[140]

CHAPTER IIIORIGIN AND DISSEMINATION

Whatever its origins or patterns of dissemination, by the close of the thirteenth

century the Type II Visitatio Sepulchri had spread to the furthest corners of the Holy

Roman Empire. Considering the degree of expansion within the relatively brief period of

time during which it must have taken place (approximately two hundred years), the

secure position gained by the Type II Visitatio within the liturgy of the German-speaking

world is striking, particularly when one takes into account the inroads previously built in

Germany by the Lothringian and Swiss forms of the Type I Visitatio (infra, pages 152-

57). The dominant position attained within the German-speaking lands by the Type II

Visitatio is not easily explained, but it must have been the result of a powerful impulse,

an impulse strong enough to have propelled the new design across ecclesiastical and, to

some extent, even ethnic boundaries within the span of only two centuries.

This “impulse” was correctly associated by Lipphardt with the spread of the

Augustinian canons in Germany. In a brilliant--if flawed--argument, Lipphardt postulates

the ceremony to have been written between the years 1086 and

[141]

1089 at the Augustinian foundation of Rottenbuch, suggesting its composer to have been

the canon and author, Manegold von Lautenbach.[1] Lipphardt s argument may be

summarized as follows:

1. The Easter Lied “Christ ist erstanden” was, from its beginnings, tied to the south-German (i.e., Type II) form of the Visitatio Sepulchri.

2. The Lied is liturgically bound to the sequence Victimae paschali laudes, from which its musical setting was originally derived.

3. Those settings of the Type II Visitatio in which the Lied and sequence are found in tandem show the original context of the Lied. The earliest settings including this union date from the fourteenth century [thirteenth century according to Lipphardt] and originated in Passau, Vorau, and Ranshofen, all Augustinian monasteries or chapters.

4. Earlier settings preserving the Lied, but without the sequence, originated in Salzburg and Seckau. The earliest source for the Easter Lied from Salzburg (A-Su II.6) dates from the year 1160. Since the earliest Visitatio setting from the monastery of Seckau (A-Gu 1549) dates from between 1150 and 1190 and does not contain the Lied, and since Seckau was settled by Augustinian canons from Salzburg in 1140, the importation of the Lied into Salzburg can be dated between 1140 and 1160.

1. Walther Lipphardt, “Studien zur Musikpflege in den mittelalterlichen Augustiner-Chorherrenstiften des deutschen Sprachgebietes,” Jahrbuch des Stiftes Klosterneuburg, Neue Folge VII (1971), 7-101 (especially 7-33). Earlier, and less comprehensive, studies are presented by Lipphardt in “Liturgische Dramen,” Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 15 vols. to date, ed. Friedrich Blume (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1948-), VIII, 1014-15, and “Christ ist erstanden,” Jahrbuch für Liturgik und Hymnologie V (1960), 96-114.

[142]

5. The musical settings of the Type II Visitatio from Passau show a unified mode one structure. A similar modal design is seen in the settings of the Type I Visitatio from Paris, settings which also contain the sequence. With the connections existing between the Augustinian communities of St. Nicola in Passau (founded ca. 1167) and St. Victor in Paris (founded 1108), the Parisian form may be regarded as the model for the Passau Visitatio (composed ca 1150).

6. The sequence Victimae paschali laudes, in the line beginning Credendum est magis, demonstrates an apologetic tendency. This, along with the dramatic nature of the 1ines beginning Dic nobis Maria and the popular melody, made it an ideal replacement for the responsory verse Dicant nunc Iudei.

7. Dicant nunc Iudei is characteristic for the Type I Visitatio of the Hirsau congregation as well as the Type II settings from Klosterneuburg, Neuwerk bei Halle, and Neustift bei Brixen. The latter institutions were all founded by the Augustinian monastery Rottenbuch.

8. Since Rottenbuch, during the last two decades of the eleventh century, was closely allied to Hirsau, it was probably at Rottenbuch that the Type II form was composed, most likely by the literarily significant Manegold von Lautenbach, who served as deacon at Rottenbuch from 1086 to 1089.

Lipphardt’s thesis is problematic in several respects. Assumptions concerning the

relation of the textual and musical designs to the relative age of the traditions represented

by the surviving settings, for example, immediately render suspect the arguments to be

developed. Nowhere is this more apparent than when Lipphardt attempts to establish

the chronology of the Visitatio tradition at the Salzburg cathedral. After describing the

earliest surviving setting (A-Su II.6), a setting including the complete Type II core,

[143]

the prefatory Maria Magdalena, the antiphon Surrexit enim, and the congregational

Christ ist erstanden, Lipphardt describes:[2]

...a still older, hitherto unknown source of the Visitatio Sepulchri. It is found in a fifteenth-century Liber responsorialis from the Benedictine convent Nonnberg, which, in spite of its late date, certainly represents the earliest version of the Visitatio Sepulchri in use at the Salzburg cathedral, dating from the period before 1120.

But on what basis is this determination made? To this question Lipphardt provides no

clear answer. The only differences between the two settings are the use within the

Nonnberg setting of the embellishing antiphons Venite et videte and Et recordate sunt

(these are described simply as “... foreign to the plays of the twelfth century on”) and the

omission of Christ ist erstanden and Surrexit enim. In what approaches an explanation,

Lipphardt remarks concerning the music of the Salzburg settings: [3]

2. Lipphardt, “Studien,” 8.

3. Ibid., 11.

[144]

Therefore, the play used in the Salzburg cathedral is a mixed form combining elements from the first and fourth modes (D and E). It does not, however, represent a direct continuation of the older Salzburg play, which, to some extent, still contained the eighth mode antiphons of the Lothringian Visitatio Sepulchri, and, more importantly, did not yet include the antiphon Surrexit enim.

The implication here that the inclusion of the mode eight antiphons and the

exclusion of Surrexit enim indicate an older tradition, a tradition linking the older

Lothringian (Type I) form and the new Type II design, can only be drawn, however, if

one has first accepted the evolutionary assumptions governing the studies of Karl Young

et al. (supra, pages 11-19). Although he cannot document the hypothesis, Lipphardt

attempts to bolster his argument concerning the age of the tradition represented by the

Nonnberg Antiphonary by citing a contemporary fifteenth-century Salzburg setting (A-Su

II.179) in which both Christ ist erstanded and Surrexit enim are present. Since this setting

“...follows exactly the twelfth-century form” of the earliest Salzburg setting (A-Su II.6),

Lipphardt argues that the Nonnberg setting, with its exclusion of Christ ist erstanden and

Surrexit enim, must, therefore, preserve an older tradition. Again, no evidence is

presented to support the claim. Lipphardt has assumed his conclusion solely on the basis

of an evolutionary conception of text development.

[145]

The musical assumptions are equally suspect. For Lipphardt, modal – rather than

melodic – structure is of primary significance. All settings preserving what he calls a

“unified mode one design” are assumed by him to represent the original setting of the

Type II Visitatio. Such a “unified” modal design, however, is not to be found within the

sources. All settings show mixed modal structures. Those core items e ding on ‘a’, in

near1y all occurrences, also include a ‘bb’ indicating transposed mode four rather than

transposed mode one (or transposed mode one transformed to mode four, see page 54,

footnote 14). Even if a unified mode one design could be demonstrated, though, there

would still be no reason to regard this as the earlier practice. Such a “unified mode one”

design could just as easily represent a later revision of the “mixed modes one and four”

design.

