ABSTRACT
In the vast secondary literature about fauxbourdon (particularly from the years 1936–58) the carols are never mentioned, but it can be shown that fauxbourdon is not only appropriately applied to many of the earliest carols but appears there substantially earlier than in any other repertory. Moreover, reading the story from the carols onwards demonstrates that a very large proportion of the fauxbourdon repertory has been wrongly reconstructed in modern editions.
