Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?

Subject: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: Stower
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 01:29 PM

I've very kindly been asked to post this on 'The Trees They Do Grow High' thread, so ...

The music of the 13th century English song, 'Sumer is icumen in', one of the earliest surviving songs in English, was doctored by the scribe, thus erasing the most joyful part of the melody, argues a new article. The motivation lay in the devotional song it was paired with, 'Perspice Christicola'. The article includes videos of both songs ('Sumer' in a folk club, with the audience singing the ground bass), supporting evidence from the manuscript, and a reconstruction and analysis of the original 'Sumer' melody.

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: Helen
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 02:00 PM

Hi Stower,

I'll read the article when I get home from work this afternoon. When I was at school we learned this song in music class. I have always loved it and it was probably my motivation to later study Middle English and Old English at university - many decades ago, so the memory of the language is a bit rusty.

Helen

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: GUEST,DrWord
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 06:13 PM

Hey Stower (and Helen) ~ I did the OE and ME stuff at uni as well. Thanks for the post; it was a fascinating article. The mss images make me want to attempt to copy the calligraphy, illumination, and that lovely mediæval music notation ~ but pens & inks still buried since a recent move :)
keep on pickin'
dennis

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 06:16 PM

I made my way through that article, and I think the few notes that the scribe altered do not make much difference. When musicians have to repeat something, (in this case "cuccu, cuccu")they often want to change it a little.

It's interesting that the same melody was used for a sacred song and a secular song, but for me it's remarkable that someone put secular words in manuscript form.

I enjoyed both linked performances.

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: EBarnacle
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 09:05 AM

For another, later, example of the transactional process in textual evolution, I recommend Shapiro's books on Shakespeare. The most recent, The Year of Lear, 1606 has led me to read all of his publications. They show the process quite clearly, both in text and causation.

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: Stower
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 09:31 AM

Thank you for your lovely comments.

leeneia, it's a matter of perception, but for me the altering of the onomatopoeic music with the "cuccu" words so that that the music is no longer onomatopoeic and therefore no longer mirrors the previous "cuccu" phrase is fundamental to the musical meaning of the song (I explain more about why in the article). Secular words in a manuscript isn't so surprising: there was a lot of medieval two-way traffic, secularising religious songs and Christianising secular songs.

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 12:35 PM

Okay.

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: Mr Red
Date: 31 Oct 25 - 01:17 PM

I just happened on a video explaining/translating the "original" (?)

It would be interesting to hear the comments of scholars on the assertion, that Victorians shied away from the song because it contained one word few people would bother too much about, in a song at least.

The oldest surviving song in English is not what I expected - James Hargreaves Guitar

The word is in the translation on the Mudcat thread Lyr Req: Sumer Is Icumen In/Summer Is A-Coming In

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: Robert B. Waltz
Date: 31 Oct 25 - 01:39 PM

Mr Red wrote: I just happened on a video explaining/translating the "original" (?)

It would be interesting to hear the comments of scholars on the assertion, that Victorians shied away from the song because it contained one word few people would bother too much about, in a song at least.

I frankly didn't listen to the end of the video. Who is this guy, and didn't he take a college English course? We had a big section on early English lyrics in my college lit class.

The claim that it's the earliest English song goes back at least to Ritson. There are a number of complications, though. For starters, it's in a book of lyrics, the "Harley Lyrics," and though the others don't have melodies, many are clearly songs. And it looks as if the arrangement of the tune, at least, was fiddled with by the scribe.

And, yes, the song gets bowdlerized a lot. Or merely mis-translated. I have a girl scout songbook which has the song, suitably cleaned up!

Odds are, unless you look at a fairly scholarly transcription, both text and tune have been modernized -- the original text is old enough that it still uses thorn for th.

Also, the date is paleographic -- based on the handwriting, not a hard date. The most common date is 1225-1250, but there are scholars who argue fourteenth century. Even the scribe is not quite certain.

I won't go on; most of this is reprising what I wrote in the Ballad Index entry. That's at https://balladindex.org/Ballads/FSWB260B.html.

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 31 Oct 25 - 04:03 PM

Yet another decade-old thread turning up that is interesting and new to me.

