A Chant Treatise in the Service of Two Monastic Traditions of the Modern Era: The Case of the Musices

The present study discusses a chant theory treatise preserved in the Carthusian compilation manuscript (CZ-Pu I F 17) and based on the Franciscan Hermann Mott’s Musices Choralis Medulla (1670). It sheds new light on the background of the Carthusian arrangement and its connection to the Franciscan original by comparing both versions and trying to discover why the Franciscan treatise was chosen as an exemplar, who the author of the Carthusian treatise was, when and where the Carthusian version was written and used, and finally, through a study of its context and the information given in its manuscript source, how it could be transmitted and what it meant for the Carthusian order.


Introduction
In the centuries prior to the institutionalisation of various music studies at conservatoires, music schools and, later, universities, music studies in the Slovenian lands, as elsewhere, were primarily connected to the people learning and "using" different kinds of music in their everyday lives. These studies dealt with music on both the practical and theoretical levels, but always had to consider its performance adapted to certain individuals and groups of audiences or users. Many studies have been done, for example, on tailor-made or re-tailored arias for singers in the eighteenth century. Similarly, music theory (treatises) could also be tailored to the needs of its users up to a certain point. This is particularly evident in the case of a small (but not unimportant) seventeenthcentury treatise entitled Musices Choralis Medulla. This treatise proves to be an interesting example of adapting and (re)arranging theoretical musical material not only from one edition to the next, but also within the Franciscan monastic tradition, as well as from one monastic tradition to another, from the Franciscans to the Carthusians.
The original Musices Choralis Medulla (henceforth also referred to as the Medulla or the Franciscan Medulla) was written by the Franciscan Hermann Mott and was first published in Cologne in 1670. During research on a short Carthusian music treatise written at the end of an extensive non-musical manuscript, which is today preserved in the National Library of the Czech Republic in Prague (Praha, Národní knihovna České republiky, Ms. I F 17, RISM CZ-Pu I F 17), 1 it was discovered that Mott's work served as an exemplar for a late-seventeenth-century Carthusian adaptation and its later copy (further referred to as the Carthusian "Medulla" or the "Medulla").
The present article aims to address various questions regarding the origin of the Carthusian version, its raison d'être, its meaning and influence within the Carthusian province Alemania Superior, and its relationship to the Franciscan original. By comparing the two versions -the printed Franciscan version and 1 I would like to thank Mr Joseph Bernaer, who kindly lent me his copy of the treatise for preliminary studies.
the manuscript Carthusian version -it aims to gain an insight into the theoretical as well as the practical musical needs of both monastic orders at the end of the seventeenth century, and to understand the extent to which they viewed themselves as having special (different) chant traditions even when referring to the "same" source.

Musices Choralis Medulla by Hermann Mott
The original Musices Choralis Medulla by the Franciscan (of the Recollect branch) 2 Hermann Mott (1624Mott ( -1704 3 was finished in 1669 and published in 1670 in Cologne. Its author was a renowned theologian and author of spiritual works (not primarily a musician) who lived in an environment strongly marked by the Reformation and led many theological disputes with Lutheran theologians. 4 However, he was also a magister novitiorum of the Cologne Franciscan province, and for a number of years was the guardian of the Franciscan monastery of St Wolfgang in Kreuznach. Leading and teaching represented a major part of his duties and experiences, as is evident in the authoritative and pedagogical writing of the Medulla. The title Musices Choralis Medulla (meaning "the essence of plainchant" or "the essence of chant") promises something of an anthological quality. This could be ascribed to the fact that the term was not completely unknown in the musical world. 5 However, a more probable and general explanation of "medulla" in this context would be that it tries to be a concise, short and useful tool 2 Some basic information on the Franciscans, their various branches and history of music can be found in Mary Berry, "Franciscan Friars," in Grove Music Online, accessed 13 October 2019, https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.10113. More extensive reading with more information can be found in Hans Schmidt (after Heinrich Hüschen), "Franziskaner," in MGG Online, ed. Laurenz Lütteken (Kassel, 2016-ff.), accessed 10 May 2020, https://www-mgg-onlinecom.nukweb.nuk.uni-lj.si/mgg/stable/12065. 3 Some basic information on Hermann Mott can be found on Wikipedia, s. v. "Franziskanerkloster St. Wolfgang in Kreuznach," last modified 31 July 2020, accessed 31 August 2020, https://de.wikipedia. org/w/index.php?title=Franziskanerkloster_St._Wolfgang_in_Kreuznach&oldid=202371749. 4 His most famous work, in addition to some theological disputations with other authors, was the treatise Manus Religiosorum (A Hand of the Religious) from 1669. Ibid. 5 The title "Medulla" was used for various handbooks, including some music handbooks, where it referred to an anthology.  Gregoriani,sive ejusdem Principia Generalia;in Cantorale Tonorum Communium,in provincia Ff. Min. Recoll. Coloniensi Usitatorum;et in Processionale Romanum et Ordinis. 7 In comparison to the theoretical part of Mott's Medulla, the new version retained his division of the basic theory into five chapters, adding one at the end (on psalm tones, their intonations and differentiae; this was previously a section on chant in Mott's Medulla). However, the contents of the chapters of 1726 were written anew and differ from the Medulla of 1670 in their presentation of the topic. The choice of the title of the first part, as well as the general division, nevertheless prove that the "original" compendium itself was widely known and had been considered a successful tool in the chant education of the Franciscan order for more than half a century. 8 In its first edition as well as in later editions, Mott's Musices Choralis Medulla was widely disseminated within the Franciscan order (not only within the Recollecti branch or within the lands by the Rhine), as can be seen, for example, from the exemplar of the 1683 edition preserved in the Library of the Franciscan Monastery in Ljubljana (see Figure 1). 9 However, despite its decidedly Franciscan origin, history and even contents, it was also known outside the Franciscan order.

