LATIN PSALTERS, OLD ROMAN AND GRE(!ORIAN CHANTS

.JOSEPf I DYER, BOSTON (USA)

The history of liturgical chant in the West has been probed with a wide variety of research tools, but very little attention has been focused on the texts of the chants. Even studies'which concern themselves with the choice of texts and their ordering within the liturgical year make only cur­sory mention of the literary form of the biblical text. A thorough examination of these textual matters represents an undertaking of considerable scope, for it requires the detailed comparison of chant texts in the manuscripts with an extensive number of Psalter witnesses•. In order to

make this initial survey more manageable I have decided to restrict the field of investigation to

the Mass chants of Lent in the Old Roman and Gregorian repertoires. The conclusions derived from this body of material do not differ from those which proceed from comparisons I have made covering the entire liturgical year. In the following pages I will review: {1) the Latin text forms extant during the formative stages of the chant repertoire, (2) the dissemination 'and geographical influence of these text forms, (3) the types of textual variants encountered in the Mass chants, and (4) the way in which textual variants establish relationships within and be­tween the two chant traditions.

The texts of the variable chants of the Mass have been studied previously by Bruno Stablein and Thomas Connolly2. They both compared reading~ found in specific ·categories of Old Roman and Gregorian chant with an array of Psalter manuscripts. Though the data on which they based their studies was similar, it led them to strikingly dissimilar conclusions3• Lack of either both compared variant readings found in specific categories of Old Roman and Gregorian chants with an array of Psalter manuscripts. Lack of a either common consensus or a uniform methodology indicates that a fresh review of textual variants and the legitimate inferences which can be drawn from them would be profitable.

Fundamental to any understanding ohhe psalmic foundation of the Mass chants is an inventory of the text forms available to the early ~·composers". All of the Latin translations of the psalms,

Fur a brief introduction to the topic sec W. Ape], Gregorian Chant, Bloomington (Indiana) 1959, p. 87-98 and E. Cardinc, Psautiers anciens ct chant grcgoricn, in: Richesses ct dCficiem:es des anciens psauticrs latins ( = Collectanca Biblica Latina 13), Rome 1959, p. 249-58. The principal editions of texts are: R.-J. Hcsbert, Antiphonalc Missarum Sextuplcx, Brussels 1935, and: Corpus Antiphonalium Officii, 5 vuls., Rome 1963-1975. There is a modern text edition of all the Old Roman Mass chants in P. Cutter, Musical Sources of the Old-Roman Mass ( = Musicological Studies and Documents 36), Rome 1979. This can be used only with the corrections provided by Th. Connolly in his review of the Cutter edition, in: Early Music History 2, ed. I. Fenlon, Cambridge 1982, p. 363-69.

2 Karl Marbach's compendium, Carmina Scripturarum, Strassburg 1907, Hildesheim 1963, is useful for locating biblical sources but does not consider the manner in which the chant texts differ from the Vulgate used by Marbach. A comparison of chant texts with scriptural and patristic sources is P. Peitschmann, Die nicht dem Psalter entnommenen Messgesangstucke auf ihre Textgestalt untersucht, in: Jahrbuch fiir l.iturgiewissenschaft 12 (1932), p. 87-144. An illuminating study by H. Hucke (Die Texte der Offertorien, in: Speculum Musicae Artis. Festgabe fur Heinrich Husmann, Munich 1970, p. 193-203) concerns the choice and order of verses in the offertories.

3 B. Stablein, Nochmals zur angcblichen Entstehung des gregorianischen Chorals in Frankenreich, in: Ar­chiv fiir Musikwissenschaft 27 (1970), p. 110-21; Th. H. Connolly, The Grad.uale of S. Cecilia in Trastevere and the Old Roman Tradition, in: Journal of the American Musicological Society 28 (1975), p. 413-58.

11

with the exception of Jerome's psalterium iuxta Hebraeos, were based on the Greek text which embraced its own range of variants even before the Latin translation process began. It. was to bring order to this textual confusion that Origen edited the greatest biblical research tool of anti­quity. In parallel columns he arranged the Hebrew text, the same transliterated into Greek characters, three of this newer Greek translations and his own edition of the Septuagint version. Because of the six text forms it contained Origen's critical edition became known as the Hexapla.

Neither the date nor the provenance of the earliest Latin translations of the psalms is known. There were many such translations, however. Augustine claimed that anyone with a smattering of Greek would try his hand at a Latin version. Rome may have possessed a semi-official Latin bible by the middle of the third century. Africa would have needed .a Latin Psalter at a very early date as well; its existence is implied by Tertullian (ca. 160 -after 220). All of these earliest transla­tions are known collectively as "Old Latin", a textual tradition which scholars generally divide into a European and an African branch". From the standpoint of the cham texts three Latin versions of the psalms are relevant: (1) the Old Latin tradition, which antedates the activity of Jerome, (2) the related Roman Psalter, and (3) the so-called "Gallican" Psalter. A fourth translation, produced by Jerome directly from the Hebrew text, never found a place in the liturgy, though it surpassed in accuracy all previous versions~. Other terms for these versions, like "Vulgate Psalter" or "!tala" are wanting in preci­sion and should be discarded. Medieval Vulgate bibles did not always contain the same Psalter version, and the term "Itala" derives from a single statement of Augustine which has resisted all efforts at clarification6•

The portion of the Old Latin bible most strongly represented in the manuscript tradition is the Psalter (161 witnesses in the Verzeichnis of the Beuron ~tus Latina). Many of these Psalters are fragmentary, however, and the full extent of the tradition and its comple.te range of variants will not become evident until.the ~tus Latina Psalter (five volumes) is published. In the meantime research can be based on the Old Latin Psalter variants collated by Dam Weber in his exemplary edition of the Roman Psalter and on the older studies of Arthur Allgeicr7 • The Old Latin

4 The distinction is based on the specific Latin words chosen to render the Grc~:k; for cxampl(; doxa is translated "claritas" by the African and "gloria" by the European text of the Psalter. Sec P. Capelle, Lc textc du psautier latin en Afrique ( = Collectanea niblica Latina 4), Rome 1913, p. 30. T. A. Marazucla (La Vetus Latina Hispana 1, p. 167-68) would abandon the traditional African-European division in favor of distinction drawn on national lines, thus defining a Vetus Latina ltalica, Africana or Hispana.

5 The Roman Psalter can be compared with the Old Latin and "Gallican" versions in th.e edition of Dom R. Weber, Le psautier romain et les aut res anciens psautiers latins ( = Collectanea Biblica Latina 10), Rome 1953. The critical edition of the "Gallican" Psalter is published as vol. 10 of the Biblica Sacra Iuxta Latinam Vulgatam Versionem ad Codicum Fidem, Rome 1953. The critical edition of the ittxt.t Hcbraeos is H. de Sainte-Marie (Ed.), S. Hieronymi Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos ( = Collectanca Biblica Latina 11), Rome 1953. For general surveys of the Latin bible in the Middle Ages the best sources arc: B. Peebk-s, Bible, Latin Versions, in: The New Catholic Encyclopedia 2, p. 436-50; M. Tuya I.J. Salaguero, lntroducci6n a Ia Biblia 1, Madrid 1967, p. 530-44; R. Loewe, The Medieval History of the Latin Vulgate, in: Cambridge History of the Bible 2, ed. G. W. H. Lampe, Cambridge 1969, p. 102-154. Very useful for the Hebrew background of the psalms and an extensive bibliography is Max Haas, Zur Psalmodie der christlichen Frtihzeit, in: Schweizer Jahrbuch fUr Musikwisscnschaft, Neue Folge 2 (1982), p. 29-51. . .

6 "In ipsis autem interpretationibus [of Scripture] ltala ceteris praeferatur, nam est verborum renacior cum perspicuitate sententiae." De doctrina christiana 2.15.22 (Patrologia Latina 34, col. 46; hereafter ab­breviated PL). For an exhaustive discussion of possible meanings see Marazuela, La Vetus Latina Hispana 1, p. 157-72.

7 See note 5 above. A. Allgeier, Die altlateinischen Psalterien, Freiburg i. Br. 1928; idem, Die Psalmen der Vulgata, Paderborn 1940; idem, Die Oberlieferung dcr alten lateinischen Psalmeniibersetzungen und ihre kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung, in: Publikationen der Freiburger Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft 20, Freiburg i. Br. 1931.

12

Psalter manuscripts, which stretch back to the sixth and seve.nth centuries, represent the oldest version of the psalms in Latin. Only quotation!:i in the works of the Fathers, also to be included in the vetus Latina, are more venerable. The earliest Old Latin Psalter, a sixth or seventh-century manuscript (a) in the Chapter Library at Verona, contains a text form which even at that early date had undergone several revisions. Current opinion, while recognizing in it correspondences with the version used by Augustine in his £narrationes in psalmos (before 415), considers it neverthelcs~ a basically Italian text. Its closest relative is the sixth-century Psalter of St. Gall (~)". Another branch of the Old Latin tradition, the so-called "psautier gaulois", is represented by a group of manuscript!:i headed by the sixth-century Psalterium Sangermanense (y). This recension was known to Jerome, since he criticized a translation error in it. Other important witnesses of the psautier gaulois are the eighth-century Corbie Psalter (o) and a sixth-century Psalter from the South of France {e.)''. There is Gitical disagreement about the source of the peculiar gaulois readings. Whatever their point of origin, however, this Psalter version held a dominant position in Gaul until the time of Charlemagne.

