The vertical lines in Barnard MS 1 differ greatly from comparable 14th-century Franciscan manuscripts.
Barnard MS 1 was produced in Tuscany, likely in Siena, during the mid-14th century. An examination of contemporary Franciscan manuscripts shows that the placement of vertical lines was far from standardized. For a wide-ranging comparison, I looked at the following:
Rimini Antiphoner (1328), copied in Italy
Burns Antiphoner (mid 1300s), copied in Germany, Austria, or Switzerland
Plimpton MS o34 (1351), copied in Flanders
All three are Franciscan manuscripts, although Plimpton is a processional and was copied specifically for use in a convent by nuns. I will refer to these manuscripts as Rimini, Burns, and Plimpton, while Barnard MS 1 will hereafter be termed Barnard.
Both Corpus Christi and the Common of the Apostles appear in Burns, while Rimini includes only the former and Plimpton the latter.
Statistical Analysis
There are 327 vertical lines in the Barnard Common of the Apostles and 410 in Barnard Corpus Christi, in both cases more than other manuscripts. For a complete listing of these vertical lines and their correspondence with other manuscripts, see my Google Sheets spreadsheet.
The following tables show the correspondence of the placement of vertical lines when compared with Barnard. For the purposes of this study, the statistical analysis does not include lines added in other manuscripts that do not occur in Barnard; these solely trace the prevalence of lines found in Barnard.
| Common of the Apostles | Burns | Rimini |
| Total number of lines | 317 | 301 |
| Lines with corresponding placement, with percentage of correlation | 73 (23.02%) | 206 (68.44%) |
| Lines with corresponding placement and type, with percentage of correlation | 65 (20.50%) | 177 (58.80%) |
As Table 1 demonstrates, Rimini has a considerably higher rate of correspondence than Burns. However, when adjusted for type (single or double) as well as placement, the rates drop off for both manuscripts.
| Corpus Christi | Burns | Plimpton |
| Total number of lines | 348 | 97 |
| Total correlating lines by placement | 251 (72.13%) | 60 (61.86%) |
| Total correlating lines by placement and type | 240 (68.97%) | 59 (60.82%) |
For Corpus Christi, however, as Table 2 shows, Barnard aligns far more neatly with Burns, and Plimpton is not far behind. When accounting for line type, Plimpton is shockingly similar, even with far fewer lines overall–only a single line differs (in this case, from single to double).
Barnard’s correlation with Burns differs noticeably between the Common of the Apostles and the feast of Corpus Christi. Nevertheless, it should be little surprise that well over half of vertical lines correspond between Barnard and Plimpton as well as between Barnard and Rimini. All three manuscripts were copied in Italy, and a higher level of standardization might have existed among Italian Franciscans than across different geographic areas.
Franciscans vs. Dominicans
Even though the degree of concordance between Barnard and the other Franciscan manuscripts is substantial with respect to vertical lines, the consistency among these manuscripts in the appearance and use of these lines is still much less than the corresponding usage seen in Dominican manuscripts. Both Franciscans and Dominicans promoted several reforms to ensure the uniformity of their liturgies. As Mary Berry writes concerning the Franciscan Order, “In the mid-13th century Haymo of Faversham reformed the liturgy… The gradual was issued in 1251 and the antiphoner some three years later. Careful instructions were appended for scribes.”
The Dominicans had clear rules for copying manuscripts. As Eleanor Giraud explains, “in 1254, Humbert of Romans was assigned the task of undertaking what would become the final revision of the Dominican liturgy… To facilitate dissemination of the liturgical revision, several exemplars were made, from which new books were to be copied and carefully checked” (155). Several of these exemplars included sets of regulations that mandated scribal practices. One pertains to vertical lines, and is copied in full in Michel Huglo’s “Règlement du XIIIe siècle pour la transcription des livres notés”:
Nullus scienter litteram aut notam mutet sed teneantur litterae et notae et virgulae pausarum (124)
The rule instructs that scribes must, in Giraud’s translation “let… the lines of pauses (virgulae pausarum) be observed” (162). It is unclear whether virgulae pausarum encompasses all vertical lines or a specific set, but, in an illuminating study, Giraud compares six Dominican manuscripts copied in Paris in the late 1250s. Even adjusting for more limited chronological and geographic range of these examples, Giraud uncovered astonishingly little variation, with all manuscripts except one missing less than 1% of the 724 vertical lines in the sections she examines. She concludes that the Dominicans were “remarkably successful in producing six books which largely conformed to the principle of uniformity” (170),
Much less research has been conducted on Franciscan notation or efforts at standardization, but, by and large, the two Orders seem to have had similar purposes implicit in their vertical lines. For example, Giraud notes that, for Dominicans, “a double line was used to demarcate the sections of chant to be sung by the cantor or designated soloist(s),” exactly the same usage as in Franciscan manuscripts (161-162). Still, as Huglo notes in his “Dominican and Franciscan Books: Similarities and Differences Between Their Notations,” the “most striking difference” between the two sets of rules is the “relative brevity of the Dominican rules compared to those of the Franciscans” (196). With shorter regulations, it is little surprise that Franciscan manuscripts were less standardized.
There are two further facts about Franciscans that make their use of vertical lines notable. On one hand, as Huglo notes, “The regulations of the Franciscans forbid the writing or notation of their books in secular workshops” (200). While Franciscans could still decorate their manuscripts, the notational work, including insertion of bar lines, was written by lay scribes, which could have led to errors and miscommunications. On the other hand, unlike many other monastic orders, Franciscans joined as adults. With no Franciscan oblates, there was a steeper learning curve for new members that likely made notation for performance practice essential. Even so, the lack of standardization implies the continuation of an oral tradition well into the 14th century.