Contents of the Franciscan Musices Choralis Medulla
Strictly speaking, Musices Choralis Medulla refers only to the fi rst part (160 pages) of the complete book. Th e second part is a processional beginning with new page numbering and containing a further 88 pages. Most of the book contains notation, but there are also parts consisting only of written texts. Th e fi rst part begins with a short theoretical treatise. (Its contents are explained further below in comparison with the Carthusian version. Since it is the only part used in both traditions, this part represents my primary research interest. To understand the treatise in its context, however, the content of other parts is given in Table 1 below.) Th e theory treatise in the Medulla is followed by selected Franciscan chants and useful chant formulae sung in the Mass and the Offi ce. It is systematic as well, since the incipits are given in such a way that one can fi nd the melody according to its mode and liturgical function.
A large part of the next book contains hymns and processional chants, many of which are intended for Franciscan saints, but there are also some songs for the Virgin Mary. The second part of the print is dedicated specifically to the use of the Recollect branch, with selected sequences sung in the Order. The Carthusians had no use for these chants in their liturgy, as they were very specifically intended for Franciscan use. 10 Two chapters or parts of the Musices Choralis Medulla are of special interest for learning more about the desired performance practice in this order, as they contain some rules for performance of chant and chant formulae. Here, the Franciscan Medulla again becomes a learner's compendium. These are the chapters "Modus legendi ad mensam" and "De psalmodia rite ordinanda". In the first one, the monk is instructed to read and recite with a full and sounding voice, as well as with proper understanding of the text: the accents should be right, the manner of pronouncing monosyllabic words and numbers should be correct, and the content of the sentence should be given with proper melody turns and intonations. Some notated formulae are also given in this part. The other part, "De psalmodia rite ordinanda", contains ten rules ("ten commandments") for singing chant. There follows an in-depth description of good and bad habits when singing it. 11 It can be seen that the Franciscans at that time favoured equalistic performance of chant. This had already been mentioned in the prologue of the initial theory treatise, and was taken over by the Carthusians in their "Medulla".

The Carthusian Manuscript I F 17 from the National Library of Prague
The Carthusian arrangement of the theory treatise from the beginning of the Franciscan Musices Choralis Medulla is also entitled "Musices Choralis Medulla" and forms the concluding part of a Carthusian manuscript preserved in the National Library of the Czech Republic in Prague under the shelf-mark I F 17. The complete manuscript has a rather small format, containing 153 paper folios (306 pages) and measuring 20 x 16 cm. 12 Its handwriting as well as some other indications -such as dates of copying of individual parts -show that it was finished in the early eighteenth century. 13 It was probably intended for the Valdice Charterhouse, which was the owner of the majority of the Carthusian manuscripts preserved in the National Library in Prague today: out of twenty-five Carthusian manuscripts, seventeen come from Valdice. 14 However, some indications written in the margins of the manuscript show that it was also used in the Brno Charterhouse.  As can be seen from Table 2, the manuscript does not contain any musicrelated content apart from the "Medulla". As a whole, it seems to be a general Carthusian handbook with a liturgical and practical orientation. There is a liturgical calendar of the Carthusian order, with a general introduction on how the annual seasons are divided and calculated (fols. 1-43); longer and detailed instructions on readings in the refectory (fols. 46-122); and instructions for a sacristan for major feasts (fols. 125-136), with an insertion of the "Consuetudo Cartusiae Brunensis in Com[memorationibus] fidelium defunctorum" (this whole chapter also has numerous other annotations on the customs of the Brno Charterhouse on major feasts). There follows a description of an "ideal" Carthusian vicar (fols. 138-143), given in the form of alphabetically arranged terms to the monks of Gaming by the visitators of the Alemania Inferior Carthusian province, Arnold Mittentaler and Johannes Baptista Schmall in 1677; five annotations on the pronunciation of Hebrew words and their Latin pronunciation (fols. 144-145); and the chant treatise "Musices Choralis Medulla" (fols. 146-153), followed by some empty pages. 16 Immediately be-15 Apart from selected chapters, I did not have an opportunity to examine the complete manuscript, but only the beginning parts of the individual items. The list of contents is given mostly after Truhlář, Catalogus codicum, 100. I would like to thank Jan Vojtíšek from the National Library of Prague for providing some additional information that is not included in the catalogue, such as information on the folio with the customs of the Brno Charterhouse for the feast of All Souls. 