The most important branch of the Old Latin Psalter tradition broadly defined is the "Roman" Psalter, which the patristic scholar Alberto Vaccari sees as standing particularly close to the "common root" of this tradition 1c. As early as the fourth century the Roman Psalter was well established in Italy. Its favored status at Rome engendered the name by which it is universally known. Of special significance in the history of chant, the Roman Psalter l:ield sway when and where the sung texts of the Mass were clothed with their melodies. The thousands of passages collated for the present study bear this out, despite the frequency of contamination from other Old Latin versions 11 •

For centuries it had been assumed that the Roman Psalter was the first of the three revisions of the Psalter known to have been completed by Jerome. In the preface to his second Psalter revi­sion, he referred to an earlier effort: "psalterium Romae dudum positus emendaram et iuxta Sep­tuaginta interpretes, licet cursim, magna illud ex parte corrcxeram." 12 This cursory correction of an older Latin Psalter was simply identified with the Roman Psalter until this attribution was rejected by Dom Donatien de Bruyne. He claimed that, in spite of Jerome's disclaimer ("licet cursim"), the Roman Psalter contains entire categories of textual flaws which the renowned translator would never have tolerateu under any circumstances". Alberto Vacc~1ri did not

8 For complete citations sec r he List of s;mrccs. Concerning the Verona Psalter Weber maintains that "dans son fonds, cc Psauticr n'cst pas africain, mais italicn" (Lc psauticr romain, p. x). Sec also D. de Bruync, Saint Augustin: rcviscur de Ia lliblt•, in: Miscellanea Agostiniana 2, Rome 1931, p. 544-75.

9 Complete citations will be found in the List of Sources. The Sangcrmancnse was edited by Dom Sabaticr in: Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinac Vcrsioncs Antiquac scu Vetus ltalica 2, Rcims 1743.

10 As maintained in a review of the Weber edition in: Biblica 36 (1955), p. 100 ("a questo commune radice, nessuno sta cosl vicino come il Romano"). Allgeier (Die Oberlieferung, p. !) considers the Augustine­Veronese Psalter closer to this archetype.

II This combination is a normal situation in the history of psalmic textual transmission. for example, Spanish influence has been claimed in the Verona Psalte;- by H. Schneider, Ocr altlateinische Palimpsest­Psalter in Cod. Vat. lat. 5359, in: Biblica 19 (1938), p. 361·82.

12 For a critical edition of the complete preface see Biblica Sacra luxta Latinam Vulgatam Versionem 10, p. 304. .

13 D. de Bruync,. Le problcmc du psautier romain, ii1: Revue Benedictine 42 ( 1930), p. 101-126. De Bruync enumerates these as: harmonizations, dependency on the "Western" Greek text usually rejected by Jerome, misunderstanding of the Greek, irreconcilable differences in understanding of the Greek be­tween the Roman Psalter and Jerome's known translations, deformation uf the text to arrive at an easy solution to textual difficulties, stylistic crudities which Jerome would have improved. He points out, furthermore, that Jerome's enemies never reproached him with the shortcomings of the Roman Psalter. De Bruync held that traces of Jerome's (los•.) first version arc preserved in the Commentarioli on the psalms and in his letters written in the late 380s.

13

dispute the impressive array of evidence assembled by de Bruyne. He did maintain that, while Jerome indeed recognized the deficiencies of his first attempt (the Roman Psalter, according to

Vaccari), he had neither the time nor the critical source material in Rome to make all the necessary corrections 1l.

In support of Jerome's authorship it can be observed that the patristic era tolerated a range of imperfection in the sacred texts which would not be sanctioned by modern conceptions of tex­tual accuracy. Jerome and his contemporaries believed that "singula verba scripturarum singula sacramenta sunt; ... thesaurum sensum divinum habemus in verbis vilissimis" 1'. In an exten­sive study of Jerome's attitude toward contemporary biblical translations, G. Q. A. Meershoeck concluded that Jerome accepted a certain degree of inaccuracy in deference to the text handed down from previous generations: "aupres de la sublimite du contemi, toutes les imperfections ex­terieures s'annihilent." 11' Although de Bruyne's objections to Jerome's authorship of'the Roman Psalter are forceful, they have not been received without substantial criticism by Vaccari and other biblical scholars.

Even if the Roman Psalter cannot be identified with Jerome's first revision, there is no problem in identifying his second revision: the well documented and widely disseminated "Gallican" Psalter. After Jerome moved to Palestine in 385, he gained access to the authentic copy of Origen's Hexapla. On the basis of the fifth column, Origen's own edition of the Septuagint, Jerome framed his Psalter revision (ca. 389). He also referred to other columns on the page before him and went directly to the Hebrew text for some rcadings 17 • The resulting version was far more exact and faithful to the Greek, but it was still not a fresh translation. Jerome felt constrain­ed to make only the minimum number of corrections in the text of the accepted {Roman) Psalter. He preserved an older vocabulary in making these corrections, but did not hesitate to impose his own preferences in place of certain Old Latin and Roman choices1x. This "Hexaplaric" Psalter- a name we will pr.efer to the more customary (and misleading) "Gallican"- was essen­tially a scholarly edition. In it Jerome incorporated marks, derived from Origen, to indicate mat­ter found in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew (obelus -) or vice versa (asterisk*). In the preface to this Psalter, composed as a letter to his Roman friends Paula and Eustochius, he does not imply that this new revision was intended for the wide liturgical use it eventually enjoyed in the West. At first the new recension encountered opposition, and its author had to justify its existence to friend (Augustine) and foe (Rufinus) alike. In a well known letter to the Gothic priests Sunnia and Fretala he acknowledged the shortcomings of the Hexaplaric Psalter and pro-

14 A. Vaccari, I saltcri di S. Girolamo e di S. Agostino, in: Vaccari, Scritti di crudizione e di filologia 1, Rome 1952, p. 211-21. E. F. Sutcliffe (Cambridge History of the Bible 2, p. 84) claims that the arguments of de Bruyne "have not been found convincing", a view shared by Allgeier (Die Psalmen der Vulgata, p. 122-23). The chronology of Jerome's activity may be surveyed in Tuya and Salaguero, lntroducci6n 1, p. 530-37.

15 Tractatus de psalmo 90? (Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina 78, col. 130-131). 16 G. Q. A. Meershoeck, Le latin biblique d'apres Saint Jerome(= Latinitas Christianorum Primaeva 20),

Nijmege~ 1966, p. 241; see also pages 4-30 and 241-44. Jerome's methods have been studied by A. Thibaut, La revision hexaplaire de Saint Jerome, in: Richesses et deficiences des anciens psautiers latins, p. 107-149.

17 F. Stummer, Einfiihrung in die lateinische Bibel, Paderborn 1940, p. 87. The Greek text of this fifth column is not preserved inde_pendentl_y.

18 Jerome preferred, for instance, "eruere" to the Old Latin-Roman "eripere" in psalms 24:17 and 20,30:3, 31:19, 38:9, 39:14, 85:13; "redimere" to the Old Latin-Roman "liberare" in psalms 43:26, 48:16, 54:19, 71:14, 77:42.

14

vided a list of corrections 1 ~. Jerome's third and final revision of the Psalter, the psalterium iuxta Hebraeos, may be passed over with only brief mention. It formed the natural complement to his other Old Testament translations directly from the Hebrew, but it never entered the liturgical mainstream.

Since the relevance, or lack thereof, of the Hexaplaric Psalter has been a point of issue in previous studies of the Mass chants and their texts, a short survey of its dissemination and possible in­fluence is necessary. Despite its customary name ("Gallican") it did not hold a favored position in Gaul until a relatively late date, about the beginning of the ninth century. (Amalar, for in­stance, quotes regularly from the Hexaplaric Psalter.) Until the eighth century the psautier gaulois seems to have been the Psalter used in public worship. It was also strong enough to influence the St. Gall Psalter(~). While it is true that six of the seven earliest manuscripts of the Hexaplaric Psalter originated in Gaul, three of these are instruments of study, duplex and triplex Psalters, not specifically liturgical manuscripts10• The ascendency of the Hexaplaric Psalter began at the time of Charlemagne or shortly before. Although the emperor did not give it official status, the Hexaplaric Psalter came to be included in the splendid bibles produced by the scriptorium at Tours under the supervision of Alcuin and his successors as abbots11 •

Exactly how and by what stages the Hexaplaric Psalter ousted the psautier gaulois in the recita­tion of the Divine Office has not been clarified, but a link with monastic reform movements can be assumed. Since every monk probably learned the Psalter by heart from constant exposure to its recitation in choir, manuscript evidence may be neither extensive nor reliable in tracing the dissemination of a particular version in a liturgical context. Walafrid Strabo (ca. 808-849) chronicled the change taking place during his own lifetime, while noting that the "Romani" still clung to the Roman Psalter. He also claimed that the "Galliean" epithet derived from the legen­dary introduction of the Hexaplaric Psalter into Gaul by Gregory of Tours (538/9-594y2•

