Early-Twelfth-Century Utrecht Responsories: A Quest for Musical Style Elements
A Thesis Submitted in Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Arts
Research Masters Musicology and Medieval Studies
Leo A. J. Lousberg Student ID 3285332
Supervisor Prof. Dr Karl Kügle Second Supervisor Dr Marcel Zijlstra Second Reader Prof. Dr Marco Mostert
Utrecht University May 2013
Acknowledgments
When I started my Research Master programs Musicology and Medieval Studies, I was focussed on the chant of the Devotio Moderna, inspired by Ulrike Hascher-Burger’s PhD dissertation and her subsequent publications on the subject. During the second year of the programs I met with Bart Jaski, keeper of manuscripts and incunabula at Utrecht University
Library. Instead of digitizing manuscripts - as was my proposal for an internship - he suggested to describe fragments of a purportedly Utrecht antiphonary from the early- twelfth century, kept by his department. It looks like it has been one of those accidental but decisive encounters in my personal rhizome. The results of the internship lie at the basis of this thesis. I thank Bart for his support and advice. He introduced me to Kaj van Vliet and
Berry Geerligs of Utrecht Archives who provided technical support digitizing the fragments.
The discussions with Karl Kügle had an essential impact on the introduction of style as analytical focus, which resulted in a new hypothesis about the possible function of microtonal intervals in chant from a mnemonic point of view.
Marcel Zijlstra, as my second supervisor, contributed considerably to the final result of this thesis. His theoretical and performative insights into Gregorian chant were inspiring.
I thank Erik Kwakkel at Leiden University and Hans Kienhorst at Radboud University,
Nijmegen for their palaeographical advice. Professor Stephan Klöckner of the Institut für
Gregorianik at Folkwang University, Essen, Germany shared his views with me on some liturgical issues and the ongoing research into the possible origins of microtonality in
Gregorian chant, carried out under his supervision. Freya de Mink gave support in the final stages with copy-edits and proofreading.
Last but not least I would like to thank my wife Marja van Eck for her much-appreciated lateral support when writing this thesis.
2
1. Introduction ...... 4 The Fragments ...... 4 St Paul’s abbey ...... 8 Previous research on the Fragments ...... 12 Questions ...... 18 The scope of the answers ...... 20 The theoretical framework ...... 22 Methodological issues ...... 23 Relevance ...... 24 2. Description ...... 27 2.1 General cataloguing information ...... 27 The corpus ...... 27 2.2 Codicological characteristics ...... 29 Material ...... 29 Layout ...... 30 2.3 Palaeographical characteristics ...... 41 Text ...... 41 Neumes ...... 44 Microtonal intervals ...... 50 Conclusions of the codicological and palaeographical analysis ...... 59 2.4. The textual content ...... 61 The liturgical calendar ...... 61 Assembled details ...... 64 Some remarkable text details ...... 65 2.5. Provenance and origin? ...... 66 3. The Utrecht great responsories ...... 70 3.1 The genre ...... 73 3.2 Previous research into the Utrecht great responsories ...... 79 3.3 Katherine Helsen: The Great Responsories of the Divine Office ...... 84 - Methodology ...... 85 - U 406 ...... 95 3.4 The responsories in the Fragments and U 406 ...... 98 3.4.1 The material for comparison and an outline of the analysis ...... 98 3.4.2 The results of the analysis ...... 110 4. Summary and Conclusions ...... 125 Manuscripts consulted ...... 134 Bibliography ...... 135 Appendices ...... 141
3 1. Introduction
The Fragments
The catalogue of Utrecht University Library lists fragments of a notated antiphonary with call number HSS: Hs. Fr. 4.3. titled “Antifonarium (fragmenten)” (“the Fragments”; only when referred to as the complete collection, I will write Fragments with a capital F).1 The
Fragments have been digitized recently and are accessible via the site of the library’s Special
Collections Department.2 The call number refers to eight folios in Charterdoos 43 (in which there are other fragments as well, not related to this antiphonary) and to eleven folios still bound as flyleaves in five late fifteenth-century printed books from the Utrecht Benedictine abbey of St Paul’s.4 The digitized collection also includes a folio of this antiphonary5 with unknown provenance, held by the Leuven University Library.6 Hardly anything is known about their content.
Antiphons and antiphonaries
An antiphonary is one of the liturgical books used for the celebration of the Divine Office
(also: the Liturgy of the Hours). The Office is the liturgical setting for the 150 psalms to be sung weekly by religious communities. In the twelfth century, the Office had eight canonical hours:
1 University Library Utrecht, Ms. fr. 4.3. 2 The link can be found here. Accessed February 24, 2013. 3 A ‘charterdoos’ is a cardboard storage box. The content related to the Fragments is from the bindings of the following prints: E fol 66 (Rariora), E fol 68 (Rariora) and E fol 147 (Rariora). 4 In HSS: E fol 149 (Rariora), E fol 275 (Rariora), X fol 88 (Rariora), F qu 116 (Rariora). I will comment this call number in section 2.1. 5 As for the spelling of liturgical terms in this study, including the choice of upper case and lower case, I will apply the spelling as in David Hiley, Western Plainchant: A Handbook (Oxford [England]; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1993). Since the readers of this study are presumed to be acquainted with the Latin terminologies applied, I have refrained from applying italics for better legibility. For other non-English words and expressions, italics have been applied as usual. 6 Leuven University Library, B-LVu Bres Manuscript 1290 Kluis doos 14 (olim M47).
4 Matins (during the night, also called Vigils or Nocturns)
Lauds (between 3 a.m. and dawn)
Prime (first hour, approximately at 6 a.m.)
Terce (third hour, approximately at 9 a.m.)
Sext (sixth hour, at noon)
None (ninth hour, at 3 p.m.)
Vespers ("at the lighting of the lamps", generally at 6 p.m.)
Compline or Night Prayer (before retiring, generally at 9 p.m.).
In many monasteries, the Matins and Lauds were combined in one service.
During each canonical hour, certain psalms were sung mainly in combination with antiphons and responsories. The psalms chosen depended upon the congregation celebrating the Office (secular or monastic) and the liturgy of the day. An antiphon is a short chant based on text from the Bible or from a saint’s vita that precedes and follows a psalm during the Office. A responsory (responsorium) is a chant with a similar background sung after the lectures during Matins (the responsoria prolixa or great responsories) and Vespers.
More details about the responsories will be given in section 3.1.
Each instantation of the Office was strongly individualised according to congregation, region, location and historical evolution. Below the liturgy of the Divine Office according to the text attributed to St Benedict of Nursia, the founder of the Benedictine Order.7
7 http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/benedict.html Accessed April 5, 2013.
5 NIGHT OFFICE (WINTER SEASON) Matins (RB 9-11)* Sunday Weekdays Opening versicles Deus, in adjutorium meum intende; Domine, ad adjuvandum me festina, (ps. 69, 2) followed by the recitation of Domine, labia mea aperies, et os meum annuntiabit laudem tuam (Ps 50[51]: 17), the latter three times. Psalm 3 Psalm 94 plus antiphon (‘Invitatorium’) Hymn First Nocturn 6 Psalms with their Antiphons Versicle 4 Lessons plus 4 responsories 3 Lessons plus 3 responsories Second Nocturn 6 Psalms with their Antiphons
Capitulum Versicle Versicle Litany (Kyrie) Third Nocturn 3 canticles from the Old Testament + 1 Antiphon Versicle 4 Lessons from the New Testament plus 4 Responsories Hymn Te deum laudamus Evangelium Hymn Te decet laus Benediction DAY OFFICE (SUNDAY ) Lauds (RB 12-13) Psalm 66 (without antiphon) Psalm 50 plus Antiphon Psalm 117 and 62 (with 1 antiphon) Canticle (Trium Puerorum, Dan 3: i.e. Benedictiones, with antiphon) Laudes (i.e. psalm 148-150) with 1 Antiphon Chapter (Capitulum) from the Apocalyps) Responsory Ambrosianum (i.e. hymn) Versicle Gospel Canticle (i.c. Canticum Zachariae, Lc. 1, 68-79) Litany and Pater noster Prime, Tierce, Sext, None (‘lesser hours’)
6 Deus in adiutorium (ps. 69,2) Hymn 3 Psalms (with or without antiphon, depending on the size of the community) Capitulum Versicle Kyrie Collects Vespers Deus in adiutorium (ps. 69,2) 4 Psalms plus Antiphons Capitulum Responsory Hymn Versicle Gospel Canticle (Magnificat) Litany Pater noster Compline 3 Psalms without Antiphon Capitulum Hymn Versicle Kyrie Benediction Table 1 * RB: Regula Benedicti Antiphons and responsories link the weekly scheme of psalms to the contents of the annual liturgical calendar for that week or day. An antiphonary contains the text and in many cases the musical notation of the chants for the Office, normally without the psalms.
The content of antiphonaries varies with time and intended use. Up to the ninth century
“antiphonarium” often meant any kind of chant book. Also after the content of most antiphonaries had become limited to the Office, many categories can still be distinguished.8
To start with, monastic communities and secular chapters have different liturgies of the
Office. The former liturgy is called the cursus monasticus, the latter is known (amongst others) as the cursus romanus. Both the structure and the content (text and music) of antiphonaries can vary according to its cursus. In addition, distinctions related to regions and
8 Hiley 1993, 304.
7 congregations do apply as well. Each region and congregation had and has its own saints with a place in its liturgical calendar. Over time, all kinds of reforms in monastic contexts and
Church Councils have had their impact on the liturgy of the Office and thus on antiphonaries.
New chants were composed; melodies were changed or changed over time. Local traditions were proudly established and in extreme cases there were even casualties in defending them, as we will see below.
St Paul’s abbey
Utrecht’s bishop Bernold (bishop between 1026/7 and 1054)9 was the initiator of the abbey’s construction. He consecrated its church in 1050. St Paul’s abbey housed a
Benedictine community until the dissolution of the order in Utrecht in the sixteenth century.
The buildings of the abbey were demolished in the early eighteenth century; the church was finally demolished in the early nineteenth century.10 Only one wall of the church remains nowadays.11
According to Aart Mekking, the choice for the site of St Paul’s abbey was part of an urban master plan of four churches, constituting a cross around the “Dom”, Utrecht’s cathedral.12
It was designed by bishop Bernold in honour of the memory of emperor Conrad II, who died in Utrecht in 1039 and whose intestines were buried in the Dom. By this urban design, the remains of the emperor became the centre of a symbolic cross. Three new churches were built and subsequently consecrated between 1048 and 1053, a very short time, which
9 Renger De Bruin, Geschiedenis Van De Stad Utrecht (Utrecht: Matrijs, 2000), 59. 10 Hans Mol, "Inleiding," De nalatenschap van de Paulusabdij in Utrecht, eds. Hildo van Engen and Kaj van Vliet (Hilversum: Verloren, 2012), 9. 11 At Hofpoort, a blind alley at the Nieuwegracht. 12 Aart Mekking, "Een kruis van kerken rond Koenraads hart," in Utrecht. Kruispunt van de middeleeuwse kerk, ed. Aart Mekking (Zutphen: Clavis, 1988), 21-54. Amongst others, Hein Hundertmarkt disputes parts of Mekking’s theories. Hein Hundertmark, "Naar Adelbolds voorbeeld. De kerken van bisschop Bernold,” De Nalatenschap Van De Paulusabdij in Utrecht, eds. Hildo van Engen and Kaj van Vliet (Hilversum: Verloren, 2012), 68.
8 indicates that funding of the construction was not a problem. The construction of the fourth church of the cross, the collegiate chapter of St Mary’s was delayed by lack of funding due to political reasons. The church was not consecrated until 1099. The Emperor appointed
Bernold, like his predecessors. During and after the investiture controversy, which began in earnest in 1075 and was finally resolved by the Concordat of Worms in 1122, the influence of the Emperor on the nomination of bishops was greatly diminished and so was his interest in promoting the construction of churches that fell under the influence of bishops. In the first half of the eleventh century, though, the construction of St Paul’s abbey still was considered to be important, since it was the second of the four new churches to be consecrated. A Benedictine community from Amersfoort was transferred to the new abbey in Utrecht.13
Recent research by Hein Hundertmark indicates that Cluny II, the church of the abbey of
Cluny that was consecrated in 981, most probably was the prototype for the architecture of the new Utrecht Dom in the version consecrated in 1023 and the three churches built shortly thereafter in the eleventh century, including the one of St Paul’s abbey. Based upon the results of previous excavations Hundertmark made a 3-D computer simulation of the
Utrecht cathedral and of the three churches surrounding it. The model also checked the reconstruction’s viability of the building materials’ strength and statics.14 The result confirms the outcome of previous research that assumed a common architectural background for these four churches, of which the cathedral is the oldest. The remaining question was whether there was a prototype for the cathedral. Hundertmark concludes after analysis of dimensions and comparison of architectural design details that Cluny II
13 Mol 2012, 12. 14 For the 3-D models, see Hundertmark 2011, 60-63.
9 resembles the Utrecht cathedral to a high degree.15
This raises the question whether the influence of Cluny was felt in the abbey’s organization and consuetudines (ways of monastic life) as well. The congregation appointed the abbots of Cluny, to be approved by the Pope, not by secular rulers; the libertas monasterii stood central in their relationships with the latter.16 Charlotte Broer concludes that the monasteries in Utrecht had no antagonistic attitudes against the influence of the bishop, who represented the secular powers in Utrecht as well.17 As far as the relationship between St Paul’s organization and the secular powers was concerned, it seems like the
Cluny model was not applicable.18 Research suggests that the impact of liturgical reforms, leading to new consuetudines in many cases did not necessarily imply a reform of the monastery’s musical tradition. In southern Germany for instance changes in the consuetudines in Benedictine communities, due to the Gorze reform (around the year 1000) did not lead to new antiphonaries. Robert Klugseder’s research confirms this regarding the
Gorze reformation in Germany.19 The same applies for Cluny, it seems. Manuel Ferreira, quoting Noreen Hunt and Philippe Racinet,20 concludes that the image of Cluny as a dominant, strictly centralized system is false. “The congregation was rather a loose and diverse union of monastic houses, most of them very small.”21 As for Utrecht, Hundertmark estimates that during the twelfth century, St Paul’s abbey had between twenty and thirty
15 Hundertmark 2011, 68. 16 Charlotte Broer, "Sporen van Cluny? De abdijen van Sint-Paulus in Utrecht en Sint-Laurens in Oostbroek-De Bilt,” De Nalatenschap Van De Paulusabdij in Utrecht, eds. Hildo van Engen and Kaj van Vliet (Hilversum: Verloren, 2012), 23. 17 Broer 2012, 25. 18 Broer 2012, 35. 19 Robert Klugseder, Quellen des gregorianischen Chorals für das Offizium aus dem Kloster St. Ulrich und Afra Augsburg (Tutzing: H. Schneider, 2008), 24. 20 Noreen Hunt, Cluny under Saint Hugh, 1049-1109 (Notre Dame, Indiana 1977), 184 and Philippe Racinet, Les maisons de l’ordre de Cluny au moyen âge - Évolution et permanence d’un ancien ordre bénédictin au nord de Paris (Brussels, Nauwelaerts 1990), vii-x. 21 Manuel Pedro Ferreira, "Music at Cluny: The Tradition of Gregorian Chant for the Proper of the Mass— Melodic Variants and Microtonal Nuances" (PhD diss., Princeton University, 1997), 7.
10 professed monks, not counting pupils, postulants, novices and staff.22 On the other hand, the cultural background of the persons (mostly abbots) chosen to organize reforms in other regions often had a direct impact on the community, which was reformed by the books and the scribes they took with them. Around 1020, bishop Adelbold appointed Poppo of Stavelot to reform the Amersfoort Benedictine community’s organization according to the Lorrain observation, a mix of the Gorze and Cluny reform movements. This community was transferred to the newly built monastery of St Paul’s in Utrecht.
St Paul’s link to the Gorze observation was reinforced in the twelfth century, when several abbots originating from the St Michaelsberg monastery near Siegburg (Gerwick,
1100-1112, Hendrik, 1133-1150) were appointed in Utrecht.23 The Siegburg monastery had been reformed under Gorze rules earlier. The abbey of Siegburg, like the diocese and the monasteries in Utrecht, fell under the authority of the archbishop of Cologne. Apart from institutional and ecclesiastical ties, we know from correspondences that close contacts existed between Utrecht and Cologne during the tenth and the eleventh century. Just to mention a few examples: canons of the Utrecht Dom protested against the decision of the
Archbishop of Cologne to release the heretic Tanchelm of Antwerp in 1113, and the Utrecht canon Meingod corresponded with the scholar Rupert of Deutz about De victoria verbi dei.
St Paul’s abbey had a societas fraternitatis with the abbeys of Deutz and Gladbach.24 In these societates, the deceased members of the adjoining congregations were commemorated.25
The combination of these connections, the reform movement emanating from Siegburg, and
22 Hein Hundertmark, Kaj Van Vliet and Rene De Kam, De Paulusabdij : achter de muren van Utrechts oudste klooster (Utrecht: Matrijs, 2010), 78. 23 Broer 2012, 27. 24 Bart Jaski, "Een codicologische queeste naar de oudste handschriften en handschriftfragmenten van de Paulusabdij,” De Nalatenschap Van De Paulusabdij in Utrecht, eds. Hildo Van Engen and Kaj Van Vliet (Hilversum: Verloren, 2012), 143. 25 Dieter Geuenich, Verbrüderungsverträge als Zeugnisse der monastischen Reform des 11. Jahrhunderts in Schwaben ([S.l.]: [s.n.], 1975).
11 the abbots that came from Siegburg26 added up to a cultural, monastic tradition with many traits in common.27 About the impact of the Bursfelde reform in 1465 on the Utrecht
Benedictine community, we know a lot more, but it would be beyond the scope of this study to elaborate on it here.28 It is quite probable, though, that the introduction of new consuetudines a the time of the Bursfelde reform, unlike the earlier reforms in the eleventh century, led to changes in the local monastic liturgy. This might have been one of the reasons to - eventually - discard the old liturgy books, and the antiphonary that forms the source of the Fragments. Between 1495 and 1499 it was dismantled and used as maculature for the bindings of new books.
Previous research on the Fragments
In 1984, Ronald Buijk described some diplomatic characteristics of eight loose fragments in Charterdoos 4, including an incomplete reference to the liturgical content.29 References to concordances with a number of chants in the Worcester antiphonary30 imply that Buijk was aware of the fact that the fragments analysed by him belong to an antiphonary.31 He states that their origin is St Paul’s abbey in Utrecht, referring more specifically to E fol 68 and E fol
147. These fragments show a fifteenth-century ex libris of St Paul’s abbey.32 It is not clear
26 For a list with names and details about St Paul’s abbots, priors and monks between 1010 and 1575, see Kaj Van Vliet, "Lijst van abten, priors en monniken in de Paulusabdij," De Nalatenschap Van De Paulusabdij in Utrecht, eds. Hildo van Engen and Kaj van Vliet (Hilversum: Verloren, 2012), 275-284. 27 Jaski 2012, 141. 28 Bram van den Hove van Genderen, “’Rebell ende ongehoirsam’. Problemen rond de hervorming van de Utrechtse Paulusabdij,” De Nalatenschap van de Paulusabdij in Utrecht, eds. Hildo van Engen and Kaj van Vliet (Hilversum: Verloren, 2012), 201-258. 29 Ronald Buijk, Charterdoos 4, (term paper for the course ‘Middeleeuwse Handschriften’, History Department Utrecht University, HSS U 11 no. 17, University Library Utrecht, Special Collections Department (Utrecht 1984). 30 Worcester Cathedral Codex F 160. 31 Buijk 1984, 20-22. 32 In the present study specified as Fragment NL-Uu Charterdoos 4, fr 4.3A 1v. The text: “liber monasterii sancti pauli in traiecto inferiori”.
12 whether Buijk assumes that these fragments in Charterdoos 4 were written (origin,
Schriftheimat) or just owned (provenance, Bibliotheksheimat) by the abbey.
Ike de Loos loosely refers to these fragments in her dissertation, mostly without further elaborating on them.33 She assumes that the fragments in Charterdoos 4 were written around the middle of the twelfth century (the latter conclusion presumably on palaeographical grounds, but without further explanation).34 De Loos classifies the music notation in the Fragments as belonging to a group of diastematic and adiastematic neumes in an area nowadays covering the Netherlands, Belgium, and the western border areas of
Germany. The main examples of this notation can be found in the antiphonary NL-Uu U 406 of the chapter of St Mary, Utrecht,35 a missal of the Benedictine abbey in Stavelot
(Belgium)36 and a gradual of the cathedral of Trier.37 De Loos defines the diastematic notation in these manuscripts as the Utrecht-Stavelot-Trier notation group. This is one of three notation groups she distinguishes in the Low Countries between the tenth and the thirteenth century. Further details about the characteristics of this notation will be dealt with in section 2.3.
In the present study, U 406 will be compared with the Fragments. In her thesis, De Loos describes the manuscript in detail and devotes a large part of her study to its music notation, which is diastematic on four lines. According to De Loos, this antiphonary was written in the second part of the twelfth century. Given the saints mentioned in the Sanctorale, it must
33 Ike De Loos, "Duitse en Nederlandse muzieknotaties in de 12e en 13e eeuw" (PhD diss., Utrecht University, Utrecht 1996), 87. 34 De Loos 1996, 88. 35 This manuscript contains an antiphonary, followed by a theoretical treatise. In this study I refer to this antiphonary as U 406. 36 London, British Library, Add. 18031-32. 37 Trier, Stadtbibliothek , 2254/2197.
13 have been written for use in the Utrecht diocese. De Loos points to several similarities between the notation in the Fragments and in the antiphonary of the chapter of St Mary,
U 406, mainly related to those neumes, which purportedly represent microtonal intervals. I will come back on (the notation of) microtonal intervals and similarities between the
Fragments and U 406 in detail in section 2.3. Without further explanation she states that the
Fragments are older than U 40638 and that they are the oldest specimens known of the
Utrecht-Stavelot-Trier group.39 In her introduction to the edition of U 40640 De Loos refers to the Fragments as “slightly older than U 406”.41 De Loos later on discovered two additional folios of the fragments in NL-Uu E fol 66 and one more in the Leuven University Library.
More information about the later manuscript and other provenances of the Fragments will be discussed in section 2.1.42
Bart Jaski carried out the most comprehensive research into the Fragments as a corpus, assuming their belonging to the same antiphonary. In his contribution to De nalatenschap van de Paulusabdij in Utrecht (“The Legacy of St Paul’s Abbey in Utrecht”), he lists all books and manuscript fragments with known or assumed provenance from St Paul’s abbey currently held by the Utrecht University Library and by libraries elsewhere. It must have been an impressive library, in size almost as important as the library of the Benedictine abbey in Egmond, which Peter Gumbert classifies as “the most interesting monastery for the early history of Dutch books”.43 Regarding the Fragments, in addition to the eleven
38 De Loos 1996, 88. 39 De Loos, 1996, 90. 40 Charles T. Downey and Ruth Steiner, An Utrecht Antiphoner: Utrecht, Bibliotheek Der Rijksuniversiteit 406 (3.J.7) : Printouts from an Index in Machine-Readable Form : A CANTUS Index (Ottawa, Canada: Institute of Mediaeval Music, 1997), x. 41 The latter fragment has a new call: F qu 116. Jaski 2012, p. 166-167, see table 1. 42 Jaski 2012, 121. 43 Peter Gumbert, "Boeken en boekhouding. Egmondse boeken onder abt Jan de Weent (1381-1404)," In Het Spoor Van Egbert: Aartsbisschop Egbert Van Trier, De bibliotheek en geschiedschrijving van het klooster Egmond, ed. Jurjen Vis (Hilversum: Verloren, 1997). Quoted by Jaski, 2012, 147.