Although the removal of the textual and musical assumptions implicit in

Lipphardt’s thesis considerably weakens his argument, it does not provide sufficient

grounds for dismissing his theory out of hand. Disregarding for the moment the

methodological flaws, inconsistencies in the resulting patterns of dissemination further

compromise Lipphardt’s position. According to Lipphardt, the Type II Visitatio

originated at Rottenbuch between 1086 and 1089. The original design, which included

the full core, the

[146]

introductory Maria Magdalena, and the responsory verse Dicant nunc Iudei, would then

have been introduced by Rottenbuch canons to Klosterneuburg, Neustift bei Brixen,

Neuwerk bei Halle, and Polling. About 1150 in Passau, Dicant nunc Iudei was replaced

by Victimae paschale laudes and Christ ist erstanden. The new Passau form was then

transmitted to Vorau, Ranshofen, and St. Florian. The Salzburg design, characterized by

the absence of both Dicant nunc Iudei and Victimae paschali laudes, would represent a

revision of the Rottenbuch design introduced ca. 1120 by Hartmann von Brixen. This

revision was then carried to Chiemsee, Seckau, Herzogenburg, Reichenhall, and Diessen

(see Figure 1).

This supposed pattern of dissemination is problematic in three respects. First,

there exists no firm basis upon which to associate the uses of Vorau and Ranshofen with

that of Passau. Support for this association, according to Lipphardt, is provided by two

factors: the inclusion of the sequence Victimae paschali laudes in the Vorau and

Ranshofen settings and the similarities in the rubrics of the settings of the three

institutions. Concerning the first assertion, the inclusion of the sequence in the Vorau and

Ranshofen settings by no means provides sufficient grounds to conclude a connection

between the settings of the three institutions. As has already been shown (see Chapter II,

Table 4), the

[147]

[According to Lipphardt, the “Rottenbuch form” of the Type II Visitatio travelled to Klosterneuburg and Neustift bei Brixen by way of Salzburg and Chiemsee. See infra, pages 149-50.]

Figure 1. Pattern of Dissemination for the Type II Visitatio Proposed by Lipphardt.

[148]

Vorau and Ranshofen settings show a far greater reliance on the Salzburg design than that

of Passau. His assertion that the settings of Vorau, Ranshofen, and Passau are related in

their rubrics is simply not true. Here again, the rubrics of the Vorau and Ranshofen

settings show the Salzburg rather than the Passau form. The opening rubric of the

Salzburg settings normally reads: [4]

Post Gloria Patri repetatur Responsorium a principio et omnis clerus portanscereos accensos procedit ad Visitandum Sepulchrum. Diaconus vero qui legeratEvangelium, acturus officium angeli procedat, sedeatque in dextera parte coopertus stola candida.

The Passau rubric, while related, varies in some details (particulary in the description of

the deacon who plays the angel):[5]

4. A-Su II.6, 67a. After the Gloria Patri, we repeat the Responsory from the beginning, and all clerics, carrying lit tapers, proceed to the Visitation to the Sepulchre. The deacon who read the Gospel, acting the part of the angel, proceeds [to the sepulchre], andsits in the right part at the head [of the sepulchre], wearing a white stole.

5. A-V 99, 180b. And process into the nave, all carrying lit tapers. The deacon who reads the Gospel or another with an appropriate voice, acting in the guise of the angel, proceeds [to the sepulchre], and sits in the right part at the head [of the sepulchre], wearing awhite stole.

[149]

Et fiat processio in monasterio, omnes portans cereos accensos. Dyaconus quilegit Ewangelium vel alter qui habeat aptum vocem acturus vicem angelii procedat sedeatque in dextra parte ad caput coopertus stola candida.

In their rubrics, both the Vorau and Ranshofen settings are identical to the Salzburg

settings.

More serious difficulties result when the pattern of dissemination suggested by

Lipphardt is traced. A decisive role in the dissemination of the original Rottenbuch form

is assigned by Lipphardt to Hartmann von Brixen.[6] Hartmann, born about 1090 in

Polling (near Passau), began his career as a canon at Rottenbuch. In 1122, he was called

by Archbishop Conrad to Salzburg to head the newly reformed cathedral chapter.[7] In

1125, he was sent by the archbishop to reform the monastery of Chiemsee. From 1133

until 1140, he served as prior of the newly established Augustinian monastery

at Klosterneuburg. From 1140 until his death in 1164, he was bishop of the Salzburg

diocese of Brixen, where, in

6. Concerning the career of Hartmann, see E. R. Hambye,“Hartmann of Brixen, Bl.,” New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), VI, 936.

7. It should be noted that Hartmann’s name does not appear in the records of the Salzburg cathedral. According to the Salzburg documents, the cathedral prior from 1122to 1137 was Hermann, not Hartmann. See Andreas von Meiller, Regesta Archiepiscoporum Salisburgensium (Wien: Carl Gerold’s Sohn, 1866), 407.

[150]

1142, he founded the Augustinian monastery of Neustift bei Brixen.

No clear pattern of dissemination of the proposed Rottenbuch Urform is seen in

the Visitatio settings of the several institutions. The form of the Chiemsee Visitatio is

nearly identical to that of Salzburg and was most likely imported from Salzburg at the

time the monastery was founded. Only the Klosterneuburg and Neustift forms can be

said to reflect the proposed Rottenbuch use. If the Salzburg design was adapted from the

proposed Rottenbuch design (they differ only in the presence or absence of Dicant nunc

Iudei), as Lipphardt suggests, and if it was this revised form that was carried by

Hartmann to Chiemsee, why, then, was the older Rottenbuch use adopted in

Klosterneuburg and Neustift? If the older form was preferred by Hartmann, why

does it not also appear in Chiemsee? Also, if Rottenbuch was the focal point for the

dissemination of the Type II Visitatio, why do not the Visitatio settings from Diessen,

an institution settled by canons from Rottenbuch in 1132 within the diocese of Augsburg

(archdiocese of Mainz!), utilize the proposed Rottenbuch design? The settings of

Diessen, all dating from the fifteenth. century, follow exactly (including rubrics) the

Salzburg form of the ceremony. Finally, the linking of the Klosterneuburg, Neustift, and

Neuwerk forms to Rottenbuch is contradicted by the

[151]

structure of the sole surviving setting of the Type II Visitatio from Rottenbuch (D-Mbs

clm 12301), which bears no resemblance to the settings of the other Augustinian

establishments (infra, pages 177-78).

In spite of its deficiencies, Lipphardt’s study does point out one important

relationship: that between the Augustinian reforms and the dissemination of the Type II

Visitatio Sepulchri. Although the connection between the Augustinian canons and the

dissemination of the new form is clear, the origin of the form cannot be so described. The

earliest surviving setting of the Type II Visitatio (I-UD 234), in fact, is contemporary

with the date of original composition proposed by Lipphardt and stems from the cathedral

of Aquileia, an institution which stood apart from the eleventh-twelfth century

Augustinian reforms. Clearly a reassessment of the sources is necessary. But such a

reassessment must be considered within the context of the religious and political

struggles as well as the efforts toward monastic and liturgical reform taking place at the

time. First, however, the extent to which the Type I Visitatio was known and the forms in

which it was manifested in Germany must be examined.