16 Truhlář, Catalogus codicum, 100; Latin quotations and the information on the dates and provenance of the texts are also taken from this entry. See also Ploček,Catalogus codicum,75. fore the treatise, there is an unnumbered folio containing a short inscription announcing spiritual exercises by the General Prior of the Order Innocent le Masson (1627-1703; General Prior from 1675), but the intended content itself is missing. 17 It seems that the book as a whole was meant to be a vademecum for a Carthusian monk in charge of some important liturgical duty in the monastery, and was conceived as a collective manuscript with this purpose from the very beginning. 18 The manuscript was put together from various sources derived from different charterhouses of the Upper German Province and most probably intended for the Valdice Charterhouse, as can be seen from the inscription before the calendar: "Calendarium ecclesiasticum pro cartusia Waldicensi compositum cum directorio". There were, however, strong connections to Brno: one of the unnumbered folios contains customs of the Brno Charterhouse for the feast of All Souls and there are other annotations on Brno customs in the chapter on the sacristan; furthermore, the scribe states that he copied the "Medulla" treatise in Brno. The chapter on the duties of the sacristan, in particular, seems to be an indicator that the manuscript might have been in use in Brno as well, at least for a while.
The other charterhouses, mentioned because they are presumably the source of the original texts, were Gaming and Žiče. In Gaming, the original "Directorium officii sacristae" was written in 1698 by Albert Hoefter and was later revised by B. Widerholt; the other Gaming manuscript used as an exemplar of the I F 17 was the "Idea perfecti vicarii eiusque Alphabetum aureum" from 1677. The chant treatise "Medulla" states that it was copied in Brno on the feast of St Andrew (30 November) in 1727, from a booklet that was arranged for the Carthusians in the Seitz (Žiče) Charterhouse in 1699: "accomodata et concinnata in Cartusia Seitzensi Anno 1699". It is only thanks to the meticulous scribe who added this information that we can connect this 17 According to Truhlář, the inscription goes: "Lapis Lydius exercitii spiritualis R. P. Innocentii Le Masson Generalis Ordinis Carthusiensis." Truhlář, Catalogus codicum, 100. The "lapis Lydius" refers to the touchstone, a stone that had the power to discern gold from other metals; in the spiritual world, it could discern truth from falsity, as can be seen in some theological treatises contemporary to the Carthusian "Medulla". Thus it was, for example, referred to as "Lydius lapis quo verum a falso in hac materiali discernitur", as was the case with Vittorius Hollandiae, Integra theologia moralis (Venice: Joannes La Noù & Socios, 1710), 82. Similarly to "Medulla", the title "Lapis Lydius" could also denote something quintessential about a certain topic. Thus, in 1665, Tommaso da Vezzano tried to explain the fundamental truths of Christianity as well as the main characteristics of his branch of the Franciscans (Ordo Minimorum) in a book entitled Lapis Lydius (Genoa: Peter Joannes Calenzani). 18 The book seems to be the work of a single copyist, as was also confirmed by Jan Vojtíšek, who has examined the complete manuscript and informed me about his opinion in correspondence dated 24 September 2020. According to Mr Vojtíšek, the manuscript binding confirms this, as well: it was bound at the time when its contents were copied.
part of the manuscript to the Slovenian lands and to the Žiče Charterhouse. 19 The scribe repeats the same statement at the end of the treatise, although with slightly less certainty: in this case, it says that the booklet was transmitted to the Carthusians of Brno from the Žiče Charterhouse, where it had also "probably been put together": Since the scribe of the manuscript was very conscientious and defined the specific provenance of each treatise, there is a high level of certainty that at the end of the seventeenth century the "Medulla" treatise was in Žiče, and that this treatise (or a copy) was sent to Brno to be copied for Brno and/or another charterhouse. It is possible that the Carthusian "Medulla" came to Žiče from elsewhere -most likely from within the Alemania Superior Carthusian province, since the other texts in the compilation also originate from this province -but on the basis of what we know about the monks living in the monastery at the time (see below), and about their connections with the Franciscans (see below) as well as with the Moravian and Bohemian charterhouses, 21 we may assume that the Žiče provenance of the arrangement is very probable. In any case, the treatise must have been known and in practical use in Žiče in such a way that it could also be transmitted to other 19 There are other "written" connections to this charterhouse. Five manuscripts from Truhlář's catalogue mentioned above (Catalogus codicum) contain ex libris inscriptions of the charterhouses in Žiče (Seitz) and Jurklošter (Geirach) from the territory of today's Slovenia. These manuscripts all have liturgical content (most of them also contain liturgical music) and were written in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. They seem to have arrived at the National Library via the Valdice Charterhouse. With regard to their contents, as well as their time and place of origin, these manuscripts may be considered as a unified group, which probably came to Valdice from Žiče, monasteries of the province from there. The Žiče Charterhouse was the main house of the province, so this hypothesis would also be in line with its role within the province.
