A Reply by Robert Mullally to David Wulstan S Review of His Book the Carole: a Study Of

1

A reply by Robert Mullally to David Wulstan’s review of his book The Carole: A Study of a Medieval Dance, published in Plainsong and Medieval Music, 21/2 (2012), pp. 212-15.

In an extensive and detailed review, David Wulstan deals with various aspects of my book, but not, of course, with the choreography. Otherwise it is obvious that he has given much attention to these other aspects. I must, however, taken issue with him on most of them.

Firstly there is my treatment of Classical Greek. I do not use Modern Greek capitals, and, except for a few words, accents are not essential. He may have wished to imply that I should not have used capitals at all. In which case I should state that I am well aware that capitals are not now used in Classical Greek texts except for Proper Nouns, although, as I am sure he knows, originally Greek was written entirely in capitals. To come to the instance in question—the use of capitals for etym: Alfred Ewert (The French Language), for example, uses capitals for etyma and it greatly clarifies filiations. In the Greek citation (p. 17) from a tenth-century manuscript, I did not wish imply a widespread understanding of Greek at that time. Furthermore as I was dealing with the etymology of the word carole, it was not necessary to explain how the aulos was played.

On the question of etymology, I cannot agree with your reviewer. French being a Romance language, its lexis is more likely to be derived from Latin or possibly from Greek through Latin as in the case of carole. In particular the French word carole cannot be derived from a Celtic source. I have shown why the word cannot be derived from Breton, and it cannot, a fortiori, be derived from cor since this one syllable does not account for the whole word. Neither can carole be derived from charolare. Again, what kind of dance may have been intended in Classical times by chorea or for that matter chorus is irrelevant to the etymology.

It seems to me that Wulstan fails to distinguish between church modes and rhythmic modes. In using the phrase ‘mode 1 with an upbeat’ (p. 83) I was merely citing a phrase used by a distinguished editor of medieval music, Edward Roesner.

References to the carole are particularly numerous both in the primary and in secondary sources, and I felt obliged to restrict myself to those that were more relevant in order to clarify my line of argument in dealing with the various aspects of the subject. I therefore did not refer to the Spanish chansonnier that the reviewer mentions, and while I am aware of the sterling work done by the Opies on nursery rhymes, I do not consider that these are relevant either.

In citing Shakespeare’s use of the word carol in As you Like It, I was citing a late usage that seemed to confirm an earlier one of a lyric with a refrain. When your reviewer states that ‘the phrase un fait avéré is boldly bandied about (p. 24)’, the reader is left to infer that I used the phrase when, in fact, I am quoting Paul Falk’s use of the phrase in his review of Sahlin; moreover the phrase is not ‘bandied about’, and in any case the quotation appears on p. 26.

Your reviewer does not gives examples of the ‘minutiae which are either already settled or not worth arguing about’. Are these points in which he is not interested, and, in any case, who is to decide what is ‘not worth arguing about’?

As regards musical instruments, your reviewer fails to follow my line of thought. Although tambour, as he correctly says, is a drum, my reason for translating it as tambourine in the context of the Ysopet de Lyon is that the instrument shown in the accompanying miniature is, in fact, a tambourine (fol. 9v). Wulstan admits that ‘a cornemusa (p.105) [recte cornamusa] might indeed be a bagpipe’, and as I was translating from Boccaccio I had to choose the most likely English equivalent of the word. The fact that it might be translated in other ways is irrelevant as I was not discussing the organological significance of the term. Your reviewer continues ‘there was no need for the trumpets to have fallen silent’ in the passage, which I summarize, describing a performance of the carole in Li Restor du Paon, when in fact the narrative states plainly ‘les trompes font taisir’ (l. 1169). Indeed the reviewer seems to miss the whole point of my argument that in France, until the second half of the fourteenth century, instruments were used only to accompany social dances in lower status performance. I translate saltier as harp as being the most likely understanding of the term by an Anglo-Norman translator of the Latin psalter; Wulstan’s objections are therefore irrelevant. We are not dealing with the Anglo-Saxons and their instruments nor with Biblical Jews and their instruments nor with the authors of the Greek Bible and their understanding of musical instruments. Once again I had to choose a single term for my English translation.

On one point I agree entirely with your reviewer: we find that two of the most noted scholars in the fields of English language and medieval music respectively made a ‘bizarre forced marriage’ (Wulstan’s term) between ‘Maiden in the mor lay’ and ‘Brid on brere’. There was no need to mention this unfortunate piece of editing, and even my editing of the former (Appendix C) is very different from theirs.

Finally, turning to the verse, I did not state or imply that the formes fixes began as ‘bucolic couplings’ and then passed through ‘’sophisticated courtly dance’ to become purely literary forms. I show clearly that the original short and simple lyrics were used by people of all classes to accompany social dances, and that these pieces were later developed into the rondeau and the virelai, the ballade being a different case. I fear that your reviewer has missed the point about the tale of the dancers of Kölbigk. They were condemned to dance for a whole year because they insisted on dancing in the churchyard while the priest was celebrating Mass on Christmas Eve. What people did, and where, at other times is neither the purpose of the story nor my purpose.

Authors and their critics will inevitably differ. One must accept a review that points out facts that are incontrovertibly incorrect or one that presents an alternative view arising from the material presented. But this must be founded on what the author actually wrote. A review where statements are based on an incorrect reading of the text supplemented with false etymology and much that is irrelevant, including the entire last paragraph, is unacceptable.

Robert Mullally