[152]

The Type I Visitatio Sepulchri in Germany

By the mid-eleventh century, the Type I Visitatio Sepulchri was already widely

known in the German-speaking areas of Europe. De Boor identifies two forms: the

Lothringian and the St. Gallen. [8] The standard Lothringian design is seen in an eleventh

century setting from the Benedictine monastery at Echternach (F-Pn.lat 10510):

Ad Visitandum Sepulchrum

Interrogatio:Quem queritis in sepulchra, o Christicole?

Responsio:Ihesum Nazarenum crucifixum, o celicole.

Item:Non est hie, surrexit sicut predixerat; ite nunciate Quia surrexit, dicentes:

Antiphona:Surrexit Dominus […]

Characterizing the Lothringian design is the presence of the word dicentes in the third

dialogue line (Non est hic) and the use of the antiphon Surrexit enim. In addition to the

Echternach setting, the Lothringian design (as outlined by De Boor) is found in settings

from Prtlm (F-Pn lat 9448), Kremsmünster (A-KR 21), Andenne (Namur,

Diözesanmuszeum, MS

8. Helmut de Boor, Die Textgeschichte dere lateinischen Osterfeiern, vol. XXII of Hermanea: Germanische Forschungen, Neue Folge (Tübingen: Niemayer, 1967), 68.

[153]

2), Lüttich (D-DS 394), and Utrecht (NL-Uu 407). Several additional Visitatio settings

preserve the Lothringian design, but with the omission of the word o in the first

dialogue line (Quem queritis). This variation is found in eleventh-century settings from

the monasteries of St. Emmeram (D-BAs lit 6) and Seeon (D-Kl 25). With the absence

of o and the presence of dicentes, these settings bear a close resemblance to the Italian

Quem queritis tropes, differing only in the use of the antiphon Surrexit Dominus in place

of the trope lines normally found in the Italian settings. [9]

While it is tempting to search for connections between the dissemination of the

early Visitatio Sepulchri and the Lothringian monastic reforms stemming from Gorze bei

Metz,[10]

9. Cf. Walther Lipphardt, ed., Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, 6 vols. to date (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1975-) I, 8-10, 15-19, 24-26, 28-31, 35-37, and 42 (LOO5-7, 10-13, 22-24, 26-29, 32-34, and 39). In an eleventh-century version of the “trope” from Ivrea (I-VCd 56, fol. 86b [LOO 11]), for example, the text reads:

Quem queritis in sepulchro, Christicole?Hiesum Nazarenum crucifixum, 0 celicole.Non est’hic surrexit sicut predixerat; ite

nuntiate, quia surrexit, dicentes:Alleluia, resurrexit Dominus: eialKarissime, verba canite Christi.Psallite, fratres, hora est.Surrexit Dominus: eia et eialResurrexit [Introit cue]

10. The dissemination of the Gorze reforms is traced by Kassius Hallinger, Gorze-Kluny, fasc. XXII-XXV of Studia Anselmia (Roma: Herder, 1950-51), XXII-XXIII, 49-416.

[154]

the picture presented by the surviving settings is not so clear. Manuscripts from Gorze (F.

-MZ 452), Metz (F-MZ 82), Melk (A-M 1056), Münster (D-MÜsa 433 et al.), Neuweiler

(F-Pn lat 9486), and Schonenberg (lost manuscript, formerly in the Bäumker Collection,

Köln) use instead of dicentes the words a morte. Manuscripts from Trier (D-W 1109)

and Mainz (A-Wn lat 1888) use the variant third line:

Non est hic, surrexit sicut locutus est;ite nunciate quia surrexit.

Manuscripts from Echternach (F-Pn lat 9488) and Siegburg (D-Mbs clm 14765) conclude the third line with the word surrexit and add to the beginning of the form the line:

Quis revolvet nobis lapidem ab hostiomonumenti? Alleluia, alleluia.

The high degree of variability within the settings suggests that the regional forms of the

Visitatio Sepulchri developed independently of the Gorze reforms and may well have

been in place before the advent of the reform movement in the early tenth century.

The St. Gallen form is seen in a tenth-century St. Gallen setting (CH-SGs 391):

[155]

Interrogatio:Quem queritis in sepulchro, Christicole?

Responsio:Ihesum Nazarenum crucifixum, 0 celicolae.

Non est hie, surrexit, sicut predixerat; nuntiate quiasurrexit de sepulchro.

Antiphonam [sic]:Surrexit enim sicut dixit Dominus: ecce praecedet vos inGalileam; ibi eum videbitis, alleluia, alleluia.

This form, according to De Boor, is characterized by the absence of o in the first dialogue

line, the use of the words de sepulchro in the third line, and the use of the antiphon

Surrexit enim. The earlier St. Gallen settings (CH-SGs 381 and 484) as well as an early

Rheinau setting (CH-Zz Rheinau 97) use the same dialogue form as trope to the Easter

Introit. The St. Gallen design is present also in the eleventh-century settings from Minden

(D-B 1at 11, D-B lat 15, and D-W Helmst 1108).

Based apparently on the St. Gallen design are two additional groups of Visitatio

settings. The first, characterized by the use of the St. Gallen dialogue form with the

antiphon Et dicebant ad invicem (CAO 2697) used as introduction, includes settings from

the monasteries of Reichenau (D-BAs lit 5), Klosterneuburg (A-KN CCl 1013), and St.

Ulrich und Afra in Augsburg (A-Wn lat 1890). The

[156]

Klosterneuburg and Augsburg settings also include the antiphon Et recordate sunt (CAO

2717), while the Augsburg setting adds Dicant nunc Iudei. The second group includes

settings from institutions associated with the eleventh-twelfth century reforms stemming

from the Benedictine monastery Hirsau. The settings, originating from Hirsau (D-Sl

theol 249), Admont (A-A 6), Prtlfening bei Regensburg (D-Mbs clm 23037), St.

Emmeram in Regensburg (D-Mbs clm 14741), Rheinau (CH-Zz Rheinau 80 and Rheinau

59), Villingen (D-KA Geo 1), and Zwiefalten (D-Sl Bibl 36), are characterized by the use

of the St. Gallen third dialogue line (de sepulchre), the antiphons Surrexit enim and

Venite et videte, the responsory verse Dicant nunc Iudei, and the introductory line Quis

revolvit, the latter drawn probably from the Type II Visitatio. The Hirsau design appears

to be a revision of the form found in Reichenau, Klosterneuburg, and Augsburg.

For the most part, the dissemination of the Type I Visitatio Sepulchri was effected

by Benedictine monks. The spread of the form corresponds both in time and, in most

instances, place with the revitalization of Benedictine life accomplished through the

Benedictine reform movements of the tenth through twelfth centuries. Within the

German-speaking lands, the cultivation of the Type I form was concentrated within the

Rhineland and Switzerland, the centers of greatest reforming activity. Those settings

originating beyond

[157]

these territories normally bear traces of the Visitatio forms found within the two

territories and stem, in most cases, from institutions affected by the reforms. With the

slackening of reforming zeal after the twelfth century, however, came also an abatement

in the intensity with which the Type I Visitatio Sepulchri was being disseminated within

the German-speaking lands.