14 fragments mentioned by Buijk and De Loos, Jaski lists nine fragments as belonging to this antiphonary as well, bound as flyleaves in books, which are identified by him as held by St
Paul’s abbey.44 He describes the bibliographical details and some codicological characteristics of the Fragments. He states that on most folios the original writings were scraped. Only two folios show illuminated initials.45 The unfinished colonnades above an
(also unfinished) list of chants for the month of January 46 represent the same style as similar decorations in contemporary manuscripts. In my description of the Fragments’ content, I will come back to Jaski’s observations. Jaski describes the provenance of all the fragments held by Utrecht University Library. In Table 2, I have selected the fragments classified by him as belonging to this specific antiphonary.47
Date of St Paul’s Loose Call number Bound Folios Binding Cover Fragments
Utrecht University Library NL-Uu
E fol 66 (Rariora) 1499 X fr. 4.3A 2 E fol 68 (Rariora) dl 1-2 1499 X fr. 4.3B 2 Shortly E fol 147 (Rariora) X fr. 4.3C after 1494 448 E fol 149 (Rariora) 1499 X X 6 E fol 275 (Rariora) 1499 X X 1 F qu 116 (Rariora) 1499 X X 2 X fol 88 (Rariora) 1499 X X 2 Leuven University Library B-LVu Bres Manuscript 1290 Kluis doos -- -- X 1 14 (olim M47)49 Total 20
Table 2 Bibliographical details about the Fragments
44 Jaski 2012, 121-122 and appendices 1-4, 149-169. 45 On E 149 1v and E 149 6r respectively. For images see page 38 and page 9 of the Fragments’ site. 46 On E 149 2v and E 149 4v respectively, page 6 and page 7 on the Fragments’ site. 47 Jaski 2012, pp. 164-169. In addition to the information provided in this table, Jaski mentions: shelf mark, sort of cover, provenance, script (manuscripts only), identification. 48 Two single leaves and a bifolium. 49 Referred to by the De Loos as Universiteitsbiblibliotheek Leuven, Farde aanwinsten 1995.
15 In Annex 1 of his article, Jaski gives further details about the books in which the
Fragments were found:50
- E fol 66: Alexander Carpentarius, Destructorum vitiorum (Nuremberg: Antonius
Koberger, 1496)
- E fol 68: Petrus de Palude, Sermones Thesauri novi de sanctis (Nuremberg: Antonius
Koberger, 1496).
- E fol 147: Vincentius Ferrer, Sermones de tempore et de sanctis part 1 (Strasbourg:
the printer of the 1483 Jordanus de Quedlinburg, 1493)
- E fol 149: Idem, part 3
- E fol 275: Bernardinus de Busti, Mariale Bernardini de Busti (Strasbourg: Martinus
Flach, 1496)
- F qu 116: Ludovicus de Prussia, Trilogium Animae (Nuremberg: Antonius Koberger,
1493)
- X fol 88: Johannes Reuchlin, Vocabularius Breviloquus (Strasbourg: the printer of the
1483 Jordanus de Quedlinburg, 1493)
All these fragments were bound into non-liturgical books. In combination with the years the books were bound, one may assume perhaps that the re-use of the Fragments can be connected with the Bursfelde reform when it was introduced at St Paul’s abbey during the second half of the fifteenth century. In addition to Jaski’s article, I refer to Peter Gumbert’s contribution to De nalatenschap van de Paulusabdij in Utrecht for further details about what happened with the manuscripts and the books of St Paul’s library after the dissolution of the
Benedictine community in Utrecht in 1584. To summarize Gumbert’s findings, the books containing the Fragments stayed in the monastery’s library until the community was
50 Jaski 2012, 149-169.
16 dissolved. More than thirty manuscripts volumes written between 1100 and 1250 and belonging to the abbey’s library eventually found their way into the Utrecht University
Library, which currently keeps 103 manuscripts and books provenant from that library.
Other libraries in Europe hold seven manuscripts with the abbey’s provenance, as well as two fifteenth-century printed books.51
Although for Dutch standards this is a large library, it reveals nothing about the writing of books at the abbey itself. A mere two manuscripts reveal that they were written in the scriptorium of St Paul’s abbey in Utrecht. The first manuscript is Vatican, Bibliotheca
Apostolica, Reg. Lat. 509, with the history of the crusades by Albertus of Aachen. In the manuscript is written that it was completed in St Paul’s abbey in Utrecht in the year 1158.52
The second reference to a scriptorium in the abbey is notated in a fifteenth century breviary, now held by the Bibliothek des Bischöflichen Priesterseminars in Trier, MS 124.53
Summarizing the current knowledge about the Fragments: there is a strong general view amanog scholars that they belong to an antiphonary that was written in the twelfth century and that it was used in St Paul’s abbey. The notation belongs to a regional tradition, defined by De Loos as the Utrecht-Stavelot-Trier group. The antiphonary U 406 belongs to that group. Of eight fragments we have a superficial palaeographical description and some general liturgical references to the feasts that affiliate with the chants (Buijk 1984). De Loos refers to their dating and to microtonal elements of the musical notation (De Loos 1996,
1997). Jaski (2012) reiterates their provenance, and analyses a number of codicological and palaeographical aspects. Whereas De Loos refers to similarities between the music notations
51 Peter Gumbert, "Handschriften in de bibliotheek van het Paulusklooster," De nalatenschap van de Paulusabdij in Utrecht, eds. Hildo Van Engen and Kaj Van Vliet (Hilversum: Verloren, 2012), 91-100. See also Jaski 2012, 149-161. 52 Jaski 2012, 99. 53 Jaski 2012, 125.
17 of the Fragments on the one hand and U 406 on the other hand, Jaski refers to (largely unspecified) palaeographical similarities between these Fragments and other manuscripts with Utrecht provenance, U 406 included.54 If used at the abbey, the Fragments are the oldest witnesses of Utrecht Gregorian chant, used by a Benedictine community. That is about all we know thus far. Like Jaski states at the end of his article: these Fragments deserve closer attention.55
Questions
It is in the sometimes bewildering context of liturgical forms in constant flux that this study tries to give the Fragments a place and - rather than trying to chart liturgical characteristics of the celebrations in detail - to give their music a place in a wider context, although the geographical context has its limitations: “Any study of the Divine Office is a study of local and regional traditions.”56 Before any musicological questions can be answered, it is necessary to verify the assumptions and the statements as brought forward in previous research regarding the Fragments’ dating and to shed additional light on their use.
1. First, codicological observations should provide more insight in the material, the
layout of the text and the music, and the illuminations.
2. Second, the palaeographical characteristics of both text and music notation will
have to be described in detail. After these steps, it becomes possible to compare
the outcome with previous statements about the dating of the Fragments and
their regional and institutional background.
54 St Paul’s abbey and St Mary’s church were situated less than 400 meter from another as the crow flies. 55 Jaski 2012, 148. 56 Ruth Steiner, "Local and Regional Traditions of the Invitatory Chant," Studia Musicologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 27, no. 1/4 (1985), 131.
18 3. Finally, do all fragments indeed belong to the same antiphonary?
Subsequently, the textual content of the Fragments has to be analysed:
4. Does the textual analysis confirm the outcome of the codicological and
palaeographical analysis concerning a common source, an antiphonary?
5. When we know the textual content, what can be said about the liturgy
represented by the Fragments?
And
6. Is it possible to say more about their use and their users?
Once the answers to these questions have been found, it is possible to proceed to the musicological analysis, which should give answers to the main questions of the present study:
1. Is it possible to distinguish common recurrent melodic and
graphical57 characteristics of the plainchant of the Office as
notated in the Fragments and in U 406?
2. Comparing these characteristics with other contemporary
antiphonaries, is it possible to detect a ‘Utrecht style’?
The concept ‘style’ is placed between quotation marks to avoid expectations, which cannot be expected to be fulfilled if the following concept of style would have to apply here:
“Style manifests itself in characteristic usages of form, texture,
harmony, melody, rhythm and ethos; and it is presented by creative
57 Terminology as applied by Maria Elisabeth Heisler, 1985. "Die Problematik des ‘germanischen’ oder ‘deutschen’ Choraldialekts," Studia Musicologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. 27 (1/4): 67-82.
19 personalities, conditioned by historical, social and geographical
factors, performing resources and conventions.”58
In the context of the present study, this concept of style needs heavy truncating: we are separated from the twelfth century chant by nine hundred years of cultural changes. What is left for interpretation are theoretical works, some anecdotes in chronicles, texts and music notations. Even the interpretation by scholars of the latter, beyond pitch registration, often seems to be more of an art than a scientific activity: tempo, rhythm, ethos, and (possibly improvised) polyphony are concepts shrouded by time, often too shrouded to construct a coherent system that can withstand critical scrutinity. For the analysis of plainchant, Willi
Apel limits style to liturgical category, notation, tonality, types, and forms.59 My analysis concentrates on these elements. In chapter 3, I will come back to this issue. .
The scope of the answers
Since the 1960’s, when electronic databases became gradually available, we have become very much aware of the fragmented constitution of medieval liturgy, its music included.
Reconstructing Ur-forms of chant60 is not the priority of most 21st-century musicologists any longer. It has become increasingly clear that much twentieth-century research into the cultures of the Middle Ages has been conditioned by excessive reliance on concepts about evolution, about coordinated systems and frameworks that may increasingly apply to
Western societies since the industrial revolution but not before. It does not mean that systems and frameworks cannot be detected, but an arborescent approach of the subject based upon dualist categories and binary choices, resulting in large-scale horizontal and
58 Robert Pascall,"Style", Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/27041. Accessed February 27, 2013 59 Willi Apel, Gregorian Chant (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1958), 201-203. 60 See for instance Kenneth Levy, "Charlemagne's Archetype of Gregorian Chant," Journal of the American Musicological Society 40, no. 1 (1987), 1-30.
20 vertical connections does not reflect the image that emerges from the astonishing number of studies that continue to be published about medieval plainchant. It rather reflects phenomena, whose connections the post-structuralist philosopher Gilles Deleuze describes as rhizomatic.61 In his introduction to A thousand Plateaus, Deleuze scholar and translator
Brian Massumi lists some qualities of rhizomes that apply to the field of medieval plainchant.
1. The Principle of Connection: “Any point of a rhizome can be connected to anything
other, and must be”.62 Searches for “origin” and “final conclusions”, the latter
preferably translated in hypotheses to be applied on a larger scale, do but very
seldom fit into this concept.
2. The Principle of Cartography: “A rhizome is not amenable to any structural or
generative model. It is a stranger to any idea of genetic axis or deep structure.” A
rhizome is a map and not a tracing, which reflects underlying assumptions about
genetic axis and deep structure. “The map is open and connectable in all of its
dimensions”.63 Tracing applied to the rhizome may reproduce “impasses, blockages
<…> or points of structuration.”64
The application of these principles has consequences for the theoretical framework methodology and the implied scope of my analysis. It is an illusion to think that research could result in a matrix representing local chant traditions in Europe. For that, we do not have enough insight in the style elements defining chant. However, pitch sequences and and notations in individual manuscripts can be analysed and compared. Conclusions related to that kind of analysis might improve our understanding of elements of the contexts of such
61 Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, trans. Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987), 10. 62 Deleuze/Guattari 1987, 7. 63 Idem, 12. 64 Ibidem.
21 manuscript. Subsequently, those insights can be tested when analysing the context of similar written sources.
The theoretical framework
Aspects of medieval liturgy and the modal and formal qualities of the genre in question define the theoretical framework for the musicological analysis in the present study. The limited legibility of the musical notation on quite some folios has an impact on what can be analysed. Seventy-two chants of the Fragments have music notated with sufficient legibility.
No complete liturgies for any feasts have survived. Thirty-eight chants belong to the genre of the responsoria prolixa, the great responsories of the Night Office. Thirty-three of these occur in both the Fragments and U 406. The other legibly notated chants are mainly antiphons, which appear rather scattered over the liturgical calendar. So if the conclusion is that the great responsories are the genre, which has most legible items in the Fragments, the question is which relevant answers could the analysis of these responsories provide? The responsoria prolixa of the Night Office are “long ornate chants in which the same material can be found in several different pieces of the same tonality.”65 For the analysis of Gregorian chants three basic text-music relationships apply: syllabic, neumatic and melismatic. The great responsories belong to the latter group, characterised by the highest variety of melodic motions and intervals up to a sixth and more.66 The melodies consist of formulaic material, phrases, connected via recognizable patterns. Each mode has its characteristic
(read: recurrent) patterns. The patterns in their turn are linked to modal structure. However, regional differences have been detected;67 especially the ornate elements of this genre, often in long melismas, leave room for local performance traditions. This combination of
65 Hiley 1993, 69. 66 Apel 1958, 201. 67 Hiley 1993, 67.
22 structure and local elements makes the great responsories ideal material for the present study, which aims at determining the origins and the context of the sources studied. . My musicological analysis of the common characteristics of a local tradition builds upon the dissertation by Katherine Helsen,68 to which I will refer to extensively in section 3.3. Helsen analyses recurrent melodic material in the responsories, referring to the concept of ‘phrases’ as put forward amongst others by Walter Howard Frere in his analysis of the Sarum antiphonary.69
Methodological issues
For the description of the Fragments standard codicological and palaeographical tools and approaches will be applied. The reconstructed and transcribed texts will be presented in their contemporary liturgical context with its calendar. The musicological methodology needs a more elaborate explanation. For her dissertation, Helsen transcribed all 950 great responsories from a twelfth-century antiphonary of the Benedictine abbey at St. Maur-des-
Fossés (MS Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 12044). Contrary to the analyses by
Frere and Holman70, Helsen not only analysed final cadences, but took all phrases of each respond into consideration. This resulted in a computer database of some 6800 phrases in total consisting of over 1700 different melodic phrases. These phrases were labelled and defined for further analysis, which I will explain in more detail in section 3.2. For comparison, Helsen selected 406 responsories from her basic material and compared it with the same responsories in eight reference antiphonaries, which are well-documented and from different regions of Europe. U 406 is one of these antiphonaries. “This analysis of Paris
68 Katherine Eve Helsen, “The Great Responsories of the Divine Office. Aspects of Structure and Transmission” (PhD diss. Regensburg: Regensburg University, 2008). 69 Walter Howard Frere, Graduale Sarisburiense; a Reproduction in Facsimile of a Manuscript of the Thirteenth Century (London: B. Quaritch, 1894). 70 Hans-Jørgen Holman, "The Responsoria Prolixa of the Codex Worchester F 160" (PhD diss., Indiana University 1961).
23 12044's responsory repertory and the comparison of its results with other traditions is one of the largest pools of information about the transmission of the responsory repertory in the discipline.”71
In the meantime, all of Helsen's primary sources have become accessible on the Internet, most of them as digital copies of the originals. Recently U 406 became accessible via this medium as well, as did the Fragments. Rather than low-resolution reprints of images, this thesis therefore provides hyperlinks to high-quality online sources. Against the risk of disrupted links in the future72 stands the possibility to give more illustrations now.
The musicological analysis (section 3.4) first compares the transcriptions of the
Fragments’ responsoria prolixa with U 406 along the methodological path set out by
Helsen's study. The same parameters and criteria are applied, adding two parameters that fit into Helsen’s approach. The musical notations in the Fragments and U 406 will be compared as well. This will provide answers to the first musicological question about recurring melodic and graphical elements. The second question, whether a ‘Utrecht style’ is discernable, will be dealt with through a comparison of the common Utrecht traits with the results of
Helsen’s study.
Relevance
The relevance of this study is that aspects of a local twelfth-century chant tradition are unravelled and brought to the surface again, building on foundations laid by recent qualitative and quantitative research into the same subject. Marco Mostert addresses some general topics, which apply as well if the relevance of this study should be questioned. When new research topics come up, their cultural relevance is enhanced when they have
71 Helsen 2008, 46. 72 The administrators of the linked sites are national or university libraries; in case of disruption it should be possible to retrieve the new links.
24 interaction with current affairs. New research topics mostly require renewed attention for sources and for edition of sources thus far unedited. It is of essence that editions and studies based upon them can be checked and are susceptible for control.73 In this sense, I consider both the inclusion of available digital links to the sources consulted to be relevant.
Given the possibilities, which the new media offer to research, almost all excuses for just mentioning but not showing sources have vanished. The new media have to be taken into account at all levels of research. An arbitrary example: in the wake of their constant encounters with manuscripts, Erik Kwakkel en Johan Oosterman bombard their followers on
Twitter (students, other members of the academic community and actually anyone interested) with tweets74 containing images of manuscripts, links to new publications, editions and exhibitions taken “on the spot” with their mobile phone or iPad, and transmitted instantly. Many librarians have reinterpreted their role as ‘keepers of books” from the most literary meaning of the word into ‘providers of information’; taking digital images of primary sources has almost become as standard as using pencils only when consulting manuscripts in the reading room of a library.
When quite recently, the Gregoriaans Koor Utrecht performed the Laudes for the
Translation of St Martin as notated in U 406 and edited by Ike de Loos, on a Saturday at 8:00 a.m., the Nicolaaskerk in Utrecht was packed to the rim. The same choir has expressed its interest to perform chants from the Fragments, considering the purported microtonal intervals as an extra challenge. Musicologists, in addition to making their fields of research more visible and accessible by optimising the use of the new media, should be aware of their
73 Marco Mostert, "Medieval Studies, Modern Times" IMC Conference (Leeds, IMC Conference, July 2001, 2001). Reader, course 'State of the Art in Medieval Studies', Utrecht University, January 2012. 74 https://twitter.com/erik_kwakkel, Associate Professor in medieval palaeography at Leiden University; https://twitter.com/JohanOosterman, Professor in Medieval and Early Modern Dutch Literature at Radboud University, Nijmegen
25 role as intermediary between sources and audiences by enabling performers to interpret and perform the results of musicological research. The present study aims to contribute to this process.
26 2. Description
2.1 General cataloguing information
The corpus
Jaski described the corpus as presented in the section dealing with previous research on the Fragments.75 The loose fragments kept by the Utrecht University Library are stored in
Charterdoos 4, Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht Hs. fr. 4.3. Presumably, they were kept apart when the books as listed in the same row of the table below were restored in the early twentieth century (no details available). Table 3 gives an overview of the separate folios per call number. On the loose fragments in Charterdoos 4, call numbers (recto only) have been written with pencil at the right-hand lower corner in a twentieth century hand. These are the call numbers listed in the middle column of Table 3.. The bound fragments have no other sigla than the ones mentioned in the left column. For better references in the present study,
I have extended these call numbers with their folio numbers as indicated in the right column.
Loose Call Number Folios Fragments Utrecht University Library NL-Uu E fol 66 (Rariora) fr. 4.3A fr. 4.3A 1r/v - 2r/v E fol 68 (Rariora) dl 1-2 fr. 4.3B fr. 4.3B 1r/v - 2r/v E fol 147 (Rariora) fr 4.3C fr. 4.3C 1r/v - 4r/v E fol 147 1r/v (front) E fol 149 (Rariora) E fol 149 1r/v - 3r/v (front) E fol 149 4r/v - 6r/v (back) E fol 275 (Rariora) E fol 275 1r/v F qu 116 (Rariora) F qu 116 1r/v (front) F qu 116 2r/v (back) X fol 88 (Rariora) X fol 88 1r/v (front) X fol 88 2r/v (back) Leuven University Library B-LVu
75 Jaski 2011, 103-164.
27 Bres Manuscript 1290 Kluis doos X Manuscript 1290 1 r/v 14 (olim M47) Table 3 Separate folios and call numbers
In November 2012, the Special Collections Department of the Utrecht University Library digitized the Fragments and put them online, the folio from Leuven included.76 The collection of fragments, both loose and bound, received the call number
“Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht Hs. fr. 4.3”, which - applying the RISM coding - would result in “NL-Uu Hs. fr. 4.3”.77 Given the different provenances and call numbers, this is quite a simplified, not to say confusing siglum. Neither the CANTUS project team, nor RISM78 in
Frankfurt had a solution for the registration of this kind of collections of fragments with multiple provenances. In addition to its current scattered holding pattern over two libraries, a collection of fragments like this may well have a dynamic chronological aspect as well. It is not unthinkable that in the future more fragments will be found in books of the dispersed library of the abbey, now held by other libraries in the world or in private hands. However, the present study is perforce limited to the Fragments as described by Jaski in 2011 only.
Given my unsatisfying experiences with current cataloguing systems for fragments of manuscripts, I present a method for electronically encoding dynamic, multiple-sigla collections of fragments in Appendix 1.
76 http://objects.library.uu.nl/reader/resolver.php?obj=002442324&type=2. December 2012. 77 Repertoire International des Sources Musicales http://www.rism.info/en/community/development/rism- sigla-catalogue.html. Accessed December12, 2012. 78 Répertoire International des Sources Musicales. RISM is a multinational, non-profit joint venture, which aims for comprehensive documentation of extant musical sources worldwide. The organisation, founded in Paris in 1952, is the largest and only global operation that documents written musical sources.
28 2.2 Codicological characteristics
Material
There are no discernable differences in the quality of the Fragments’ parchment. The thickness of all folios is about 0,26 mm. On a number of fragments, the sewing stations are visible, but it is not possible to distinguish between the original sewing stations and those that were made when the Fragments were re-used. All folios are cropped on at least three sides. The dimensions of the largest folios in their present state are about 310 x 215 mm. In a number of cases, the cropping includes parts of the text and of the musical notation. The major part of the differentiae79 in the margins is lost due to cropping. Some pages are damaged by holes (worms, piercings caused by the imprints of metal knobs on the cover) and rust stains. These have no or little impact on the legibility of the text or the music notation though. Unfortunately, remains of glue and faded ink reduce the legibility of the text and, especially, of the music notation on 27 out of the 40 pages to mediocre or even nil.80 Ultraviolet lighting81 and editing the digital images in Photoshop improved the legibility somewhat in some cases. It was not possible to apply more advanced digital restoration techniques in Utrecht. The photo equipment of the library is insufficient for the resolution and formats required by the Digital Image Archive of Medieval Music (DIAMM, Oxford). A visit to the DIAMM laboratory encountered financial problems, due to insurance costs when transporting archival material of this kind.82
79 Differentiae are melodic formulae for the lesser doxology at the end of a psalm tone ("seculorum amen"; generally speaking, the bold vowels were notated as a shorthand formula in texts), connecting the modus of the psalm with the modus of following antiphon. 80 Some pages were scraped. 81 With special thanks to Berry Geerligs of Utrecht Archive for his kind assistance. 82 The majority of the Fragments is bound into fifteenth-century printed books.
29 Layout
This section describes the ruling system and the layout characteristics of the music notation and of the text, including details about two illuminated initials. The decorative elements of the calendar on E fol 149 2v and E fol 149 4r will be described subsequently. I choose to discuss the Fragments’ annotations in this section as well. At the end of the section, I shall present my interpretation of the subsequent stages of copying text and notating music in this source, as observed on fol 4.3A 2v.
- Ruling, written area, and system lines
The one-column ruled frame consists of single horizontal lines, 15 mm apart in between a single vertical line at the inner margin and double vertical lines 7 mm apart at the outer margin. The vertical lines are drawn to the very edge of the folio. The copyist applied blind ruling. The prickings are not visible any more due to cropping; the same may apply for the markings, the foliation and the pagination, which may have been present in the uncropped state of the manuscript. The written area, where undamaged, is c. 225 (h) x 165 (w) mm for all Fragments. The bifolium (ff. 4.3C 1r - 4.3C 2v) reveals that the original inner margin was c.
16 mm. The differentiae are written outside the “main frame”, in the outer margin.83 Within the written area, each horizontal unit of 15 x 165 mm, delineated by the blind ruling, contains one system line, with music notation on a four- line staff above text. Except for the top system line, the text is written above top of the system line. Each page in undamaged condition has 15 system lines.
83 Differentiae occur on pages 10, 14-16, 19, 31, 32, 35, 36, 39, 40 and 41. Many are cropped. They have not been taken into consideration in this study. For an image, see page 19.