In England the Roman Psalter began to yield to the Latin Hexapla in the Divine Office after the middle of the tenth cenLury. The scriptorium at Winchester served as the principal agency for its dissemination. Canterbury remained conservative: until the mid-eleventh century the Roman Psalter persisted there. A manuscript in the British Library, Arundel115, a Roman Psalter in use at Canterbury, was converted into a Hexaplaric Psalter at about this tirne2 '. Continental influence - the prestige of the Tours bi~les along with the monastic reforms initiated by con-

19 "Veterum. imerpretum consuetudinem mutare noluimus, ne nimia novitate lectoris · studium ter­reremus:' Ep. 106.12 (PL 22, col. !!43; Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiae Latinorum 55, p. 255). A critical edi­tion of the letter is published in the Vulgate edition cited in note 5 above, p. 8-42. De Bruyne was of the opinion that the entire letter was an elaborate public-relations device: La lettre de Jerome a Sunnia et Fretela sur le psautier, in: Zeitschrift fur die neutcstamentliche Wisscnschaft und die Kunde der alteren Kirche 28 (1929), p. 1-13. Cf. also Jerome's letter to Augustine (Ep. 112, in PL. 22, col. 928; Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiae Latinorum 55, p. 389) and the Ep. adv. Rufinum 14 (PL 23, col. 468; Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina 79, p. 86-87).

20 Rome, Vat. Reg., lat. 11, a duplex Psalter with the Hexaplaric text and the iuxta Hebraeos on facing pages; Leningrad, Public Library, F. v. I. n. 5, sets side by side·the iuxta Hebraeos, Hexaplaric and gaulois texts of the psalms.

21 B. Fischer, Bibelausgaben des friihen Mittelalters, in: Settimanc di Studio del Centro Italiano sull'Alto Medioevo 10, Spoleto 1963, p. 593.]. Gribomont, on the other hand, believed that Alcuin's bible was "uniformement impose": L'Eglise et les versions bibliques, in: Maison-Dieu 62 (1960), p. 59.

22 De rebus eccl. 25 (PL 114, col. 957); seeS. Berger, Histoire de Ia Vulgate pendant les premiers siecles du moyen age, Paris 1893, p. 4 and 185-258. The term "psautier hexaplaire" was suggested by Dom de Bruyne, La reconstruction du psautier hexaplaire latin, in: Revue Benedictine 41 (1929), p. 298-99.

23 K. Wildhagen, Das Psalterium Gallicanum in England und seine altenglischen Glossierungen, in: Englische Studien 54 (1920), p. 34-45. H. H. Glunz (History of the Vulgate in England from Alcuin to Roger Bacon, Cambridge 1933, p. 59 ff.) maintained that the Latin Hexapla text was introduced into England (via the Alcuinian revision) with the reforms of King Alfred (871-901).

15

gregations from across the channel - were significant in the changeover. Irish monks were far ahead of the English in adopting the Hexaplaric Psalter, but their customs did not immediately transfer to the continent24 • The rate of change in Upper Austria seems to have been comparable to that observed in England, or even slightly slower. Conversion to the Hexaplaric version was complete only in the twelfth century''. The e..trliest more or less thorough exposition of psalm singing, the tenth-century Commemoratio Bn'Vis de torzis et psalmis modulandis, emanated from a milieu in which the Psalterium Romanum was still in practical use'".

This competition between Psalter versions which arose during the course of the late eighth and ninth centuries in Gaul persisted in the medieval liturgy. Italy began to yield to the Hexaplaric Psalter unJer German influence in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) restricted the use of the Roman Psalter for chanting the psalms of the Divine Office to the area delimited by the fortieth milestone from the city. (A special indult permitted its use at St. Mark's in Venice until1808.) Pius V (1566-1572) restricted the Roman Psalter to the canons of St. Peter's basilica, but Clement VIII in the bull Cum sanctissimum (7 July 1604) defended its use in the liturgy against attempts to convert all chant texts to the reaJi'ngs of the Hexaplaric Psalter27 •

With so many opportunities for the harmonization of one version with the other, it is remarkable that so little of it took place in the liturgical manuscripts. The individuality of each version was defended at length in the treatise De varia psalmorum atque cantuttm modulatione, once attributed to Berno of Reichenau (d. 1048). The Roman Psalter, firmly entreched in the chants of Mass and Office, maintained its place despite (in the words of Dom Cardine) "lc picgc tendu par Ia dualite des textes"~x.

Thus far I have sketched briefly the textual conditions which prevailed as the chant repertoire was being shaped in tlie fifth and sixth centuries. I have also added a few notes on the displace­ment of all previous Psa1ter versions by the Hexaplaric Psalter, a historical development which has yet to be fully clarified. Since I am likewise concerned with arriving at a secure methodology for analyzing the texts of the Mass chants, I would like to offer a critique of conclusions reached by Bruno Stiiblein and Thomas Connolly in their textual investigations (s~:e footnote 3 above). Stablein analyzed the gradual responsories of the Old Roman and Gregorian traditions, 88 pieces in all. He catalogueJ passages in which the Hexaplaric Psalter differed markedly from the Roman Psalter, the acknowledged basis of the chants he examined. He found absolutely no influence which could be attributed to the Hexaplaric version. His useful study illustrated what might have happened if this Psalter version had exercised its influence concurrently with a supposed frankish revision of Roman chant, a revision which some scholars claim led to the creation of what is now known as "Gregorian" chant. Despite its contribution, Stablein's intervention was largely unnecessary. He may have made unconscious assumptions about the "Gallican" Psalter and its position at the time of Charlemagne. As we have seen, it commanded no preferred status during this critical perioJ in the history of chant.

In a study which appeard a few years after Stablein's, Thomas Connolly took the view that thl' Hexaplaric Psalter had an impact on the texts of at least some Gregorian introits. He did not

24 K. Sisam, The Salisbury Psalter (Salisbury Cathedral, MS 150), ed. Celia and Kenneth Sisam ( = Early English Text Society 242), Oxford 1959, p. 47-51.

25 Such are the conclusions of']. Marbock, Das Eindringen der Versio Gallicana des Psalteriums in die Psalterien der Benediktinerkloster Obero~terreichs ( = Disscrtationen der Universitat .,Graz 5), Vienna 1970.

26 My analysis differs in this respect from that of T. Bailey in his edition of the Commcmoratio Brevis (= Ottawa Mediaeval Texts and Studies 4), Ottawa 1979, p. 21-22.

27 Marbach, Carmina Scripturarum, p. 34*. 28 The "Berno" treatise is edited in M. Gerbert, Scriptorcs Ecclesiastici de Musica Sacra Postissimum I,

St. Blaise 1748, Hildcsheim 1963, p. 91-114. On the question of authenticity sec H. Oesch, Bcrno und Hermann von Reichcnau als Musiktheoretiker, Bern 1961, p. 54-56.

16

offer a critique of Stablein's conclusions, though they confliqed with his own. He claimed to have found in the Old Roman graduate of S. Cecilia in Trastevere textual adjustments to the Gregorian sources. Old Latin Psalters were not collated with the chant texts, but the field of com­parison included non-psalmic chants. Connolly dn::w up a list of nearly two hundred instances in which the Old Roman introits depart from the readings of the Gregorian/Frankish sources, or in which the three Old Roman gmdwdia differ among themselves. His purpose was threefold: (1) to establish a characteristic Old Roman (and by contrast, Gregorian) text form for the introit antiphons; (2) to discern possible Gregorian influences on the Old Roman text; and (3) to com­pare Old Roman texts with manuscripts of the Roman Psalter in order to define. the scope of "typically Italian psalm readings". In reviewing Connolly's ample documentation I have not been able to confirm the first two of his theses; my own study of all the Mass chants in the Old Roman manuscripts and in selected Gregorian witnesses (a portion of which will be presented below) has led to quite different conclusions: that both Old Roman and Gregorian share a com­mon textual basis - the Roman Psalter. Each has comparable variants which can be explained without supposing the influence of one upon the other.

Before proceeding to a demonstration of this fact, 1 would like to suggest a few ways in which Connolly's data might be otherwise interprete1.V'.

1. He cites 32 cases (footnotes 39-41) in which he sees a distinction between Old Roman and Gregorian readings. In 8 of these cases the Beneventan (Gregorian) graduate agrees with the Old Roman sources, and in 2 more (Nos. 54, 62) Northern gradualia (Mt. Blandin and Com­piegne) also have the Old Roman reading. In a few instances (e. g., nos. 24, 113, 174) the Old Roman tradition is itself divided, or else an introit is missing in the S. Cecilia graduale. Had a wider range of Gregorian manuscripts, including the ones edited by Dom Hesbert in the Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex, been consulted, a unified Gregorian textual tradition would have evaporated. In almost half of the introits cited the Sextuplex gradualia are at odds among themselves.