It was precisely at this moment, when the Type I form had reached the full extent

of its distribution, that the Type II Visitatio began its rise. By the close of the thirteenth

century, in fact, the Type II Visitatio Sepulchri had become the dominant form of the

Visitatio within German-speaking Europe, entering into areas untouched by the Type I

form and, in some areas, even supplanting the Type I form. The dissemination of the

Type II form was not brought about by Benedictines, however. The dissemination of the

Type II Visitatio was accomplished through altogether different channels.

The Augustinian Reforms in Germany

While the cultivation of the Type I Visitatio Sepulchri was largely restricted to

Benedictine monasteries, the Type II Visitatio, with but few exceptions, was cultivated by

canons: in cathedral chapters, collegiate chapters, and Augustinian communities, with the

greatest concentration of

[158]

settings found in institutions observing the so-called rule of St. Augustine.

The origins of the Augustinian canons are obscure. Controversies had raged

throughout the middle ages concerning the proper life for canons. The very word “canon”

signified life according to a “rule,” but for the greater part of the age, canons neither

followed a rule nor lived in common. Although efforts to bring the canons under a single

roof, to “... re-establish the common life anciently demanded by tradition,” [11] had

begun. in Carolingian times, little progress was made toward this end until the advent of

the Gregorian reforms in the eleventh century. At some point early in the eleventh

century, canons in both Italy and in France began banding together into communities, and

at the Lateran Council of 1059, after a long debate concerning the canonical life, a decree

was issued finally giving legal sanction to the houses of regular canons being founded

throughout Europe. [12] To what extent the rule of St. Augustine was in use elsewhere is

unclear. In Germany, however, efforts toward canonic reform were Augustinian from the

start.

11. J. C. Dickenson, .The Origins of the Austin Canons and their Introduction into England (London: S.P.C.K., 1950), 16.

12. Ibid., 32-33.

[159]

T. he “.Father” of the Augustinian movement in Germany was St. Altmann, Bishop of

Passau (1065-91), whose foundation of the Augustinian community of St. Nicola in

Passau about 1067 marked the beginning of a clerical reform that, within a century,

would spread to nearly all corners of the Empire. [13] Already in 1070, canons from St.

Nicola, at the order of Bishop Altmann, colonized the former Benedictine monastery

of St. Florian in the eastern part of the diocese. Altmann’s efforts toward instituting the

“apostolic life” among the clergy within his diocese soon brought him into close alliance

with Pope Gregory VII, whose struggle with Emperor Heinrich IV over the lay

investiture of bishops was to split Germany apart for the next half-century. In 1074,

Altmann published the decrees of the Pope against clerical marriage, and, in 1076, he was

the first in Germany to announce the excommunication of the Emperor.

As a result of his papal sympathies, however, Altmann, along with the canons of

St. Nicola, was banished from Passau in 1078 by the forces of the Emperor. After a

sojourn in Rome, Altmann returned in 1081 to the eastern part of his diocese, resuming

his reforming activities with the

13. Concerning the career of Altmann, see A. A. Schacher, “Altmann of Passau, St.,” New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), I, 353-54 andRomuold Bauerreiss, Kirchengeschichte Bayerns, 6 vols. to date (St. Ottolien: Eos Verlag der Erzabtei St. Ottolien, 1949-), II, 233-36

[160]

colonization of the houses of St. Pölten (1081) and Göttweig (1083). In 1084, he was

instrumental in the foundation of the Augustinian community at Rottenbuch (south of

Augsburg), an institution that soon would become the focal point in the dissemination of

the Augustinian rule.

In 1089, the Rottenbuch deacon Manegold von Lautenbach became prior of the

Augustinian community in Marbach. In 1108, Rottenbuch canons settled the newly

founded community in Osterwieck-bei Halberstadt (later Hamersleben bei Halberstadt),

[14] and, in 1110, at the insistence of Archbishop Conrad of Salzburg, the Rottenbuch

canon Richer took over the newly established community of Klosterrath in the diocese

of Lüttich.[15]

If Altmann of Passau is considered the “Father” of the German Augustinian

canons, it was Conrad of Salzburg who nurtured them. Appointed archbishop in 1107, he

quickly became active in furthering the Augustinian cause within his

14. Lutz Fenske, Adelsopposition und kirchlichen Reformbewegung im östlichen Sachsen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 187.

15. The role of Rottenbuch in the dissemination of the Augustinian rule may be overrated. It was only as a result of Archbishop Conrad’s intervention that Richer was allowed to leave the community. The relative scarcity of reforming activity before the pontificateof Conrad suggests that the Rottenbuch reforms may reflect more the influence of the Salzburg archbishop than the reforming zeal of the Rottenbuch canons. The“classic” view is presented by J. Mois, Das Stift Rottenbuch in der Kirchenreform des 11.-12. Jahrhunderts (München: Schnell & Steiner, 1953).

[161]

realm. In 1110, he called for canons from Saxony (presumably Hamersleben) to settle the

newly reformed house at Reichersberg am Inn. Forced into exile in 1116, Conrad,

accompanied by the canons from Reichersberg, fled to Saxony, where, at the request of

Archbishop Adalgoz of Magdeburg, the Reichersberg canons settled the newly

established community of Neuwerk bei Halle.[16] Upon his return to Salzburg

in 1121 , Conrad wasted little time in re-establishing the Augustinian canons within his

see. In 1122, he sent to Klosterrath for regular canons to settle the cathedral chapter.

Between 1122 and 1126, he rebuilt the cloister and church of Reichersberg and resettled

the community with canons from Saxony (presumably Neuwerk bei Halle).[17] In

1125, Conrad sent the former Rottenbuch canon Hartmann to reform the monastery of

Chiemsee. In 1133, Hartmann, at the request of the Austrian Margrave Leopold III, took

over the monastery at Klosterneuburg. [18] In 1136, Conrad established the Augustinian

community at· Reichenhal1.[19] In 1140, he sent canons from his cathedral chapter to

settle the newly

16. Fenske, 187-88.

17. M. H. Schmid, “Reichersberg , Monastery of,” New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), XII, 211.

18. Hambye, “Hartmann,” 936.

19. Von Meiller, 31.

[162]

founded community at Seckau.[20] Also in 1140, Conrad named the Klosterneuburg

prior Hartmann as Bishop of Brixen. In 1142, Hartmann founded the Augustinian

community of Neustift bei Brixen. Other Augustinian foundations in which Conrad may

have played a role inolude Indersdorf (ca. 1121), Ranshofen (1125), and Diessen (1132).

Origin and Dissemination

The correspondence between the institutions affected by the Augustinian reforms under

Conrad and those represented by the surviving settings of the Salzburg subgroup

(outlined in Table 4 of the previous chapter) is close, suggesting that it was through the

Augustinian reforms that the dissemination of the Type II Visitatio Sepulchri was

effected. But such a dissemination can be clearly demonstrated only for the period

following Conrad’s return from exile in 1121, as is shown in Figure 2 (page 163) .[21]

20. V. Redlich, “Seckau, Abbey of,” New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), XIII, 20.

21. Both Vorau and Herzogenburg were also founded by Salzburg, but after the death of Conrad – Vorau in 1163 and Herzogenburg in 1244. On Vorau, see P. Fank,“Vorau, Monastery of,” New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967), XIV, 753. On Herzogenburg, see L. H. Cottineau, Repertoire topo-bibliographique des abbayes et prierés. 2 vols. (Mâcon: Protat, 1939), I, 1412 and Albert Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, 8th ed., 5 vols. (Berlin: Akademie, 1954), IV, 1019.