30
Illustration 1 Ruling details
- The layout of the music notation: the staff
The music symbols of the Fragments, neumes, are written on a four-line staff. The earliest notation of Gregorian chant consisted of adiastematic neumes. Although adiastematic neumes contain much other information for the performance of chant, it is not possible to define exact intervals.84 The oldest known examples of the staff as a means to facilitate the registration of intervals date from the ninth century. Until the middle of the eleventh century, they appear in theoretical treatises only.
The introduction of the staff for singing practice is linked with Guido d’Arezzo (995-1050).
He presumably was the most successful marketer of the idea rather than its inventor. The essence of Guido’s presentation of the concept of the staff was that the previously adiastematic neumes were aligned vertically on a grid that fitted the underlying diatonic system in use at the time. Guido presented the staff in his treatise Prologus in
Antiphonarium in the first half of the eleventh century.85 “Instruction” perhaps is the better word to convey the intention of the Prologus, as it was not meant as a theoretical essay but
84 Susan Rankin, "On the Treatment of Pitch in Early Music Writing," Early Music History 30 (2011), 144. 85 Claude V. Palisca. "Guido of Arezzo." Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com /subscriber/article/grove/music/11968. Accessed March 4, 2013.
31 explicitly as a method to enable young singers to learn the chants by heart from a book, without a teacher.86
The model was prescriptive in the sense that the diatonic character of the church modi backed Guido’s model from a theoretical point of view. Guido received the support of some of the highest ecclesiastical authorities of his time, amongst whom Pope John XIX. Guido introduced his method to him personally in 1030. Guido’s model fitted very well in the standardisation of religious practices as pursued by Pope John. The Pope’s enthusiasm certainly added to politico-religious authority of the Prologus. Cowdrey puts this in perspective: “[T]he liturgical life of the Roman church must be kept in view if the mind and work of an eleventh-century pope are to be understood.” It is in this period that the Roman
Church “proclaimed itself to the world as the head, mother, and mistress of all other
87 churches.”
In practice, the fusion was not flawless. Local performance practices were an essential part of monastic and cathedral traditions. In 1090, in the abbey of Glastonbury, England, a
Norman abbot tried to impose “his” chant style upon the English monks. He met with such resistance against “alien and novel chants from Flemish and Normans” that in the conflict that followed two monks were killed.88 The Norman abbot was William of Volpiano, who, when abbot in Saint-Benigne, France, had added an alphabetical letter notation89 underneath adiastematic neumes in an antiphonary, nowadays known under the siglum MS
Montpellier H 159. For sure, this was an extreme case and it is doubtful whether the
86 Dolores Pesce and Guido, Guido D'Arezzo's Regule Rithmice, Prologus in Antiphonarium, and Epistola Ad Michahelem : A Critical Text and Translation (Ottawa, Canada: Inst. of Mediaeval Music, 1999), 17. 87 H. E. J. Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, 1073-1085 (Oxford; Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1998), 10. 88 Andrew Hughes, "Charlemagne's Chant Or the Great Vocal Shift," Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies 77, no. 4 (2002), 1090. 89 Covering two octaves plus a fifth, represented by the letters A-P. Hucbald of St Amand (c. 840-c. 930) attributed this pitch letter system to Boethius.
32 resistance against an Anglo-Saxon abbot introducing a new chant style instead of by a
Continental conqueror would have been as strong. In early twelfth-century Utrecht the adaptation hopefully was more peaceful than in Glastonbury, but the notators nevertheless tried to maintain melodic nuances in their new music layout, which did not fit into the diatonic system. In his Micrologus, Guido describes the diatonic system that underlays his notation method.90 In eight modes, ending on the finals D, E, F and G and with a different ambitus of the grouping of notes above or around these finals, only one alteration was possible: B could be lowered half a tone. But a lot of contemporary music practice did not fit into this diatonic system. In some cases semitones occurred in places where the modi did not allow for it, and many scholars are convinced nowadays that the music notation in a number of manuscripts, amongst which the Utrecht sources in the present study, even reflects intervals smaller than a semitone.
As will be demonstrated in section 2.3, the Fragments were written in the first quarter of the twelfth century. Some sixty years after Guido wrote his Prologus (c. 1030), probably near
Ferrara,91 his mnemonic ideas are reflected in the layout of music notation in liturgical books used in the northern part of the Low Countries. Marcel Zijlstra points to two early-twelfth- century sources in Utrecht and Holland in which Guido’s work is mentioned. In Utrecht, parts of Guido’s Micrologus appear in the codex U 406.92 In addition, Zijlstra93 quotes Willibrord
Lampen, who states that according to the Annales Egmundensis abbot Allard (abbot of the
Benedictine abbey in Egmond from 1105 - 1120) scribi fecit… musicam Guidonis, in other
90 Guido and Joseph Smits van Waesberghe, Gvidonis Aretini Micrologvs ([S.l.]: American Inst. of Musicology, 1955). 91 Michael Kennedy, "Guido D'Arezzo," Oxford University Press, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/opr/t237/e4572. Accessed December 31, 2012. 92 Marcel Zijlstra and Nienke de Boer, Tractatus De Musica Et Tonarius E Codice Bibliothecae Universitatis Ultraiectensis (Utrecht UB 406) (Utrecht: Instituut voor Muziekwetenschap, Universiteit Utrecht, 1993). 93 Marcel Zijlstra, "Het Officie van Sint Adalbert. Visitekaartje van een middeleeuwse abdij” Egmond tussen Kerk en wereld, eds. Jurjen Vis and Peter Gumbert (Hilversum: Verloren, 1993), 193.
33 words the abbot had music written applying Guidonic principles, i.e. with staves and clefs.94
Smits van Waesberghe, in his biography of Guido, claims three notational improvements related to the staff introduced by him:
1. The lines are drawn closer together, (spicee linee)
2. The lines are distinguished by colours (yellow for the C-line and red for the F-
line)
3. The introduction of clefs.95
Apart from his general approach to apply multiple lines, Guido does not specify the exact number of lines a staff should have. John Haines analysed the development of the staff and shows that in the earliest applications of it in theoretical works, up to and including Guido’s times, notators used the pricks and rulings as staff lines.96 On the expensive parchment this led to a layout of the musical notation, which would be called ‘uneconomical’ nowadays.
Music notators after Guido perfected the system, in some parts only sketched in outline by him.97 It was not until the early twelfth century that a solution was found to the disharmonic proportions between text and music notation.98 Haines credits mainly Cistercian and
Carthusian notators “in the course of the twelfth century” for this improvement.99 The early twelfth-century Benedictines in Utrecht apparently were already aware of these innovations.
This relatively early application of the staff in Utrecht is remarkable in the sense that most
94 Zijlstra 1993, p. 195. He quotes W. Lampen, “De boekenlijst van de oude abdij van Egmond,”in A. Beekman (ed), Tien eeuwen Egmond : ontstaan, bloei en ondergang van de regale abdij van Egmond : een bundel opstellen, verzameld bij gelegenheid van het tiende eeuwfeest der stichting in 1950 (De Toorts, Heemstede 1950), 77. 95 Joseph Smits van Waesberghe, De Musico-Paedagogico Et Theoretico Guidone Aretino Eiusque Vita Et Moribus (Florentiae: L.S. Olschki, 1953), 50. 96 John Haines, "The Origins of the Musical Staff," Musical Quarterly 91, no. 3-4 (2009), 345. 97 Haines, 2009, 330. 98 Haines 2009, 347. 99 Ibid. Cistercians had no monastery in Utrecht until later in the 12th century; the Carthusians as a congregation, became only active after 1148. Haines’ ideas may need revision, when looking at the Utrecht manuscripts.
34 historical research points to closer cultural and political ties with Cologne and its Germanic
Hinterland. The staff was introduced from France via the southern Low Countries, most probably Liège. In the Germanic ecclesiastical cultures, the introduction was much slower; in a number of cases the adiastematic notation was kept in use until the fifteenth century. 100
In the Fragments, all lines of the staff are drawn with a reddish-brown plummet. Contrary to what De Loos assumes for U 406,101 the lines of the Fragments’ staves are not drawn with a rake, but line-by-line102 as can be observed by:
1. Their different lengths,
2. The different total heights of the staves (between 9,2 and 9.6 mm), and
3. The irregular spacing between the lines (between 2,7 and 3.2 mm). This is clearly
visible for instance on page 18 of the digitized Fragments, when enlarged: in the third
staff from above, compare the spacing between the first and the second lines from
below and the other distances between the lines of this staff.
Haines excludes the use of the rake until the thirteenth century.103 The observations regarding folio 4.3A 2v in Stages of copying below confirm the separate drawing of lines.104
Only where needed, the staves are extended beyond the double vertical dry point ruling into the outer margin of the page, in order to notate differentiae. Where an extension of the staff was necessary, it is evident that this was done in one action, rather than extending the staff beyond the written area later on.
100 De Loos 1996, 77. De Loos did non check contemporaneous sources from the Cologne region though. 101 De Loos 1996, 254. 102 These observations run parallel with Haines 2009, 364. 103 Haines 2009, 365. 104 This means that for the 20 folios with music notation, the Fragments contain 20 x 2 x 15 x 5 lines = 3000 lines drawn separately. This reflects the meaning of ‘monkish work’ in Dutch quite precisely: a job, which needs endless patience and perseverance to complete.
35 The notator(s) of the Fragments applied C-clefs, indicated with a “c”, and F-clefs, indicated by a dot at the beginning of the staff, or by an “F” further on, (page 19, fourth systemline, before Patefacte), if a dot might lead to confusion with a punctum neume.
Sometimes, both clefs occur on a staff. In addition to the common b-flat symbol, a special flat sign appears in the Fragments, with an addition that looks very much like a tilde: b~ .105
Colours for the C-line and the F-line, as proposed by Guido, do not occur in the Fragments.
- Letters: colours, sizes, and decoration
For both the music notation and the basic text, brownish-black ink was used. On most legible pages, the colours of the text and the notation differ though: the notation is brownish, the text blackish. This implies two production stages and might suggest a separate text copyist and a music notator. On the other hand, the vertical relation between text and music is faultless and very precise, which could reflect a step-by-step parallel writing procedure for text and the music notation belonging to it (see the section Stages of copying below). Where text and music have faded, both fading and colours of the remaining traces are the same (see for instance pages 23-25).
The height of the letters in the basic text of the chants is between 3-4 mm. Capitals and initials106 of the chants vary from 6 mm up to 60 mm (E fol 149 1v, illuminated initial). There is not enough coherence between the types of capitals on the one hand and the position of chants in feasts on the other hand to extend the table underneath with “meanings” of certain classes.107 The same applies for the relationship between capitals and genre. One might assume that different copyists perhaps have applied different capitalization styles.
105 See for instance on page 18, system line 11. 106 The distinction between a capital and an initial is that the former may occur anywhere in the text, whereas the latter applies to capitals at the margin only. In the Fragments, there are no capitals in the margin, i.e. outside the written area. 107 Andrew Hughes, Medieval Manuscripts for Mass and Office: A Guide to their Organization and Terminology (Toronto London Buffalo University of Toronto press, 1995) , 100-123.
36 But, as I will point out in section 2.3, there appears to have been but one copyist at work in the Fragments, and possibly he was the rubricator/illuminator as well. As will be demonstrated in Stages of copying below, there are certain indications for such a one-man operation. If that applies to all capitals, than we must rule out differences between the capitals as a consequence of different hands at work. The other possibility is that the copyist relied on several manuscripts to produce his antiphonary, or an antiphonary that applied capitals inconsistently. An example: on folio F qu 116 1r, page 3 of the site on which chants for the third Sunday of Advent capitals type 4 refer to unrelated genres and positions in the liturgy of that day.
Class Type Height Colour Penwork red dots and/or 1a small/ capital black below 1st staff line lines cap. below 1st 1b rubric red none line/standard lettering on/over 1st and 2nd 2b capital red none lines on/over 1st and 2nd 2a capital black red dot(s) lines 3 capital on/over 2nd line black red dot(s) 4a capital on/over 3rd line red none 4b capital on/over 3rd line green red lines touching 4th 5a initial red none (highest) staff line 5b capital touching 4th line green red lines touching 2 system 6 initial red none lines touching 4 system yellow, blue, 7 initial illuminated lines green, red, lack Table 4 Letter sizes and letter colours
There are two illuminated letters of class 7 in the Fragments: one on E fol 149 1v (page
38), the other is on E fol 149 6r (page 9) Both initials are four system lines high. The illuminations have an identical style. The illuminated initial on E fol 149 1v is an “F”. The
37 background shows some faint greenish brushing, but the illumination looks rather unfinished.108 The illumination of the “H” on fol 149 6r is complete though.
The initial is brushed with blue, yellow, green, and red paint. A description of illuminated initials in manuscripts of the Benedictine monastery of Reichenau (Germany) has such a striking likeness to the initials of E fol 149, that it can be applied without restriction to these initials:
“Stilphase 1 (LL: around the turn of the eleventh to the twelfth
century): Rote oder braune Federzeichnung. Die Binnengründe und
die Initialen selbst wurden gelegentlich in grün oder blau hinterlegt.
Der Binnengrund ist gefüllt mit schlanken, dynamisch schnellenden
und wild windenden Ranken mit zarten Knospen. Den
Buchstabenschaft teilen unterbrochene Spaltleisten, zwischen die
eine Spange wie ein schmales längliches Feld eingearbeitet ist Sie
weisen meist Zierklammern am Schaft auf, aus denen schlanke
Ranken herausbrechen, die in Knospen, Pfeilspitzblättern oder drei-,
seltener vierblättrigen Blüten enden. Die Spaltleisten können auch
von den Ranken unterbrochen sein.“109
108 The calendar (see Appendix 2) is unfinished as well. I have no idea whether these unfinished items could have a common explanation. 109 Christine Szkiet, Reichenauer Codices in Schaffhausen: die frühen Handschriften des Schaffhäuser Allerheiligenklosters und ihre Stellung in der südwestdeutschen Buchmalerei des 11. Jahrhunderts (Kiel: Ludwig, 2005), 29-30.
38 Jaski points to similarities with illuminations in other manuscripts of St Paul’s and to style of the Rhine region more in general.110 I will come back on the significance of these illuminated initials in their liturgical context below.
The rubrics are written in red ink and with a wider quilt than used for the standard text.
The spacing is wider as well. Sometimes there is a mixture of small and capital letters. In antiphonaries, a complete rubrication system would include:
1. The feast
2. The Office (First Vespers, Compline, Matins etc.)
3. The genre of the chant.
In the Fragments, the second element of the rubrication system in many cases is missing.
As stated, the variable sizes and colours of capitals and initials as listed in table 4 cannot be linked to specific liturgical positions. Some rubrics indicating the Office are placed after the first words of the incipit. The genres of the individual chants are indicated as usual: a antiphon r responsory v verse ps psalm
The invitatory antiphons are mentioned under Invitatorium (see for instance E 149 1r, 03, before Confessorum regem adoremus on page 37 of the digitised manuscript).
- A calendar
E fol 149 2v (page 6), underneath three system lines, shows a presumably111 unfinished list of incipits with chants for December,112 written between the columns of a arcade drawn
110 Jaski 2012, 145. 111 “Presumably”, because it is not clear to me what was the exact purpose of this list. 112 Jaski assumed that this calendar refers to January. Jaski 2012, 121.
39 in simple red pen work (unfinished also) in a style not uncommon for the Utrecht region in that time.113 The columns underneath the four round arches are wrapped in acanthus leaves, which turn into a kind of collar without becoming capitals. A transcription of the calendar’s content can be found in Appendix 2. At the top of folio 149 4r (page 7), four arches are drawn in red ink (cut off). Columns and other elements lack here. This page has no other content and shows traces of scraping.
- Some annotations
The Fragments contain some contemporary glosses, which - as far as legible - are related to the liturgy. Invariably they are written in the staff between the third and the fourth line from below in dark brown-black ink. On the last staff of X fol 88 1r (page 28), a contemporary hand has added two annotations. The first addition reads In hyeme, the second reads In estate, meaning “in winter” and “in summer” respectively. On X fol 88 fol 2r/7 (page
27)between the same lines of the staff is written In se[cun]dis vesperis. In system line 12 on the same page, Sabb[ato] in evangelio was added. In secundis vesperis was added on X fol 88 fol 2v/2 (page 28) as well.
On four pages we find exlibris, written in late fifteenth-century Gothic script: Folios 4.3A 1v
(page 3, provenance: E fol 66), 4.3C 1 fol 1 2r (page 25, E fol 68), E fol 149 2r (page 5) and F qu 116 1v (page 40)114: Liber monasterij Sancti pauli In traiecto inferiorij. Several hands presumably wrote them when the fragments were added as flyleaves to the books mentioned before. Other, more recent annotations (s. XIX-early XX, in pencil) have a cataloguing background, sometimes referring to folios with similar content in U 406. On a number of pages appears the stamp of Utrecht University Library.
113 Jaski, ibid. 114 Fragments online page 3, fol 4.3A 1v (provenance: E fol 66), page 5, fol 4.3C 1 fol 1 2r (E fol 68), page 25, E fol 149 2r and page 40, F qu fol 116 1v.
40 - Stages of copying
On folio 4.3A 2v (Fragments online, system line 10, page 41) the subsequent steps when writing text and music still are visible. The initial “V” of the responsory Videntes ioseph a longe (Dom. 3 Quadragesimae) covers two system lines and touches a third one. In handbooks about manuscripts it is generally assumed that the standard process was that titles and initials were written only after the ink text had been written.115 Here, I observe something different. The initial must have been drawn before the staves, since the lines of two staves touch the right stem of the “V”, following its inclination downwards. The clefs (a
“c” for the C-clef and a dot for the F-clef) follow this inclination as well. In addition, the initial must have been drawn before the remainder of the text and the music was written, since the music notation and the corresponding text are written ‘around’ the spot where the overshoot of the “V” touches the third staff. It seems that this copyist started with the initial and subsequently drew the staves before writing the music and the text. These observations are interesting in the light of the assumptions in some standard books about manuscripts that most often titles and initials were written only after the text had been written, mostly by specialists.116
2.3 Palaeographical characteristics
Text
The script of the basic text is the German variant of the later Caroline miniscule, the so- called “slanting oval”. It can be classified as pregothic and dated as early- 12th century (1100-
1125), based upon
115 Raymond Clemens and Timothy Graham, Introduction to Manuscript Studies (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2007), 21. The palaeographical nomenclature used here is the one applied in this book. 116 Ibid.
41 • A rather widely written, round ductus
• An “e” with old “tongue stroke”, still almost Caroline
• The old “a”, still almost Caroline (upright)
• The “r” has the tendency to go below the line
• “m” and “n” with downward feet, sometimes to the right
• No letter fusions, no kissing letters117
For all these observations, please check page 2 of the digitised Fragments.
U 406 will play an important role in the analysis of the present study. No author thus far added his or her palaeographical observations to statements about the dating of the manuscript, an omission that will be dealt with here. According to De Loos, the antiphonary in codex U 406 was completed in the second half of the twelfth century, but she does not provide any arguments for this dating. In comparison with the palaeographical analysis of the Fragments, U 406 displays the following style elements of the same Caroline miniscule:
• No letter fusions, “pp” unconnected, no ‘kissing’ letters
• “m” and “n” with downward feet, sometimes to the right
• The “h” with both feet on the line
• The “d” already uncial (with a “trumpet” shape)
• The “s” is already uncial.
For all these observations, please check U 406 f 12r118
117 I thank Erik Kwakkel at Leiden University for providing the dating of the Fragments and the re-dating of the antiphonary in the codex U 406. See also: Erik Kwakkel, "Biting, Kissing and the Treatment of Feet: The Transitional Script of the Long Twelfth Century,” Turning Over a New Leaf: Change and Development in the Medieval Script, eds. Erik Kwakkel, Rosamond McKitterick and Rodney M. Thomson (Leiden: Leiden University Press, 2012), 79-126. 118 A digitised copy of U 406 is accessible via http://www.diamm.ac.uk/ (Digital Image Archive of Medieval Music). Registration required (free).
42 According to Kwakkel the dating of the U 406 script is between 1100 and 1150, but the script in the Fragments is definitely older than the script in U 406. In other words, this analysis confirms the statements of De Loos regarding the relative difference between the two sources. However, Kwakkel’s opinion would shift U 406 into the first half of the twelfth century as well, whereas De Loos assumed, that the manuscript dates from the second half of the twelfth century.119
The general finishing of the Fragment’s script reflects a more or less standard quality.
Many capitals are still executed in Carolingian style, see for instance the ‘D’ at the bottom of page 28.120 In a number of cases the opening words of the incipits are executed in the
Carolingian bilinear capitalis rustica, which could indicate that the scriptor used a Carolingian example for his copy. See for instance page 41, Videntes Ioseph a longe.
119 This revised dating can be linked perhaps to the re-consecration of St Mary’s in 1132, after a fire destroyed a major part of the church. In U 406, between the feasts of In decollatione sancti iohannis baptistae (August 29) and In nativitate sanctae mariae (September 8) a consecration is mentioned: In dedicatione altaris ad occidentalem partem templi. The Martyrologium of St Mary’s Church mentions Dedicatio altaris occidentalis on September 6 (De Loos 1996, 90, 256). Following Kwakkel’s estimation about the dating, one could tentatively put the terminus post quem for the completion of U 406 around 1132, speculatively supposing, that the antiphonary was needed for the office in the newly consecrated church. In that case the musical notation of neumes on staves arrived earlier in the diocese of Utrecht than assumed thus far. The dating of both the Fragments and U 406 then would bring them closer to that of MS12 of the St Trond abbey (Liège, University Library manuscript 12. See De Loos 1997, x). In the twelfth century, St Trond, was suffragan to the archdiocese of Metz (I thank Karl Kügle for this addition). This manuscript thus far has been considered to be one of the earliest sources with neumes on staves in the Utrecht-Stavelot-Trier group. Although all political and ecclesiastical ties predominantly link Utrecht to Germany and more specifically to Cologne, some monastic connections with Ghent and Brugues in the first quarter of the twelfth century are intriguing. Declercq refers to the links between the Utrecht bishop Andreas (bishop 1128-1139) and the Cluniac reform that possibly took effect in these regions in the early twelfth century via Flanders. In Egmond these reforms were implemented on instigation of the Utrecht bishop Andreas via Benedictines from St Peter’s abbey in Ghent (the Egmond abbey fell under the jurisdiction of the bishop of Utrecht). Andreas consecrated a Ghent monk Walter (Wouter) as abbot of Egmond in 1130 (Georges Declercq, “Van 'Renovatio ordinis' tot 'Traditio romana', De abdij van Egmond en de Vlaamse kloosterhervorming van de 12e eeuw,” Jurjen Vis and Peter Gumbert (eds), Egmond tussen Kerk en wereld (Verloren, Hilversum 1993), 163-179. The first abbot of the Cistercian abbey of St Laurens’ in Oostbroek near Utrecht, Ludolf, consecrated by bishop Andreas’ predecessor Godebald in 1122, came from Brugues, Flanders as well (Charlotte Broer, Monniken in het moeras: de vroegste geschiedenis van de abdij van Sint-Laurens in het Oostbroek bij Utrecht (Broer, Utrecht 2011), 46-47). 120 I thank Hans Kienhorst, Nijmegen University, for an interview that improved my understandings of the Fragments’ script.