As for the theory mentioned in the OP, I am not convinced. The fourth note said to have been erased is a) not visible at all, and b) harmonically wrong, inconsistent with the rest of the song. Thus the entire idea collapses.

In fact an antagonism between Christian and secular poetry is not typical for the 13th century. Distinction, yes, but the authors and composers very often covered both fields, and so did the audience.

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: GerryM
Date: 31 Oct 25 - 04:27 PM

The first post in this thread mentions "Christicola". This competitor to Coke and Pepsi is not available in my local supermarkets.

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: Helen
Date: 31 Oct 25 - 04:40 PM

LOL GerryM. Maybe there is an opening on the market for a new product!

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: Robert B. Waltz
Date: 31 Oct 25 - 06:06 PM

Grishka wrote: The fourth note said to have been erased is a) not visible at all, and b) harmonically wrong, inconsistent with the rest of the song.

Be careful with this. Looking at photographs of MSS. can often give wrong impressions. You've likely heard of palimpsests -- overwritten manuscripts. There were techniques for erasing inaccurate texts -- with a knife, with chemicals, by overlaying with another ink. Usually scribes didn't do this; they just put a line of dots to mark a deletion. But in a musical setting, that might not work. Such an erasure might be visible to the eye (e.g. by moving one's head about) when it is not visible in a photograph -- or it might be felt with the hand, or it might be detected by infrared or ultraviolet photography.

I'm not saying that is the case in this particular instance; I've read up quite a bit on the Harley MS., but it has been a while. But this is an important general caution. Looking at a photograph of a manuscript is no substitute for seeing a manuscript. Believe me, this has tripped people up badly.

(Of course, it cuts both ways. Just being in the presence of a manuscript is no substitute for a full set of photographs in five or six colors. I seem to recall one MS. that was photographed in something like eight colors -- red, green, blue, white, IR, UV, and some intermediate shades -- that turned up all sorts of interesting things. And, of course, there are also X-ray photographs, which can sometimes reveal things that have been painted over -- that happened with a portrait of Richard III, e.g. It had been repainted to make him look worse.)

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 31 Oct 25 - 06:53 PM

Robert, I've heard of US flags that suddenly reveal swastikas, visible only for cameras, not for the naked eye, insinuated by a ruse to poor Dave Taylor. Evil is at work!

I'm not saying it's impossible, not at all. Good magicians and experienced scribes can do a lot, but Dave Taylor claimed that many GOP officials had been slipped such flags - and miraculously none of these steps up to corroborate the story!

Back to Sumer. The theory is tempting, but I'm not convinced. A "d" on beat 4 without proper stepwise progress would be irregular.

There must be scholars who have examined the MS with all its strange stains in many places.

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: Robert B. Waltz
Date: 31 Oct 25 - 08:08 PM

Grishka wrote: Back to Sumer. The theory is tempting, but I'm not convinced. A "d" on beat 4 without proper stepwise progress would be irregular.

There must be scholars who have examined the MS with all its strange stains in many places.

There are many books worth consulting. Both the original and revised versions of Chappell are worth looking at, and Carleton Brown, editor, English Lyrics of the XIIIth Century and Bruce Dickins & R. M. Wilson, editors, Early Middle English Texts are vital resources. I believe there is also a discussion in Karin Boklund-Lagopolou, I have a yong suster: Popular song and Middle English lyric. And there are others that I haven't seen; the Harley Lyrics are too early for me to have given them much study. I know much more about the other major collections of Middle English secular verse, such as the Sloane Lyrics, which are later and which contain a few items which were preserved into the modern era.

But that's not the issue, exactly. There is a difference between what is written and what is meant. Most of the references I've read about the song -- and if you consult the Ballad Index entry cited above, you'll know that I've read a lot! -- think that the scribe was struggling with the notation. I am not knowledgeable enough about the progression from neuming to plainsong notation to modern staff notation to pass judgment, but several have said that the notation on "Sumer" is too modern to be used in a manuscript as old as the Harley MS. Some think the scribe wrote the arrangement; others think he copied it. If he composed it, he might write it down wrong; if he copied it, he might transcribe it wrong. Did he read music well enough to see his error? I dunno.

