Oxford, 1985), published in 1989 as cited in note 5 above)Google Scholar. Unfortunately, the dissertation by Wolinski, Mary on the manuscript (‘The Montpellier Codex: Its Compilation, Notation and Implications for the Chronology of the Thirteenth-Century Motet’ (Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 1988), p. 14 n. 1)Google Scholar took no account of the earlier (1985) study, and she reached the unacceptable conclusion that the first seven fascicles of the manuscript were all copied at the same time. There is no substantive change in terms of sources consulted or conclusions reached in the published version of these arguments (idem., ‘The Compilation of the Montpellier Codex’, Early Music History,11 (1992), pp. 263–301)Google Scholar. Much of the discussion is based on contradictory art-historical views of the decoration, a lack of consensus that inspires no confidence in this approach for dating this particular manuscript. Wolinski's central piece of evidence is the unconvincing identification of the same scribe at work in the supplement to fascicle 7 and in fascicle 3 (F-MO H 196, fol. 65^r; a plate is given in Wolinski, ‘Compilation’, p. 269). The evidence seemed implausible when it was presented publicly to the American Musicological Society (New Orleans, 1986), and it remains difficult to accept. The claim (‘Compilation’, p. 268 n. 7) that her assessment of certain physical details in the manuscript agrees with those in Everist, Polyphonic Music, is misleading; the conclusions in the latter study are diametrically opposed to hers.

⁴⁹ Maillard, J., ‘Les refrains de caroles dans Renart le nouvel’, Alain de Lille, Gautier de Chátillon, Jakemart Giélée et leur temps: Actes du colloque de Lille, Octobre 1978, ed. Roussel, H. and Suard, F., Bien dire et bien aprendre: Bulletin du Centre d'lÉtudes Médiévales et Dialectales de l'Université de Lille, iii 2 (Lille, 1980), pp. 277–93Google Scholar; Fowler, ‘Musical Interpolations’, pp. 100–7.

⁵⁰ Identification of sources for Renart le nouvel follows Roussel, , Renart le nouvel, pp. 7–9Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Reese, G., Music in the Middle Ages with an Introduction on the Music of Ancient Times (London, 1941), p. 322Google Scholar; Handschin, J., ‘Über Voraussetzungen, sowie Früh – und Hochblüte der mittelalterlichen Mehrstimmigkeit’, Schweizerisches Jahrbuch für Musikwissenschaft, 2 (1927), pp. 29–30Google Scholar.

⁵² Handschin, ‘Über Voraussetzungen’, p. 30 n. 2.

⁵³ The monophonic rondeau ‘Dame, or sui’ that is concordant in F-Pn fr. 25566 (and is presumably by Adam de la Halle) is unattributed in its monophonic form in I-Rvat Reg. Lat. 1490.

⁵⁴ Handschin, ‘Über Voraussetzungen’, pp. 39–40.

⁵⁵ Rondeau 7 exhibits a single example of crossing between voices I and II, and rondeau 9 one crossing of voices I and III; these are ignored in Table 6 for reasons of clarity. The different voice ranges in rondeau 2 may be compared with the contrapuntal summary of this piece in Example 1. This is one of the two pieces in which all three voices cross, and it is especially interesting that this is a characteristic of both the versions in F-Pn fr. 25566 and F-CA 1328, further reinforcing the claim that, despite superficial differences, the two works share the same structure. Table 6 also suggests that the voice parts in rondeau 3 may have been swapped at some stage since II is so obviously higher than I. Although this is common in motet sources, where voices are notated in parts, it is far from clear what textual disturbances could have generated this transposition in a composition notated in score.