FICTA (FALSE), MUSIC. — The expression “false music” certainly existed in the first half of the 13th century, since around 1250 the Pseudo-Aristotle (Magister Lambertus) discusses it and proposes replacing the term “false” with “mute.” Later, the term “false music” (m. f.) was preferred. The reason for its “falsity” or “fiction” lies in the fact that in “false music,” intervals are altered or changed by lowering or raising them by a semitone through the use of the *bemolle* (♭) and the *becarre* (♮), which are placed outside their normal position, namely B♮; hence it is called false because the sign for the mobility of B is moved outside its true position; it is also false because what is sung is not what is written, as key signatures were unknown in the Middle Ages. At most, there might be occasional indications of the need to alter a note by adding a *becarre* or *bemolle* above it; normally, however, the singer had to know the rule and apply it even without written indication.
The origin of the theory of false music is closely tied to the use of mutation and the development of polyphony. On the one hand, until the introduction of monosyllables (ut, re, mi, or others), it was neither necessary nor even possible to make “mutations,” that is, in short, to call every semitone *mi-fa*. Precisely the “false music” would make one sing *mi-fa* even when a semitone was not written.
Pre-1930 musical theory knew only one semitone, namely B♮ (natural), in addition to the semitone believed by the Greeks under the name *ymmenemoni*, that is, *sibemolle* (B♭), marked in diagrams with the letter S. In practice, however, F also used B♭ (grav) and two other movable notes: E, which could be *bemolle*, and F, which could be a sharp. But this should not be attributed to the practice or theory of false music, nor even to chromaticism in the modern sense; it results simply from the formal modal transpositions and, given the imprecision of medieval modal theory, this practice was not highlighted until the transition from “open-field” notation to staff notation (e.g., the introit “Exaudi Domine vocem meam,” which, if transposed a fifth lower, begins with E♭; if written in the final A, it should be sung with F♯).
Discussions among medieval theorists before the 12th century show that the concept of “false music” was entirely unknown to them. If the division of the monochord produced a sound not included in the series of the seven tones, the theorist excused it as a matter of merely speculative interest (cf. the *De musica* of the 11th century, not to be attributed to St. Odo of Cluny [Gerbert, I, p. 274]; an unusual letter “m” indicates this sound, which constitutes C or F, or is inserted between C and D, D and E, or F and G). Sometimes the theorist simply condemned the shifting of the semitone and called it “absonia” (cf. Hucbald, *Musica enchiriadis*; Gerbert, I, pp. 176–77).
On the other hand, from the earliest texts that mention “false music,” it is clear that this mutation was used with the intention of achieving perfect consonances and especially to avoid hearing the extreme notes of the return simultaneously.
It should be noted, however, that the number of scales—or rather, the original *essordi* of false music—did not multiply; here are the most commonly used:
B♭ C D – E♭ F – G
E♭ F – G – A♭ – B♭ – C
D – E – F♭ – G – A – B
A – B – C♭ – D – E – F♭
FICTA MUSICA – SURETYSHIP
V. FIDEIUSSIONE
BIBL.:
G. Reese, *Music in the Middle Ages*, New York 1940, pp. 110–112; G. Vecchi, *La teoria musicale*, Bologna 1938, pp. 110–112; id., *Il canto fermo*, Milano 1938, pp. 100–109; E. Wellesz, *A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography*, Oxford 1949, pp. 100–102; J. Handschin, *Der Toncharakter*, Zürich 1948, pp. 100–102; A. W. Ambros, *Geschichte der Musik*, III, Leipzig 1881, pp. 400–405; H. Riemann, *Handbuch der Musikgeschichte*, I, 1, Leipzig 1904, pp. 200–205; P. Aubry, *Les Proportions musicales*, Paris 1908, pp. 100–102; G. de Van, *Les Musiciens juifs en France au moyen âge*, in *Revue des études juives*, 85 (1927), pp. 1–20; G. Reese, *Music in the Renaissance*, New York 1954, pp. 100–102.