And anyone who thinks manuscripts are accurate transcriptions of texts simply doesn't know manuscript studies. To take an extreme example, consider the Gospel of Matthew. The very first sentence -- which would be the very first words of any gospel codex, so the line for which scribes should be most alert, most prepared, and most likely to have memorized -- reads, in translation, "[A] book (of) ancestry of Jesus Christ son of David." The word "David" is spelled four different ways -- two different ways just in the two earliest manuscripts (out of about 2000 Greek copies): in effect, "Daveid," "David," "Dabid," and an abbreviation I am not going to try to reproduce given the way Mudcat butchers unicode. :-)

If you look at the Canterbury Tales, there is only one major variation in the first line (Averylle/Aprille), though that involves the two best manuscripts (Hengwrt and Ellesmere), but there are three in the second line (Add or omit And before The droghte; hath/had; add or omit "to").

My hand edition of the Iliad shows a variation ("soul" versus "head") as early as line 3, and much bigger variations thereafter.

I could cite more examples, but you're probably already bored. :-) The point is, in manuscript studies, especially when there is only one copy of something, you truly cannot assume that what you see is the original, even if you can be sure of what was written -- which you often can't. Trivial details sometimes hint at important conclusions -- but more often they're just scribal errors and not worth much attention.

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 01 Nov 25 - 09:59 AM

I'm by no means bored, but then (to misquote Pilate and John), "What is Original"? For a given MS, we can only ask about first layer and possible later layers, and if found, from what time. If you would enlighten us about the current state of research, I'd be grateful.

As for the question whether the scribe (of the earliest layer) was the composer, the answer is of course NO. Both arts were highly specialized, but both were mostly performed by monks who had the time. The accuracy was usually high, but rarely perfect.

As for Unicode: Mudcat can be used for just about any Unicode, including emojis. It's easy; consult the instruction pages. However, Bible Studies are not the main topic here.

Λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Πιλᾶτος· τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: Robert B. Waltz
Date: 01 Nov 25 - 02:58 PM

Grishka wrote: I'm by no means bored, but then (to misquote Pilate and John), "What is Original"? For a given MS, we can only ask about first layer and possible later layers, and if found, from what time.

Most textual critics, from the Alexandrian editors of Homer to F. J. Child to A. E. Housman, would likely disagree with that.

If you would enlighten us about the current state of research, I'd be grateful.

The place to start is not with me but with the Digital Index of Middle English Verse, which lists a bunch of facsimiles and editions. The particular link for this piece is

https://www.dimev.net/record.php?recID=5053.

What looks like the latest facsimile, with comments, is http://wpwt.soton.ac.uk/harl978/sumerms.htm.

As for the question whether the scribe (of the earliest layer) was the composer, the answer is of course NO.

Unnecessary assumptions are the root of all evil. :-p My inclination is to agree with you, but I didn't invent the idea that the scribe was the composer. Wooldridge proposed it in his revision of Chapell, and others have at least considered the idea.

Also, some have proposed that the notation as it now stands is not original but was revised. Or corrected (not the same thing), which might explain the bad notes.

These are not points on which consensus has been reached.

As for unicode -- I tried it on Mudcat in the past, and came back later and found it messed up. I'll pass.

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 01 Nov 25 - 06:10 PM

My statement about "What is Original" was meant as a matter of definition, not of opinion. An elaborately illuminated MS will never contain the first writ of its content (as I pointed out in my second statement), thus it can only lack originality in the sense that it has later been physically meddled with, as the article in the OP suggests, but for which I don't find any corroboration (– not any more than for that magic swastika). If you have any news about that, we'd certainly be interested.

Unicode: either you're interested or you are not. If you are not, that's fine with me; just don't complain.

