ABSTRACT
Editor’s Preface: This article comprises a review and a critique of some of the main ideas developed by Besseler in his influential text, Bourdon und Fauxbourdon. The point of departure for Ficker’s arguments is that Besseler had not only overrated the capacity of the surviving sources to trace the genesis of fauxbourdon on the Continent but that he had greatly overvalued the historical significance of the technique itself. The bibliographical abbreviations of studies authored by Besseler (B I, B II, B III), constantly cited throughout the article, are identified in note 1. As originally published, Ficker’s article incorporates a supplementary double note (18–19), placed at the end of the text. In the translation, these notes have been repositioned to their correct location within the body of the article, with the numbering of footnotes kept consistent by offsetting notes 18 and 19 slightly within the same sentence.
