Oswald and the tradition of non-mensural polyphony

Oswald von Wolkenstein’s polyphonic output can roughly be categorised in two groups; one of them consists of contrafacta. The other has proved difficult to place and in past scholarship has been referred to by a diversified terminology applicable to sacred repertories, which includes the expressions ‘archaic’, ‘monastic’ (‘klösterlich’) and ‘organum-like’ (‘organal’).[1] One additional term, coined specifically for this group of Oswald’s secular polyphonic songs, was introduced in 1977 by Ivana Pelnar[2] and was designed to suggest an origin from local, possibly ‘oral’ practices: ‘bodenständig’. This term translates as ‘native’, ‘local’, or ‘down-to-earth’, and besides referring to an autochthonic repertory has implications of the ‘simple’, the ‘rural’ and the ‘rustic’. This term also hints at a ‘peripheral’ repertory, but at the same time dodges the question of provenance to some extent, since the assumed models would presumably have been unwritten and thus untraceable in manuscripts other than Oswald’s own codices. Within his codices the specimens would thus count as a ‘freak occurrence’­ – a reasoning that carries the seeds of a circular argument. Furthermore, unlike the first group of polyphonic songs, the contrafacta, these songs were assumed to be Oswald’s own attempts at polyphonic composition, partly because their notation and counterpoint appear to be by a non-expert and partly because none of them (with one exception) have concordances outside his manuscripts. The question of Oswald’s musical training had been the subject of previous scholarship but could not ultimately be solved.[3] However, the fact that a substantial part of his polyphonic output consists of contrafacta while this remaining part appears to be of a humbler stylistic level paired with a lack of concordances, could point to Oswald’s authorship and level of musical training. This assumption is supported by the observation that the bulk of this particular repertory was added to Oswald’s first song collection (WolkA)[4] as a secondary layer only after a substantial repertory of contrafacta had been entered, probably in the wake of the Council of Constance.[5] Therefore, Oswald’s experiences at the Council appear to have triggered a boost of poetic and musical activity, resulting in new monophonic songs and contrafacta followed by a surge of own polyphonic works.[6]

In my previous work on Oswald’s polyphonic songs I have encountered the same difficulties as previous scholars in defining this special group of songs, and – at least regarding the terminology – have fallen in some of the same traps: while rejecting the term ‘bodenständig’ (‘native’) to describe it, I did use ‘archaic’ and embraced ‘organum-like’ (‘organal’). Yet, this group is essentially of the same category as the sacred repertories that have been characterised as ‘non-mensural polyphony’ (» A. Kap. Zum Begriff der nichtmensuralen Mehrstimmigkeit). It would, therefore, not represent an isolated repertory but could be seen as embedded in a common practice. The historical and theoretical background of this practice has first been discussed in English in Fuller 1978.