Some questions about the manuscript arise in regard to the information provided by the scribe. The manuscript seems to stress a tight bond between the charterhouses of Valdice and Brno. It seems that it was primarily intended for Valdice, but one cannot be sure. Why was the "Medulla" part of the manuscript copied in Brno? Were other parts -written in the same handwriting -also copied there? 22 Or was the scribe/copyist himself from Valdice and came to Brno with the purpose of copying the "Medulla" treatise, among other things? Was there only one copy of the treatise/compilation, or was this version copied several times, perhaps for different monasteries? The answers to many of these questions probably concern the organisation of the exchange of knowledge within the province, especially between individual charterhouses.

The Carthusian "Musices Choralis Medulla" in the Manuscript I F 17
The Carthusian "Medulla" treatise, written on fifteen pages at the end of the manuscript, contains basic plainchant theory illustrated with musical examples. The first Carthusian "Medulla", which presumably originated in the Žiče Charterhouse, is lost today, but fortunately the copy from Brno is preserved in the manuscript I F 17. This copy does not mention any connection with the Franciscans or the Franciscan origin of the treatise. This was probably already the case in the original exemplar (the Brno copyist was meticulous and attentive, so he would have copied this information, as well). Alternatively, this information may have been omitted during the process of copying because it was not deemed necessary or because the copyist assumed that the Franciscan Medulla was so well known that it did not require special mention.
It is not possible to define where and when the Žiče Carthusians came into contact with the Franciscan Medulla. This could have happened in the German countries, as some monks came to Žiče from German regions, or even on the territory of today's Slovenia, in contact with the Franciscans of these regions, who possessed at least one Medulla volume (the one mentioned above, which also bears many signs of use), and probably had more than one. The Franciscan treatise was possibly also known elsewhere in these regions, for example in the Franciscan monastery of Novo mesto, where there must have been some kind of exchange with the Carthusians, perhaps even on the musical level: even today, the library of the Franciscan Monastery in Novo mesto keeps two Carthusian graduals from the fifteenth century. 23 From 1649, the connections between the two orders on the territory of today's Slovenia became closer under Johannes Serpentinus, the prior of the Žiče Charterhouse, who established a special brotherly bond of prayer and spiritual connection with the Franciscan order. 24 It seems that from the late 1640s, the Carthusians in the Slovenian lands were very much in touch with the mendicant orders: spiritual community with the Franciscans was closely preceded by the Carthusian connection with the Capuchins (the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin) in 1646. 25 On the other hand, there were also economic connections: from a yearly calculation of the income and costs of the Žiče Charterhouse in 1715, it is evident that the Carthusians were selling wine to the Franciscans, as well as wine and wheat to the Capuchins. 26 Perhaps exchange of knowledge in the form of books and treatises was also included in this exchange of spiritual and worldly goods. A particularly advantageous time for such exchange may have been the period under the Žiče prior Hugh (Hugo) Scornos (1663-1679), who acquired many new books, including various treatises, for the library of Žiče. 27 According to the copyist from Brno, the first Carthusian "Medulla" was written in 1699. In order to compare the versions of the two traditions, one must therefore refer to one of the Franciscan editions published before 1699: to the edition from 1670 or 1683. 28 Unfortunately, I have not had an opportunity to examine the 1683 version, but since Mott's 1670 Medulla is very close to the Carthusian arrangement, it was most probably the version serving as exemplar for the arrangement. (If, however, the "Medulla" was arranged on the basis of the 1683 version, then this later Medulla edition could not differ much from the 1670 edition, since even the 1714 edition is almost the same as the 1670 edition.) The theoretical part in the Franciscan version of 1670 (fifteen pages of the text and the frontispiece) is comparable in detail with the Carthusian arrangement, as can be seen further below.