2. If the existence of a characteristic Old Roman textual preference ist doubtful, the influence on it of a divided Gregorian tradition is even more dubious: in nearly half of the 13 cases of supposed Gregorian influence on the Old Roman texts (footnotes 43-44), at least one of the Sextuplex gradualia agrees with the purportedly isolated Old Roman sources (nos. 12, 52, 88, 138, 10, 182). Connolly wisely dismis5es as "the work of less careful scribes" approximately SO additional apparent variants (footnote 45) which might give the wrong impression of a uni­que Old Roman reading.

3. Connolly finds that the Old Roman introits tend to favor readings found in the Italian sources of the Roman Psalter, while some Gregorian introits display readings derived from the older (English) manuscripts of this Psalter. This is probably true, though a number of citations brought forward in proof (footnote 47) must be considered of dubious validity due to the presence of accidental textual corruption. Lack of agreement among the Sextuplex gradualia blurs the picture yet further, and reference, to the Old I.atin Psalters would have revealed that some of the "Roman" readings are also found in them.

4. The contenti<;>n that at times "one or more of the Gregorian sources agrees with the Gallican Psalter" cannot be sustained.1c. Four of the five "Gallican" references (footnote 48: nos. 60, 24, 90, 157) can be found even in the restricted number of Old Latin Psalters collated by Weber. The Old Roman and Gregorian introits thus confirm the absence of any influence from the Hexaplaric Psalter. Despite the fact that some Old Latin Psalters were modernized

29 For the purpose of discussion all of his introit variants will be considered valid and non-psalmic texts will be accepted. It is presumed that the reader has Connolly's generous documentation at hand.

30 The Graduate, p. 427.

17

in the direction of the Hexaplaric, I believe that the Beuron vetus Latina edition will show that the chant texts have authentic Old Latin readings whenever they deviate from the main Roman Psalter tradition.

I apologize for putting the reader's patience to the test by requiring him to relate these comments to documentation published elsewhere, but 1 believe it is important to lay aside all questions of the influence of one chant tradition on the other on the basis of textual comparisons. Both have an identical textual basis, though they occasionally follow separate paths. These deviations are not remarkable, since they parallel exactly the kinds of variants found in the Psalter manuscripts themselves.

The sheer number of textual variants found by Connolly in the Mass chants might seem to undermine this assertion of a common textual basis, but most of the-apparent "variants" do not survive the application of a few simple principles of textual criticism. We have already noticed the tolerant attitude toward variant readings in biblical manuscripts which antedates the earliest gradualia and antiphonalia. Many of the "variants" proposed for the introits are merely the result of common scribal errors; they cannot be placed on the same plane as possibly more significant divergencies. Unless the contrary can be demonstrated, it must be assumed that the scribe inten­ded to produce an exact copy of the text of his model. That he may have failed to do so resulted from human frailty rather than from conscious design. In liturgical texts the mechanical copy should be presumed, even if the same presumption does not hold true in the secular literary tradition 11 •

A relevant guide to the kinds of scribal errors committed in the Middle Ages is the treatise De Orthographia, compiled by Cassiodorus at the age of ninety-three for his monks at Vivarium. It is an elementary guide to proper spelling. That such basic instruction was needed in a monastery founded by a·celebrated rhetorician schooled in the traditions of late antiquity is sug­gestive of the problems encountered in other scriptoria-'2• Despite daily exposure to the Psalter and the chants derived from it, inattentive scribes could still iutroduce unintentional variants without thereby creating a subsequent stcmma".

The common errors cited by Cassiodorus (incorrect cases, interchange of b and v, o and u, m and n) are precisely the ones encountered in the texts of the Mass chants. Sometimes the context itself invites scribal lapses, as when repeated letters are seen as one (haplography): fluctuum/fluc­tum, cornua arcuum/cornu arcum, ad defensionem/a defensionem. Long or unfamiliar words were another pitfall, though inadvertent omission of text (parablepsia) is unlikely to go uncor­rected in a manuscript with musical notation. Errors like these, even if shared coincidentally by several chant manuscripts, cannot he regarded as authentic variants, the tracing of which would establish patterns of influence or the conventional stemma based on common errors. They can­not be used to prove the influence of one chant tradition on another.

31 G. Pasquali argues convincingly for scribal intervention, bur the scribe would have no incentive to

clarify, embellish or adapt well known biblical texts sung annually -or even more frequently - in his monastery; Storia della tradizione e critica del testo, Florence ~1952, p. xvii. A non-psalmic intet-ven­tion, significant for the history of the Old Roman Office is discussed by H. Barre, Corrections dans l'an­tiphonaire de Saint-Pierre, iri: Revue Benedictine 76 (1966), p. 343-351.

32 De Orthqgraphia merely assembles relevant passages from earlier grammarians; it is reprinted in H. Keil, Grammatici Latini 7/1, Leipzig 1878, p. '143-210. For a sensitive evaluation see James ]. O'Donnell, Cassiodorus, Berkeley (California) 1979, p. 229-37.

33 For a sampling of variants in biblical manuscripts consult the listing "Orthographia tot ius Octateuchi" in: Biblia Sacra luxta Latinam Vulgatam Versionem 4, p. 393-490. Pasquali's judgement is straightfor­ward: "che peculiarita ortografiche non provano nulla, e risaputo ... ;· Storia della tradizione, p. 17. Cf. B. Stablein, Kann der gregorianische Choral in Frankenreich entstanden sein? in: Archiv fiir Musikwissenschaft 24 (1967), p. 157.

18

Questions of Psalter versions and variants would hardly arise outside the context of cycles of variable chants covering most or part of the liturgical year. Not all of the Mass chants were in­troduced at the same time of course, but it can be regarded as certain that all the relevant Psalter translations existed before the Mass cycles were created. Only the gradual may antedate the activi­ty of Jerome, yet its earliest textual tradition will remain uncertain. The concept of a variable cycle was surely established for th<.! introit and communion by the sixth century; perhaps the other Mass chants had reached a similar stage of evolution at the same time'". The first men­tion of a cantus anna/is, occurs more than a century later in an appendix to Ordo Romanus XIX. The compiler of the Ordo credited several popes and Roman abbots with important contribu­tions to sacred music. Pope Leo I (440-461) is the earliest figure associated with a yearly cycle of chants, but the Ordo attributes similar achievements to a number of Leo's successors·''. It seems unlikely, however, that the compiler of the Ordo had much specific information about the liturgical or musical activities of these popes.

Several considerations make the cycles of variable chants for the Lenten Masses a suitable founda­tion for the present study. They form a coherent group of pieces within a liturgical season whose main lines of evolution have been satisfactorily clarified. Furthermore, growth of the chant reper­toire can be correlated at least in part with the various stages of development through which the Lenten observance passed.

Although a fast of forty days preceding Easter existed at Rome in the late fourth century, not every day was marked liturgically3'. Sundays had been observed with a Eucharistic liturgy since apostolic times, but weekdays were not automatically provided with comparable services. By the pontificate of Leo I (440-461), Wednesdays, Fridays and perhaps Mondays of Lent had been added to the kalendar. All of the remaining Lenten feriae entered the liturgical kalendar between the late fifth and early eighth centuries, though most of them were probably in place by the time of Pope Hilary (461-468}'7• There is some disagreement about the individual stages of this pro­cess, but the late addition of the Lenten Thursdays under Gregory II (715-731) virtually closed the liturgical development of the season. Since by that time compositional activity had ceased, chants for these Masses had to be borrowed from other days.

The extent of the period defined as "Lent" also had an impact on liturgical organization. Sun­days were never considered days of fast; hence, when it became imperative to have exactly forty days of fasting before Easter, an additional..four days preceding the first Sunday of Lent were in­corporated in the calculation. For the same reason Good Friday and Holy Saturday, heretofor considered apart from Lent, were included. Thus came about the ambivalence between a forty­day fast and the earlier custom of observing Quadragesima as six weeks of preparation for

34 This much can be assumed from the Libcr Pontificalis, which reported (ca. 530) that Pope Celestine I (422-432) had introduced the practice of singing "psalmi David CL ante sacrificium" (1, 230); ed. L. Duchesnt; in: Bibliothcquc des Ecolcs fran~aises d'Athcncs ct de Rome, 2nd series, vol. 3. Sec also the discussion of Chavasse's views on the Lenten communions below. ·

35 Ordo XIX, p. 36; M. Andrieu (Ed.), Les Ordincs Rom~ni du haut moyen age 3 ( = Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense 24 ), Lou vain 1951, p. 223-24. Concerning the Frankish and monastic origin of the Ordo see Andrieu 3, p. 9-15.

36 C. Callewaert, La duree et le caractere du Careme ancien dans l'Eglise latine, in: Sacris Erudiri, Steen­brugge 1940, p. 449-506; A. Chavasse, Le Careme romain et les scrutins prcbaptismaux avant le IX" sic­de, in: Recherches de Science Religieuse 35 ( 1948), p. 325-81. This seminal article and several of Chavasse's later publications are the basis for: La structure du Careme et les lectures des messes quadragesimales dans Ia liturgie romaine, in: Maison-Dieu 31 (1952), p. 76-119. A letter of Jerome to the Roman virgin Marcella remarks on an strict fast in quadragesima (Ep. 24, 4; Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiae Latinorum 54, p. 216).