43 The only punctuation in the Fragments are the puncti elevati at the end of each chant or its incipit, if that is the only text given. At the end of the responsoria, after a punctus elevatus, the repetenda are indicated by their first word, followed by a punctus elevatus again. See for instance page 15, system line 7: Ecce video. There are relatively few abbreviations and ligatures in the texts and only in places where they cannot cause confusion interpreting the notation above it. I analysed the Fragments for possible different hands. Two kinds of ampersands looked promising, but other characteristics (uncial “d”, several appearances of “g” as well as of “x”) could not be linked in a consistent way.121
Neumes
“It is difficult to classify neumes.”122 The basic forms are the virga and the punctum, for lower (accentus gravis) and higher pitches (accentus acutus) respectively. After 150 years of scholarly debate, the current opinion is that these two neumes, which stand at the basis of the neume system, originally were grammatical notations indicating the inflection of the voice when reading a text aloud.123 All other neumes can be understood as combinations and extensions of these signs, mostly indicated as “compound neumes”.124 The monks of
Solesmes, in their series Paléographie Musicale125 distinguish a number of regionally defined neume families. For the present thesis their distinction between the French and the
Germanic families is relevant. The neumes in both regions can be characterized as accent neumes, defined as a notation in which, within the same chant, the virga represents a relatively higher note, and a punctum a relatively lower one. Another quality of accent
121 Hans Kienhorst agreed that the differences are no clear indications for several hands. 122 Solange Corbin, "Die Neumen," Palaeographie der Musik, nach den Plaenen Leo Schrades, eds. Wulf Arlt and Leo Schrade (Köln: Arno Volk-Verlag, H. Gerig, 1973), 3.5. 123 Rankin 2011, 110. 124 ibidem. 125 Paléographie Musicale. Facsimilés Phototypiques Des Principaux Manuscrits De Chant Grégorien, Ambrosien, Mozarabe, Gallican. Publiée Par Les Bénédictins De L'Abbaye De Solesmes. (Solesmes, 1889, etc: , 1889).
44 neumes is the occurrence of signs that represent two or more notes. Kenneth Levy terms accent neumes as conjunct neumes for this reason.126 The latter group of neumes may be the reflection of a basically different approach of music. Greek theorist had two models to speculate about music, as “discrete” and as “continuous.” Boethius compares the continuous style with a rainbow.127 Andrew Hughes, quoting David Hiley and Timothy
McGee, is convinced that these neumes reflect a florid performance style, in which pitches were connected and “imprecise”; as a consequence, melody was secondary in a style that also can be characterized as “ornamental.”128 Hughes in 2002 has to admit that this all is quite speculative, be it that he only applies the findings from other scholars in a different context. From another perspective, Susan Rankin in 2011 concludes that in the adiastematic notation other elements than pitch were considered to be more important. The registration of the elements speed, loudness, timbre, and emphasis had another balance of importance in comparison to pitch.
The performance of chant, in spite of diastematic notation, still was far from uniform. De
Loos quotes an early-twelfth century and a thirteenth century chronicle, telling about performative Entfremdung experienced by travelling monks, visiting other Benedictine monasteries.129 The oldest known reference to these differences can be found in the chronicles or the abbey of St Trond, now Belgium. A new cantor had arrived from Southern
Germany, the monk Rudolf. He taught chant and Guidonic music notation. The local performance of chant was so different, that Rudolf decided to write a new notated
Graduale, but he did not succeed registering the way in which the St Trond monks sang
126 Kenneth Levy, "On the Origin of Neumes," Early Music History 7 (1987), 80-81. 127 Rankin 2011, 106. 128 Hughes 2002, 1081. 129 De Loos 1996, 182.
45 them.130 In the thirteenth century, the abbot Emo from the Premonstratensian abbey of
Wittewiersum visited the abbey of Prémontré between Reims and Amiens in northern
France. In a letter to his monastery we wrote that the Prémontré congregation sang
“Semitonium quoque voce valde circumflexa cantant”: “they also sing the semitone with an exceedingly bent voice”.131
For the same chant melody, we encounter regional variations in the neumes applied; and even if the neumes are the same, especially in the case of compound neumes, there is no guarantee that the symbols reflect the same melodic content. In addition, like in our times, music notation only to a very limited extent is able to register acoustic phenomena. It is but a mnemonic tool, leaving many nuances to its performer(s).
In Chapter 2 of her dissertation, De Loos describes the adiastematic and early diastematic music notation of the Low Countries and more specifically the notation in U 406.132 Most neumes in the Low Countries (in De Loos’s dissertation: “the Netherlands, Belgium and the western regions of Germany”133) are accent neumes, with characteristics of both “German” and “French” neumes. Next to U 406, as representative of the manuscripts of the Low
Countries, De Loos analysed five antiphonaries from Bamberg Cathedral and the Hartker antiphonary Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek 390-391. The manuscripts from Bamberg were selected by De Loos because they are representatives of the east Frankish tradition (in which e and b in melodic lines often are substituted by f and c respectively) in transition from adiastematic to diastematic notation, which in Bamberg took place about a century later
130 Marco Mostert, "Kennisoverdracht in het klooster. Over de plaats van lezen en schrijven in de vroeg- middeleeuwse monastieke opvoeding," Scholing in de middeleeuwen, eds. R. E. V. Stuip and C. Vellekoop (Hilversum: Verloren, 1995), 111-112. Quoted by De Loos 1996, 182. 131 H. P. H. Jansen and A. Janse, Kroniek van het klooster Bloemhof te Wittewierum (Hilversum: Verloren, 1991), 38-39. Quoted by De Loos 1996, 182. According to De Loos this might refer to the performance of microtonal intervals. 132 De Loos 1996, 72-96. 133 De Loos 1996, 75.
46 than in Utrecht.134 In order to analyse the presumed local microtonal notation more in depth, NL-Uc ABM 62 was consulted as well. This Missal, currently held by the Catharijne
Convent in Utrecht was presumably written in Utrecht around the year 1200.
She disagrees with Smits van Waesberghe’s classification of the Utrecht neumes as a mix of neumes from Metz and the Meuse region. Several neumes classified by Smits as characteristic for the style, do not appear in a number of manuscripts written in Utrecht.135
Among other things, De Loos refers to the angular clivis, which does not occur in the Utrecht manuscripts, yet they are mentioned as characteristic for the regional notation by Smits. In her description, De Loos lists the features of the adiastematic neumes in the Low Countries, distinguishing two sub-categories with a different notation of the oriscus in the pressus minor.136 Next, she describes the diastematic notation of the region (the third sub-category), which she characterises as the Utrecht-Stavelot-Trier group named after the cities where the manuscripts were written presumably.137 According to De Loos this notation originated in
Utrecht churches in the twelfth century. As remaining witnesses of this notation style in
Utrecht she mentions U 406 (used in St Mary’s, Utrecht) and the fragments of St Paul’s known to her at that moment, the latter being the oldest representatives of this notational tradition (“around the middle or the second half of the twelfth century”).138
While these notations may be the oldest specimens known of this notation as of now, there is no ground to assume that the origin of this notation is to be sought in Utrecht. As
134 De Loos 1996, 21. 135 Joseph Smits van Waesberghe, "Die Rheno-Mosa-Mosellanische Neumenschrift," Dia-Pason = De Omnibus : Ausgewählte Aufsätze Von Joseph Smits Van Waesberghe : Festgabe Zu Seinem 75. Geburtstag (Buren: F. Knuf, 1976), 108-112. 136 De Loos 1996, 83. 137 Trier: Marburg , Westdeutsche Bibliothek, Lat. Quart. 664 and Trier, Stadtbibliothek 2254/2197. Stavelot: London, British Library Add. 18031-32. Wagner and Corbin both classify the neumes in the Stavelot and Trier manuscripts as German. Peter Wagner, Neumenkunde: Palaeographie des liturgischen Gesanges, Vol. I (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1912a), 331-333, Corbin 1973, 3.69. 138 De Loos 1996, 88.
47 long as we are not sure about the origin of the manuscripts in which this notation appears it is difficult to say anything about the origin of the script. In addition, not enough manuscripts survived to reconstruct the regional and chronological development of this neume group.139
De Loos summarizes the characteristics of the neumes from the Utrecht-Stavelot-Trier group as follows:140
• The writing is narrow and almost completely vertical (virga, pes, torculus and
porrectus).
• Rhythmical symbols are lacking.
• The virga has a little head and reminds of the later Hufnagel script.
• The pes is angular.
• The torculus starts with an almost closed c-curve.141
• The clivis and porrectus have a continuous hinge.
• The oriscus is written as a strophe with an upward hairline to the right (in most
positions)
• The pressus connections may be written with a separate oriscus (French style) or
with an angular line.
• The use of neume letters.
• Neumes representing microtonal intervals.
• Hairlines on (mostly) clivis at e-, b- and a-under-b-flat positions.
139 Given the cultural importance of Liège at the time, in combination with the fact that the staff made its way up from the South, churches and monasteries in the diocese of Liège (Liège, St Truiden, Tongeren, Rolduc) even may be more probable candidates for the emergence of this style than Utrecht churches. De Loos mentions that Abbot Radulphus of the Benedictine monastery of St Truiden was famous for his musical talents. He introduced the staff in his monastery around 1100, when correcting ‘deviant’ ways of plainchant in the monastery. The Fragments have been written around the same time. (Ike De Loos, "Drama als liturgie - liturgie als drama," in Spel en spektakel, eds. Hans van Dijk and Bart Ramakers (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2001), 37. 140 De Loos 1996, 89. 141 For the terminology see http://www.notaquadrata.ca/index.html (University of Toronto). Accessed March 4, 2013.
48 • The sequences of neume symbols in melodic chains are very similar to the
sequences in the Hartker antiphonaries 390-391.142
The neumes in the Fragments have the same characteristics as those in U 406. The neumes of the Fragments and a list of U 406’s neumes as drawn up by De Loos are presented in Appendix 3. Subsequently, De Loos describes notation conventions for virga, punctum and quilisma in U 406, analysed in a database, which she calls her “neumenturver”
(neume scorer).143 I present her findings in the following sections and combine them with my own findings related to the Fragments.
- Virga and punctum
Both virga and punctum144 are used as isolated accent neumes, representing one note.
Usually, within the same chant or a phrase thereof, the virga represents a relatively higher note, the punctum a relatively lower note. In comparison to other manuscripts, the number of puncta in U 406 is very low. The Hartker antiphonaries score puncta on all relatively low melodic positions (between two other neumes, whereas the notator of U 406 applies the punctum mainly at the absolute lowest position, namely that of the finalis. If the punctum has a higher position in the melodic context, it mostly occurs in authentic modes.145 In this respect, U 406 is special. East Frankish and west Frankish notations tend to apply virga in the highest melodic regions only.
In the Fragments the virga and punctum are applied as in the Hartker antiphonaries.
- Quilisma
142 St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 390. 143 De Loos 1996, 109 ff. I here summarize her findings as presented in Part 2, chapters IV and V. 144 De Loos 1996, pp. 123-129. 145 De Loos 129.
49 The quilisma146 is an ornamental neume of which the performance still is not completely clear. Hartker and U 406 register the highest number of quilismas in the manuscripts compared by de Loos. The quilisma in U 406 is notated with two c-curves. Usually, the quilisma represents an upward sequence of three pitches, of which one interval can be semitonal, 147 or (according to the scholars who investigated microtonality in Gregorian chant) microtonal.148 In the Fragments the use of the quilisma is identical to its use in U 406.
- Special signs
A tractulus (a tilde-like (~) neume) appears in a melisma once.149 Significative letters to represent agogic nuances and other features do not occur in the Fragments, contrary to U
406. In line with De Loos’s observations for U 406, neither do episemata occur in the
Fragments.
Microtonal intervals
The precise notation of purported microtonal neumes is one of the characteristics of the
Utrecht-Stavelot-Trier notation and deserves extra attention here.
The tonal system linked to the Guidonian staff is diatonic. Its range is two octaves plus a fifth. The b quadratum in the second and third octave may be lowered half a tone to b rotundum. The total set is as follows:
Γ A B C D E F G a ♭ ♮ c d e f g a ♭ ♮ c d
Many scholars since the second half of the nineteenth century150 have suggsted that the application of Guido’s staff in certain regions represented more than just pasting neumes on
146 Idem, 130-143. 147 Corbin 1979, 3.190. 148 Ferreira 1997, 242. 149 Stephani, Intuens in caelum, U 406 f 27r ,stantem 150 Manuel Pedro Ferreira, “Music at Cluny: The Tradition of Gregorian Chant for the Proper of the Mass— Melodic Variants and Microtonal Nuances” (PhD diss., Princeton University, Ann Arbor 1997), 168. Ferreira lists 27 studies relating to this discovery between 1854 and 1996.
50 lines, which define diatonic intervals. In that context, the suppression of another tonal system that allowed for non-diatonic intervals was a by-product of the introduction of the
Guidonian staff. From this point of view, the staff most probably eliminated a performance tradition.
The most recent extensive study about micro tonality in plainchant is Manuel Ferreira’s doctoral dissertation Music at Cluny (1997), whose arguments I present here. In 1854
Alexandre-Joseph-Hydulphe Vincent151 opened the discourse about microtonal intervals as notated in the then recently rediscovered Tonary of Montpellier.152 The Tonary, written in the second half of the tenth century, includes two kinds of notation. Below the music notation in adiastematic French neumes the alphabetic notation (ascribed to William of
Volpiano) is added (a to p, representing the same ambitus as listed above). Between the mi- fa (solmized) positions Greek musical symbols do appear.153
151 Alexandre-Joseph-Hydulphe Vincent, "Emploi des quarts de ton dans le chant grégorien constaté sur l'antiphonaire de Montpellier." Revue Archeologique XI (1854), 262-272. 152 Montpellier, Bibliothèque Inter-Universitaire, Section Médecine, Manuscript. H159. 153 Adapted graphical representation after Nancy Phillips, "Notationen und Notationslehren von Boethius bis zum 12. Jahrhundert," Die Lehre vom einstimmigen liturgischen Gesang. Geschichte der Musiktheorie, vol. 4, ed. Thomas Ertelt and Frieder Zaminer (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2000), 550. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/antiphonary_of_St._Benigne. Accessed March 5, 2013. Joseph Gmelch in his dissertation (Joseph Gmelch, "Die Viertelstonstufen Im Messtonale Von Montpellier" (PhD diss., Freiburg University, Freiburg 1911) characterises these signs as Greek, referring to tables by Alypius (fourth century A.C.).
51
Illustration 2 A representation of three tonal systems (after Nancy Phillips), see footnote 154.
Greek enharmonic tonal systems allowed for two kinds of non-diatonic intervals: semitones and dieses, the latter representing intervals smaller than a semitone. The Greek musical theories were transmitted through late Antique Latin works. Macrobius in his
Commentarii in somnium Scipionis mentions quartertones (sic) in Pythagorean theory;
Martianus Capella refers to microtonal intervals in the tetrachordal divisions by Aristoxenos.
Boethius, possibly the most influential writer about music theory in the Middle Ages, in his
De institutione musica describes the diesis in the enharmonic genus, created by dividing the semitone in two unequal parts: the semitonus minor and the semitones maior. Medieval authors between the ninth and the twelfth century in their works and glosses in the (Latin) copies of Greek theorists, dealing with Pythagorean tuning, confirm the predominant definition of diesis as half a semitone or “quartertone”. In these sources the prominent role of the monochord in defining intervals – explicitly including microtonal intervals – becomes clear, its application meant for theory and for practice.154
154 Christian Meyer, Mensura Monochordi : La Division Du Monocorde, IXe-XVe Siècles (Paris: Société française de musicologie : Editions Klincksieck, 1996).
52 In De Harmonica institutione, a treatise about the performance of chant, Hucbald (around
880) makes a difference between a smaller and a larger semi tonal interval.155 Remigius of
Auxerre (second half of ninth century) describes the diesis as a subdivision of a whole tone in two, three or four parts, not necessarily of equal parts.156
Ferreira pays extensive attention to the interpolation of Guido’s Micrologus, chapter X, written by an anonymous commentator.157 Ferreira presents his own translation of the interpolation, since it was not included in earlier translations of Micrologus.158 The interpolator starts with introducing four modes (protus, deuterus, tritus and tetrardus) with the correct sequence of tone and semitone intervals. He urges singers to stick to the intervals as written; otherwise the modal qualities are lost. Correct or incorrect intervals may be related to the interpretation of the underlying modal system or to lowering of pitches.
Vel quasdam facimus subductiones trito, quae dieses appellantur, cum
non oporteat eas in usum admittere nisi supervenientibus certis locis
Translation by Ferreira:
Or when we make certain subtractions from the value of the tritus,
which are called dieses, though they should not be admitted into use
except in certain places.
The interpolator explains diesis as a subtraction that reaches about midway to the following semitone and that its use is only allowed on the third and the sixth degree, which
155 Martin Gerbert, Scriptores Ecclesiastici De Musica Sacra Potissimum (Milano: Bollettino Bibliografico Musicale, 1931), 109. 156 Cora E. Lutz, Remigii Autissiodorensis Commentum in Martianum Capellam (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965), 329. 157 Ferreira does not exclude that Guido himself wrote the interpolation. Ferreira 1997, 186. 158 Ferreira 1997, 189-215.
53 counting from A as prima vox is the C and the F. The interpolator warns against replacing semitones by quartertones (sic) in other positions. But singers who replace semitones by whole tones make the same kind of mistake. If we look at the so-called east Frankish tradition as notated (partly) in the Utrecht manuscripts, we actually see one divergence from the interpolator’s rules surfacing: the preference for substituting E by F and B by C.
Most scholars agree upon the microtonal diesis concept, be it that different interpretations are possible, depending of how the monochord was used to find the right intonation of the interval between the semitone and the diesis. Boethius described the easy way: “divide the space for the semitone in two equal parts.” The interpolator of Micrologus’
Chapter X follows a more complicated route to construct the diesis on the monochord, resulting in an interval that is equal to Ptolemy’s lower interval of the tonic diatonic tetrachord. This equals about 63 cents or 3/10 of a tone.159
Ferreira’s conclusion is that a “Mediterranean, Hellenized musical practice” including microtonal intervals lies at the roots of Gregorian chant. 160 It would be beyond the scope of this study to elaborate extensively on this part of Ferreira’s dissertation, but I would like to end this section with a few references to other theories about the transmission of micro tonality in Gregorian chant. François-Auguste Gevaert (neglected in all recent references about this subject, Ferreira included) mentions the possible influence of Hellenised
Christians from Syria,161 of whom several became Pope,162 rather than to direct Byzantine
159 Ferreira 1997, 202. 160 Ferreira 1997, 221. 161 François Auguste Gevaert, La mélopée antique dans le chant de l'église latine (Gand: A. Hoste, 1895), xxxii, xxxiii, 63. 162 The Syrian popes in this era were: John V (687), Serguis I (701), Sisinnius (708), Constantine I (715), and Gregory III (732). John V (685-686), before his election, was the representative of the pope at Constantinople. Sergius I (687-701) introduced, the prayer "Agnus Dei" at the moment of the breaking of the bread; he also solemnized the celebration of the four principal feasts of the Blessed Virgin: The Nativity, the Purification, the Annunciation, and the Dormition. John VII (705-707) was a patron of the arts, responsible for the early mosaics of St. Peter's Basilica and the frescoes at St. Mary Antiqua, the finest extant examples of the art of his time.
54 influences at that time. Rebecca Maloy163 and Oliver Gerlach164 both point to Byzantium.
These views can be put in line with Ferreira’s cautious hypothesis about an early transmission of eastern Mediterranean microtonal elements in Gregorian chant via the
Carolingian court in Aachen.165 He does not refer to the possibility that the Franks might have known microtonal intervals. Ferreira assumes that the remarkable survival of micro tonality in the Utrecht-Stavelot-Trier notation during almost two centuries after the introduction of the staff in this region166 points to a strong tradition. This tradition may have found its origin in the imperial court in Aachen, located at the centre of the notation’s catchment area.
A completely different hypothesis is that microtonal elements were a relative late phenomenon. Research in progress investigates the possibility that cultural exchanges between the West and the East via the Crusades (the first crusade took place between 1096 and 1099) and pilgrimages to Santiago (reported since the eight century) and Jerusalem since the eleventh century (re)introduced micro tonality to Western Europe.167 It will be interesting to see in these studies how the results have been linked to the rather frequent and well-documented statements about microtonal aspects of chant performance by authors in the ninth and tenth century already and to the MS Montpellier H159, dating from the second half of the tenth century.
Gregory III (731-741) was a Benedictine monk of Syrian origin. He organized the religious structure of Germany under St. Boniface as Metropolitan. It was he who obtained the political sovereignty of Rome (with himself as temporal ruler) from Pepin the Short. From: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2741. Accessed March 5, 2013. 163 Rebecca Maloy, Inside the Offertory: Aspects of Chronology and Transmission Inside the Offertory (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2010). 164 Oliver Gerlach, Im Labyrinth des Oktōīchos. Über die Rekonstruktion mittelalterlicher Improvisationspraktiken in liturgischer Musik, Vol. 1-2 (Berlin: s.n., 2006). 165 Gevaert denies explicitly the occurrence of micro tonality in Gregorian chant, calling it an “artifice bizarre”. Gevaert 1895, 130, fn. 4. 166 Cf. NL-Uc ABM 62, written in Utrecht around 1200. This Missal has many special neumes and is one of the reference sources in Ferreira’s dissertation. 167 Prof. Stephan Klöckner during an interview in Essen (Germany) on January 17, 2013. I thank Prof. Klöckner for sharing his views with me about research currently carried out under his supervision.
55 An author who straightforwardly denies the existence of micro tonality in plainchant is
Jacques Froger.168 Ferreira analyses the opinion of Froger in detail. Since Froger is the most recent opponent of the idea of microtonal interval in plainchant, Ferreira’s arguments in favour of microtonality concentrate on Froger’s refutation of it. The essence of the proponents’ views is that in several, defined constellations the signs indicate a microtonal position between mi-fa. Froger only recognizes a step lower than fa, which only can be mi, according to him. The discussion concentrated on the interpretation of the music notation of the word ‘adiutor’ in the Gradual Tibi Domine169 in Montpellier H 159. A controversial pitch, on the first and second syllables following a mi (by the overwhelming majority of authors cited by Ferreira interpreted as a microtonal pitch) is the result of a correction. Corrections normally are considered to be improvements, or changes that reflect the contemporary theory or practice. Froger considers this to be an error. Froger sees his case strengthened by
Finn Hansen’s edition of the manuscript170 and links an assumption that the correction belongs to the third layer of the manuscript to a lack of historical authority of it. Here emerges this strange reverse teleology that the oldest version is the best. But manuscripts containing notated chants have no Urtext that is definitive and later can be corrupted (as assumed in the traditional philological approach). Froger neglects Hansen’s remark elsewhere in his edition that the correction most probably belongs to the first layer.
Raillard171 compared this passage in thirty manuscripts and came to the conclusion that it contains a pitch between mi and fa. Gmelch172 pointed to the consistent placing of the virga,
168 Jacques Froger, "Les pretendus quarts de ton dans le chant grégorien et les symboles du ms. H. 159 de Montpellier," Études Gregoriennes XVII (1978), 145-178. 169Tibi Domine de relictus est pauper pupillo tu eris adjutor, Sabb. Hebd. 4 Quad. 170 Finn Egeland Hansen, "Editorial Problems Connected with the Transcription of H 159, Montpellier: Tonary of St. Benigne De Dijon," Études Gregoriennes XVI (1977), 161-172. 171Felix Raillard, “Emploi des quarts de ton dans le chant l’eglise,” Revue archéologique 15 (1858), 487-491. 172Gmelch 1911.
56 never in unison with or below a following isolated punctum, which pleads for the microtonal interpretation of the passage concerned. Corbin confirms the conclusions by Gmelch that the manuscript undeniably contains indications for microtonal intervals.173 Froger evades
this argument. Further, Froger denied Raillard’s earlier observation of the
occurrence of the special
(microtonal) clivis and torculus in the Cluny Gradual (Clu 1), instead Illustration 4 Microtonal clivis interpreting it as a virga strata (or gutturalis). Froger also rejects Raillard’s
observation of a special torculus, a prolongated torculus. This is against all
palaeographical evidence, according to Ferreira, who checked 165
Illustration 3 Normal Clivis occurrences of the gutturalis and 38 cases in which the torculus appears in
this manuscript.174 According to Froger, the special signs relate to rhythmical
prolongations. But Ferreira concludes that in such context, the symbols
would reflect a highly inconsistent use of them (as Froger reluctantly admits
Illustration 5 himself) and it would contradict all tradition as far as recorded in the oldest Microtonal porrectus extant manuscripts. In addition to that, why would those supposedly
rhythmical symbols only occur in semitone positions and amidst an
Illustration 5 alphabetical pitch notation? Respectively in 1980 and 1993, Michel Huglo Normal Porrectus and David Hiley have the same doubts about Froger’s arguments (Huglo: “l’hypothèse
<
Ferreira’s that the rhythmical interpretation by Froger seems impossible to defend any longer.