If you are interested, copy the remaining part of this post to a text file (plain text), save and rename it "UnicodeConverter.html", click, paste your message in Unicode (possibly even including emojis etc.):

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
    <meta charset="UTF-8">
    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
    <title>Grishka's Text to HTML Code Converter</title>
    <style>
       body {
            font-family: Arial, sans-serif;
            margin: 20px;
       }
       #output {
            white-space: pre-wrap;
            border: 1px solid #ccc;
            padding: 10px;
            margin-top: 10px;
       }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
    <h1>Grishka's Text to HTML Code Converter</h1>
    <textarea id="input" rows="10" cols="50" placeholder="Paste your text here..."></textarea>
    <div id="output"></div>
    <script>
       document.getElementById('input').addEventListener('input', function() {
            const inputText = this.value;
            let outputText = ';
            for (let i = 0; i < inputText.length; i++) {
                const charCode = inputText.codePointAt(i);
                if (charCode <= 127) {
                   outputText += String.fromCodePoint(charCode);
                } else {
                   outputText += '&#x' + charCode.toString(16) + ';';
                }
                if (charCode > 0xFFFF) {
                   i++; // Skip the next code unit if it's a surrogate pair
                }
            }
            document.getElementById('output').innerText = outputText;
       });
    </script>
</body>

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: Stower
Date: 04 Nov 25 - 04:00 PM

There are some surprising misunderstandings to clear up here.

Robert B. Waltz: The video Mr. Red links doesn’t claim that ‘Sumer’ is the earliest English song – it clearly isn’t – but that it’s the earliest surviving song in English with a complete text, which it is. (‘Mirie it is’ is earlier, but is incomplete.) … “several have said that the notation on "Sumer" is too modern to be used in a manuscript as old as the Harley MS. Some think the scribe wrote the arrangement; others think he copied it. If he composed it, he might write it down wrong”. Its date is on the cusp of the change from non-mensural to mensural music. It seems clear that this was written non-mensurally, then later amended to be mensural, which is when 3 notes were changed. It isn’t written down wrong – see my comments to Griska below.

Grishka wrote: “As for the theory mentioned in the OP, I am not convinced. The fourth note said to have been erased is a) not visible at all, and b) harmonically wrong, inconsistent with the rest of the song. Thus the entire idea collapses … I'm not convinced. A "d" on beat 4 without proper stepwise progress would be irregular.” This is wrong on all counts. A picture in the article originally posted here shows the manuscript as it stands on the left, digitally altered on the right to show the notes before they were altered by a later scribe (or perhaps the original scribe at a later date). We see clear and unambiguous erasure marks for notes 1, 3 and 4, note 2 being the same. As the article explains, the original notes are a return of the distinctive cuckoo call from earlier in the song, its reiteration changed by the amendment of notes. The originally written notes are c’’ a’ c’’ a’ (none of these notes are d’’ or d’ as you state). These notes are sung against, in the other voices respectively: c’’ a’ – e’ d’ – c’ d’ – g’ f’ – c’ d’. Harmonically, this is completely correct. Thus the original notes make sense both harmonically and artistically as a repeat of the cuckoo call. Not only this, with all voices singing, the restored cuckoo call cascades through the voices in a very effective way.

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: Robert B. Waltz
Date: 04 Nov 25 - 06:08 PM

Stower wrote: The video Mr. Red links doesn’t claim that ‘Sumer’ is the earliest English song – it clearly isn’t – but that it’s the earliest surviving song in English with a complete text, which it is.

I'll only add a nitpick: It is probably the oldest complete text and tune if the common date is accepted. But the date is paleographic, and is disputed. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it is not universally agreed.

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: Helen
Date: 05 Nov 25 - 02:22 AM

See also this discussion:

Under the Harvest Moon AKA Autumn Comes

The tune in the title of that thread reminded me of Sumer is Icomen In.

Robert B Waltz disagreed.

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 05 Nov 25 - 06:23 AM

In the meantime I have read some scholarly articles, such as this one. Summary: most questions remain unanswered.

I don't claim to be an expert, but I am pretty sure the clef indicates the equivalent of today's F major, the highest note being f'.

This much is clear: the MS was started with lozenge-shaped notes and soon afterwards converted ("updated") to squares.

But there seem to be many erasures whose reasons remain a puzzle. The fourth note of the bar in question has certainly been operated on, but apparently not in the way the article by Ian Pittaway tries to suggest: the original note may have been c' (or g' in Stower's reading), but the upper part of the alleged erasure appears pristine – no trace of an original d' ("a'") whatsoever! Neither lozenge nor square!