37 ~allewaert, La duree, p. 500; Chavasse (La structure, p. 85) would place this development in the early SIXth century.

19

pascha. Confusion about the real beginning of Lent remains embedded in the oldest layers of the Gelasian sacramentary'". The Secreta prayer of Ash Wednesday contains the words "qui bus ipsius venerabilis sacramentum venturum celebremus exordium·: yet the collects of the day refer to the (1) "inquoata ieiunia" and (2) "causas ... inquoatas". On the following Sunday, however, a rubric refers to the day as "dominica in Quadragesima incoantis inicium"w.

A cycle of 26 psalmic communion chants was created sometime after this Wednesday began to be regarded as the caput Quadragesimae in competition with the traditional commencement of the season on Sunday.'0 This cycle could hardly be the result of haphazard evolution. Derived from psalms 1-26 in ascending numerical oder, the series covers most of the weekdays between Ash Wednesday and Friday of the fifth week of Lent. At the time of its introduction the Eucharist was celebrated on most of the Lenten Jeriae except the still a liturgical Thursdays. A distinction existed, moreover, between the period of penance and the week commemorating Christ's Passion~ 1 • Unfortunately, this situational complex does not readily suggest a precise date for the introduction of the psalmic communions, but Antoine Chavasse regarded the early sixth century as the most likely period on the basis of two assumptions:

1. A report in the Liber Pontificalis (ca. 530) that Pope Telesphorus (125?-136?) established a fast of seven weeks before Easter implies a comparable liturgical organization~l.

2. The reorganization of the Lenten scrutinies- a doubling of their number and a displacement from Sundays to weekdays - with the concomitant redistribution of scriptural pericopes en­tailed the simultaneous replacement of five psalmic communions by ones on texts from the new Gospels of the day''.

The early second century date proposed by the Liber Pontificalis for the institution of a seven­week Lenten fast is certainly too early. The editor of the Liber obviously knew the long fast, though he was unable to dra:w on either his memory or archival documents to clarify its history. He thus attributed its introduction to a nearly forgotten pope who lived four centuries previously.

In his hypothesis of an early sixth century date for the Lenten ps<llmic communion cycle, Chavassc did not relate the number of communion chants with the numbers of days in the various historical patterns of Lenten organization. None of the latter seem to match the commu­nions exactly. They cover a period of five and one half weeks, not the seven weeks of the Liber

38 A. Chavasse proved that the finishing touches were not added to the Lenten kalcndar of the Gelasian sacramentary until the close of the seventh century. The situation discussed here must be attributed to the earliest (6th c.) sources from which the Gclasianum drew. Lc sacramentaire gelasien: SacJ~lmcmaire presbyterale en usage dans les titres romains au VII" sicde, 'lournai 1957, p. 215-35.

39 C. Mohlberg, (Ed.), Liber sacramentorum Romanae Aecclesiae ordi.nis anni circuli ( = Rerum. ec­clesiasticarum documenta, Series maior, Fontes 4) Rome 1960, nos. 91, 89, 90. Cf. the collect prescribed by the Gregorian sacramentary for Ash Wednesday at the church of S. Anastasia: "Concede nobis, Domine, praesidia militiac christianae sanctis incoare ieiuniis ... " .J. Deshusses (Ed.), Le sacramenuire grcgorien: Ses principales formes d'apres les plus anciens manuscrits (= Spicilegium Friburgense 16). Freiburg (Schweiz) !1979, p. 131.

40 Gregory I took pains to explain the symbolism of each calculation in his Homil. in Evang. 16.5 (PL 76, col. 1137). ·

41 J. A. Jungmann, Die Quadragesima in gcn Forschungen von Antoine Chavasse, in: Archiv fiir Liturgiewissenschaft 5/1 (1957), p. 84-85. Late additions to the Lenten kalcndar were the Saturday before the first Sunday and Saturday in the fifth week, a special day of almsgiving. Ash Wednesday was known by the last third of the fifth century in Turin and probably Rome as well. C. Callewacrt, Le Careme a Turin au v·· siecle d'apres S. Maxi me, in: Revue Benedictine 32 ( 1920), p. 132-44 (reprinted in his col­lected writings, Sacris Erudiri, p. 517-28). Cf. Chavasse, Le Caremc romain, p. 338.

42 Hie constituit ut scptem hebdomadas ante Pasch a ieiunium celebraretur; Libcr Puntificalis I, p. 129. 43 Chavasse, Le Careme, p. 339-40.

20

Pontificalis entry. A terminus ad quem for the psalmic communions would be imposed by the Gospel communions, if it could be determined when they replaced five of the original psalmic texts. Chavasse assumed that the new communions were created simultaneously with the reassignment of Gospel pericopes. However likely this simultaneity might be, it is not confirmed by any independent witnesses. Relocation of the scrutinies must have occurred after the comple­tion of the old Gelasian Sacramentary (ca. 560), since it preserves the scrutinies at their original locations on the third, fourth and fifth Sundays of Lent. A generation later, the I .enten liturgy had the new arrangement of the scrutinies, for Pope Gregory I (590-604) preached on a Gospel text in its new lm.:ation~•. The Gospel communions had certainly heen introduced w.hile the ar­chetype of the graduale was still at Rome, since all Old Roman and virtually all Gregorian gradualia agree on the texts for these chants~'.

Despite nearly complete textual agreement, the chronology of the Gospel communions is com­plicated by the diversity of their melodic tradition. On the basis of a large documentation the Abbe Beyssac counted 9 different melodies for Oportet te, 6 for Qui biberit, 5 for Nemo te, 7 for Lutum ftcit, and 4 for Videns Dominus•". Fixity of melodic tradition characterizes the oldest layer of the Gregorian repertoire, while melodic instability indicates later additions. It is possible that pieces introduced before Gregory's time could manifest so many variant melodies? Or were the Gospel communions a much later innovation, in fact one of the last additions to the graduaie? Uncertainty about their date undermines an attempt to clarify the age of the psalmic communions. Nothing rules out their origin in the sixth century, and more information about numerical sequences of psalms in chant cycles would provide a valuable framework for establishing their chronology.

The tract has several features which seem to indicate venerable age47 • Only modes 2 and 8 are represented, and the repertoire relics on a small number of formulae for its melodic resources. The form of the tract, psalmody in directum, also points to quite ancient practices. Two tracts, Qui habitat and Deus, deus meus, have for their texts almost an entire psalm. They successfully resisted the abbreviation process which shortened most of the other Mass chants. Despite t!H~ virtual restriction of the tract to the weeks between Septuagesima and Easter and to the feasts of saints or votive Masses celebrated during Lent, production of new tracts continued through the Middle Ages'H. Relatively few tracts arc found in the manuscripts used in the present study, and three tracts (Laudate Dominus, Qui .confidunt, Deus, deus meus) have no textual variants.

44 C. Callewaert, S. Gregoire, les scrutins et quelques messes quadragesimales, in: Ephemerides Liturgicae 53 (1939), p. 191-203 (reprinted in Sacris Erudiri, p. 659-71).

45 For a listing sec Hesbcrt, Antiphonalc Missarum Sextuplex, p. xlvii. There ist also general agreement about the chants borrowed to create Masses for the Lenten Thursdays in the first third of the eighth century; these arc listed in: Apel, Gregorian Cham, p. 66-67. The Gregorian Sacramentaries have dif­ferent prayers for these Thursdays depending on whether the manuscript had left Rome (the Paducnsc} or not (the Hadrianum) before the introduction of these Masses. ln this last evaluation I follow C. Vogel (Introduction aux sources de l'histoire du culte chretien au moyen age [ = Biblioteca di "Studi Mcdit:vali" 1] Spoleto 1975, p. 68-72) rather than Chavasse (Lc sacramcntairc ge!asien, p. 566-68).

46 Beyssac, Le graduel-antiphonaire de Mont-Renaud, in: Revue de Musicologie 40 (1957), p. 138-39. The Beneventan tradition is reviewed in Paleographic Musicale 14, p. 225-34. H. Hucke and M. Huglo, authors of the article "Communion" in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, offer the plausible explanation that the (original) syllabic melodies of the Gospel communions were altered to

bring them into stylistic conformity with the other communion melodies of the repertoire. 47 D. Johner calls it "dieser wohl alteste Gesang der Messe" (Wort und Ton im Choral, Leipzig 1940, p.

212}. 48 A single tract, Qui regis for Ember Saturday in Advent, occurs outside the paschal cyclt: which begins

on Septuagesima Sunday. Hucke believes "that the tract is a more recently developed class of Gregorian chant and that its establishment in the liturgical order had not been completed by the end of the 8th century" (article "Tract", in: The New Grove Dictionary 19 (1980], p. 110}.

21

Though sung every Monday, Wednesday and Friday until Holy Week, the tract Domine non secundum, a later addition to the liturgy, appears in only one of our manuscripts. It is unknown in the Old Roman tradition.