173 Corbin 1973, 3.103. 174 Ferreira 1997, 173. 175 Michel Huglo in Scriptorium, 34 (1980), 43.
57 In line with De Loos’s interpretations of neumes representing microtonal intervals in U
406, in the Fragments, two micro-chromatic neume symbols occur, a micro-clivis and a micro-porrectus. The former occurs 19 times, mostly in a b-c pitch position, sometimes in an e-f position. The positions in the melodic elements (about which more in Chapter 3) vary and are not limited to middle cadences like in the as mentioned by De Loos.176
In the analysed fragments, the micro clivis is the only microtonal symbol. The micro- porrectus appears but once (also in U 406 its appearance is rare). The special b-flat symbol seeming to represent a correction of the standard b rotundum has been mentioned already.
Ferreira’s analysis of microtonal neumes leads to considerably more symbols to be interpreted as representing microtonal intervals. In Appendix 2 of his dissertation, Ferreira in four sources and ninety pieces registers 689 occurrences of notations that reflect microtonal intervals.177 Ferreira lists many more neume symbols as microtonal because he applies a methodology by which microtonal significance is partly attributed via analogy. If in one of his four sources a special neume is detected above a specific syllable, it is assumed that the performance of the melody above that syllable in the other three sources did reflect microtonal intervals as well. I do not consider Ferreira’s analogical approach convincing.
The comparative sources consulted by Helsen (apart from U 406) do not have special neumes. The only symbols considered reflecting microtonal intervals are the two special neumes mentioned (the micro clivis and the micro porrectus).
Constrained by the limited legibility, a detailed analysis of the neume alphabet could be carried out on seven folios only.178 On these pages, the neumes consistently have the same
176 De Loos, 1996, 91. 177 The four sources are: 1) MS Paris Bibliothèque National lat 1087, a Gradual from Cluny, 2) MSMontpellier, Bibl. Univ., H 159,a Tonary written during the last half of the tenth century, 3) London British Library add. 18301-2, written in Stavelot, and 4) NL-Uu ABM 62, presumably written in Utrecht. 178 4.3A 1v, 2r / 4.3C 2r, 3v / E fol 149 1r / E fol 275 1r / F qu 116 fol 1v, fol 2r / BRES 1290v.
58 characteristics. The symbols have a high degree of similarity with those described by De Loos in her dissertation and later on in the introduction to the edition of U 406.179 I refer to
Appendix 3 for details.
Conclusions of the codicological and palaeographical analysis
1. The five elements of the codicological analysis (parchment, dimensions, ruling, script
and musical notation) all confirm that the Fragments belonged to the same
antiphonary.
2. The palaeographical analysis (see section 2.3) dates the Fragments between about
1100 and 1120.
3. The neumes belong to the Utrecht-Stavelot-Trier group as described by De Loos.
They are its earliest representatives, which previously were dated around the middle
of the 12th century.
When looking at the execution of the antiphonary, the following issues are striking:
1. Fifteen system lines on an A-4 size page, the letters of the basic text are about
3 mm high: that is too small for a choir to be read, for certain in a dark church
2. It even seems to be too small and thinly written for a solo singer during night
services.
3. Both the arcades and the list of chants of the calendar are left incomplete.
4. The feasts follow the liturgical calendar, the sequence of the chants per feast do so
only in a limited way; in a number of cases there are more chants notated for a
service than the liturgy provides for.
179 Steiner 1997, introduction by De Loos, pp. xii-xiv.
59 5. The Hours are mentioned/rubricated unsystematically: at some feast they have
been mentioned, at other feast partly only. The nocturnal services appear as well
as the daytime services, though not systematically for each feast.
The first three observations lead to a tentative conclusion, at this point, that the antiphonary was meant for “private” use, not during services. Early antiphonaries usually have even smaller dimensions than the Fragments or U 406 and are assumed to have been used as reference books rather than as books to be used during celebrations.180 Looking at the “low-grade rubrication” and the repertory-like presentation of a number of feasts by incipits only, I assume that the user had to be an experienced liturgist, a cantor most probably.181 This is not unique however; in the Hartker antiphonary 182 the same phenomenon can be observed The liturgical annotations in the Fragments by another, later hand point to a subsequent user, who perhaps was less experienced than the user or users before him. In addition, the unfinished calendar in a contemporary hand and the way it connects to the preceding and following texts (it does not seem to be an addition of text on empty pages) minimalizes the possibility that the antiphonary was received as a gift from elsewhere. This in combination with the fact that a witness for a scriptorium in St. Paul’s abbey during the twelfth century remains183 would strengthen my hypothesis that the
Fragments not only were used in Utrecht, but were written there as well, and owned and passed on by the cantores of the abbey.
180 Helmut Hucke, "Toward a New Historical View of Gregorian Chant," Journal of the American Musicological Society 33, no. 3 (1980), 447. 181 Extensive rubrication became standard during the eleventh century already. Herbert Thurston and Thomas F. Meehan, “Catholic Directories,” The Catholic Encyclopedia V (n. p.: Robert Appleton Company, 1909). Reprinted in The Catholic Encyclopedia Online Edition, ed. K. Knight
60 2.4. The textual content
The CANTUS database proved to be of great help reconstructing the text and the liturgical calendar.184 The CANTUS standard texts (identical to the texts quoted by Hesbert, volumes 3 and 4 of the Corpus Antiphonalium Officii 185) in combination with the analysis tools of the database also enabled me to reconstruct the text of those chants of which only a few words are legible. The input of all chants into CANTUS is in progress.
The liturgical calendar
In order to reconstruct the original arrangement of the texts, the first step was to cluster the fragments in their original sequence. I define a cluster as a running text on one or more folios between two lacunae.186 The smallest possible unit is one folio r/v. The current sigla not always follow the liturgical calendar (see for instance: Nativitas Domini).
The second step was to put the clusters into their original sequence, defined by the liturgical calendar in Utrecht in the twelfth century. The liturgical calendar in the antiphonary U 406 was used as reference. In the table underneath the missing pages between the clusters and consequently, in the liturgical calendar, are indicated by shaded rows. The column “Site Page” refers to the pages of the digitized manuscript. The suffix
“MA+” indicates that the legibility of the folio concerned is sufficient for musicological analysis of the chant, i.e. the quality of both text and music notation make it possible to analyse the folio’s content and to compare it with the content of other manuscripts. In
Appendix 4, the same table appears with a column “Remarks” added.
184 http://cantusdatabase.org/ 185 René Jean Hesbert and Renatus Prévost, Corpus Antiphonalium Officii (Roma: Herder, 1963). 186 Gumbert’s concept of codicological units is not applicable here since it relates to to non-homogeneous codices (Peter Gumbert, "Codicological Units: Towards a Terminology for the Stratigraphy of the Non- Homogeneous Codex," Segno E Testo, no. 2 (2004), 17-24). Since Fragments do not have the constellation of a codex and are homogeneous, I consider the term “cluster” as defined more apt.
61
Folio Cluster Site Page Feast
4.3 C 3r 1 1 Dom. 3 Adventus 4.3 C 3v 2
F qu 116 1r 2 3 Dom. 4 Adventus F qu 116 1v 4
E fol 149 2r 3 5 Ant. Maiores
E fol 149 2v 6 Ant. Maiores (end)
E fol 149 4r 7
E fol 149 4v 4 8 Vigilia Nat. Domini E fol 149 6r 5 9 Nativitas Domini E fol 149 6v 10
E fol 149 5r 11
E fol 149 5v 6 12
E fol 149 3r 7 13
E fol 149 3v 14
4.3 C 4r 8 15 MA+ Stephani 4.3 C 4v 16
4.3 B 1r 17
4.3 B 1v 18
4.3 B 2r 19 MA+
4.3 B 2v 20
4.3 B 2v 20 Iohanni Evangelista
E fol 147, strip r 21
E fol 147, strip v 22
4.3 C 1r (bifolium) 9 23 Innocentium 4.3 C 1v (bifolium) 24
4.3 C 2r (bifolium) 25
4.3 C 2v (bifolium) 26 Epiphania
X fol 88 fol 2r 10 27 MA+ Dom. 2 p. Epiphanea X fol 88 fol 2r 27 Sabb 2 p. Epiphanea
X fol 88 fol 2r 27 Dom. 4 p. Epiphanea
62 X fol 88 fol 2v 28
Folio Cluster Site Page Feast X fol 88 fol 2v 28 Dominica prima p. Octavam Epiph.
X fol 88 fol 2v 28 Dominica prima p. Octavam Epiph. X fol 88 fol 1r 29 MA+ X fol 88 fol 2v 28 Dominica prima p. Octavam Epiph. X fol 88 fol 1r 29 MA+ Feria 2 infra Hebd. I p. Epiph. X fol 88 fol 1r 29 X fol 88 fol 1r 29 Feria 2 infra Hebd. I p. Epiph. X fol 88 fol 1v 30 MA+ X fol 88 fol 1r 29 Feria 2 infra Hebd. I p. Epiph. X fol 88 fol 1v 30 MA+ Dominicae II usq VI post Epiph. X fol 88 fol 1v 30 X fol 88 fol 1v 30 Dominicae II usq VI post Epiph.
X fol 88 fol 1v 30 Dominicae II usq VI post Epiph. E fol 275 1r 11 31 MA+ Feria 6 infra Hebd. I p. Epiph.
E fol 275 1r 11 31 MA+ Feria 6 infra Hebd. I p. Epiph. E fol 275 1r 31 Sabbato infra Hebd. I p. Epiph. E fol 275 1r 11 31 MA+ Feria 6 infra Hebd. I p. Epiph. E fol 275 1r 31 Sabbato infra Hebd. I p. Epiph. E fol 275 1r 31 Sabbato infra Hebd. I p. Epiph. E fol 275 1r 31 E fol 275 1r 31 Sabbato infra Hebd. I p. Epiph. E fol 275 1r 31 E fol 275 1v 32
F qu 116 back r 12 33 MA+ Purificatio Mariae F qu 116 back v 34
BRES Manuscript 1290 1r 13 35 Agathae BRES Manuscript 1290 1v 36 MA+
E fol 149 1r 14 37 MA+ Benedicti E fol 149 1v 38
4.3A 1r 15 39 Dom. 2 Quad. 4.3A 1r 39 Feria 2 Hebd. 2 Quad.
4.3A 1v 40 MA+ Feria 3 Hebd. 2 Quad.
4.3A 1v 40 Feria 4 Hebd. 2 Quad.
4.3A 1v 40 Feria 5 Hebd. 2 Quad.
4.3A 1v 40 Feria 6 Hebd. 2 Quad.
63 4.3A 1v 40 Sab. Hebd. 2 Quad.
4.3A 2r 41 MA+
4.3A 2r 41 Dom. 3 Quad.
4.3A 2v 42
Table 5 The Fragments in their liturgical sequence
The condition of eleven folios is sufficient to analyse the text and the music in order to explore possible answers to the musicological questions raised in the introduction. More specifically, seventy-two chants on the marked folios in the table above meet the required condition, of which 30 are antiphons and three are invitatory psalms. Twenty-one are responds and seventeen are verses of great responsories. One respond belongs to Vespers.
Assembled details
Appendix 5 contains a list of the (partly reconstructed) texts in the Fragments including all details per chant in line with the categories as used by CANTUS, ordered along the liturgical calendar. In Appendix 6 the incipits are given in alphabetical order. Both appendices have not been added in print to this study, but are accessible on the Internet via the hyperlinks provided.
The resulting liturgical organization of the about 350 chants (as far as detectable from the remaining 15 clusters) seems to be similar to that of U 406:187 there is no separation between the Temporale and Sanctorale, given the occurrence of the feasts of St Agatha and of St Benedict in the same corpus. The same applies to the invitatory psalms, which often were gathered in a separate invitatoriale. On the last staff of X fol 88 1r (page 29) a contemporary hand has added two annotations in two subsequent antiphons in the second nocturna of Feria 2 per annum: in hyeme and in estate, meaning “in winter” and “in
187 De Loos 1996, 256.
64 summer” respectively. This could indicate that the codex combined the winter and summer part.
All chants have concordances in the cursus monasticus, with exception of Omnis homo primum (Dom. 2 p. Epiph.), which according to Hesbert’s lists belongs to the cursus romanus only. An overall analysis of the concordances of the chants in the Fragments was beyond the scope of this thesis. In section 3.2 I will highlight a few striking concordances occurring in the
Fragments and the concordances between the Fragments and U 406 in particular.
Some remarkable text details
With a few exceptions only, the texts of the chants in the Fragments are identical to CAO texts. The grammatical differences often relate to the use of the singular, whereas in the
CAO text plurals have been applied. A few other remarkable differences:
1. Agathae (Appendix 5, nr. 285: the standard text: Domine qui me creasti et tulisti a me
amorem saeculi qui corpus meum a pollutione separasti was changed into perditione
liberasti.
2. Friday in the second week of Lent (Feria 6, Hebdoma 2 Quadragesimae, Appendix 5,
nr. 327). This, in my eyes, is a most peculiar case. The standard text of antiphon CAO
3686 Malos male perdet et vineam suam locabit aliis agricolis is preceded by Cum
autem venerit dominus vinee quid faciet agricolis illis aiunt illi (in CANTUS, no
concordances appear). This antiphon then is followed by antiphon CAO 3686 in its
shorter version and by the very similar CAO 3687: Malos male perdet et vineam suam
locabit aliis agricolis qui reddant ei fructum temporibus suis.188
188 Keith Falconer mentions several authors who dealt with the text and the music of these antiphons. See: Keith Falconer, "The Modes before the Modes: Antiphon and Differentia in Western Chant," The Study of Medieval Chant: Paths and Bridges, East and West: In Honor of Kenneth Levy, eds. Kenneth Levy and Peter Jeffery (Woodbridge, Suffolk; Rochester, NY: Boydell Press, 2001), 135-136.
65 3. Et intravit is indicated as psalm (Appendix 5, nr. 238), but in other CANTUS sources it
is listed as antiphon.
4. Benedico et glorifico nomen tuum domine qua [[ ]] tus es mei (Agathae, Appendix 5,
nr. 280) has only one concordance with a fifteenth century Benedictine manuscript
from Jumiège, (F-R 248). The latter does not include the words after domine though.
It was not possible to draw any conclusions from these observations.
2.5. Provenance and origin?
I recall that thus far there was only circumstantial evidence for a Benedictine provenance, founded on codicological premises (the abbey’s ex libris on fragments in books held by St
Paul’s abbey). But the discovery of the feast of St Benedict in this antiphonary can be seen as an additional indication on the level of the content of the antiphonary. St Benedict does not occur in the antiphonary of the chapter church of St Mary’s, U 406; apparently he had no special local importance for the local liturgy in Utrecht, except for a Benedictine community of course. As I will argue in the next sections, several additional observations underline a
Benedictine use of the antiphonary.
In his Corpus Antiphonalium Officii (CAO) Hesbert distinguishes between a group of antiphonaries written according to the cursus romanus and according to the cursus monasticus.189 The main difference is the number of antiphons and responsories sung during certain Hours. Here, the lack of information about the liturgical positions of the chants in the
Fragments is problematic. In most cases the particular Hours are not mentioned at all in the fragments. In most cases the clusters are too short to get insight in the total liturgy of a particular feast. Another complicating factor determining the cursus is that local traditions
189 Hesbert and Prévost, 1963.
66 varied, sometimes considerably. In combination with the former obstacle, this makes the interpretation of a chant’s position problematic.190
In spite of these caveats, I think it is possible to argue that the structure of the liturgy in the Fragments reflects a cursus monasticus. For Stephani and Benedicti, I compared the
(remaining) structure of the liturgies with Hesbert’s edition of the Benedictine Codex 601 from Lucca (cursus monasticus).191 For the feast of St Stephen a number of Hours is relatively well rubricated in the fragments. Between In laudibus and In evangelium five antiphons are scheduled, as in the codex Lucca 601 (Appendix 5, chants nrs. 133-137 and Paléographie
Musicale, Volume XX Lucca, p. 16, feast nr. 40, Ad Matutinis Laudibus). For the feast of
Benedictus, starting at the Invitatorium plus the following In primo nocturno (Appendix 5, chants ns. 295-307), I found a similar match in the Lucca codex (p. 19, feast nr. 366) indicating a cursus monasticus: six antiphons and four responsories.
Apart from these specific arguments for a cursus monasticus, there is another - rather general - indicator, namely that that all chants (one excepted, see previous section, difference nr. 5) have their concordances among the cursus monasticus group as defined by
Hesbert, whereas this does not apply for the cursus romanus (see appendix 6, column
“Concordances”: the letters CGBEMV stand for the cursus romanus, all following letters for the cursus monasticus). All thirteen chants of the feast of St Benedict in the Fragments have concordances of chants from the cursus monasticus, whereas only eight have parallel concordances of the cursus romanus.
190 Jonathan Black, "The Divine Office and Private Devotion,” The Liturgy of the Medieval Church, eds. Thomas J. Heffernan and E. Ann Matter (Kalamazoo, Mich.: Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 2001), 60. Black refers to 12 responsories during the first nocturn on Sundays and important feasts as indicative for the cursus monasticus (nine for the cursus romanus). In the fragments only Christmas has 12 responsories, but these are spread over more than one service. At St Stephen’s the number of responsories in the fragment is nine, but (actually as for Christmas) there is a lacuna halfway the liturgy of that feast. 191 Hesbert and Prévost 1963, 16-17.
67 Other indicators for a Benedictine provenance of the fragments are linked to the illuminated “F” on E fol 149 1v, mentioned above, and the text following it. This page became legible - be it barely - under ultraviolet light. The “F” appears to be the first letter of
Fuit, the first word of the responsory Fuit vir vitae venerabilis gratia Benedictus et nomine ab ipso pueritae suae tempore cor gerens senile aetatem quippe moribus transiens nulli animum voluptati dedit. (CAO 6751, Feast of St Benedict, March 21). The “H” on E fol 149 6r is the initial of Hodie nobis caelorum rex de virgine nasci dignatus est ut hominem perditum ad regna caelestia revocaret gaudet exercitus angelorum quia salus aeterna humano generi apparuit.192 This is a responsory of the Christmas office (CAO 6858).
The occurrence of these illuminated initials at both the feast of St Benedict as at
Christmas puts both feasts at the same, highest, liturgical level. Of course, this is partly speculative, since we cannot compare the opening initial at St Benedict’s feast with that of the other saint in the Fragments, Agatha. Nevertheless, I consider it to be a strong indicator.
Another palaeographical indication for a Benedictine provenance of these chants is the use in the running text of a capital B for Benedictus, whereas for the initial of other proper names, Jesus included, lower case is applied (see for instance Appendix 5, ns. 294, 302).
An interesting fact to mention is that the chant sequence in the liturgy of St Benedict’s feast in F-R 248, a thirteenth-century antiphonary from the Benedictine abbey of Jumièges, is completely identical with the one in the fragments. For contemporary or earlier antiphonaries related to the Fragments, CANTUS searches did not result in anything
192 Both texts following the initial are hardly legible, even under UV light, and were reconstructed by text search in CANTUS.
68 convincing; this may change when further research is able to clarify the liturgical positioning of the fragments’ chants in the daily offices.193
As for the origin of the Fragments, the unfinished initial and calendar in my view minimalizes the possibility that the antiphonary was received as a gift from elsewhere. In addition, in one manuscript from the twelfth century is mentioned that it was written in St
Paul’s abbey in Utrecht. Both indicators in my eyes make it plausible that St Paul’s library also was the Schriftheimat of the Fragments.
193 Recently, CANTUS added a new feature in its cross-table sections: concordance tables. These tables group concordances into “families”, or “traditions” of groups of sources that have the same or similar (sequences of) chants for certain feasts. The number of families is impressive, but all are disappointingly small. Is this an unexpected support for postmodernist critique on structuralist approaches of liturgy as reflected in research for the “Ur-antiphonary”, for which CANTUS was started in first instance actually?
69 3. The Utrecht great responsories
In chapter 2, I have described codicological and palaeographical qualities of the
Fragments; details about the neumes applied and the textual content in its liturgical settings are provided in Appendices 1-6. The Fragments have been re- dated to the first quarter of the twelfth century and their provenance, if not origin, can be assumed to be the Benedictine abbey of St. Paul’s in Utrecht. Now the musicological questions of this study can be addressed:
1. Is it possible to distinguish common recurrent melodic and
graphical characteristics of the plainchant of the Office as
notated in the Fragments and in U 406?
2. Comparing these characteristics with other contemporary
antiphonaries, is it possible to detect a ‘Utrecht style’?
In the introduction, I have pointed to the necessity of reducing a definition of ‘style’ to elements, which can be analysed in the setting of this study. Twelfth-century performative elements, like voice production, tempo and the regional use of microtonal intervals may have differed quite considerably, puzzling travellers from time to time, as mentioned in the introduction, but my analysis is limited to what we can observe in the remaining sources.
Following Willi Apel, I will therefore limit ’style’ to liturgical category (for instance the Hours of the Divine Office and the Proper of the Mass), genre (labelled ‘type’ by Apel: response, antiphon etc.), modality (elements like the mode and its finalis, ambitus and recitation tone), form (textual and musical) and notation.194
194 Apel 1958, 201-203.
70 The analysis implies a diptych, one panel representing the search for common ‘Utrecht style’ elements in the Fragments and U 406, the other the search for distinctive ‘Utrecht style’ elements compared with other sources.
The material imposes limits on the scope of the present study. The chants surviving with sufficient legibility in Fragments must be the starting point for any further analysis and comparison. As described in section 2.4, table 4, seventy-two chants have sufficient legibility to analyse their content in the context of the questions raised in the Introduction; three invitatory psalms with their antiphons and the respond of Vespers are too small in number to make sense for a comparison that includes the formal aspects of a style as mentioned in
Apel’s definition. For comparisons remain thirty antiphons, twenty-one responds and seventeen verses of great responsories. The antiphonal genre presents itself in very many forms and this, given the relatively limited number of legible antiphons in the Fragments, hampers the categorisations required when searching for answers to questions as presented above.
The great responsory as genre, in turn, lends itself better for research on this level. As will be discussed in the sections to follow, the transmission of these ‘com-posed’ chants was structured by musical patterns, which enabled the singers to recall a melody and to distinguish it from other elements of the repertory. On the one hand, these patterns form a layer above musical interpretations, which are merely accidental variations; on the other hand, these patterns may show variations according to time and place, as will be discussed in more detail in section 3.3. The great responsories of the Fragments in this study will be taken into consideration as liturgical category for the analysis of local traditions. The first element of style, the liturgical category, is hereby defined. Of the legible responds and verses in the Fragments belonging to the great responsory genre, finally sixteen great
71 responsories (eight pairs of responds and verses with identical CAO numbers) matched with great responsories in U 406 and Helsen’s material. These great responsories constitute the primary source material for the musicological analysis of the present study. Apel qualified the great responsories as a predominantly melismatic genre, together with the Kyries, the
Tracts, the Graduals and the Alleluias. The chants in this category have more complex melodic material than the syllabic and the neumatic genres.195 This leaves tonality, form and notation to be analysed in detail as remaining style elements. The tonality of the separate responsories will be analysed and compared on the basis of its modal elements: mode category (1-8), and its finalis, ambitus and recitation tone. According to its textual form, the responsory as a liturgical category is quite stable (see section 3.1). Text variants within that form, in combination with musical formal characteristics may result in different melodies, which will be discussed in detail in section 3.3. The music notation will be dealt with separately in the transcription of the responsories concerned.