[163]

Figure 2. Verifiable Dissemination of Augustinian Reforms under Archbishop Conrad I of Salzburg Together with the Siglum and Date for the EarliestType II Visitatio from Each Location.

[164]

At what point in time the ceremony reached Salzburg is difficult to determine. Given the

existence of settings related to those of Salzburg in Saxony and the Rhineland

(see Chapter II, Table 4), it is possible, if we assume that the Type II Visitatio

accompanied the reforming canons into Saxony and the Rhineland, that the Salzburg

form may have been known already by 1110, the year of clerical interchange

between these three areas (Salzburg/Rottenbuch to Klosterrath and Hamersleben to

Reichersberg, supra, pages 160-61). But this is contradicted, to some extent, by the

patterns of filiation suggested by melodic structures of the surviving settings.

The settings of Salzburg and other institutions within the Salzburg sphere of

influence generally employ melodic 2a (see Chapter II, Table 2). Of particular

importance in this design is the use of a quilisma (variants ‘at) for the words quaeritis and

querimus (lines B and C respectively, see

[165]

Chapter II, Table 1), providing a musical reflection of the rhetorical figure Epanalepsis.

[22]

Example 24. Rhetorical Balance by means of Quilisma in Core Lines Band C (I-UD 94, fol. 133a--neumes from GB-Ob 346, fol. 114b [Moggio]).

The rhetorical balance provided by the quilisma, the possible word play (Paronasia)

between queritis, querimus, and “quilisma,” and the preponderance of the quilisma in the

earliest settings (thirteenth century and earlier, see

22. According to The Venerable Bede: “In Epanalesis, a word used at the beginning is repeated at the end of the same verse.” With the question and answer form of the two lines and the parallel musical designs (infra, pages 194-95), these lines may be considered a single unit. See Gussie Hecht Tannenhaus, “Bede ‘s De schematibus et tropis – A Translation,” Quarterly Journal of Speech XLVIII/3 (Oct. 1962), 240.

[166]

Chapter II, Table 2), suggest that the quilismas were a part of the original setting of the

Type II dialogue.

This pattern, however, is conspicuously absent in the majority of settings from

Saxony and the Rhineland. The Saxon and Rhenish settings are characterized by their use

of melodic forms 2b, 2c, and 2d. In melodic forms 2c and 2d, the quilisma, if preserved at

all, is found only in the second dialogue line (line C, see Chapter II, Table 2), the

quilisma of the first dialogue line (line B) being replaced by a clivis (variant ‘b ‘ ).

Melodic form 2c is characterized by the use of the clivis in line B. Such is the case also

in the settings of three of the six institutions of the Rhenish subgroup that use melodic

form 2b (Haarlem, Marienberg bei Helmstedt, and Notteln, see Chapter II, Table 2 and

Table 4). Melodic form 2d, on the other hand, is characterized by the use of the clivis in

both lines Band C. An example of the unbalanced pattern is preserved in a thirteenth-

century setting from Haarlem (see Example 25).

[167]

Example 25. Disruption of Rhetorical Balance in Core Lines Band C (N-Urc 7, fol. 44b).

Balance is restored in a fourteenth-century Passau setting with the use of a clivis in both

positions.

Example 26. Rhetorical Balance by Means of Clivis in Core Lines B and C (A-V 90, fol. 180b).

While it may be argued that the use of the clivis (variant ‘b’) in place of the quilisma

(variant ‘a’) reflects only a general notational trend with no special significance, the

presence of the simpler figure (clivis) within a larger pattern of variants found in the

settings of several institutions (i.e., the settings using melodic forms 2b, 2c,

[168]

and 2d, see Chapter II, Table 2) suggests that those melodic forms preserving this variant

reflect later recensions of the melody. Since the oldest setting preserving the clivis

(A-Gu 798, see Chapter II, Table 2, Variant Point B1, variant ‘b’) dates from the twelfth

century, the point of dissemination for those forms preserving melodic designs 2c and 2d

(and, to a lesser extent, 2b), most of which preserve the clivis, could be contemporary

with that of the Salzburg dissemination (ca. 1120-50).

Other evidence, however, suggests that this dissemination may have occurred

later, after the period of Augustinian expansion. An examination of the Passau settings is

particularly instructive in this regard. With regard to both text form and rUbrics, the

settings from the Passau cathedral are dependent on the Salzburg design. Textually, the

only differences between the Passau and Salzburg forms are the use in the Passau settings

of the concluding text Surrexit Christus; Gaudeamus (instead of Surrexit enim) and the

presence of the sequence Victimae paschali laudes (not present in the Salzburg settings).

At what point the sequence was added is, of course, difficult to determine. In any case, it

cannot be regarded as an intrinsic part of the text. As De Boor notes, its position at the

end of the

[169]

ceremony destroys the liturgical and dramatic unity evident within the core.23

Along with parallels in textual form, the rubrics of the Passau settings also show’

Salzburg influence. This is particularly evident in the descriptions given the angelus. In

the Salzburg settings, the designation normally reads:

Diaconus vero qui legerat Evangelium . . .

A pragmatic amplification is seen in the Passau settings:

Diaconus qui legit Evangelium vel alter qui habeat aptum vocem . . .

Although based on the Salzburg model, the Passau text form, with its use of the Easter

sequence and an alternate concluding antiphon, is distinct from that of Salzburg from the

beginning.24 Such is not the case with regard to the musical settings, however.

Melodic design 2c does not become standard in Passau until the fifteenth century

(see Chapter II, Table 3). The two Passau settings preserving music and antedating the

fifteenth century show quite different melodic structures. D-Mbs elm 16141 is more

closely related to the settings of

23. De Boor, 183. For an alternate explanation, see infra, pages 200-201.

24. The earliest Passau settings date from the fourteenth century. See Appendix C.

[170]

Salzburg (melodic form 2a, see Chapter II, Table 2) than to the later Passau settings,

while A-V go is most closely related to the settings of the Halberstadt subgroup (melodic

form 2d). Melodic form 2c, thus, would appear to be a relatively late revision (fourteenth-

fifteenth century) of some other melodic form previously in use at the Passau cathedral

(form 2a?).

Melodic form 2c is not peculiar to the Passau settings, however. It is also the

melodic form found in the settings of the Berlin subgroup (see Chapter II, Table 4). Since

none of the settings of the Berlin subgroup available for this study can demonstrate the

use of melodic form 2c before the fourteenth century (see Chapter II, Table 3), it is not

possible at this point to determine with any degree of certainty in which direction the

melodic design was disseminated. Two dissemination patterns seem possible, however:

1. that the Type II Visitatio was disseminated from Salzburg (or Reichersberg) to Saxony (Neuwerk bei Halle) in the early twelfth century,’ where its melody was subsequently revised, later finding its way back into Passau, or

1. that the melody was revised in Passau in the fourteenth century and disseminated at that time to Saxony.