Until its sudden appearance in the eighth-century Ordines Romani and the earliest gradualia, the offertory chant cannot be traced with any de~ree of satisfaction. An allusion by Augustine to the hct that "hymni ad altare dicerentur de psalmorum libro ... ante oblationem" has sometimes been cited as proof of the offertory's existence in Africa during the early fifth century. Further assumptions about liturgical ties between Rome and Africa have led to the conclusion that the offertory chant was sung concurrently at Rome. Among the problems of interpretation which beset this Augustinian statement is the uncertainty about th~ meaning of the crucial word oblatio. If in this context it means the entire Eucharistic liturgy, then Augustine may haw been referring to a chant which was the equivalent of the introit4''. Need for a chant during the presentation of bread and wine in the Roman liturgy probably arose when an offering began to be received during (instead of before) the Mass. Every member of the congregation may not have participated in the liturgical offering ceremony, however. Ord_o Romanus I describes an elaborate, · well established protocol for the reception of offerings, but these were accepted during the papal liturgy only from the patrician class, not from ordinary folk'c. The offertory chant is mention-ed almost in passing. ·

A cycle of offertory chants is confirmed for the mid-eighth century, but it undoubtedly existed earlier. Eleven of the Lenten offertories are reused on the Sundays after Pentecost, where they occur in a gapped, ascending numerical order of psalms. It seems more logical to assume that they were composed for Lent and later transferred when numerical ordering of chants enjoyed a special vogue". Otherwise, one would be forced to assume that an obvious principle of order­ing was destroyed for no· clearly discernible purpose.

The foregoing capsule histo.ry of the Lenten Mass chants illustrates that none of rhem (except the gradual) has a history which reaches beyond the period which gave rise to the Latin Psalters. What is true of the Lenten chants applies a fortiori to other parts of the litur~ical year which were organized at a later date. I have compared texts of all the Mass chams in the Old Roman and selected Gregorian gmdualia with the earliest Old Latin and Roman Psalter witnesses. The conclusions reached from that broader survey of the entire liturgical year correspond to those derived from an intensive analysis of the Lenten Mass chants drawn from the psalms. Lack of a critical text of other parts of the Old Latin bible dictates this restriction to chants with a psalmic basis'2•

Even with this restriction to the psalms, the Mass chants of Lent offer approximately 250 items of representative material- only the alleluia is absent. A complete pre~cntation of all 250 cita­tions would be cumbersome and unnecessary for our limited purposes. A well chosen sam.ple suffices to demonstrate: (t) the foundation of all chant texts in the Roman Psalter, (2) the uniform textual basis of both the Old Roman and Gregorian traditions, (3) the scope and typical patterns of textual varianrs in the chant.

49 ]. Dyer, Au!!;ustinc and the Hynmi ante oblationem: The Earliest Offertory Chants? in: Revue des Etudt:s Augustiniennes 27 (1981), p. 8?-99; KL Gamber, Ordo Missae Africanae: Der nordafrikanische Messritus zur Zeit des hi. Augustinus, in: Romische Quartalschrift fiir 1\lterrumskundc und Kirchcngeschichtc 64 ( 1969), p. •43. The quote from Augustine is found in his Libe1· 1-etractatior111m 2.11 (PL 32, col. 634: Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiae Latinorum 36, p. 144 [as cap. 37]).

50 Ordo I, p. 69-85; Andrieu 2, p. 91-95. 51 Most of the post-Pentecost introits, offertories and communions are arranged in an ascending series,

though the same psalm never furnishes the text for all three chams. The graduals (fixed in place before the populat·ity of numerical series?) arc arranged in no special order. For a complete table sec: An­tiphonalc Missan11n Scxtuplex, p. lxxv.

52 On non-psalmic texts the study of Pcitschmann (footnote 2 above) is exemplary.

22

The documentary basis of this study is presented in the List of Sources divided according to country of origin. The oldest Psalters are represented by the Roman (capital letters) and the Old Latin (Greek letters) versions"'. The English Psalters traflsmit an Italian text form which stems from the missionary activity inspired by Gregory I and carried out by his emissary, Augustine of Canterbury. The Gregorian gradualia on this list include the oldest unneumed manuscripts as well as a selection of manuscripts with staffless neumes from Italy and beyond the Alps. None of the Gregorian witnesses is later than the eleventh century; this reduces the possibility of later adjustment of textual readings. The choice of the Old Roman gradualia (11-13 c.) was imposed, since these three manuscripts are the unique specimens of the Old Roman Mass cqants".

The five groupings into which the Appendix is divided reflect the varieties of textual com­parisons to be made: chant manuscripts with chant manuscripts (A, B) and chant manuscripts with Psalters (C, D, E). The first category (A) is the largest, representing about one-fifth of the 250 items collated. The small selection in the Appendix is characteristic in that no graduate is consistently isolated from the others. Notice that this holds true also for the Old Roman gradualia, which are always cited at the end of each line of abbreviations. They almost never stand alone against the Gregorian witnesses and frequently differ among themselves. This situa­tion confirms that the textual traditions are comparable and that the text remained stable, within the normal range of variants, while the music underwent revision.

Even the earliest musical documents manifest a considerable textual diversity. This fact does not undermine a central, Roman origin of the chant since, as we have seen, the catly centuries ac­comodated themselves to textual diversity without undue concern. No better witness can be found than Gregory the Great: "sedes apostolica, cui Deo auctore praesideo, utraque [ versione] utitur";s.

Sometimes the majority of gradualia follows the Roman Psalter; at other times, the Old Latin. There may be some slight tendency for Italian gradualia to be isolated in their readings, but it can happen to the Sextuplex gradualia as well. Mont-Blandin seems to be the only chant manuscript some of whose variants can - hut need not be - explained by adjustment to the Hexaplaric Psalter.

A relatively even division of readings (B) is not as common a feature, though almost invariably there are Italian and Northern European cham manuscripts on both sides. Items 2, 3 and 4 might at first be dismissed as unintentional variants caused by scribal error. Though I have disregarded dozens of similar instances as inadvertent textual corruption, I have included these because the readings arc substantiated in the Psalter tradition. Most of the variants in this even-distribution category arc of this type and arc thus inevitably open to doubt. I suspect that both true variants and scribal error are here inextricably interwoven and that this group of readings is of only limited value for our purposes. The first and last items in this group of examples are the rare cases in which a substantial variant is involved, one which rests on a mistranslation in the Roman Psalter (immittct}, while the other is based on different Greek readings (libera/iudica).

Turning to the comparison of gradualia with Psalters (C), we need to examine those cases in which the chant readings depart from the oldest manuscripts of the Roman Psalter. Though these manuscripts arc all English, they contain a genuine Italian text form, a form which is certainly at the heart of all chant texts and has been the point of reference for all our comparisons. A small group of chant variants can be traced with some degree of likelihood to another Italian tradition, which is preserved in manuscripts of the eleventh and twelfth centuries (PQRUVX).

53 The sigla are tho~e of Dom Weber, Le psautier romain, p. xiii-xxi. 54 I wish to express my thanks to Dr. Hans Braun and the Bodmer Library for access to the unique

S. Cecilia manuscript. 55 Ep. ad Leandrum ) (PL 75, col. 516). Gregory is referring to the Roman and Hexaplaric Psalters.

23

Three cases in category C depart from the principal Roman Psalter reading in decisive ways (revereantur, qui magna, non intres). The variants are conspicuously present in the Italian branch, though "qui magna" had to be corrected to "qui maligna" to give this reading in manuscripts Q and R. The unanimity of the chant tradition in abandoning the oldest text form is significant, even though the chant manuscripts do not always agree on the alternative. In a few cases the Old Roman chant manuscripts stand with the Italian branch of the Roman Psalter against the Gregorian witnesses (rcvereantur, adversus me), yet there arc still instances when regional lines are crossed (in bono). Two examples listed in this group (sub pinnis eius, super me) could be used to support some Hexaplaric influence on the Mont-Blandin graduale. One must be reserved in drawing this conclusion, however, since Jerome frequently went back to Old Latin readings for his Hexaplaric rendition. It may be that all hypothetical Hexaplaric forms in the chant manuscripts derive ultimately from the Old Latin tradition. Even at the present stage of documentation these "Hexaplaric" readings can almost always be found in some other Psalter.

Category D, documenting again the influence of the Old Latin Psalter on the chant texts, con­firms the statements made earlier about the prevalence of Old Latin readings among the chant texts. The Old Latin influence looms larger than that of the Italian manuscripts (PQRUVX) we have just finished discussing, as a comparison of the left-hand columns of A and B with D will show. I have been able to draw three of the examples in D from a single chant, the offertory Meditabor/Meditabar and its verse. Here the Roman Psalter reading has been abandoned by the chant, and the Old Latin version preferred for both refrain and verse. The final example (fer opem nobis) points very clearly to the psautier gaulois, yet this reading is found in both Frankish and Italian chant manuscripts. Other examples would show that the psautier gaulois ought to be regarded as one branch of the Old Latin tradition, not as a separate and exclusively Northern rendering.

A chant text unattested ainong the Psalters collated (category E) is a common occurrence. There are more than thirty cases, a number which does not include recognizable instances of centoniza­tion, a procedure which de facto creates variants foreign to the Psalters. Naturally, one cannot dismiss the likely possibility that many of these presently unattested citations will be discovered either in Latin Psalters or in the writings and sermons of ecclesiastical authors. Nothing of a linguistic nature distinguishes these variants from those in other categories.