In musicology, the Carthusian "Musices Choralis Medulla" was not a completely unknown treatise. It was mentioned in an influential dissertation by 23 More information on these two manuscripts and possible connections between the Carthusians and the Franciscans in their history can be found in Klein did not know that the part on the equality of the notes was taken literally from the Franciscan Medulla. 31 Due to this part -despite admitting that the contents of the "Medulla" are very basic -he regarded it as a forerunner of the famous nineteenth-century treatise Méthode de plain-chant selon le rite et les usages Cartusiens, 32 which claimed that equalistic performance was characteristic of Carthusian chant. 33 As such, he believed it to be a guide on the performance practice of the Carthusians of the time. On the basis of Klein, the "Medulla" was later mentioned as one of the important sources of Carthusian music theory in the article "Kartäuser". 34

The Medulla treatise in two monastic traditions
The 1727 Carthusian "Medulla" is very clearly structured and beautifully written out in sepia colour (Figure 2), with music examples in square notation written in a staff of four red lines, and with the F-clef and C-clef. This means that the original Žiče "Medulla" from 1699 must have been clearly and well structured, too, with different types of letters for the main title, the chapter titles and the subtitles, and with some decoration. All of this, however, originates in the layout of the Franciscan version ( Figure 3).  At the beginning, the Carthusian "Medulla" does not differ from the Franciscan source. They both divide the contents into a prologue and five main chapters, as listed in Table 3.  Chapter I: "Clavis" Chapter II: "Vox" Chapter II: "Vox" Chapter III: "Cantus" Chapter III: "Cantus" Chapter IV: "Mutatio" Chapter IV: "Mutatio" Chapter V: "Tonus" Chapter V: "Tonus" Th e prologue discusses the division of music into "natural" and "artifi cial", with the latter being further divided into musica choralis and fi guralis. Plainchant music -musica choralis -is characterised by the relatively equalistic way of performance, as can be seen in the words "aequam, simplicem, et uniformem in suis notis servat mensuram absque incremento prolationis. Vel cujus notulae ejusdem ferme sunt valoris." Th is part is identical in both versions, and it seems that it was the customary way of performing plainchant in both orders at the time. Chapter I ("Clavis") discusses the musical staff , the use of two clefs by the Carthusians, and the names of the notes. Chapter II ("Vox") discusses solmisation syllables and their connection to notes. Chapter III ("Cantus") is dedicated to the hexachords and their placement within the musical staff . Chapter IV ("Mutatio") presents basic rules for mutations between hexachords. Finally, Chapter V ("Tonus") presents psalm tones and the system of the eight church modes.
The differences between the text versions initially seem mostly formal (such as grammar forms), but there are more and more differences in the contents. The formal differences, which do not influence the intended meaning of the words, are as follows: a) Different forms of verbs in some places (first person plural in the Carthusian version vs. second person singular in the Franciscan version). In this way, the desired anonymity of the author of the Carthusian order is highlighted. b) The Carthusian version avoids active forms of verbs, preferring passive forms ("pauca dicenda" instead of "dicimus pauca"; "vis et natura exponitur" instead of "vim et naturam exponimus"). This detail again seems to be in accordance with the desire for anonymity and uniformity within the order, as well as to avoid the desire to stress the authority of the writer. c) The Carthusian version uses different word orders in some places.
One specific kind of difference between the Medulla versions could be described as technical. These differences come close to the formal differences mentioned above, but they are more related to the contents than purely formal differences such as grammar versions. When the Franciscan Medulla discusses the musical staff, it describes a staff consisting of four or five lines, while the Carthusian author stresses the fact that the Carthusian order exclusively uses a musical staff of four lines. Another such issue is the form of a custos: the custodes in the Carthusian version are taken from their liturgical books and not from the Franciscan exemplar, because even signs such as these were obviously regarded as a part of the Carthusian tradition. A comparison of these details between the two traditions is very valuable, as it enables a rare insight into how much the Carthusians identified with their own tradition: not only the texts and melodies of their liturgical books formed an integral part of this tradition, but even the graphic forms and the norms with which these were written.
Although the treatise is short and discusses only the basics of the chant, no detail escapes the careful Carthusian arranger. Thus, we find some differences in the contents between the versions, as well as some additional explanations. The desire for clarity leads the Carthusian author to specify eight rules for solmisation, while the Franciscan version only has six; it seems that solmisation and mutation between hexachords was a matter of special concern for the Carthusians. The Carthusian way of singing chant (their chant practice) is stressed in several places in the Carthusian version. The Carthusian author is interested exclusively in chant, and even then only in the versions characteristic of the Carthusian chant books of the time. In the Carthusian "Medulla", we thus find short additional excurses on Carthusian musical practice and on details about singing chants, such as hints on singing "b-molle" or the performance practice of the long responsories. It is possible, however, that these descriptions were not a general rule for all Carthusian houses, but rather a description of the musical practice of a monastery within a specifi c time frame, because the habits regarding the singing of B-fl ats changed through various periods and between regions, even between individual Carthusian houses. 35 Last but not least, there are also diff erences in the musical examples. For various reasons, some of the Carthusian musical examples are diff erent from the Franciscan version. Th e Franciscan version covers intervals up to the tenth (Figure 4), while the Carthusian version discusses musical intervals up to the octave, as only these intervals are used in chant ( Figure 5). Furthermore, in explaining musical examples, the Carthusian author adds parts of the texts or punctuation to ensure greater clarity of the text ( Figure 6).