The formal and melodic aspects of the transcribed Utrecht sources will be compared with those of MS Bibliothèque nationale de France, fonds latin Paris 12044 (P 12044) as analysed by Katherine Helsen in her doctoral dissertation The Great Responsories of the Divine Office.
Aspects of Structure and Transmission. The transcription is limited to the registration of pitches196 and leaves the interpretation of other notational characteristics of the neumes involved aside. Helsen’s approach will be discussed in section 3.3, followed by the results of its application to my own comparative analyses in section 3.4. For the comparison of the notation as applied in the three sources consulted, the occurring neumes received a letter code, added underneath the transcriptions of the pitches and the texts.
195 Apel 1958, 202. 196 Applying the so-called ‘scientific notation’.
72 3.1 The genre
Sources from the fourth century already mention responsorial psalm singing during the
Office.197 The Rule of St Benedict (about 530) mentions the responsory as an independent chant with a specific purpose in the liturgy, to be sung during the night service that later came to be known as Matins.198 The Rule states that responsoria are to reflect on/respond to the preceding lesson. The texts come from three sources: the psalms, other Biblical texts and non-Biblical writings, like poetry, Vitae and sermons.
Psalm texts are considered to be the oldest layer of the repertory. They occur in the great responsories on the Sundays after Epiphany, on the Sundays of Lent and on the fourth and fifth Sundays after Easter.199 In Advent, the responsory texts are taken from Isaiah; during
Lent the responsory texts are drawn from the Heptateuch (like the lessons). Passiontide,
Easter and the period after Pentecost again use texts from other books of the Bible. These non-psalmic Biblical texts make up the core of the responsory repertory. The texts that use poetry, sermons and hierologies are thought to have been added later than the previous two categories. They mostly are used in services for a particular saint using texts from his Vita, that in many cases also were read in the lessons. In the later Middle Ages, contemporary poetry elements like regular rhyme and metre appear in responsory texts.200
That the Rule mentions responsories implies that the transmission of responsories of the first two categories, psalmic texts and Biblical non-psalmic texts (although not necessarily the versions transmitted in the Utrecht sources) started a long time before music notation
197 Hans-Jørgen Holman, "The Responsoria Prolixa of the Codex Worchester F 160" (PhD diss., Indiana University, 1961), 15. 198 Helsen 2008, 9. The responsories sung at Matins are called responsoria prolixa (or great responsories), the (shorter) diurnal responsoria are called ‘capitula’ (Peter Wagner, Neumenkunde: Palaeographie des liturgischen Gesanges, Vol. III. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1912), 139. 199 Helsen 2008, 10. 200 Helsen 2008, 10.
73 was applied. For the coherent transmission of the repertory, singers and notators could rely on a number of mnemonic devises. Mary Carruther’s pioneering study about the role of memory in medieval learning201 explains the context in which the medieval mind absorbed pieces of information in an ordered way and allocated the information in an overall structure. Recollection of the structural elements becomes easier when their coherence is based upon a logical pattern. Treitler summarizes the essence of the transmission technique as follows:
The performer had to think how the piece was to go and then
actively reconstruct it according to what he remembered. In order to
do that he would have to have proceeded from fixed beginnings and
sung towards fixed goals, following paths about which he may have
needed only a general, configurational sense, being successively
reinforced as he went along and recognized the places he had sung
correctly. Different places in the melody would have been fixed in
different degrees in his mind; there would have been some places
where it would have been most helpful to him to have a note-for-
note sense of exactly how it went and others where he could go by
his way or that, making certain only that he passed through particular
notes of importance and that eventually he arrived at the goal that
he had before his mind’s ear, so to speak.202
201 Mary J. Carruthers, The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture (Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990). 202 Leo Treitler, With Voice and Pen: Coming to Know Medieval Song and how it was Made. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2003, 197. Quoted by Helsen 2008, 26.
74 As will be set out in the following sections, in the great responsories, melodic patterns function as mnemonic devices, guiding the singer from the start to its end while praising God during the last ragged edges of the night. For the positions of the great responsories in the liturgy of the Divine Office, I refer to Table 1 in the Introduction. I will start presenting the elements of a single responsory and the relations between these elements.203 Subsequently,
I will discuss the variants occurring when responsories are analysed in a larger context.
The formal elements of a responsory
The academic discourse about responsories from a musicological point of view mainly focuses upon the internal structure of responds that show a system of standard melodies and non-standard melodies, as defined and presented by Helsen in her dissertation. The verses of the responsories have melodic variants that are usually limited to one of eight, modally defined standard tones. In principle, verses have a binary structure, each with an intonation, a recitation and a cadence. The internal structure of the verse plays a minor role in the over-all constitution of the transmission of the repertory and as such has a minor role when analysing local traditions. Since the amount of comparative material for this study is limited, I have included the verses into the analysis, either by referring to their specific text, music and notation or by comparing at least the characteristics of their standard tones if the former were not available.
- Text
The text of a responsory is supposed to reflect one thought, one element of the preceding lesson, to be coherently expressed in the subsequent phrases of the respond, the verse and the repetendum. The number of syllables per phrase mostly varies from five to eight. Different word accents on the proparoxytone, paroxytone or the oxytone syllable
203 For this description, I have applied the arguments as presented in Helsen 2008, 10-16.
75 usually lead to different adaptations of the melody. In the Frankish tradition the last respond was replaced by a truncated version, the repetendum, representing about the last half of the opening respond.204 The decision where to cut the text (and the melody) of the first respond was not always satisfactory and as a consequence many responsories lost the logical connection between the verse and the repetendum.205 In the Fragments, the repetendum is separated from the preceding verse by a punctus elevatus, followed by the first or first two words plus the music notation of the first respond from where the schola has to repeat it. It is assumed that the cantor sang solo up to the repetendum; at that point the schola began singing.206
- Music
Three categories of respond melodies can be distinguished:
1. Adaptation of the text of one of the sources mentioned to a (standard) melody in the
responds.
2. Freely composed melodies
3. Formulaic melodies.
The responds set to psalm texts (a minority) have a binary (psalmodic) melodic structure, but most responds have a ternary melodic structure.207 In other words, most responds consist of three musical periods. Adapted standard melodies and freely composed melodies do not occur often. The following focuses on the responsories with formulaic melodies; they are by far the most common kind.
204 Helsen 2008, 10. 205 Helsen 2008, 11. 206 Helmut Hucke, "Toward a New Historical View of Gregorian Chant," Journal of the American Musicological Society 33 (3) (1980), 452. 207 Wagner 1912, 331.
76 The main characteristic of formulaic responsory melodies is that “phrases which come together in a certain order to make up a typical melody can also be used independently from one another and in different progressions to create “new” responds out of “old material”.208
Standard formulaic melodies are mostly found in modes 2, 7 and 8. De Loos links the formulaic structure to the vieux fonds,209 but Helsen points out that a formulaic structure does not necessarily classifies the chant as belonging to the older layers of the repertory; formulaic structure was part of a complex of mnemonic devices, that must have been applied for ages. The formulaic responsories often are labelled “centonate” responds, referring to the Latin “cento”, “patchwork”. In responsories, the mode and the text structure
(length and phrasing) define the choice of the musical standard phrases to be applied. These phrases can be connected to fit the overall melodic structure of the chant.
Structural1Elements1of1a1Great1Responsory Respond Verse Respond Period11 Period12 Period13 Repetendum Texts Phrase11 Phrase12 Phrase13 Phrase14 Phrase15 Phrase16 Phrase11 Phrase12 Music Cadence 11111111111(C) 11111111111111F (F) C (C) F 11111111111111111111F Tonality Mode11C8
Int.C1 Int.C1 Int.C1 Int.C1 Int.C1 Int.C1 Form Recit.C1 Recit.C1 Recit.C1 Recit.C1 Recit.C1 Recit.C1 Cad. Cad. Cad. Cad. Cad. Cad. Melisma 1111111111(m) 1111111111(m) 1111111111(m) (m)
Illustration 5 Schematic representation of responsorial structural elements
Each period has two melodic phrases. The first tends to cadence on a tone, which contrasts with the final (in the illustration above: C at the end of a period, (C) at mid-point) and of which the second cadences on the final (F, resp. (F)). An intonation and a recitation
208 Helsen 2008, 14. 209 The vieux fonds as interpreted by Hesbert for his CAO study comprises the entire Temporale, the ferial Office, the Historia cycles and all widely venerated saints in the twelve sources he consulted. See Ike de Loos, "Modes and Melodies in the Great Responsories" in Antiphonaria: Studien zu Quellen und Gesängen des mittelalterlichen Offiziums, ed. David Hiley, Vol VII (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 2009), 173.
77 precede the cadence in each phrase. Melismas, musical phrases on the vowel of one syllable, in responsories are mostly found in phrase 4, just before the cadence. Melismas usually occur in the last responsory of Matins or the last responsory of a nocturn within Matins.
According to David Hiley, melismas constitute an unstable repertory, assignable at will and with many variations in melodic details.210 Inspired by this statement, I have included a separate analysis of the melismas in the selected responsories for the present study. This will shed light on the Utrecht responsories in their mutual relation and in relation to the comparative material presented by Helsen.
Illustration 6 Recurring formal relationships according to Pfisterer
Research by Andreas Pfisterer211 has retraced a number of recurring formal relationships
210 Hiley 1993, 201. 211 Andreas Pfisterer, "Skizzen zu einer gregorianischen Formenlehre," Archiv für Musikwissenschaft 63, no. 2 (2006), 145-161. Much of Pfisterer’s findings are based upon elaborations of earlier research by Peter Wagner: Neumenkunde: Palaeographie des liturgischen Gesanges, Vol. I-III (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1912).
78 between the cadential formulas and observations about the ambitus, which underlie a mnemonic structure.Applying the same period-phrase structure as in Illustration 3, the information now highlights the cadential structure at the end of each phrase and the constitution of the ambitus in periods 1 and 2. The arrangement of phrases and the number of syllables influences the melodic structures applied to them: other text arrangements lead to (to a certain degree systematic) adaptations of the basic scheme as presented.
3.2 Previous research into the Utrecht great responsories
De Loos has published extensively on the Utrecht great responsories, more than any other scholar in the field. She analysed U 406 in detail in her dissertation in 1996, but the great responsory repertory was only briefly dealt with because her study’s focus is on notation. In four articles to be discussed below, published between 1997 and 2009, De Loos describes aspects of the great responsories from different angles. In all instances, the Utrecht sources
U 406 and NL-Uc ABM 62212 represent a significant tradition that developed at a crossing point of east Frankish and west Frankish traditions.
The first article, “The transmission of the ‘Responsoria Prolixa’ according to the manuscripts of St Mary's church Utrecht”, for De Loos presents modal incongruities as observed in the responsories Plange quasi virgo (CAO 7387) and Ecce Radix Jesse (CAO 6606). De Loos follows the transmission of these chants in U 406 through the ages from the twelfth till the sixteenth century and observes what she calls a ‘Utrecht tradition’: “unimpeded by any consideration of music theory the same corrupt [sic!] version is adopted from century to century”.213 But manuscripts from other regions show the same and other theoretical infringements. I will address her rather judgemental terminology about variants as “corrupt”
212 Now held by the Catharijnenconvent in Utrecht and presumably written in Utrecht around the year 1200. 213 Ike de Loos, "The transmission of the "Responsoria Prolixa" according to the manuscripts of St Mary's church Utrecht," Tijdschrift van de Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 49, no. 1 (1999), 181.
79 versions, of which more examples will follow, in the next section. Her choice of terminology notwithstanding, De Loos unravels a number of textual and modal patterns from which can be deducted that the Utrecht tradition of great responsories had its roots in both west
Frankish and east Frankish traditions. But the patterns are complicated and vary in time: in this article she shows that developments of textual and modal traditions in the Utrecht responsory tradition do not coincide. After the Treaty of Verdun (843) the Carolingian repertory split in two lines of development, reflecting the political developments and the new borders. Utrecht fell under the east Frankish administration, but much of its culture was west Frankish. Many different concordances in the great responsory repertory according to
De Loos point towards a complicated development of it, against a ‘multicultural’ background.
The second article,214 discusses the role of the great responsories in the liturgy of the
Divine Office in general and sketches its formal aspects. Referring to Hesbert’s research,215
De Loos concludes that the texts of the east Frankish great responsories most often are taken from a psalm, whereas the west Frankish “com-posers” drew from a wider choice of biblical texts and non-biblical texts. But, around a certain solid nucleus, the repertory varies according to time and place, as discussed in the section above and in section 3.1. Here, De
Loos refers to different versions as “cultural contaminations”.216 De Loos presents a number of problematic modal issues she encountered in U 406 as well.217 Where the modal qualities
214 Ike De Loos, "Plange Quasi Virgo. An Archeological Study of the Utrecht Responsory Tradition," The Di Martinelli Music Collection. Musical Life in Collegiate Churches in the Low Countries and Europe. Chant and Polyphony.(Leuven, Alamire Foundation 2000), 169-193. 215 Hesbert and Prévost 1963. De Loos explicitly rejects the existence of the archetypal antiphonary Hesbert was hoping to reconstruct by his study. 216 De Loos 2000, 23. 217 Unfortunately, none of these chants coincide with the legible great responsories in the Fragments, as presented in this study.
80 observed do not match with the formal theories about intervallic relations and the role of finals and note sequences in cadences, she sees “incorrectness” and “corruption”.
De Loos’s negative, not to say pejorative terminology related to variants in the responsory repertory (“cultural contamination”, “incorrectness” and “corruption”) is remarkable. It is clear from her stance toward Hesbert’s opus magnum that she rejects the idea of a retraceable archetypal Antiphonary; her many case studies rather point towards the opposite. But her terminology seems to reflect the views of an expert in a hypothetical
“unified theory of Gregorian chant”. Her judgements about melodic variants would be correct if one assumes the existence of one coherent theoretical framework of Gregorian chant that was prescriptive for its performance.
Two objections can be raised against this view. First, this theoretical framework and its purported coherence largely is a product of later times and in many ways its inconsistencies, subject of much research since the nineteenth century, still puzzle scholars.218 Second, in many ways it remains unclear in what way elements of theory were related to the actual performance of plainchant. Apparently, (late) medieval notators and singers had another relation to their music, since some pitches, which did not fit “the” theory were “lovingly retransmitted” from generation to generation and from one regional or institutional tradition into the other without corrections. U 406 was no exception in that respect.
Deviations from what twentieth-century scholars consider to be the theory of Gregorian chant ten centuries earlier can be instead considered as a branch of a tradition; they are not necessarily “contaminated”, “incorrect” or “corrupted”. Many aspects of the repertory beyond a solid nucleus are coherent only in a limited way.
218 Two examples: François Gevaert in his La mélopée antique dans le chant de l'église latine (1895) and more recently, Oliver Gerlach's Im Labyrinth des Oktōīchos. Über die Rekonstruktion mittelalterlicher Improvisationspraktiken in liturgischer Musik (Berlin: 2006).
81 In an article De Loos originally wrote for the IMS Conference in Beograd and Višegrad in
2000 and of which an adapted version was published in 2006219 she addresses variance in a completely different tone. References to conflicts between theory and what can be found in sources are absent. Instead of an approach concentrating on one source or on a few related sources, the access to chant traditions via online databases stands central in her article. She does not deny that the former kind of research is essential, but stresses the possibilities online databases offer. Referring to CANTUS, it becomes clear that De Loos believes in the long-term, large-scale multidisciplinary international cooperation these databases need in order to fulfill their function. Research by individuals should at least be moulded into templates, which make connections to the cooperative results possible and in turn can improve them.220 In “Modes and Melodies”221 she combines and extends the material she gathered about the great responsories since the late 1990’s with an analysis of great responsories in CANTUS. In this article De Loos starts unravelling the many transmission channels, the modal and the melodic patterns surfacing in almost 2000 responsories.222 The deeper her research went, the more variance factors were discovered. Polymodality and polymelodicity,223 Sanctorale versus Temporale and Old Roman versus Gregorian, as well as different transmission packages in Advent and Lent. The Office repertory was transmitted in bits and pieces, and that already from Carolingian times on.224 And “[….] there are many more levels of analysis beside those mentioned here.”225 Where De Loos discovered more topics and issues, adding up to an intriguing mosaic of work to be done, Kate Helsen applied
219 De Loos 2006, 171-200. 220 In a footnote on the opening page, De Loos refers to the essential assistance for this article of her husband, a computer programmer. 221 De Loos 2009, 171-200. 222 De Loos 2009, 174. 223 De Loos 2009, 177. 224 De Loos 2003, 138. 225 De Loos 2009, 182.
82 De Loos’s insights when writing her dissertation about the underlying systematic role of standard phrases in the transmission and composition of responsories.
Originally online databases were intended to facilitate the reconstruction of an archetypal
Missal - a concept that has been rejected by most scholars since - the tool was met with distrust. Many scholars consider the use of these tools irrelevant as long as the results of their application (for the time being quite often) only deliver large tables without statistical validity (requiring statements like “ if condition ‘x’ occurs, the chance that it is caused by ‘y’ is more than 95%). This negative attitude towards quantitative research without results that haave statistical validity implicitly denies the inherent rizhomatic state and development of knowledge (not limited to medieval plainchant). The access to databases (which includes the possibility to consult them with a ‘requirement’ to upload data of research that contribute to the database) even without statistically relevant outcomes has contributed a lot to our insight in cultural phenomena. But we still are in the inventory phase, not only related to manuscripts to be uploaded and the software to handle them but also regarding attitudes of participants, protocols, budgets, in short, the whole process of cooperation that seems to be miles away from the image of the lonely scholar at his desk transcribing and commenting on a medieval manuscript.
Where De Loos discovered more topics and issues, adding up to an intriguing mosaic of work to be done, Kate Helsen applied De Loos’s insights when writing her dissertation about the underlying systematic role of musical standard elements in the transmission and composition of responsories.
83 3.3 Katherine Helsen: The Great Responsories of the Divine Office
The purpose of Helsen’s study is to trace and compare responsorial traditions based upon formal melodic analysis of 406 selected responds in antiphonaries from different European regions. Her underlying assumption is that a number of traditions developed along lines of transmission not so much defined by narrowly defined pitch sequences as well by textual and musical formal elements. These, serving as mnemonic devices, made it possible to carry on traditions orally from one generation to the other. Helsen summarizes the two key sources about this topic by Walter Frere (1895) and Hans-Jørgen Holman (1961).226 All studies, Helsen’s dissertation included, focus on the responds. The verses usually are set to standard tones, linked to the mode of the responsory. Frere’s work underlies many subsequent studies and Helsen’s dissertation is one of them.
The formulaic responsories consist of phrases with recurrent melodic elements. These elements are linked into ‘formulas’, which in their turn are linked in to themes. Each mode has certain typical sets of linked formulas. Frere’s subsequent analysis of the elements is based upon the labelling of the final note of the respond for each mode. He mentions the structural impact of the number of syllables in the element, which precede the final note, but does not include them in his analysis.227 Frere lists over two hundred standard elements in the Graduale Sarisburiense in mode 2. The labelling has been observed to be unclear and incorrect.228 In addition, over 40% of the repertory written in mode 2 is not categorised at all by this method and it does not provide insight in the relationship between the recurrent
226 Walter Howard Frere, Graduale Sarisburiense; a Reproduction in Facsimile of a Manuscript of the Thirteenth Century. London: B. Quaritch, 1894; Hans-Jørgen Holman, "The Responsoria Prolixa of the Codex Worcester F 160" (PhD diss., Indiana University, Ann Arbor 1961). 227 Helsen 2008, 37. 228 Helsen 2008, 39.
84 elements.229 Holman‘s critique on Frere’s research is that it “oversimplifies the situation, giving an impression of complete uniformity when such does not exist.”230 Holman diversifies the component elements more in detail than Frere did and distinguishes standard from non-standard elements when two or more responsories show the same centonisation.
Contrary to Frere, Holman for his analysis concentrates on the final note of the element plus the number of syllables present before the typical part of the element begins.231 But the labels Holman applies provide no details about the role of the element, the mode linked to it or how often it occurs in the manuscript. A major disadvantage of his labelling is that he considers each element that occurs at least two times in his source as a standard phrase.232
- Methodology
Helsen’s point of departure is MS Bibliothèque National de France, fonds latin Paris 12044
(‘P 12044’). This antiphonary was written for the Benedictine monastery at Saint-Maur-des
Fossés in the early twelfth century. As indication for the source’s origin, Helsen refers to the inclusion of all the local feasts of this abbey and the palaeographical similarities to other manuscripts thought to have originated at Saint-Maur-des-Fossés.233 The manuscript’s website at the BNF site Gallica provides additional confirmative comments on this origin. The liturgy in the antiphonary reflects the cursus monasticus.234 The order of the chants in Paris
12044 corresponds specifically to Cluniac usage, in line with the history of the library of origin. In this respect, special reference is made to the responsory series for the third and the fourth Sunday in Advent.235 In later times, the antiphonary was sold to the church of
229 Ibidem. 230 Holman 1961, 75. 231 Helsen 2008, 40. 232 Helsen 2008, 42. 233 Helsen 2008, 49. 234 http://cantusdatabase.org/source/374051/f-pn-lat-12044 Accessed March 22, 2013. 235 The material in the Fragments does not seem to reflect the Cluniac usage, see 3.3.
85 Saint-German-des-Prés (now Paris). The manuscript P 12044, like U 406, is one of the oldest remaining complete antiphonaries with diastematic notation. The music notation is written in French neumes on four lines.236
Helsen’s analysis in essence reflects the labelling methodologies as developed by Frere and Holman, but adds several improvements:
1. Keeping in mind how recurring melodic elements can adjust to different texts,237
Helsen in addition to Frere and Holman examines the relationship between
elements and the frequency of these elements or their transposed equivalents.
Helsen classifies melodic elements as standard when they occur at least five times
or more in three separate chants (Holman: at least two times).
2. The labels reflect the ranking of the frequency of a standard elements’ occurrence
for each mode and where they occur in the melodic structure.
3. The most occurring standard elements have been analysed in terms of its role(s)
within the structure of the melody.
4. The analysis includes the entire melodic element, not aspects of the endings only,
like Frere and Holman did.
The labelling methodology by Helsen is as follows.238
1. Responds are broken in their component phrases, as illustrated in the two
schemes in section 3.1. Next, the phrases are divided into elements. These
elements receive a label. A new element starts where the cadential figure of the
previous elements ends. Elements with the same endings may have different
openings. The material of these openings is not labelled, but allocated to a label
236 In table 2 of her dissertation, 51-54, the neumes in Paris 12044 are listed. They are reproduced in Appendix 3 of the present study. 237 Pfisterer 2006, 146. 238 Helsen 2008, 57-63.
86 based upon the ambitus, the melodic gestures or figures and the important
pitches emphasized by these gestures.239 For example, the label “c1” applies to
both examples below; the openings are different but with identical ambitus and
rather similar melodic movements:
Illustration 7 The labelling of elements
2. Helsen uses the non-repeating alphabetical system of notation as found amongst
others in the MS Montpellier H 159:
Illustration 8 3. If the respond has been transposed, the letter label representing the final pitch of
the respond remains untransposed, because this helps to clarify its tonal role. For
example, a respond with final d transposed a fifth upward in Helsen’s approach
does not get the label “H” (denoting a, see illustration 5), but keeps the
untransposed “D” as indicator.
239 For examples, see Helsen 2008, 60.
87 4. The initial and final element of respectively the first phrase and the last (most
often the fourth) phrase of a respond receive a capital letter label, to distinguish
them from the letter labels applied to the elements of the intermediate phrases,
which receive a lower-case letter.