Given the close connections existing between Salzburg and Saxony during the early

twelfth century, connections resulting from the Saxon exile of the Salzburg Archbishop

Conrad

[171]

and the canons of Reichersberg (supra, page 161), the former hypothesis seems the more

probable. In either case, some degree of cross-fertilization is evident. Both the Passau

and Berlin forms of the Type II Visitatio represent revisions of the Salzburg form (supra,

pages 129-31), and wemight expect that one or both of these forms would originally have

been set to the melodic form 2a (or a variant of 2a) characteristic for the settings of the

Salzburg cathedral. At some point between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries, the

melodic form was restructured in one of the two locations and transmitted to the other.

Given the stability of the Passau text tradition and the relative instability of its melodic

tradition before the fifteenth century, it would appear that direction of this transmission

was from north (Berlin form) to south (Passau form).

Those settings preserving melodic form 2d pose quite a different problem. With

respect to provenance, the settings are diffuse, originating in Bavaria, Saxony, and

Silesia.

In the Salzburg area, the settings are generally unica, varying considerably from the

standard melodic structures found in this region. Of the six Type II settings from the

Salzburg cathedral in which music is preserved, for instance, five settings dating from

1160 to 1575 use melodic form 2a, while only one, a fifteenth-century setting (A-Su

II.179), uses melodic form 2d (see Chapter II, Table 3). It

[172]

is only in the settings of the Halberstadt subgroup that the design is found consistently in

any given location, suggesting that melodic design 2d originated within this region. As

for the time and place of origin, the evidence provides no clear answer. Like the settings

preserving melodic form 2c, none preserving 2d antedates the fourteenth century.

Given the close relationship between melodic form 2d and melodic form 2c,

however, particularly in lines B and E (see Chapter II, Table 2), it would appear that one

of the two melodic designs was a revision of the other. Of the several distinctions

between the two melodic forms, one of the more significant is the manner in which the

words queritis and querimus are handled. Melodic form 2c preserves the quilisma

common to the earlier forms only for the word querimus in line C (Jesum Nazarenym),

while melodic form 2d normally omits the quilisma, utilizing a clivis in both positions

(see Chapter II, Table 2, melodic forms 2c and 2d, variant points B1 and C4). Since it

seems more probable that those responsible for the revision would have substituted

a clivis (variant ‘b’ for the quilisma (variant ‘a’) rather than to have reintroduced the

quilisma in place of the clivis, melodic form 2c would appear to have been the

earlier of the two revisions.

[173]

To clarify the sequence of revisions leading to the distinct melodic forms of the Berlin,

Halberstadt, and Salzburg subgroups, it is necessary at this point to recall the

sequence of events leading to the adoption of the Augustinian rule in these three areas.

The Augustinian rule was introduced to Halberstadt in 1108 by canons from Rottenbuch

(near Augsburg). In 1110, canons from Halberstadt brought the Augustinian rule to

Relchersberg (near Salzburg). The Reichersberg canons accompanying Archbishop

Conrad of Salzburg into exile brought the Augustinian rule to Neuwerk bei Halle in 1116.

Canons from Neuwerk bei Halle, in turn, reintroduced the Augustinian rule to

Reichersberg in 1122. The cathedral chapter at Salzburg was also reformed along

Augustinian lines in 1122, but by canons from the Rhineland (Klosterrath) rather than

Saxony.

The pattern of melodic revisions just proposed (2a - 2c - 2d) does not correspond

to the pattern of Augustinian expansion into Saxony (see Figure 3). The melodic

revisions appear to have travelled from Salzburg (Reichersberg?) to Berlin (Neuwerk bei

Halle?) to Halberstadt, while the Augustinian rule travelled from Halberstadt to

Reichersberg (Salzburg) to Neuwerk bei Halle (and back to Reichersberg). If the

introduction of the Type II Visitatio into Saxony was accomplished through the

dissemination of the Augustinian rule, such an introduction appears not to have taken

place

[174]

Figure 3. Dissemination of the Augustinian Rule into Saxony with the Siglum, Date, and Melodic Form of the Earliest Setting from each Location•.

[175]

before 1116, the year in which Neuwerk bei Halle was settled by canons from

Reichersberg. This, in turn, would indicate that the Type II Visitatio may have been in

use within the Bavarian Augustinian houses before 1116, although probably not before

1108. The direction of melodic revision from Berlin (Neuwerk bei Halle) to Halberstadt

suggests that the introduction of the Type II form into Halberstadt did not accompany the

introduction of the Augustinian rule to Halberstadt in 1108. Such an hypothesis, however,

is tenuous at best, since the possibility that the surviving settings of the Type II Visitatio

from Halberstadt represent only a later adaptation of an earlier--and now lost--design

cannot be ruled out.

A somewhat clearer pattern of dissemination is seen in those settings preserving

melodic form 2b. Design 2b is clearly a variant of 2a. The settings of Klosterneuburg, in

fact, particularly in lines A, B, E, F, and G, are quite similar in their melodic structure to

those of Salzburg (see Chapter II, Table 2). Closely related to the Klosterneuburg settings

are those of a number of convents dispersed throughout the area of the Type II

dissemination (although concentrated in the Rhineland, see Chapter II, Table 2 [form

2b] and Table 4 [Rhenish subgroup]). Patterns of melodic variants quite similar to those

of the Klosterneuburg settings are found in settings from the convents of Essen,

[176]

Praha/St. Georgius, Marienberg bei Helmstedt, and Cividale. Related patterns are found

in settings from Haarlem and the convents of Gernrode and Notteln (see Chapter II, Table

2). The concentration of settings preserving melodic form 2b within a circle of German

(and Italian) convents, convents sharing no consistency with regard to Order,[25]

strongly suggests that it was through such a circle, rather than through a

Salzburg/Klosterrath connection that the ceremony was introduced into the Rhineland.

The exact lines of dissemination are unclear. The Praha Visitatio may have been

imported in 1143, the year in which the convent was rebuilt following its decimation the

year prior,[26] while that of Marienberg, whose textual and musical structure closely

resembles that of Praha, probably was introduced at the time of the convent’s foundation

in 1176.[27] Given the apparent derivation of the melodic structure of the Rhenish

settings (form 2b) from that of the Salzburg settings (form 2a), it would appear that the

introduction of the form into the Rhineland occurred at some

25. Cividale, Gernrode, and St. Georgus in Praha were Benedictine. Marienberg bei Helmstedt, Essen, and Notteln were Augustinian.

26. Die Fortsetzungen des Cosmas von Prag, trans. Georg Grandaur, vol. XVIII of Geschichtschreiber der deutschen Verzeit: Zwölftes Jahrhundert (Leipzig: Verlag des Dykschen Buchhandlung, 1885), 45-47.

27. Hauck, IV, 985

[177]

point after the initiation of the Salzburg reforms in 1122. If the exemplar for the Rhenish

settings originated in Klosterneuburg, whose settings also utilize melodic form 2b,

then the introduction of the form into the Rhineland could even have taken place after

1133, the year in which the Augustinian reforms were introduced to Klosterneuburg.