Authorship of the Carthusian "Medulla"
The Carthusian monk who prepared the arrangement of the Franciscan treatise must have been an educated musician, sufficiently accomplished in music theory to systematically and logically provide additional explanations and some content that was not included in the Franciscan Medulla. Moreover, he must have had significant practical experience of the Carthusian chant, as his "Medulla" constantly refers to the Carthusian musical practice and liturgy. The booklet might have been copied and arranged on his own initiative, but with the permission of the prior of the monastery. However, it seems much more likely that it was copied not only with permission, but with a special order from the prior. The strictly centralised Carthusian order took great care of its own liturgy and liturgical music, so such an undertaking could not be the result of an individual project or the idea of a particular monk. For the time given as the date of the original arrangement (1699), there is some information on the monks living and working in the place of provenance -if the author of the Carthusian "Medulla" was indeed a monk from the Žiče Charterhouse -so it is possible to attempt to form a few hypotheses about the author(s). 36 Ms. 640 from Zgodovinski arhiv Celje informs us that there was a musically educated monk named Ignatius Conrad, 37 who was known for copying two antiphoners in 1715, one for the Žiče Charterhouse and the other for the Bistra (Freudnitz) Charterhouse. 38 In this source, which also contains the "book of the professed monks of Žiče", he is characterised with the following words:  1990). Here Conrad was described as "Dörkerichensis, dioec. Trevirensis", which could be Limburg an der Lahn (Spreitzhofer marks the place with a question mark). See the register of the homelands of the monks by Karl Spreitzhofer in Mairold,ibid.,230. 38 One of them is preserved in the National and University Library (Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica) in Ljubljana as Ms. 1 and is also available online in dLib, The Digital Library of Slovenia (Digitalna knjižnica Slovenije). 39 This is the date of Conrad's solemn vows -profession. 40 The transcription is quoted after Mairold, "Die Seitzer Kartäuser," 220.
Conrad became a professed monk in Žiče in 1699, under the new prior Caspar Ubitz, but had probably lived there before that. He may have been noticed for his musical talent and possible previous education. He might even have been a scribe of the psalter copied in 1698, Ms. 96 from the University Library of Graz. 41 In any case, it is rare to find a remark on the copying/musical activities of the monks, so the aforementioned two antiphoners must have been seen as a major achievement (made by hand even in the time of printed versions). Conrad's Ms. 1 from the National and University Library of Ljubljana is certainly evidence of careful and beautiful writing and execution (even the colourful decoration of the initials may have been his). The person who was commissioned to undertake such large-scale work connected with the chant of the Order may have previously been entrusted with other major musical tasks.
In the Carthusian order, however, nothing on this level happened without an order (or permission) from a prior. "Medulla" must have been written on the order of the capable Caspar Ubitz (Ubigs, Ubiz, Ubix), who entered the Žiče monastery in 1690 and was as such a "native" profess of the house. He also served as a vicar before becoming the prior of Žiče in October 1698 (he died in 1730). 42 It is very possible that he wanted to enhance and "reform" liturgical life in the monastery after the previous prior Johannes Baptista Schüller (Schiller) was forced to resign due to the large debts with which he burdened his monastery. 43 Ubitz was known and respected for his striving for excellent religious life. He worked hard for his monastery and was seen as a "good shepherd", a norm of a good prior, as well as a living example for his brethren: Nonetheless, his time in the Žiče Charterhouse was not easy. Just as he was trying to reduce the damage caused by his predecessor's large debts, the end of the seventeenth century and the beginning of the eighteenth century brought new financial obligations, including large taxes for the charterhouses in the Slovenian territory. These were taken for the defence against Turkish armies and for the War of the Spanish Succession with France (from 1701). 45 Due to the debts, the Duke ordered that only six to eight monks should reside in the 41 The information is provided in Anton Kern, Die Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Graz, I: Verzeichnis der Handschriften im deutschen Reich II (Leipzig: Otto Harrasowitz, 1942), 54. Unfortunately, I was not able to examine the manuscript myself because of the current restoration works in the library. 42 Mlinarič,Kartuziji Žiče in Jurklošter,407. 43 Ibid.,407 and 414. 44 Mairold,"Die Seitzer Kartäuser," 219. 45 Mlinarič,Kartuziji Žiče in Jurklošter,[366][367] Žiče Charterhouse, which was the number prescribed as the smallest group of monks to perform the Divine Office by the Carthusian General Chapter. 46 However, Ubitz and the subsequent priors did not obey this order, instead accepting more new monks into the Žiče Charterhouse (under Ubitz, twelve candidates made solemn vows, including eight monks-priests and four lay brothers). 47 Ubitz took energetically to renewing life in the monastery, but the chroniclers of the Order also credited him for taking care of monastic life within the whole province of Alemania Superior. 48 Ubitz was also a visitator of the province 49 known to have travelled as far as the furthest house of the Order in the east, in Poland. 50 He also provided priors for other charterhouses, as can be seen, for example, in the words "in qua visitatione domibus Polonicis providit de novis prioribus". 51 Moreover, he had contacts with Bohemian and Moravian charterhouses. 52 The Carthusian "Medulla" from Brno was probably connected with his visitations, since this work included educational tasks, as well.