5. Elements are standard elements if they occur 5 times or more in a single mode, in
at least three different responsories. The (deliberate) minimum limit of 5
occurrences is to avoid Frere’s and Holman’s trap falls of too many categories, too
little differentiated. The additional requirement of an occurrence in at least three
different responses prevents repeated melodic settings in the same respond to be
interpreted as standard elements.
6. The labels receive a number based upon the ranking of its frequency per mode.
The highest frequency in a mode gets the lowest number. “d1” occurs more often
than “d2”; “d1” in mode 2 may reflect another absolute recurrence than in mode
5. When dealing with multi-mode analyses, the label gets a numerical prefix,
reflecting the mode (1-8).
7. Non-standard elements in a given mode (occurring less than five times in P12044)
are represented by the letter of their final note, but without a number. In this
way, the information about their position in the melodic structure is preserved.
Helsen, mentioning Pfisterer’s research,240 refers to the cadential endnotes in each phrase as ‘goal-pitches’. In the analysis of responsory melodies, the six goal-pitches (at the end of the phrases) serve as focal points rather than the phrases themselves. The sequence of goal-pitches underlies the six-phrase framework of most responsories. In addition, research by Finn Egeland Hansen indicates that the goal-pitches may form a pentatonic
240 Pfisterer 2006.
88 series; a pentatonic pitch series seems to be the basis of the great responsories.241 Helsen’s analysis enables grouping of the labelled elements in modal road maps, which per mode plot the most frequently occurring combinations of goal-pitches in this source. The example below242 is the road map for the chants in the fourth mode as analysed by Helsen in P 12044.
The numbers in subscript between brackets relate to the frequency of goal pitch concerned at the given position. Since Helsen applies the non-repeating notation system, “H” stands for
“ A ” (not for “ B ”) and “J” stands for “B”. The bold lines represent the connections between the most frequent goal pitches.
Illustration 9 A road map
Paris 12044 contains 950 responsories, each of which has been transcribed by Helsen and has been analysed as described above. For the transcription, Helsen used the Volpiano font.243 Switching this font into a standard letter fond results in strings, which can be put in databases for analysis:244
241 Finn Egeland Hansen, The Grammar of Gregorian Tonality: An Investigation Based on the Repertory in Codex H 159, Montpellier (Copenhagen: Dan Fog, 1979). 242 Helsen 2008, 166. 243 Freeware, applicable in Microsoft Word. See http://publish.uwo.ca/~cantus/volpiano.html Accessed March 20, 2013. 244 Helsen’s analysis files of the melodic elements of the responsories are accessible via Microsoft Access or via Open Office Database and have been added as appendices to her thesis.
89
in Volpiano turns into “1-d-efg-hk-3”, “1” representing the clef,
“3” representing the vertical line at the end. Grouping of notes (efg, hk) enables representing composed neumes.
Mode:&4 LINK Elements (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((D1(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((f1(((((((((( e1
Phrase(1+2 1f--df--f---f---fe--egfefeded- fgf-fe--df--fdgfghijgh---f--egf-f--ef-3 1dghk--h---hj--h--h---hg-gf--g---h---ghgfef--fe-3 Text (((((((((In(5((tu((5(((ens((((in(((((ce((5((lum(((((((((((((((((((((be((((((5(((((((a(((5(((tus((((((((((((((((((((((Ste5pha(((((5((((nus((((((((((((((((((( (((((((vi(((((5(((dit((((glo(5(((ri((5((am((de(((5(((((((((i(((((((et((((((a((((((((5(((((((it((((((((( Elements (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((k(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((h( g2 d3 E1
Phrase(3+4 dg--g---hkhgh--k-k--k-k-3 jkl--k-kjh---hjkjk--hjkjkg--hghijh-3 1-f-f-ff---fd--fe--fg---g--gfghgh--hg-3 gh-f-f-fd-defghkhgfghjhg--hg---gh---h--hgf-fded-3 -fg--hg--hfg-ghjghg---egf-f--fe4 *ec((5(ce(((((vi(((((((5(((((de((((5(((o(((((((((((((((((((ce(((5(((los((((((((((((((a(((((5((((((per(((((((5(((((tos((((((((((((((((((( Text (((((((((et((((((((((((((((fi(((5(((li((5(((um((((((ho5mi((((((5((((((nis(((((((((((((stan((((((((((((((((((((((5(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((tem((((((a(((((((dex(5(tris((((((((((((((((((((((vir(5((tu((5(tis(((((((((((((((((((((((((de(((((5((((((i((((
Illustration 10 A transcription in Volpiano When the Volpiano font of phrase 1+2 as above is changed into the font for the text of this study it looks like this:
Phrase'1+2 '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''D1'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''f1'''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''e1'''
P'12044 1f//df//f///f///fe//egfefeded/'fgf/fe//df//fdgfghijgh///f//egf/f//ef/3 1dghk//h///hj//h//h///hg/gf//g///h///ghgfef//fe/3'
Illustration 11 Phrase 1 from the transcription above, Volpiano in alphabetic letter font
By putting these data strings in a database, Helsen could list frequencies of identical strings per mode. When this system and the results of Helsen’s analysis are applied to the respond above,245 written in mode 4, it becomes apparent that the elements in the first two phrases are D1, f1 and e1, followed by k, h and g2. In phrase 3 and 4 the elements are d3 and E1.
D1, reflects the most frequent (“1”) opening phrase ending on d (whence the capital) for a respond in mode 4, followed by the most frequent intermediate elements (lower cap). In phrase 3, there are no numbers behind the “k” and the “h”, indicating that these elements occur less than five times and thus are no standard elements. Phrase 4 ends with the element E1, the most frequent final cadence on e in mode 4. The road map for this part of
245 Stephani, Intuens in caelum CAO 6984.
90 the respond would be F,E,H,E: this also reflects the most frequent occurring road map for this mode as can be seen in Illustration 6 .
In the second part of her study, Helsen compares the road maps and the associated sets of elements she reconstructed for P 12044 with the characteristics of responsories in eight other antiphonaries, amongst which U 406.246 The outcome of her analysis suggests that
[…] standard elements function as points of reference placed
throughout a respond melody. A standard element is associated with
the mode, the structural position in which it is most often found, and
its tonal relationship with other melodic elements in the singers
mind. In other words, standard elements are self-generating cues,
which stimulate the serial recall of a melody, starting at the
beginning of a respond and continuing to its end. They are employed
in conjunction with knowledge about melodic structures, the division
of the text247 and melodic norms (if any) of the mode.248
246 The other antiphonaries represent various chant traditions in western Europe from the early eleventh century until the middle of the thirteenth century: 1. Antiphonale Sarisburiense: compilation by Frere of 13th century sources, representing the Use of Sarum, England. Cursus romanus 2. Worcester F. 160: Provenance Worcester Cathedral, England, written around 1230. Cursus monasticus. 3. Benevento 21: provenance according to Hesbert St Loup, Benevento, Italy. Written late twelfth or early thirteenth century. Cursus monasticus. 4. Lucca 601: probably written at the monastery of San Pietro di Pozzeveri, Italy, in the twelfth century. 5. Karlsruhe 60: written in Zwiefalten, Germany, in the late twelfth century. Cursus monasticus. 6. Sankt Gallen 390-391: written around 1000 in the abbey of St Gall, Switzerland. Cursus monasticus. 7. Toledo 44.2: possibly written in the Cluniac monastery of Moissac, France in the late eleventh century. Cuursus romanus. 247 Indeed, as Wagner formulates it so aptly: “Das melodische Kleid lässt immer die sprachliche Verfassung durchschimmern.” Wagner 1912, 289. 248 Helsen 2008, 466.
91 The presentation above gives an impression of system and coherence. In that respect, three remarks should be made here.
First, standard elements (in Helsen’s analysis those melodic elements, which occur five times or more in a specific mode in at least three responsories) make up between 36% and
65% (depending on which mode) of all responsories in Paris 12044. References by Helsen to
‘statistical analysis’249 should be interpreted as ‘quantitative analysis’, since the former term implies that statistical formulas can be applied to interpret the sample; this is not the case.
Without any doubt the analysis of combinations of standard and non-standard melodic elements as presented by Helsen greatly improves our insight in the structure of responsories. Nevertheless, Nowacki’s comment on the comparative method that “the intuitive sense of scepticism that we feel when we are directed…to observe the differences between single examples of a given chant from two traditions or dialects is not without foundation”250 still applies, even if more than two sources are compared, like Helsen does in her study. Nowacki’s argument applies not so much as a consequence of a sample that is too small, but rather as a consequence of the inherent low degree of coherence of the material as such. In medieval studies, the comparative method reveals details about similarities and differences observed in specific sources analysed. Conclusions, which refer to situations beyond those sources, mostly are speculative. Statistical analysis does hardly ever apply.
Second, the medieval singers, or notators, obviously did not approach chant according to the analytical paths to be described in more detail later on. But their years of intensive training must have given them a kind of global understanding about the melodic elements
249 In chapter IV, section D, i has the title ‘Statistical overview’, as well as there are many references to ‘statistical analyses’ in the dissertation, which are quantitative analyses without a quantitative setting that allows for statistical interpretation of data. 250 Edward Nowacki, "The Gregorian Office Antiphons and the Comparative Method," The Journal of Musicology 4, no. 3 (1985), 274. Quoted by Helsen 2008, 472.
92 and the relations with other parts of the repertory’s structure251 with the similar effect as the ‘reversed re-engineering’252 by Helsen’s analysis.
Third, when comparing responsories with Helsen’s method, a number of subjective elements apply:
1. All manuscripts are notated in neumes, which apart from different interpretations
of pitches may represent other musical elements, as the recent study of Rankin
shows.253 To judge a melody as 'the same' as another can be a subjective
judgment, as Helsen admits.254 Helsen and her predecessors in this field treat
medieval notation as an equivalent of modern scores representing pitch
sequences representing the melodic line. Is this a basic misunderstanding of the
nature of the texts we are dealing with here, resulting in an uneasy number of
exceptions? Did the authors, neglecting qualities of medieval notation, ask the
right questions? For the time being the answers to these questions remain open.
The results of Helsen’s manuscript analysis and her transcriptions are well-
documented in accessible databases and transcriptions in Volpiano in the
appendices of her study. Progress in the critical interpretation of the music
notation as in the manuscripts consulted can be applied to that material. It will be
the test case for the significance of the methodology applied.
2. Defining the boundaries of the component elements of a responsory is a
subjective exercise as well. Helsen opts for the method whereby its cadential
figure is identified. A new element begins wherever the previous cadential figure
251 Not unlike jazz musicians during a jam session only need “Autumn Leaves in d-minor, bossa nova” to play the theme together and to improvise on it. 252 Helsen 2008, 472. 253 Susan Rankin 2011, 105-175. 254 Helsen 2008, 23.
93 ends.255 The phrases of the responsories analysed that have been reproduced in
the Nocturnale Romanum256 match without exception. A comparison of a small
sample of other responsories analysed by Helsen with the phrasing as in the
Nocturnale Romanum confirms the identical phrasing of responds and verses in
both publications. This of course does not necessarily mean that the phrasing as in
the Nocturnale reflects the phrasing of chant as it might have been in the early
twelfth century. It only confirms the parallels between the results of recent
practice and of the theoretical approach by Helsen.
3. A practical consequence of these methodological limitations is that the opening
pitch sequences of elements grouped under the same label can display a
moderate degree of melodic variation.257
The previous studies by Frere and Holman have increased the insight into the component elements of great responsories. It is Helsen’s merit that a number of limitations of these two approaches have been replaced by a methodology that analyses elements consisting of a number of pitches in their contexts, rather than listing beginnings and finals only. By using the possibilities of digitised data files she has widened the scope of consistent comparisons considerably. The results of her study have improved our insight into how the transmission of plainchant was possible before notation was introduced. At the current state of our knowledge, a ‘closed system’ does not apply to the repertory of medieval chant, nor does it apply to Helsen’s method. But it provides tools for progress in the field.
255 Helsen 2008, 57. 256 Catholic Church, Nocturnale Romanum: Antiphonale Sacrosanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ Pro Nocturnis Horis (Heidelberg/Rome: Hartker Verlag, 2002). 257 Helsen 2008, 60.
94 - U 406
By comparing the responsories in P 12044 with eight other antiphonaries, applying modal and formal analysis along the lines set out above, Helsen addresses the question how and to what extent the great responsories vary from tradition to tradition. In each responsorial five elements have been analysed:
1. textual differences,
2. isolated melodic variations,
3. multiple melodic variations,
4. variations throughout the respond and
5. the same text set to a completely different melody (often in a different mode as
well).
Three hundred fourteen responsories (out of Helsen’s selection of 406) show at least one of the elemental differences; some 300 differences occur in in more than one source.258 The graphic underneath, Table 113 in Helsen’s study, 259 shows the scores for each element in each of the eight manuscripts compared.
258 Helsen 2008, 456. 259 Helsen 2008, 453.
95
Figure 1 Table 113 from Helsen 2008, 453.
U 406 contains 310 out of the 406 responsories from P 12044, selected by Helsen for comparative analysis. Helsen analyses the recurring elements mentioned for variants in the manuscripts from different regions. When certain variants of elements consistently appear in a manuscript, she refers to those elements as representing a ‘house style’: “melodic figures […] consistently reinterpreted in specific sources; a 'house style' […] is a melodic translation into the local musical dialect.”260 In the Appendix to Chapter 4, Helsen lists all differing elements observed in the other manuscripts. In the Fragments and U 406, I labelled an element only as typical for Utrecht if the check on P 12044 and on the other manuscripts was negative (which does not exclude other concordances as we will see below). Quoted
260 Helsen 2008, 284.
96 below is the summary of her findings related to the analysis of U 406, including her graphical representation of some numbers related to the five elements studied:261
As well as being the only source in this comparison reflecting the
chant traditions of the Low Countries, it is seen to reflect both
eastern and western musical influences. Utrecht 406 contains 310 of
the 406 responsories in the comparison. The 'house style'
modifications that Utrecht 406 makes to standard elements in Paris
12044 are usually to avoid the lower semitone step, and occur on
cadential figures in modes 7 and 8, although intermediate standard
elements are also adjusted.
Of the 310 responsories included in Utrecht 406 for comparison, 109
(35 % of comparison repertory) differ from Paris 12044 in some way
Figure 32 shows the distribution of the variants in Utrecht 406 for the
five different kinds. As usual,262 about half (53) the total number of
variant responds is shown to belong to the category of single melodic
setting. Also noticeable here is the relatively large number of
responds (21) which vary textually from Paris 12044. Utrecht 406 also
sets a significant number of responds (sixteen) to entirely different
melodies. Although Utrecht 406's repertory is different from Paris
12044's repertory 35 % of the time, it maintains the same goal-pitch
in over two-thirds of its variant melodic settings.
261 Helsen 2008, 461. 262 Helsen here refers to the comparisons between P 12044 and the other seven antiphonaries.
97
Figure 2 Figure 32 from Helsen 2008, 462.
I will apply and extend Helsen’s methodology in both structuring the search for common elements in the two Utrecht sources and in the search for possible additional common distinctive aspects of these sources in comparison with Helsen’s research material. Details will be explained in section 3.4.1 under “The analysis: general aspects”.
3.4 The responsories in the Fragments and U 406
3.4.1 The material for comparison and an outline of the analysis
- Liturgy: textual comparisons
Before dealing with the music notation and the related formal aspects, some remarks have to be made about the liturgy and concordances of the selected chants. These have an impact on the selection of chants. As stated previously, all elements of the great responsories are subject to exchange. This also applies when comparing the sequence of responds and verses in the two sources.
98 Of the entire Fragments’ great responsories of which the text could be reconstructed and is not interrupted by missing pages, 53 complete combinations could be made.263 There are
35 matching combinations in U 406, of which 23 indeed were original combinations as well in this manuscript. Of these 23 combinations, only 12 had the same position in the liturgy of the feast concerned as the corresponding combinations in the Fragments (unfortunately, not all these combinations have legible music notations). The liturgy is of a dazzling variety.264
For the great responsories of the feast of Stephen, Table 6 illustrates these differences between two Utrecht religious communities situated on a distance of 300 meter from each other as the crow flies. The left part of the table lists the sequence of the great responsories as in the Fragments (the liturgy of the feast starts on the preceding page, now missing), the right part refers to the complete great responsories in U 406, as listed in CANTUS. The terminology and content of the columns are as in CANTUS. The column “Position” in the part of the table related to U 406 reflects the sequence of the responds and verses in the respective nocturns. Since the beginning of the liturgy of St Stephen in the Fragments is on a missing page, nocolumn for the position of the chant has been added. After all, the first respond on this folio may not represent the first respond of Matins as celebrated in St Paul’s abbey when this antiphonary was used.
The incipits of the Fragments’ chants that do not belong to U 406’s liturgy are indicated with red lettering. Parallel blue arrows connect respond verse combinations in the
Fragments with the same combinations in the same sequence in U 406 (given the reservation about the position of the chants in the Fragments, possibly not the same
263 A number of “isolated” responds and verses (as a consequence of the many lacunae) were not taken into account. I use the word “combination”, because in a few cases there are combinations of one respond plus two verses, which is not uncommon. Two verses may have been performed, or one ad libitum. In some cases there are two responds in a row. 264 The material is too limited to compare elements of both cursus. I refer to De Loos 2000, 181 for comments on manuscripts that were used by communities, which switched its cursus monasticus into cursus romanus.
99 position). Parallel red arrows refer to the same respond-verse pairs in both sources but in different liturgical positions.
Table 6 Stephanus: respond - verse positions in the Fragments and U 406.
The characteristics of the concordance patterns of the Fragments’ chants, which do not appear in U 406, are not consistent. The first two chants in the Fragments (about the same number of responds and verses), which do not appear in U 406 have but one concordance, F, which refers to the manuscript Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 12584 (twelfth century, from St Maur-les-Fossés), one of the six reference manuscripts consulted by
Hesbert for the cursus monasticus. Since U 406 follows the cursus romanus, this chant is not concordant with U 406. But the concordance picture is blurred in a number of cases.
100 • Sequence number 6, Stephanus autem plenus gratia (CAO 006885) appears in U
406 as well, although classified by Hesbert as a representative of the cursus
monasticus only.
• The chants in the Fragments with sequence numbers 6, 7, 10, 20 and 21 by
Hesbert are considered to be exclusive representatives of the cursus monasticus,
with the exception of number 10, Continuerunt aures suas (CAO 006887b) these
chants occur in U 406 as well.
• The verse Mortem enim quam salvator (CAO 007072), sequence number 12
belongs to the cursus romanus, but does not occur in U 406.
The conclusion of this comparison is that even within Utrecht these two institutions had their own liturgical physiognomy, of which the differences cannot be explained only on the basis of the different cursus they belonged to. A comparison between all respond-verse pairs of the feast in the Fragments and U 406 is presented in Appendix 7. The overall picture is very similar to the example above. Some chants of the analysed combinations in both sources have remarkable CAO concordances. The CAO concordances list but a limited number characteristics like provenance (meant as Bibilioteksheimat) text, genre, liturgical position and mode (1-8). The CAO concordances do not cover further modal or melodic details. The application of Helsen’s methodology supplies more information about the responsories’ formal and melodic aspects.
The present study centers on the comparison between Helsen’s material and the two
Utrecht antiphonaries; a detailed survey of other concordances is beyond its scope. Using the features of CANTUS I carried out a quick check on chants with three or less concordances. The first observation is that in the 121 responds and verses in the Fragments, eight have three or less concordances; the 171 chants in U 406 have but five with three or
101 less concordances, far less than one would expect given the higher total. The feasts of Dom.
4 Adventus and Stephani are overrepresented in the responsories with three or less concordances. Finally, looking at the origin of the concordant codices for both Utrecht
Striking(Concordances:(Fragments Striking(Concordances:(U(406 Feast Office Genre Incipit Cantus(ID Concord Feast Office Genre Incipit Cantus(ID Concord M V Multiplicabi 007195d F Annuntiate% Dom.%3% Dom.%4% tur%ejus% M V in%finibus% 006265b G%DF Adventus Adventus imperium terrae M V Ecce%virgo% 007508c% MV%F Propter% Dom.%4% concipiet Dom.%4% nimiam% Adventus M V 006596b DF%L Adventus caritatem% suam M V Quod% 006927a% E%D% Nativitas% factum%est% Dom.%4% Praecursor% Domini M V 006983b G%F%L in Adventus pro%nobis M R Surrexerunt% 007735 F In%ipso% Stephani quidam%de Dom.%4% M V benedicent 007195b SL Adventus M V Commoveru 007735a F ur%omnes Stephani nt%itaque% Surrexerunt% plebem Stephani M V autem% 007702b SL M V Stephanus% 006887e C quidam%de Stephani autem% plenus M R Impetum% 006885 C Stephani fecerunt% unanimes M V Mortem% 007075a G%D Stephani enim%quam% salvator
Table 7 Striking concordances in the Fragments and in U 406
sources as listed below, the predominant presence of non-German sources is remarkable.265 Further interpretations are beyond the scope of this study.
- The selection of the chants for analysis
The legibility of the great responsories’ notation in the Fragments obviously has been the
first criterion for selection. For further comparisons, these responsories should appear in
U 406 and P 12044 too. Ideally, in all sources concerned both respond and verse occur in
the same responsory, but as discussed in the previous section, many different ‘pairs’ of
responds and verses were applied in the liturgy. After the first selection based upon
legibility, the comparison with P 12044 results in very few matching pairs in the same
liturgical positions. Starting from the combination respond-verse as in the Fragments and
265 For details about the analysis of the liturgy and concordances, see Appendix 7.
102 in U 406, I have searched for identical verses in other responsories written in the same
mode in P 12044; in addition to the mode, the CAO numbering of respond-verse pairs
can be considered as a reliable indicator for ‘solid’ liturgical pairs, even if the sequence in
P 12044 differs from the Utrecht sources. This resulted in the following selection (in
order of the liturgical calendar of the responds in the Utrecht sources):
Respond Incipit CAO Feast Analysis /Verse nr. Respond Intuens in caelum 6984 Stephani 1 Verse Cumque aspiceret 6984a Respond Sancte dei preciose 7575 Stephani 2 Verse Ut tuo propritiatus 7575a Respond A dextris est michi dominus 6002 Infra Hebd. I p. Epiph. 3 Verse Conserva me domine 6002a Respond Deus qui sedes super thronum 6433 Idem 4 Verse Tibi enim derelictus est 6433a Respond Diligam te domine 6453 Dom. II usq VI p. Epiph. 5 Verse Laudans invocabo 6453a Respond Gaudeamus omnes 6760 Agathae 6 Verse Immaculatus dominus 6760a Respond Notas michi fecisti 7240 Dom. II usq VI p. Epiph. 7 Verse Conserva me domine 7240a Respond Videntes Ioseph a longe 7863 Dom. 3 Quadr. 8 Verse Cumque vidissent Ioseph 7863a Table 8 The responds and verses analysed in analyses 8 and 9.
- The analysis: general aspects
Helsen’s methodology has been chosen as starting point for the comparative analysis carried out in the present study. This implies that (the parameters for) the categories as applied by Helsen have to be valid in the present study as well; otherwise it would be comparing apples and oranges. Most crucial in this respect is the division of the text in phrases, which in their turn, by their endings, underlie Helsen’s approach and allocation of
(standard) elements.
In order to cover the issues to be dealt with when trying to find answers to the musicological questions as formulated, for the selected responsories, the analysis covers the
103 following issues. Firstly, comparing the Fragments and U 406, I have extended the comparison to the verses. My expectation that the inclusion of the verses could provide additional insights into elements of possible local style proved to be correct as will be shown below. Secondly, the notators of the Utrecht sources spent much attention to the notation of what has been interpreted by De Loos and Ferreira as representing microtonal intervals.
Helsen does not take these phenomena into consideration when comparing her material.