All the other erasures remain unexplained as well, unless there is more recent research. If the MS is examined more thoroughly physically, we may get answers to some of our questions. Who knows of such research?

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: Robert B. Waltz
Date: 05 Nov 25 - 07:42 AM

Grishka wrote:

All the other erasures remain unexplained as well, unless there is more recent research. If the MS is examined more thoroughly physically, we may get answers to some of our questions. Who knows of such research?

Unfortunately, based on what I've heard, new research may be hard. The British Library sometimes withholds certain items from examination because the demand is so high and there is so much wear and tear. And Harley 978, as I recall, is one such manuscript. (I can't remember my source, so I could be wrong.)

It's not just some really old manuscripts that get that treatment, by the way. One volume of the diaries of Charles Dodgson -- "Lewis Carroll" -- is also withheld, because that's the one that originally contained the page describing how he lost his contact with Alice Liddell and his sisters, and that page was cut out by someone, probably one of his family. Everyone wants to look at that missing page, so the book went on a very restricted list lest it be damaged.

I'll mention again that one suggested reason for the explanation is that the scribe was composing as he went along. Of course, that wouldn't explain why the notation was being corrected. But maybe the scribe was still getting used to the new notation. (Which probably argues for the earlier date for the MS.)

Part of the problem here is that people are pushing paleography too hard. Often the +/- on a manuscript is on the order of 150 years! And here they're trying to date Harley 978 to within +/- 15. Paleography by itself can never date a book that precisely.

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 05 Nov 25 - 11:43 AM

It is good practice that fragile objects are not lent to every PhD student. All the more important is that one team of researchers is allowed high-end non-destructive measurements, and the results are made available to everybody. This is done with ancient Egyptian stuff that may well be even more fragile.

Measurements will start with photography under various lighting, e.g. X-rays, and from various angles. This may allow us to distinguish between erasures (with a knife) and spots of dirt or colour. Once we know the results, the space for guesswork is more limited.

Dating is important, but what is even more important is the question what happened in what sequence, and why. The very idea of "silencing the cuckoo" appeals to some modern mindset, not to be transposed to a time before the 16th century without rock-solid proof.

Long ago, someone quipped "Egyptology has the advantage that our imagination is not limited by too many facts." That was before the Rosetta Stone.

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: Robert B. Waltz
Date: 05 Nov 25 - 12:44 PM

Grishka wrote: It is good practice that fragile objects are not lent to every PhD student.

Oh, absolutely. I can cite far too many examples of works being ruined by overuse. But it does make it hard to do research.

Dating is important, but what is even more important is the question what happened in what sequence, and why.

The why is the whole issue here. :-)

But the dating is very important in this case -- if the date is c. 1325, then the experience of the scribe with this new-fangled notation is an issue. If the date is c. 1400, then the newness of the notation is not in itself an issue. And while I am not a paleographer, and have not seen the manuscript, I agree with those who say that the hand looks more typical of later Latin hands. (It it absolutely not typical of English writing of the period, which is prone to big Anglicana loops.)

I'm not saying that sequence doesn't matter; I'm just saying that the issues look different depending on the MS. date.

I'd frankly like to see someone radiocarbon date one of the flyleaves.

Long ago, someone quipped "Egyptology has the advantage that our imagination is not limited by too many facts." That was before the Rosetta Stone.

Yes. As their interpretations of hieroglyphs clearly demonstrated.

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 07 Nov 25 - 05:41 AM

"I seem to recall one MS. that was photographed in something like eight colors -- red, green, blue, white, IR, UV, and some intermediate shades -- that turned up all sorts of interesting things."

The Archimedes Codex (Netz & Noel). From the days when techbros tried to do something useful.

Subject: RE: Origins: Sumer is icumen - doctored by scribe?
From: Robert B. Waltz
Date: 07 Nov 25 - 05:57 AM

GUEST.PMB wrote:

The Archimedes Codex (Netz & Noel)

You're right, that's probably it, since I did read that book. Though other palimpsests have also been photographed under many different forms of light. Also, manuscript chemistry is sometimes investigated using Raman spectroscopy.