From 1679, the provincial visitators became more influential with regard to the novices' knowledge about monastic life, the liturgy and chant, as they also supervised the examinations of novices. 53 The visitators of the provinces had strict orders in this regard and supervised the priors in choosing new monastic candidates; those who did not act in accordance with the rules were announced to the General Chapter or to the General Prior. 54 This new order was confirmed several times in the eighteenth century. One of the preserved visitations, most probably from Ubitz's time and certainly typical of his mindset, warns the monks to perform the Office regularly and as prescribed by the Order. Caspar Ubitz may in fact have been the author of the "Medulla" himself: as can be seen even in the Ms. I F 17, visitators of the province prepared instructions on the duties of a vicar for the monks of Gaming, so why would something similar not exist for musical needs, as well? Many important issues and needs of individual communities were made clear in the course of 46 General chapters in the years 1594, 1595 and 1597 declared that only larger Carthusian houses that adhered strictly to the Carthusian rules were allowed to accept novices, who then went to other houses. The communities in individual houses should consist of at least eight monks capable of performing liturgical duties. Mlinarič,Kartuziji Žiče in Jurklošter,347. 47 Mlinarič,Kartuziji Žiče in Jurklošter,423. 48 Ibid.,414. 49 As can be seen from the visitation reports from 1656, when a large visitation of the Upper and Lower German Provinces was undertaken by two visitators, such visitations could take up to seven months to finish. Usually about a week was spent in every individual charterhouse, while the rest of the time was taken by travelling. Mlinarič,Kartuziji Žiče in Jurklošter,[360][361]"Die Seitzer Kartäuser," 209. 51 Ibid.,219. 52 Mlinarič,Kartuziji Žiče in Jurklošter,415. 53 Ibid.,347. 54 Ibid.,348. visitations, one of the three major "tools" of the Carthusian Order for ensuring its famous constancy and stability.
Although there are other possible authors of the "Medulla" arrangement, they seem to be less probable candidates for the task than Conrad. 55 With the exception of Ignatius Conrad, the aforementioned book of the professed monks of Žiče does not specify a monk for doing any kind of musical work in the monastery, which makes them less probable candidates for arrangers of the Carthusian version. On the other hand, the source does not say which monks may have already been absent from Žiče in 1699, in the time of the supposed preparation of the "Medulla". Moreover, with the Carthusian's proverbial love for anonymity, they did not want to specify the author in any case.

The importance and meaning of the Carthusian "Medulla"
Whoever he was, the Carthusian author of the "Medulla" strived for great clarity as well as adherence to the Carthusian tradition, even extending to the formal images of the Order's liturgical books. Why, then, was it precisely the Franciscan Medulla that was chosen as a starting point? This seems to be connected with its concision and brevity, as well as with the practical intention of the treatise, which is characteristic of the Carthusian version, as well, perhaps even more than of the original Medulla. A chant compendium such as "Medulla" could serve the purpose of educating (new) monks in the field of basic chant theory, while enabling them to gain practical experience of chant singing in their everyday life in the choir.
Since this is only a very basic plainchant theory treatise, the Carthusian "Medulla" is different from most of the other music treatises known in the Order at the time. "Medulla" is not, however, the only example of musical 55 One option would be Florianus Van der Linden, who entered the monastery a few years after the future prior Caspar Ubitz and lived until 1723. He was a sacristan and thus had an important role in the monastery, which could also mean that he was able to prepare the Carthusian version of the treatise. Moreover, he came from Jülich near Cologne, the "birthplace" of the Franciscan Medulla. Among other monks in the monastery at the time who could be considered possible authors of the Carthusian Medulla one should mention Alexius Liechtenberger, who was sent from the Žiče Charterhouse in the 1680s to assist with liturgical duties in the choir elsewhere ("pro subsidio chori"), so he would have had an idea of what kind of knowledge was needed for singing chant, as well.