The unanimity of the chant tradition behind unattested or rare readings is sometimes quite strik­ing. The first word of the offertory Levabo, for instance, does not translate the Greek text and seems to aim at a literary parallelism with the rest of the psalm verse: "Levabo oculos meos et considerabo mirabilia de lege tua:' Other examples in this category (qui propitiatur, ne discedas, obprobrii servorum tuorum, calumniantibus me) attest to the integrity of the text tradition across the Old Roman-Gregorian dividing line, not merely in the customary use of the Roman Psalter but also in the fine~t details of variant readings. ·

The foregoing comparisons demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the disparity between the Old Roman and Gregorian melodic traditions is not matched on the textual level. Alignment of variant textual readings falls across the musical boundary which divides the two repertoires. Perhaps this is because both Psalters and gradualia seem to behave in similar ways with respect to textual variants. Tolerance ·for them was the norm in both cham and biblical manuscripts, and this attitude did not encourage spontaneous emendation.

None of the chant manuscripts examined derives from a single Psalter source. Correspondences between a particular graduale and the Psalter tradition seem almost random. Most of the variants in chant manuscripts can be traced back to the Roman Psalter, which even in its earliest represen­tatives (AHMNS in the List of Sources) was not uniform. If the older Psalter manuscripts are abandoned by the chants, the Italian branch of the Roman Psalter (PQRUVX) frequently acts as the identifiable source of a chant variant. The presence of these Italian readings in Northern

24

manuscripts testifies to the position of Italy as the fons et origo of the tradition of which Old Roman and Gregorian are branches.

Textual variants not present in the Roman Psalter stem from one of the various recensions. The full extent of the Old Latin tradition has not been ascertained, yet its frequent support of a chant variant delineates the range of its influence;". Perhaps because it displayed the critical apparatus (obelus and asterisk) of a scholarly edition, the Hexaplaric Psalter had not entered the orbit of liturgical Psalters when the chant texts were stabilize<..P'. From that point onwards "moderniza­tion" became impossible, even after the triumph of the Hexaplaric Psalter in the Divine Office'x. The first recourse to one of Jerome's biblical translations based on the Hexapla for a liturgical text seems to have occurred when the four Marian feasts were reorganized by Sergius I (687-701)'". None of the gradualia manifest more than a hint of its presence (e. g., the Frankish gradual, venite filii). Apparent correspondences in Mont-Blandin probably reach back to the Old Latin Psalter.

In discussing the Lenten communions reference was made to the "archetype of the graduale." The existence of such a common font of the Old Roman and Gregorian traditions is presupposed by the virtual unanimity which prevails in the choice of scriptural and non-scriptural texts for Sundays and feriae. The present investigation of variant readings in the psalmic texts of the Mass chants tends to confirm the existence of that hypothetical source, yet it also demonstrates that none of the extant gradualia remained entirely faithful to it. This (no longer extant) archetype is concealed by at least one layer of development, however. Antoine Chavasse postulated a similar intermediarly source to explain the differences in readings among orations shared by the Leonine, Gelasian, Gregorian and Gallican Sacramentaries''0•

The existence of textual variants within and between the Old Roman and Gregorian gmdualia does not weaken this hypothesis. The variants are completely consistent with the process of tex­tual transmission characteristic of the Psalter manuscripts themselves. The strength of the ar­chetype is demonstrated by textual analysis of those cham texts which depart markedly from all known Greek and Latin Psalters'". Readings unique to the chant are never accomodated to

the authentic text of the Psalter, and in this respect the graduate represents a particular textual tradition, one maintained with tenacious independence.

--r:he archetype seems to have preserved its unity through the period when the Gospel commu­nions were introduced, though their melodic diversity implies that they were created later than the sixth-century date suggested by Chavasse. The two chant traditions agree, moreover, on the chants for Masses of the Thursdays in Lent, transferred from other days in the liturgical year by Gregory II in the early eighth century. Since even the earliest Gregorian gradualia agree on the content of these Thursday Masses, the archetype must have remained at Rome until at least 730.

56 I have used only relatively complete Old Latin Psalters, necessarily excluding several collated by Wt•ber. 57 H. Schneider, Der altlateinische Palimpsest-Psalter in Cod. Vat. Lat. 5359, in: Biblica 19 (1938), p. 382. 58 This inflexibility may not have applied to the liturgical Gospel text, in which a mixture of Old Latin

and Vulgate readings have been claimed; W. Gochee, The Latin Liturgical Text: A Product of Old btin and Vulgate Textual Interaction, in: Catholic Biblical Quarterly 35 ( 1973 ), p. 206-211.

59 Antiphon texts were extracted from the Hexaplaric Canticum Cantiwrum according to A. Vaccari, L'uso liturgico di un lavoro critico diS. Gerolamo, in: Rivista Biblica ltaliana 4 (1956), p. 357-73. The contribu­tion of Sergi us is assessed by R. Laurent in, Marie dans le culte: ce que !'Occident do it a !'Orient du VI' au XI'' siecle, in: De Culto Mariano Saeculis VI-XI ( = Acta Congress us Mariologici-Mariani lntcrna­tionalis 1971), Rome 1972, p. 22-26. See also the comprehensive discussion of G. Frenaud, le culte de Notre Dame dans l'ancienne liturgic latine, in: Maria : Etudes sur Ia sainte vierge, ed. H. du Manoir, vol. 6, Paris 1961, p. 157-211.

60 Le sacramentaire gelasien, p. 595-678, especially p. 624-25. 61 For example, the !!;radual Protector nnster has "super servos tous" and "preces ~ervnrurn tuorum" in placl'

of (ps. 83:9-10) "in facicm Christi tui" and "precem tuam".

25

The convergence of these two developments points to the seventh century as the formative period of the graduale known from the medieval tradition; during this stage the already present textual variants became entrenched in the surviving manuscripts.

One could integrate the findings presented here with a view that sees Gregorian chant as a musical repertoire which became fixed in the early ninth century, shortly after its introduction to the Carolingian empire from Rome1'1 • Not even the texts of the chants could be altered to keep pace with the growing popularity of the Hexaplaric Psalter outside Italy. Textual studies cannot be used to preclude absolutely all Frankish musical intervention, however. One can easily imagine that Frankish musicians might reverence the divinely inspired scriptural text, yet not extend the same deference to its melodic garb. If Old Roman chant is indeed the end result of a long process of oral transmission subsequent to the ninth century, it developed .in a milieu (Rome) which maintained a commitment to the Roman Psalter. Even though the music changed, there was no need for a concomitant alteration of the text. This always conformed - within the normal limits of variation - to the local Roman version of the Psalter. Since the textual variants do not display a convenient split along Old Ruman-Gregorian lines, they cannot be used to resolve decisively the relationship between the two chant traditions. Their study does, however, illuminate the history of liturgical books and the process by which the music of the Western church was transmitted.

LIST OF SOURCES

Sigla for the Psalters are ta~en from: R. Weber, Lc psautier romain et lcs autres anciens psautiers latins ( = Collcctanca Biblica Latina 10), Rome 1953. The Greek sigla represent Old Latin Psalters. Weber's edition i~ based on the first group of English manuscripts, which contain an authentic Italian text form.

ITALY

Psalters: a. Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare l (1), North Italy, 6-7c.

Rome, Vat. lat. 5359, from Verona, 9c.

P Monte Cassino, Biblioteca dell'Abbazia 559, 11c. Q Rome, Vat. Urb. !at 585, llc. R Rome, Vat. Reg. lat. 13, from Benevento-Naples, llc. U Rome, Archivio di S. Pietro, D. 144, 12c. Commentary on the psalms by Bruno· di

Segni V Rome, Vat. lat. 12958, from S. Maria ad Martyres, 12c X Rome, Archivio di S. Pietro, D. 156, from S. Clemente at Rome or Tivoli, 12c.

Old Roman Gradualia: Tr Cologny-Geneva,, Bodmer Library, MS 74, from S. Cecilia in Trastevere, dated 1071 Lr Rom~ Vat. lat. 5319, possibly from the Lateran, ca. 1100 Pr Rome, Archivio di S. Pietro, F. 22, from.St. Peter's Basilica, 13c.

62 L. Treitler, Homer and Gregory: The Transmission of Epic Poetry and Plainchant, in: The Musical Quarterly 60 (1974), p. 333-372; P Cutter, Oral Transmission of the Old-Roman Responsories?, in: The Musical Quarterly 62 {1976), p. 182-194.

26

Gregorian Gradualia: Ab Rome, Vat. lat. 4770, plenary missal from the Abruzzi, end lOc. Me Munich, Staatsbibliothck, Clm. 3005, central Italy, ca. 900 Mn Munich, Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 23281, North Italy, 9c. (Lenten Masses for Sunday,

Monday, Wednesday and Friday only) Mon Monza, Tesoro della BasilicaS. Giovanni, Cod. CIX, 9c. (Bischoff places origin in NE

France, 2nd third of 9c.)