Since it appears that the Type II Visitatio did not enter the Rhineland through the

introduction of the Augustinian reforms to Klosterrath in 1110, it is unlikely that the

Type II ceremony would have been in use at that time within the liturgies of the Bavarian

institutions responsible for the reforms. The adoption of the Type II Visitatio within

the liturgy of the south-German Augustinian establishments, therefore, probably took

place after 1110. The time frame for the introduction of the form into Salzburg can thus

be narrowed to the years 1110-1116, the foundation dates for Klosterrath and Neuwerk

bei Halle, respectively.

The question still remains, however, as to how the new Type II form got to

Salzburg and whence it came. Rottenbuch can be ruled out as the place of origin. The

sole surviving setting of the Type II Visitatio from Rottenbuch bears no relation to

settings from other institutions affected by the Augustinian reforms. Indeed, the setting

(D-Mbs clm 12301), which contains only a truncated form of the Type II Visitatio

(dialogue only) with three antiphons characteristic of

[178]

the Lothringian Type I Visitatio, is most closely related to settings from Benedictine

institutions (supra, page 136). The Rottenbuch setting, in essence, uses the new Type II

dialogue within a Type I framework, suggesting that the Type II form was an importation

here as well.[28]

Further inquiries into the connection between the Augustinian reforms and the

dissemination of the Type II Visitatio Sepulchri can offer but little aid toward an

understanding of the early history of the form. Many, if not most, of the settings not yet

considered, including several settings written either before or during the period

of the Augustinian reforms, stem from institutions standing apart from the Augustinian

movement. The most revealing in this respect are those settings composing the Augsburg

group.

The settings of the Augsburg group, stemming from the cathedrals of Augsburg,

Bamberg, and Aquileia, and the Benedictine monasteries of Treviso and St. Lambrecht

(see Chapter II, Table 4), share few of the features common to those settings stemming

from institutions affected by the Augustinian reforms (e.g., Salzburg). Missing from all

settings of the Augsburg group are the gementes variant of the second core line (Quem

queritis) and the prefatory Maria Magdalena. Missing from all but the settings of St.

Lambrecht (diocese

28. Cf. de Boor, 170-171.

[179]

of Salzburg) are the congregational Christ ist erstanden, (or Christus surrexit) and the

processional In resurrectione tua. Instead of the antiphon Surrexit enim characterstitic

of Salzburg, the settings of the Augsburg group use Surrexit Dominus. Melodically, the

settings of the Augsburg group are also distinct from those affected by the Augustinian

reforms (forms 2a-2d), the Augsburg, Aquileia, and St. Lambrecht melodies normally

following form 1a or 1b. Included within the Augsburg group, moreover, is the earliest

datable setting of the Type II Visitatio (I-UD 234),[29] a setting stemming from the

cathedral of Aquileia (Italy, near the Adriatic coast) and contemporary with the original

date of composition proposed by Lipphardt (1086-89).

The settings of the Type II Visitatio from the patriarchate of Aquileia are among

the most interesting of the repertory, for they demonstrate a commingling of

29. Timothy McGee and Marie Dolores Moore’s contention, in their as yet unpublished paper: “The Quem Queritis ‘Type II’ Variant; Some Notes on its Dissemination andO’rigin” (presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Musicological Society, Minneapolis, 1978), Abstract by McGee in Abstracts of Papers Read at the Annual Meeting 1978 (Philadelphia: American Musicological Society, 1978), 31-32, that the Visitatio Sepulchri in this manuscript was added by a later hand over an erasure is mistaken. In studying the manuscript first-hand, the present author was unable todetect any such erasure. Furthermore, the hands responsible for the Visitatio’ on folios 1a and 1b are the same as those for the Easter Mass on folios 4a-5a. McGee and Moore may well have mistaken I-UD 234 for I-UD 84 (twelfth-century Treviso Antiphonary), in which the Visitatio was entered over such an erasure.

[180]

traditions. The earliest Aquileia settings show a close textual and musical correspondence

to the settings from the Augsburg cathedral (see Tables 3 and 4). The later Aquileia

settings (printed Processionals of 1495 and 1575) as well as the thirteenth-fourteenth

century settings from the Benedictine abbey of Moggio and the convent of Cividale,

however, show elements of the Salzburg design. The Aquileia printed settings are closely

related textually to the settings from Salzburg (See Tables 3 and 4). The Moggio settings

contain the gementes variant of the second core line (Quem queritis) and the concluding

Surrexit enim typical for the Salzburg settings, and both the Moggio and Cividale

settings use melodic designs typical for settings from the archdiocese of Salzburg (2a and

2b, respectively). These later settings may reflect, as Lipphardt suggests, the influence

of the Passau Bishop, Wolfker, who became Patriarch of Aquileia in 1198.[30]

While the use of related Visitatio settings in cities as geographically distant as are

Augsburg (northern Bavaria) and Aquileia (the Adriatic coast of Italy) may seem

paradoxical, the connections existing between the two cities were not as tenuous as the

distance between them might suggest. During the eleventh century, in fact, the two cities

were closely related, both politically and ecclesiastically.

30. Lipphardt, “Liturgische Dramen,” 1015.

[181]

Both Augsburg and Aquileia were united behind the Emperor against the Pope (and,

therefore, against the Augustinian reforms supported by the Pope) throughout the period

of the Investiture struggle.[31] With the appointment of two Augsburg canons as

Patriarchs of Aquileia (Eberhard [1042-48] and Heinrich [1077-84]), Augsburg influence

became particularly strong in Aquileia, strong enough, in fact, to effect the adoption into

the Aquileia calendar of the Feast of St. Ulrich (tenth-century Bishop of Augsburg).[32]

It was probably also the result of Augsburg influence that the Type II V1sitatio

was introduced to Aquileia. The omission (or constricting) of the apostles’ scene in most

of the early Aquileia settings (see Chapter II, Table 3, column abbr txt), such .settings

reflecting thus the text form of the Type I Visitatio, suggests the prior use – or knowledge

– of the Type I form at the Aquileia cathedral. It would appear from this that the Type II

Visitatio did not originate in Aquileia, but was imported. The close relationship between

the early Aquileia settings and the settings from Augsburg as well as the close political

and ecclesiastical ties between the two liturgical centers further suggest that it was from

Augsburg that the Type II form was imported. If

31. Bauerreiss, II, 202 and Friedrich Zoepfl, Das Bistum Augsburg und seine Bischöfe im Mittelalter (München: Schnell & Steiner, 1955), 102-26.

32. Bauerreiss, II, 202.

[182]

true, the importation of the ceremony into Aquileia can be tentatively dated 1077, the

year in which the Augsburg canon Heinrich was installed as Patriarch and the year in

which a German-style Easter sepulchre, the structure central to the performance of the

Type II Visitatio, was constructed at the Aquileia cathedra1. [33] From Aquileia, the

Type II form appears to have travelled throughout the patriarchate. The sacrum variant of

the opening core line (Quis revolvet) is present in the Type II settings from Cividale,

Moggio, Sondrio, and Treviso. The presence of both the sacrum variant and melodic

form 1b in the settings from the Benedictine monastery of St. Lambrecht (diocese of

Salzburg) also suggests Aquileia influence (if not derivation).

Augsburg may well have been the birthplace of the Type II Visitatio Sepulchri.