Two Last Cases
Throughout Barnard, there are several pages that were clearly added centuries later. A historical curiosity, these pages offer some insight into performance practice throughout the manuscript’s history as well as on notational developments. There are two extensive examples, both falling at the ends of feasts.
The first shows a somewhat traditional usage of vertical lines. It seems that they serve primarily to distinguish between words and syllables, with the added length at the bottom of each line to further clarify the relationship between text and pitch or, in the case of the double lines, between soloist and choir.
But the second addition shows little attempt to match the use of vertical lines with the rest of the manuscript. This is instantly noticeable at the end of chants, with the presence of what Thomas Schmidt terms “traversing barlines,” or a set of double vertical lines functioning like a double line in modern notation. Notably, both traversing barlines include, to use Jonathan Ligrani’s terminology, “cascading line filler,” a decorative effect composed of sequentially smaller vertical lines. Used together, these techniques are found primarily in sixteenth-century manuscript copies of madrigals, which are secular vocal compositions. The madrigal’s popularity in Italy may explain the crossover here, but its inclusion in an antiphoner is quite a surprise. Still, as Zarlino’s discussion of breath marks shows, Italian composers in the 1500s were cognizant of conventions used in religious music; clearly, influences from secular music impacted the copying and writing of religious music as well.
Loose Ends (and Potential for Future Scholarship)
The examples presented here show that not all vertical lines are identical. Even some added by the original scribe are darker than others, added in iron gall ink, while others are lighter, etched into the parchment itself using a technique called drypoint. The line after “sancto,” for example, on pg. 197, is quite different from the line after “Commemoratio” (abbreviated as “Come.”), which is fainter and thinner. But using digital images, it can be impossible to tell which are which, and even carefully inspecting a manuscript in person can be inconclusive. Still, careful attention to the medium used may deliver insights into whether any lines were added later or a hierarchy of line types.
In addition, not all vertical lines are the same length. In vocal polyphony during the sixteenth century, the length of vertical lines implied different lengths of rests. As Knud Jeppesen explains, a line extending through the entire stave was equivalent to eight whole notes; a line lasting two spaces meant a rest of four whole notes; and a line covering only a single space implied two whole notes of rest (55). However, there is little evidence to defend a similar correlation here. Using the previous example, the vertical line following
“sancto” covers the entire stave, while, after “Commemoratio,” the vertical line is only the length of two spaces. As both serve the same purpose, marking the end of chants, any distinction here and elsewhere should be put down to scribal preference (or potential scribal error!).
More importantly, in other manuscripts like Plimpton, vertical lines rarely extend throughout the entire staff. These lines cover only a few spaces and start from both the bottom and the top of the stave, following the placement of the neumes. Still, a prolonged look at vertical line length may yield some correlations with the type of line.
Another study, however, would be necessary to answer these questions. My preliminary investigation of vertical lines in Barnard MS 1 has yielded intriguing results. Franciscan efforts at standardization were less successful than Dominican attempts. Vertical lines served a variety of purposes, including some similar to modern bar lines. And, Barnard even sheds light on copying and notational practices in the 16th century, with fascinating interplay between religious and secular traditions found in its pages.
Bibliography
Apel, Willi. The Notation of Polyphonic Music, 900-1600. 4th ed. Cambridge: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1949.
Beban, Hrvoje. “Nullus scienter litteram aut notam mutet: Dominicans (Dis)Obeying the Regulations for the Copying of Chant Books. An Example from Late Medieval Dalmatia.” In Making and Breaking the Rules: Discussion, Implementation, and Consequences of Dominican Legislation, edited by Cornelia Linde, 173-188. London: Oxford University Press, 2018.
Berry, Mary. “Franciscan Friars.” Grove Music Online, 2001.
DeFord, Ruth I. Tactus, Mensuration and Rhythm in Renaissance Music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Giraud, Eleanor. “Totum officum bene orrectum habeatur in domo: Uniformity in the Dominican Liturgy.” In Making and Breaking the Rules, 153-172.
Grier, James. The Critical Editing of Music: History, Method, and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Haines, John. “The Origins of the Musical Staff.” The Musical Quarterly 91, no. 3/4 (Fall – Winter, 2008): 327-378.
Huglo, Michel. “Dominican and Franciscan Books: Similarities and Differences Between Their Notations.” In The Calligraphy of Medieval Music, edited by John Haines, translated by Barbara Haggh, 195–202. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2011.
—-. “Règlement Du XIIIe Siècle Pour La Transcription Des Livres Notés.” In La Théorie de La Musique Antique et Médiévale, XVIII. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate, 2005.
Jeppesen, Knud. Counterpoint: The Polyphonic Vocal Style of the Sixteenth Century, trans. Glen Haydon. New York: Dover Publications, 1992.
Ligrani, Jonathan. “The Residue of Performance: Scribal Symbols, Print Standardization, and the Florentine Madrigal.” Lecture, American Musicological Society Virtual Conference, 2021.
Rastall, Richard. The Notation of Western Music: An Introduction. New York: St. Martine’s Press, 1982.
Schmidt, Thomas. “Making Polyphonic Books in the Late Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries.” In The Production and Reading of Music Sources: Mise-En-Page in Manuscripts and Printed Books Containing Polyphonic Music, 1480-1530, edited by Thomas Schmidt and Christian Thomas Leitmeir, 1–100. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2018.
Zarlino, Gioseffo. The Art of Counterpoint: Part Three of Le Istitutioni Harmoniche, 1558. Translated by Guy A. Marco and Claude V. Palisca. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1968.