English Psalters: A London, British Library, Cotton Vespas. A. 1., 8c. H Berlin, Preu6ische Staatsbibliothek, Hamilton 553, 8c. M Montpellier, Faculte de Mediecine 409, Sc. N New York, Pierpont Morgan Library 776 S Stuttgart, Wi.irttembergische Landesbibliothek, Cod. Bib!. fol. 12; 8c.

B London, British Library, Add. 37517, late lOc. C Cambridge, University Library, Ff. I, 23; llc. D Cambridge, Trinity College, R. 17.1 (987), 12c.

FRANCE

Psalters Y Paris, Bibliotheque nationale, lat. 11947, Sangermanense, 6c. o Leningrad, Public Library, F.v.l.n.S, from Corbie, 8c. t Paris, Bibliothcque nationale, Coislin Ul6; 7c. (in France from 8c.) T Reims, Bibliotheque de Ia ville 15; 11c.

Gregorian Gradualia: Bl Brussels, Bibliothque royalc, lat. 10127-10144, from Mont-Blandin, S-9c. (usually in-

cipits only) Com Paris, Bibliotheque nationale, lat. 17436, from Compiegnc, 9c. Cor Paris, Bibliotheque nationale, lat. 12050, from Corbie, after 853 Sil Paris, Bibliotheque Sainte-Genevieve, lat. 111 (BB.l), from Senlis, 9c. (incipits only) La Laon, Bib!. munic., ms. 39, from region of Laon, after 930 ( = Paleographic musicale,

Ser. I, vol. 10)

GERMANYISWI1ZERLAND

Psalters: p K

St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek 912; 8c. (incomplete) Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Aug. XXXVIII, from Rheinau, 9c.

Gregorian Gradualia: Rh Zurich, Zcntralbibliothek, cod. Rh 30, from Rheinau, late 8c. Sg St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek 339; first half of 11 c. ( = Paleographie musicale, Ser. I, vol. 1) Ec Darmstadt, Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek, from Echternach, ca. 1030

27

Hex Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam versionen ad codicum fidem . .. edita, vol. 10. Rome, 1953.

LXX Psalmi cum odis. Scptuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, vol. 10. Gottingen, 1967. med Milanese Psalter moz Mozarabic Psalter

SELECTED EXAMPLES

'~ indicates a first reading which was later revised 2 superscript indicating a correction or a revision by a second hand

Italics in the Latin text indicate the principal text (Weber) of the Roman Psalter. If a Psalter is not listed by siglum, it should be presumed to agree with the Roman Psalter. In some cases

the text is missing because of a lacuna in the manuscript. If a graduale is not listed, it does not contain the passage.

A. One gradua.lc (or a few) isolated from the majority

24:17 dilatatae sunt 01 mozmedHex

122:2

108:3 01 KT~PRX

65:17

012e.~ (ips ... ) AHMSD

73:20 0118~ mozmcdHcx H'~N2BCDPQ'~

25:6 01~0t~ mozmcdHex LXX: lxuxAwa01

multiplicatac sunt GR. Tribulationes, Fer. iv, Hcb. I)

et siwt owli ancille ecce oculi ancille

· (TR. Ad te levavi, Dom. III)

adversum me .tt!V(TSUS me (OF. vs. Domine fac mecum, Fer. iv, Hcb. Ill

ad ipsum ab ipso (OF. vs. Renedieite gentes Fer. iv, Hcb. IV)

in testamento tuo in testamentum tuum (GR. Respicc, dominc, Fer. v, Hcb. IV)

et circuibo a/tare et eircumdabo altare (CO. Lavabo, Fer. iv, Heb.V)

B. Relatively even division among the gradualia surveyed

33:8 ~~e. mozrnedHex KTD*V LXX: 7tCXpt~CXAti" IXntAoc; xup(ou

25:12 t moz

immittet a11gelum dominus immittet angelus domini

immittet angelus dominus (OF., Fer. v, Heb. I)

bencdicam dominum benedicam domino (INT. Redime me, foer. ii, ric b. II)

28

MonComCorSglaAbEcTrlrPr Bl

MonCom CorSgMcEcT r Lr Pr Mn

BILaSgEclr Alifr

Com LaSgA h F.cTr Lr

BllrPr MonComCorSillaSgAbMcEcTr

CorLaSgAbEcTrl.rPr RhComMc

BIComLaEcTrlr CorSilSgMc(immitit)Pr

Ab

ComC:::orlaAbEcTrlrPr McMnSg

15:8 ne commovear Com~gTrMn(?) HMSB'~DQ~V nee commovear CorlaMcAbEclrPr

(OF. Benedicam dominum, fer. ii, Heb. II)

18:8 sapientiam CorlaSgEcTrPr a mozU sapicntia ComAbMcLr

(INT. Lex domini, Sabb., Heb. II)

53:3 Iibera me AbMnTrlrPr IXOE K Hex iudica me ComCorMcLaSgEc LXX: xp1'116v f.I.E (INT. Deus in nomine

Fer. ii, Heb. IV)

C. Influence of the Italian branch (PQRUVX) of the Roman Psalter

94:4 yo mozmedHex sub pinnis eius Bl N!MKTBCDPQRUVX sub pennis eius RhComCorAbMcMnSgLaEcTrlrPr

69:6 OE CPQR2UV]X

39:15 mozPQ2RUVX

85:17 IX medH2PQRUVX

34:26(AHN*ST2Q'fR'~)

ot N2Z'~Q2R 2M BCD PUVX

34:26 N*T2PQRUV medHcx

142:2 IX mozT2PQRUVX

(OE Scapulis suis, Dom. I)

es tu esto (GR. Adiutor meus, Fer. ii, Heb. II)

re-vereantu1· simul qui revereantur lnlllliCI mei qui revereantur qui (OF. Domine in auxilium, Fer. vi, Heb. II)

in bono in bonum (INT. Fac mecum, Fer. vi, Hcb. III)

qui magna !oquuntur qui maligna loquuntur (CO. Erubescant, Fer. ii, Heb. VI).

adversum me adversus me super me (CO. Erubescant)

non mtres in iudicio ne intres in iudicio (OF. vs. Eripe ... Domine. Fer. ii, Heb. VI)

Mon BIComCorAbMcMnLaSgEcTrLrPr

TrlrPr ComCorAbMcMni.aSgEc

ComCorSi!LaSgEc RhBlAbMcMnTrLrPr

BlComCorAbMcLaSgEcTrl.rPr

CorAbMcLaSgEc TrlrPr BlCom

ComAbLaSg(in iudicium)EcTrlr

D. Influence of the Old Latin Psalter independently of the Roman Psalter

118:47 quae di!exi nimis Mn IX'"( quae dilexi valdc ComCorAbMcla(dilexit)SgEcTrlrPr

118:57 IXO

118:58 oc:precatus oty med: vultum tuum

43:26

(OF. Meditabor, Fer. iv, Heb. I) (aamozHexRVX/Tr~rSg: Meditabar)

portio mea pars mea (OF. vs. Meditabor)

deprecatus sum faciem tuam precatus sum vultum tuum (OF. vs. Meditabor)

adiuva nos

29

AbLaSgEcTrLr

ComlaSgEc depr. sum v. tuum: AbTrlr

o2:fers o. nobis ro*:fer

fer opem nobi~ (GR. Exsurge domine, Fer. iii, Heb. IV)

MonBIComCorSiiAbMcLaSgEcTrLrPr

E. Chant text unattested/rare in the Psalters collated (excluding ccntonization)

30:17

118:18

LXX: dt7toxcil.u~ov

118:77

118:15 B mozHexHMN2ST BCR'~V:exercebor

102:3 medHexBC

37:22 ~ moz

33:6 Hex

73:22 Mo7.: obprobriis

servo rum

118:121 Hex

in tua misericordia propter misericordiam tuam (OE In te spcravi, Fer. iii, Heb. I)

revela omlos levabo oculos (OF., Fer. ii, Hcb. I)

mihi super me (OF. vs. Levabo)

in mandatis tuis me exercebo in prcceptis tuis me exercebor

et a preeeptis . 0 0

(OF. vso Levabo)

qui propitius fit qui propitiatur (OF. vs. Benedic anima, Fer. v, Heb. I)

0 ne discesseris 0 ne discedas (INT. Ne dcrelinquas, Fer. iv, Hcbo II)

vultus vestri mm erubescent facies vcstrae non confundcntur (GR. Venitc filii, Fer. iv, Hebo lV)

inproperiorum tuorum obprobrii servorum turorum obprobrium servorum tuorum (GR. Respice domine, Fer. v, Hebo IV)

persequentibus me {;alum(p)niantibus me (OF. Benedictus ... nc tradas, Fer. vi, Heb. V)

30

ComAbLaSgEcTr Lr

McSg RhBIComCorSi!AbMnLaEcTrLrPr

BILaTrPr ComSilAbSgEc

Tri.r

ComAbLaSg

ComSi!Ab LaSgEcT rlr

RhComCorAbMcMnLaSgEcTrLrPr

BIComCorLaSgEc(AbMC: f. vcstras) (This verse, absenr from the OR chant msso, is Frankish.)

ComCorAbMcLaSgEclorPr Lr

ComCorAbMcLaSgEcTrLr