According to the important functions that they had in Žiče, there are some other names of the possible "Medulla" authors, such as Placidus Dolinar; Hugo Zieglmiller, who came from a family of clerks and therefore may have been a skilled copyist himself; Joachimus Schargai, who was a procurator; Barnabas Roth, who was a vicar until his death in 1702; Melchior Anwald, who was a vicar before his death in 1712; Balthasar Unterstolz, "homo pietate et prudentia et scientia eximius", who was a vicar in Freudnitz (Bistra) and in Žiče, and even attended the General Chapter in 1720; Maximilianus Fuchs; Fernandus Jezl, who also served as a procurator in Freudnitz and as a vicar in Žiče; and Josephus Guffus. The list of other possible "Medulla" authors is given after the information in Mairold, "Die Seitzer Kartäuser," 217, 219, 220 and 230 (Spreitzhofer's register), and in Mlinarič,Kartuziji Žiče in Jurklošter,365. thought in Žiče. Another excerpt on music from the second half of the seventeenth century, from the time after 1659, is preserved from the same monastery. The manuscript Ms. 1351 from the University Library of Graz contains writings from General Chapters. At the very beginning, on the folios 3r-5r (five pages in total) one finds "Modus religiose cantandi ex mente R[everendissimi] P[atri] Brunonis, Generalis ordinis n[ost]ri". This short text contains an explanation of the eighteenth chapter of the Carthusian Statuta, the part dealing with liturgical singing. It may have been meant to be continued, as the following pages up to fol. 8 are left empty. This source is intended for someone who is already an experienced chant singer in the choir: it gives detailed and specific instructions on performing individual chants of the Carthusian liturgy, and it is definitely not intended for someone completely new to plainchant music theory. It seems, then, that the "Medulla" could have been written for wider use within the Alemania Superior province, not only for the monastery in Žiče. To date, we have no information as to whether it was used and accepted more widely. It seems that the ways of learning chant were strongly connected to individual provinces, and that the so-called German provinces differed significantly from the French, Spanish or Italian provinces.
The "Medulla" was probably not known in the French provinces, as we have information about two other Carthusian chant treatises mentioned as sources of the Méthode de Plain-Chant selon le rite et les usages cartusiens from 1868. In addition to some other contemporary sources and the chapter on Carthusian chant from De vita Cartusiana by Peter Sutor, 56 the Méthode mentions one "Traité du chant selon l'usage des Chartreux, ou Directoire du choeur, divisé en deux parties" from 1700, which was compiled on the authorisation of the General Prior (probably in the Bourbon-les-Gaillon Charterhouse), as well as a treatise entitled "Forma psallendi ex statutorum nostrorum collectio excerpta et diffusius explicata" and written in 1740 in the Great Charterhouse (Grande Chartreuse). 57 The first treatise was written just one year after the Carthusian arrangement of the Franciscan Medulla, but it does not seem to be related to it in any way. 58 In any case, both treatises known in the Great Charterhouse would have seemed outdated and with little connection to the practice in 1868. The Méthode considers itself to be very modern and different from earlier compendiums: it makes a strict division between new learning and the ways of the "ancients" ("les Anciens"), which belong to the period before the nineteenth century, and thus to the time of the "Medulla". There is another example of the Carthusian music theory treatise from the end of the seventeenth century in the manuscript E.52, Civico Museo Bibliografico Musicale di Bologna, After that, there follows another, almost non-Carthusian repertoire. 60 In any case, this treatise, too, fails to show any connection to the "Medulla" treatise.

Conclusions
The Carthusian "Musices Choralis Medulla" from the Ms. I F 17 from the National Library of Prague, an arrangement of the Musices Choralis Medulla by the Franciscan Hermann Mott, was most probably written in the Žiče Charterhouse with the intention of providing an elementary theoretical basis for understanding and singing liturgical chant. Although it follows the Franciscan exemplar very closely, the Carthusian version does have some peculiarities, such as additional explanations of music theory or excursions on the Carthusian use and versions of chant. It tries to be very clear and systematic and is highly practical in its aim, as it contains many examples. The treatise was probably intended for Carthusian novices, who usually had no previous contact with the Carthusian chant outside the monastery. The Order therefore took care to ensure that they were educated both in chant theory as well as in the particularities of the Carthusian chant. The source itself, however, was most probably used by monk teaching novices, since the compilation also contains information on the other major liturgical duties of the Carthusians.
With regard to the authorship of the "Medulla", there are several possibilities among the monks who were living and working in the Žiče Charterhouse at the time. Among the most probable names are the renowned copyist of music manuscripts Ignatius Conrad and the capable prior Caspar Ubitz, who took special care about the regularity of the liturgical life in his own monastery and elsewhere, as he also served as the visitator of the province.
It is only due to the conscientious copyist in the Brno Charterhouse that we have been able to connect a short treatise with the distant Žiče Charterhouse. This is yet another proof of the close connections of the charterhouses within the Carthusian province Alemania Superior, as well as being another reminder that today's state, language and nationality borders are not an indicator of the dissemination of musical knowledge and practice in the past.
Finally, the Carthusian treatise itself is a curious and at the same time precious testimonial of the musical connections between two monastic orders. always very careful about introducing new practices and jealously guarded its own tradition was on the lookout for new and "modern" practical chant pedagogy when applicable. With careful reception and rearrangement of the work of others, but without blindly imitating them, many communities of the Carthusians could learn and subsequently spread the newly arranged knowledge within the Order.