With the exception of two twelfth-century texts, one of which is assigned by Lipphardt to

the monastery of St. Ulrich und Afra and the other only

33. Sandro Piussi, “Il santo sepolcro di Aquileia,” Antichità Altoadriatiche XII (1977), 515-16. In contrast to French and Italian practice, the sepulchres used for the Visitatio ceremony in German churches were located in the nave, side aisle, or side chapel, rather than at the high altar or in the choir. The sepulchre of the Aquileia cathedral is attached to the north wall near the west entrance to the cathedral, the positioning thus corresponding with the typical German placement.

[183]

questionably attributed to Augsburg,[34] the settings from the Augsburg cathedral show

the new Visitatio in an unadorned form. Consisting only of the Type II core and an

announcement antiphon, the Augsburg text could easily have served as the model to

which the embellishments seen in the texts of Salzburg and elsewhere might have been

added. Furthermore, Augsburg was an active center for literary and musical activity

during the eleventh century. In stark contrast to the simple obituaries given kings,

bishops, and popes, the Augsburg annalists reserved their most glowing praise for poets

and composers. The notice for the year 1054 concerning the death of Hermannus

Contractus is a case in point:[35]

34. A-Wn lat 1890 is assigned to St. Ulrich und Afra. D-Bas lit 10 is attributed to Augsburg solely on the basis of the rubric: Heinricus augustae urbis scolasticus, which appears on folio 98b (see De Boor, 84). This rubric does not name the scribe, however,but’ rather the composer responsible for the pedagogical quatrain following the rubric. See Michel Huglo, “Un théoricien du Xle siècle:. Henri d’Augsbourg,” Revue de Musicologie LIII/1 (1967), 57.

35. Die Jahrbücher von Augsburg, trans. Georg Grandaur, vol. I of Die Geschichtschreiber der deutschen Vorzeit: Zwölftes Jahrhundert (Leipzig: Verlag der Dykschen Buchhandlung, 1879), 16.

184Hermannus Contractus, infirm in all limbs, the wonder of our century,exceeded all in sharpness of mind and composed more songs of wondrous melodyand loveliness, even though he was barely able to speak.

During the middle and latter part of the eleventh century, the master of the cathedral

school, a position later to be held by the influential Gerhoh von Reichersberg, was the

canon Heinrich (d. 1083), the author of a brief Ars Musica[36] and a lengthy Planctus

Evae (an account of Genesis in 2300 hexameters) and the composer of a pedagogical

quatrain teaching the cadential formulas for the Introit Psalms. [37] Given his literary

and musical output, an output significant enough to warrant an obituary in the Augsburg

annals (a tribute not normally afforded lesser clergy),[38] Heinrich may well have been

the author of the Type II form. Such an attribution, however, is purely speculative.

A large portion of the dissemination remains unclear. The eastern European

settings are particularly enigmatic.

36. Heinrich of Augsburg, Musica Domini Heinrici Augustensis Magister, vol. A/VII of Divitiae Musicae Artis, ed. Joseph Smits van Waesberghe (Buren: Knuf, 1977). Reviewed by Charles M. Atkinson in Speculum LIV (1979), 564-66.

37. Huglo, “Theoricien,” 53-59. See also Michel Huglo, “Henricus of Augsbourg,” New Grove Dictionary of Music, 20 vols. (London: MacMillan, 1980), VIII , 485 and Bauerreiss, II, 70.

38. Jahrbücher, 28.

[185]

The similarities between the melodic structures of the settings of Praha cathedral,

Kraków, Kielce, Poznan, and Brieg (melodic forms 1c and 1d) and those of Augsburg,

Aquileia, and St. Lambrecht (melodic forms 1a and 1b--see Chapter II, Table 2) suggest

that it was the Augsburg form that was first introduced into this area. Textually, though,

the eastern settings are related to those of Salzburg. At what point – and in what sequence

– the two traditions merged (if, indeed, this is what occurred), is difficult to say. In any

case, the Type II Visitatio was introduced into this area relatively early in the process of

dissemination.[39] It is clear, though, with the similarities found among the several

melodic designs, that the settings of eastern Europe represent a distinct dissemination

group, with Praha probably the focal point. Considering the differences in melodic style

between the sources of the cathedral in Praha and those of the convent of St. Georgius in

Praha, and the differing dissemination groups to which these sources belong, however,

it would appear that the original source (or sources) for the Praha – or eastern European –

form was different than that for the convent of St. Georgius in Praha (supra, pages 175-

77).

39. The earliest settings from Praha and Krakow date from the early thirteenth century. See Appendix C.

[186]

Also difficult to explain are the settings from Switzerland. Containing features

characteristic of the Salzburg settings, the Swiss settings seem to reflect Bavarian

influence. The Sion settings share textual features common to the settings of Passau (in

particular, Maria Magdalena and Surrexit Christus; Gaudeamus, see Chapter II, Tables 3

and 4, column intr txt, a and a2, and column cncl txt, 1c). Both the Einsiedeln and

Weingarten settings are melodically related to settings affected by the Salzburg reforms

(see Chapter II, Table 2, melodic form 2a [Weingarten/Salzburg] and melodic form 2b

[Einsiedeln/Klosterneuburg]). The early date of the Einsiedeln setting (CH-E

366--late eleventh or early twelfth century), however, brings into question any

connections between the Augustinian reforms emanating from Salzburg and the Swiss

forms of the Type II Visitatio. The manuscript was copied before (or, at the very latest,

contemporary with) the intitiation of the Salzburg reforms (ca. 1122).

Due to the presence of the dicite variant in line D (Non est hic) in most of the

Swiss settings, it is likely that the dissemination of the Type II Visitatio within

Switzerland was accomplished locally. It is equally likely that once introduced, the

setting of the new form was subject to local adaptation and variation. The Einsiedeln

setting includes an abbreviated Type II text only as an

[187]

option to the presumably standard – and more familiar – Type I text. The Weingarten

settings replace lines B and C of the Type II core with their Type I counterparts, while the

Engelberg setting uses the music of the Type I Visitatio with the Type II text. The

Lausanne settings use new music al together.

To summarize, the Type II Visitatio Sepulchri was probably composed at

Augsburg circa 1050-70 and disseminated to Aquileia in 1077. At some point early in the

twelfth century (1110- 1116? ) , the text was revised and the new form was disseminated

from Salzburg via the Augustinian reforms. Exactly how the Type II form got to Salzburg

is still uncertain. A possible route could have been through St. Lambrecht , which 1ies

within the Salzburg diocese and whose settings are closely related to those of Aquileia

(see above). It could also have been introduced by the Augsburg prior Udalrich, who

served as Bishop of Passau from 1091 to 1121. From Salzburg, the revision entered

Saxony, where it underwent further melodic revisions, revisions which subsequently

found their way back into the Salzburg archdiocese. Another variant of the Salzburg form

apparently travelled within the orbit of German convents.

The settings of the Type II Visitatio and the historical contexts in which they were

written show clearly, if not the precise lines of dissemination, at least the complex

[188]

manner by which the dissemination was effected. The diffusion of

the ceremony was accomplished at varying points in time and

through several different channels. Some degree of cross-influence

is also evident, the details of which may never be satisfactorily

worked out. A more palatable solution to the problem of the Type II

Visitatio Sepulchri dissemination must await future research,

research directed in particular toward the various local and regional

traditions evident within the repertory.