My transcriptions include both the pitches observed and the sequence of the symbols in each source. To facilitate comparisons, a shorthand letter code has been applied and added underneath the transcriptions and in a separate table per analysis. Thirdly, as stated, melismas are considered to be an instable repertory by Hiley. Identical or highly similar melismas in two sources thus could be an indication for a common - and perhaps local tradition - either related to notation or even to performance.266 For this reason the melodies of the melismas in the analysed responsories will be compared.
Each analysis is based upon transcriptions of the responsories as presented in an accompanying transcription sheet behind it. On each analysis sheet, hyperlinks to the folios of the manuscripts consulted online have been added. For the transcription of the melodies I
266 In response to an earlier draft of this thesis, Karl Kügle has offered the following relativizing and essential remarks: “Here the question to what extent the notations really WANT to be precise about melisma position and to what extent this was left to the cantor and the oral tradition. Certainly in later non-liturgical sources, the distribution of text to music is not much of a point of attention, making it very clear that a) certain unwritten principles of “good taste” must have been learned orally, and b) that such aspects – within the limits of the genre and piece as a whole- were considered elements of performance practice, like <…>, in modern terms, the intensity of a crescendo, phrasing, and so forth. What sources can tell us and what not, will undergo an important shift, which may help resolve some of the inconsistencies you described above when talking about the results of earlier writers.” I fully agree with these remarks and wish to add three marginal notes. First, the “inconsistencies” refer to statistically unconvincing results. This indeed might be an indication that either the scope of earlier writers is not wide enough or wrong altogether. Second, as how to interpret the notation, Hiley assumes an unstable repertory, apparently based upon observations of pitch sequences in manuscripts. Concordant pitch sequences then would contest the conclusion linked to these observations. Third, even if performance and notation have but an undefined relationship, identical or very similar notations of pitch for the same chants in different manuscripts might be indications for common sources and perhaps traditions, whether notational or performative, which might be relevant for research in this field as well.
104 have used the Volpiano font as described above. Since Volpiano has but a limited number of symbols, it is not possible to represent other signs than ♭ and ♮. Where microtonal intervals occur in the chants, they have been indicated with a preceding ♭ ♮ -combination, the microtonal interval printed in red. I consulted the CANTUS database for additional information about the concordance elements, amongst which text. Where necessary I added comments about the CANTUS data.
- The texts
The following textual issues have been taken into account:
1. Helsen’s subdivision of phrases and periods of the responsory (as explained in
section 3.1) has been applied in the present study. In the analysis, differences are
marked in bold red. It was of essence that these subdivisions were copied in order
to keep the results of both studies comparable.
2. Screening whether the texts of the chants in the sources identical and if not,
whether the differences might have an impact on the music (like different
numbers of syllables and final words with different accentuation)? Different
spellings like mihi vs. michi are indifferent here.
3. Hesbert’s concordances.
- The music and its notation
For both responds and verses, the accompanying musical elements of these phrases as in the three sources have been analysed and compared for their modal and their formal elements along the lines as explained in the previous sections. In addition, the neume symbols applied have received letter codes for easier comparison.
1. Modal elements
For each respond and verse the mode, ambitus, recitation tone and finalis (or
105 affinalis in case of a transposed chant) have been registered and commented upon
where appropriate.
2. Formal elements
The analysis of the formal elements (subject to the phrasing applied, but due to
the choice to follow Helsen’s subdivisions consistent with her interpretation of the
beginnings and endings) stands central in the comparisons and the search for
traces of possible remains of a ‘Utrecht style’.
a. The goal pitch of each phrase has been listed. The road maps of the
Utrecht sources (the sequence of the - in most cases - six phrases) have
been compared with the most occurring road map in P 12044 for the mode
concerned as found by Helsen plus with the specific road map of the chant
concerned in P 12044. Where the goal pitch is microtonal, ‘/mti’ has been
added to it.
b. The labels of the (standard) elements as applied by Helsen have been
compared with the pitch sequences in the related phrases as in the
Utrecht sources on four levels:
i. Where the phrases’ melodic endings are not identical - and thus
according to Helsen’s approach represent a different element - I
have compared the differing endings with the standard elements
for the mode in question, as listed in the Appendix to Helsen’s
study, “CHAPTER 3 b mode [x]”. Where the comparison resulted in
a concordant element (but different from the one applied in P
12044) in the Utrecht sources the element was relabelled
accordingly.
106 ii. If the outcome of the previous check was negative, the next step
was to check with Helsen’s Appendix “CHAPTER 4 COMPARISON
MANUSCRIPTS” where transcriptions of responsories in the
comparative manuscripts are listed that are different from the
P 12044 responsories. Concordances with files in this appendix are
mentioned in the analysis sheet.
iii. If in the previous checks no musical concordances appear, the
conclusion is that the element as applied in the Utrecht source(s)
can be labelled ‘local style’ within the context of the manuscripts
consulted by Helsen.
iv. Finally, in addition to the comparison of the Utrecht sources in the
context of Helsen’s study, the musical skeletons of responds
without musical concordances in Helsen’s sources were tested in
the database Globalchant.org. This website facilitates searches by
the input of pitch sequences.267 In most cases however the
comparison material is limited to the incipit, whereas Helsen’s
approach stresses cadences of phrases. On the one hand this
means that chants only can be retrieved via their incipit pitch
sequences. On the other hand the input of melodic skeletons
unfortunately appears not to have een a completely reliable tool
for retrieving similar pitch sequences; in some case the input of
melodic incipits did not deliver results, whereas a text search of the
267 Jan Kolacek, who also is one of the co-developers and current webmasters of CANTUS, developed the database. Launched in 2009, it contains some 25.000 chants, provided by the CANTUS team, David Hughes, David Hiley, Robert Klugseder and other well-known scholars in the field.
107 same chant did. For these reasons, I decided not to include the
findings obtained via Globalchant in the references that possibly
could define elements of a ‘Utrecht style’ in the chants analysed.
Nevertheless, some melodic concordances were found that did not
surface via the other checks mentioned. The application of this tool
was another way of checking the relative significance of the present
study’s findings. On the analysis sheet, a field with a hyperlink
provides access to to the page on the Globalchant website that
shows the output of this check if applicable.
c. Helsen’s labels have been extended in order to register additional
characteristics.
i. A ‘U’ has been added as a prefix to the labelling system indicating a
specific Utrecht label. If the same respond has two different
‘unique’ labels in the fragments and U 406, they have been
numbered U1 and U2. Prior to labelling these elements with ‘U’,
the elements have been checked for formal concordances in the
remaining seven268 comparative sources in Helsen’s study
ii. The ‘east Frankish melodic characteristics’ as described, have been
marked by the suffix ‘/g’. In some responsories, in P 12044 the
melodies show these east Frankish characteristics where (one of)
the Utrecht notations do not. In these cases I have added the suffix
‘/g’ to Helsen’s label in order to distinguish between the sources.
268 Helsen analysed P 12044 and eight other manuscripts, of which one is U 406.
108 iii. If in the element a microtonal interval could be assumed,based
upon neumes applied by the notators of the Utrecht sources, the
suffix ‘/mti’ has been added to the label of the phrase concerned.
For elements, the suffix ‘/mti’ does not necessarily relate to the
goal pitch, but to the occurrence of a microtonal interval in the
phrase. In the analysis sheet the difference can be observed at a
glance.
To give an example of the these extensions in practice: the label
“Ue/g/mti” represents a Utrecht element (‘U’, an element not found in
Helsen’s sources) in an intermediate phrase (whence ‘e’, not ‘E’) with goal
pitch ‘e’, with east Frankish melodic elements (/g) and with neumes, which
could indicate microtonal intervals (/mti). If the label refers to an opening
or a final phrase (respectively phrases 1 and 6), the label would read
“UE/g/mti”(with a capital E, representing an element in an opening or final
phrase).
3. Melismas
The melodic lines of the melismas in the three sources have been compared for
differences and/or similarities.
4. Notational aspects
On the analysis sheet, under a separate heading the sequence of neumes as in the
three sources has been registered if different neumes occur in spite of identical
melodies. Observations of striking and/or peculiar (compound) symbols and/or
sequences have been mentioned under this heading as well.
109 The number of differences per style element as presented in the section below is summarized in Appendix 8. In order to facilitate the reading of the analysis, fully concordant cells have a green background and discordant cells a red background. If the formal content of cells is identical save for the east Frankish or west Frankish dialect, their background is yellow.
3.4.2 The results of the analysis
The analysis covers only a fraction of the total liturgical repertory sung in Utrecht in the twelfth century. The results should be interpreted as a number of observations related to
(Fragments of) two Utrecht antiphonaries and eight contemporary antiphonaries as analysed by Helsen. It would be premature to attribute wider implications to the outcome of the present research.
- Text
The texts of the analysed chants in the three sources are remarkably identical. The few exceptions relate to spelling and wording and an incidental error by the copyist,269 but these differences did not induce changes in the elements. For the remainder of the analysis it is important to stress that those different melodies and different notations are not incurred by different wording.
- Music
Modal elements
The modal characteristics of the seven chants compared are identical with P 12044, save for a few small insignificant differences in ambitus. The modal difference observed in Analysis 6,
269 Different wording: Analysis 6, Gaudeamus omnes, phrase 4 reads in honore Agathae in the Utrecht sources, whereas P 12044 reads “sub honore”. Analysis 8, Videntes ioseph a longe, phrase 5 in U 406 reads “et videamus quid prosint illi”, which in the Fragments and P 12044 is si prosint illi. An apparent error is in Analysis 3, A dextris est mihi , phrase 4 where the copyist of the Fragments wrote dilatus in stead of dilatatus. The notation follows the text: in comparison to the other two sources, the Fragments have one virga less.
110 Gaudeamus omnes is to be seen in the context of a completely different melody. Like for the texts, a common modal background is an important outcome. When comparing the formal characteristics of the responsories, different modes would have resulted in different sets of
(standard) elements.
Formal elements
The three label additions to elements as defined by Helsen (‘U’, ‘/g’, ‘/mti’) are considered to be indicators for local style elements, of which the prefix ‘U’ - indicating a ‘Utrecht’ element
- is the strongest one.
It is important to observe that, apart from identical texts and modal characteristics, the
Utrecht manuscripts have a very high degree of similarity as far as goal pitches and elements are concerned. For 96 comparison cells in the analyses related to Utrecht responds (see
Appendix 8 for details and explanation), only one goal-pitch and one element are different.
In other words, for the formal elements of the comparison, a difference rate of 1:18 applies.
As a consequence the road maps of the Utrecht sources are almost completely identical. A comparison with the road maps listed by Helsen for each mode has too many variables to draw conclusions. The only exception is the road map of the Utrecht version of Gaudeamus omnes (Analysis 6), which has no concordances with any of the road maps as listed by
Helsen. As goes from Helsen’s analysis, this is one of the responds with the highest number of variants in the sources compared by her.270
The comparison between Utrecht (the common, identical characteristics of both manuscripts) and Paris results in 8 different goal pitches and 16,5 differing elements.271 On average (24,5:84) the difference rate between the formal elements of Utrecht and Paris is
270 Helsen 2008, 223, 225, 228, 229. 271 Elements that have a different ‘Helsen’ label score 1, elements that have the same label, but which show house style element(s) (‘/g’, ‘/mti’) score 0,5.
111 about 1:3. If we look at the differences in detail, and distinguish the U elements and the microtonal intervals from the east Frankish melody lines (which have a wider catchment area than the U elements and the microtonal intervals, of which the latter have been mentioned as a characteristic of the Utrecht-Stavelot-Trier notation group by De Loos), then there are 11 phrases with U elements including the special Utrecht melody of the verse
Cumque vidissent ioseph (Analysis 8), and 17 phrases in which microtonal intervals occur.
More details about the microtonal intervals will be discussed under the notational aspects.
East Frankish melodic traits are predominant in the Utrecht responsories analysed. For the analysis of a ‘Utrecht style’, this phenomenon rather is the confirmation of the impact of east Frankish culture in Utrecht than a local trait. Other responds and verses have west
Frankish traits, in some cases within the same chant the ‘dialect’ switches from west into east Frankish or vice versa.272 In the Utrecht sources there even are phrases that have more west Frankish traits than P 12044, if the distinction west/east Frankish dialect is to be measured by the occurrence or avoidance of E and B. Analysis 2, Sancte dei pretiose, phrase
2 gives insight in a case of multi-level centonisation and (partly unexpected) cultural exchange.
272 See for instance Analysis 5, Diligam te domine, phrases 2 and 3, where the melody switches from west into east Frankish ‘dialect’.
112 Sancte dei pretiose, phrase 2
P12044
The Fragments
U 406
Undique in the Utrecht sources has an identical setting, which in comparison to P 12044 has more east Frankish traits as it avoids e in the downward movement. Both Utrecht sources have a quilisma for this figure, which I interpret as d-e-f (see the section under the header ‘Notation’ below for my quilisma interpretations). Above undique dominum, the notation in P 12044 is unclear to me (as opposed to Helsen apparently), so I did not add neume letter codes there. In P 12044, dominum pro as transcribed by Helsen, has the same melodic setting as in U 406. In the Fragments the highest pitch is on a (in the other sources g) and the Fragments on pro have a pes d-e. Both other sources avoid the e here. The constellations on inimico are striking. P 12044 has an east Frankish setting, notated pes- clivis, in comparison to the Fragments avoiding b twice. The Fragments have a west Frankish setting, notated pes subbipunctis and the special b-flat (or b-natural?) sign added; whatever
113 the meaning of ‘b~’, a ‘b’ was notated. Actually, the Fragments here are more west
Frankish (“french+”) than P 12044. The notator of U 406 here applies a quilisma torculus for this melodic figure, avoiding the b in the downward movement. The melody of the last section, but for the closing element of P 12044 is identical again in all sources. The notations differ from one another, in the transcription resulting in a somewhat complicated image- comparison since the dots have different groupings. However, when checking the pitch sequences apart from their different compound neume interconnections, the notated melody is the same. That does not mean that its performance had to be the same.
Melismas Melismas have been characterised as an instable repertoire by Hiley.1 Helsen did not analyse the melismas separately in the sources consulted by her. Of the 16 Utrecht melismas analysed, 7 pairs have identical melodies, one pair is different and one pair is identical except for their melody lines, of which the Fragments is east Frankish and U 406 is west
Frankish (whence a score of 1,5 difference in the Appendix). Comparing the identical Utrecht pairs with P 12044 (seven pairs since Analysis 7, Gaudeamus omnes shows a completely different melody, including its melisma) the score of differences is 2,5 (two completely different and one difference due to east vs. west Frankish melody traits). The large majority of the Utrecht melismas has identical melodic lines; a comparison of Utrecht vs. Paris melismas still results in more identical than differing pairs, be it comparatively less. It must therefore be concluded that in the Utrecht context, Hiley’s observation is less relevant.
The most elaborate melisma of the chants analysed is the one on collegio in the second phrase of the verse Ut tuo propitiatus interventu at the feast of Stephanus. Below, I give a comparative analysis of this melisma in the three sources.
1 Hiley 1993, 201. The most elaborate melisma of the chants analysed is the one on collegio in the second phrase of the verse Ut tuo propitiatus interventu at the feast of Stephanus. Below, I give a comparative analysis of this melisma in the three sources.
(1) Fragments 4.3.(1) v, website p. 18.
Illustration 12 Transcription
(2) U 406, f. 67r (link to DIAMM)
Illustration 13 Transcription
(1) (1) (2) (2) (3) D2
115 (3) P 12044, f. 167 v (link to BNF website)
Illustration 14 Transcription
(1) (2) (3) D2
In the second phrase of this verse, the melisma on collegio is the longest one in the
Fragments. The melisma is written in the first mode and opens with a repeated melodic figure in the lower fifth of the melody (1: pes, climacus, quilisma). It is followed by a repeated second figure in which the highest pitch, c (k) of the ambitus is reached thrice. The third figure and the cadence (which is the standard element D2 of mode 1) are situated in the lower fifth of the mode again, like the opening figure. In U 406 the notation is largely identical but for a few neumes. The second compound neume in the Fragments is a climacus
(“cli”), where U 406 applies a clivis (“cs”) in combination with a pressus minor (“pmi”). The first pressus minor is the Germanic version of it; the second one is the French version, an oriscus plus punctum. If Cardine’s interpretation were correct, in both cases the pressus minor here would indicate the same lengthening of the preceding note.274 In the Fragments at the end of the second figure, the notator applied a tractulus-distropha (“tract-dis”) combination, where in U 406 the quilisma (“qi”) could have indicated a similar melodic
274 Cardine 1970, 84.
116 course. For a complete list of neumes and the neume shorthand codes applied here, I refer to the neume table in Appendix 3.
As for the melodic figures there are some differences. In comparison to figure 2 in U 406 the Fragments lack the clivis-pressus minor combination (a-g-f) after the pes subbipunctis- clivis (a-c-b-g/ca) preceding it in U 406. Figure 3 in both sources embarks on the same opening neumes (climacus-virga) but in the Fragments it takes longer before landing on the torculus from where the final cadence follows. P 12044 opens with a different melody in figure 1 and then applies the shorter figure 2 of the Fragments. Figure 3 is identical with U
406 (the shorter version of this figure) and the cadence is as in the Utrecht sources. The notations of the cadence and the grouping of the neumes are different though. The Utrecht sources list a quilisma-clivis sequence, whereas P 12044 applies a pes-porrectus-clivis combination. In P 12044, no quilismas occur, which is a distinctive feature of the manuscript.
In Globalchant, the first melodic figure of the Utrecht sources has four concordances. All the concordances relate to the same multi-volume antiphonary (cursus romanus) from
Augsburg cathedral, written around 1580 in the same city.275 The antiphonary is currently held by Det kongelige Bibliotek Slotsholmen in Copenhagen.276 The opening figure of this melisma in P 12044 has three concordances in its own liturgy for the feasts of Marcus (twice) and Philippus and Jacobus. Another concordance was found for the feast De corona spinea in the antiphonary mentioned from the cathedral of Augsburg.277 For the melodic figures (2) and (3) no concordances were found in Globalchant.
This melisma is a good example of centonisation without texts linked to it.
275 The sigla are: DK-Kk 3449 80 XIV (CANTUS 324101, 321116), : DK-Kk 3449 80 VII (CANTUS 30154) and DK-Kk 3449 80 XI (CANTUS 3449). This link to Globalchant contains these concordant openings together with a number of non-concordant elements. 276 Information from the CANTUS website: http://cantusdatabase.org/source/374112/dk-kk-3449-8o-01-i Accessed May 9, 2013. 277 For the U 406 concordances see this link to Globalchant. Accessed May 9, 2013.
117 - Notational aspects
Striking aspects of the notation in the Utrecht sources relevant for the present study are
1. The frequency of isolated puncta vs. virgae
2. the use of quilismas (and their absence in P 12044)
3. the occurrence of the micro clivis.
The music notation in the Utrecht manuscripts looks very similar (Appendix 3). The detailed comparison of the notation in both manuscripts confirms this impression for the separate
(compound) neumes. There are some issues that are worth mentioning.
- Virga and punctum
In her dissertation, De Loos points to the relatively low number of isolated puncta in U 406 in comparison to Hartker and three Bamberg antiphonaries analysed by her.278 This phenomenon applies as well for some of the chants analysed in the present study, where puncta in the Fragments appear as virgae in U 406 (Analyses 7, phrase 1,4,5). Grosso modo however, the preponderance of virgae in U 406 in comparison to puncta in the Fragments
(and P 12044) could not convincingly be confirmed for the responsories analysed.
Quilismas
Most interpretations of the quilisma are limited to a range of possible pitch interpretations. Willi Apel, Solange Corbin, Eugène Cardine and Óscar Mascareñas279 discuss the interpretation of the quilisma from this point of view. Mascareñas’s approach of the quilisma280 was my inspiration for a rephrasing of the terminology as a pitch structure with two boundary pitches - of which the second represents a higher pitch - and an optional element in between. This definition offers better possibilities to describe this neume. It
278 De Loos 1996, 123-129. 279 Apel 1958, 113-115; Corbin 1979, 3.191; Mascareñas 2006, 539. 280 Mascareñas 2006, 539.
118 leaves room for various interpretationsof the distance between the boundaries and of the optional element between the pitch boundaries.
The School of Solesmes, and also that of Dom Cardine and his followers interpret the quilisma as “light passing tones towards a higher note”,281 although Apel in 1958 already refuted the “light passing” character as an unqualified statement.282 Apel states that the distance between the lower and the upper pitch boundary was a second or a third. Corbin neglects the light passing tones, but specifies the intervals in more detail: “[I]mmer verbindet das Quilisma drei Stufen und zwar in der Regel so, dass es sich um nebeneinander liegende Töne handelt und dass eines der beiden Intervalle ein Halbtonschritt ist, das ganze
Zeichen also eine kleine Terz umfasst.“283 Corbin’s inclination to see the pitch boundaries predominantly as a minor third apart is debatable. For instance, Egelund Hansen points to quilisma boundaries a minor second apart,284 and in the Fragments and U 406 we find several examples of quilismas a second apart. Timothy McGee mentions pitch boundaries a fourth apart.285
Apel mentions several interpretations in literature of the intermediate element: a mordent, a turn or a thrill, quoting Vivell that the pitches of intermediate element could be chromatic or even enharmonic steps, perhaps performed portamento-style.286 Implicitly, these authors all consider the basic structure of plainchant as a system of fixed pitches (with strict or less strict diatonic pitch sequences), to which certain ornamental elements like
281 Cardine 1982, 123. 282 Apel 1958, 114. 283 Corbin 1979, 3.191. 284 Finn Egeland Hansen, Layers of musical meaning (Copenhagen: Royal Library 2006), 121-122, more specifically example 3.7. 285 Timothy J. McGee, "Ornamental" Neumes and Early Notation," Performance Practice Review 9 (1) (1996), 50. 286 Apel 1958, 114.
119 mordents, thrills and glissandi can be added. Timothy McGee 287 and more recently Susan
Rankin288 stress the continuous context of the notation (and performance) system. Rankin invokes Boethius’ analogy of the rainbow: “the colours are so close to each other that no definite line separates one colour from the other.”289 In such context, ‘ornamental neume’ is the wrong terminology according to McGee because it puts the neumes in a modern perception of place and function. “The medieval musician would not have thought of them as different from any other neume.”290 McGee assumes that the notation of the quilisma indicates a liquescent element between the boundary pitches and suggests that these elements could indicate a special vocal delivery.291 Guido d’Arezzo in his Micrologus describes the liquescent as lacking precise pitch, it is a “sliding” between two solid pitches, without stops in between. The gliss may be replaced by a “full” sound however.292 The application of glissando was to be limited to specific consonants, vowels and intervals.293
When discussing his interpretation of the liquescent in the context of the quilisma, McGee disregards the detailed description of the application of the liquescent element in the neume completely and interprets the notation as representing a sound variant on one pitch only, interpreting the Byzantine kylisma as well as contemporary terminologies like tremula, and morula as “intensity vibrato”, changing volume only. Given the attention for the registration of pitch details in the sources studied in the present study, I find this unconvincing here. Susan Rankin in her article “On the Treatment of Pitch in Early Music
287 McGee 1996, 39-65. 288 Rankin 2011. 289 Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius, Fundamentals of Music, trans. with an introduction and notes by C. Bower (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989), 167. 290 McGee 1996, 39. 291 Mascareñas 2006, 537. 292 Guidonis Aretini, Micrologus, ed. Jos. Smits Van Waesberghe, Corpus scriptorum de musica, no. 4, (Rome: 1955), 175, 177. Quoted by McGee 1996, 40. 293 For details I refer to McGee, 1996, footnotes pp. 45, 46.
120 Writing” concentrates on the adiastematic notations of the ninth and tenth century and explores the interaction of memory and writing. Pitch representation was relatively unimportant in the sources that have come to us according to Rankin, the representation of a certain contour was sufficient. Before the introduction of the staff, the notators applied some vertical ordering and special signs to indicate pitches when thought necessary. It was what I would call a Tongangschrift as opposed to a Tonortschrift, the terminology applied by
Handschin for pitch-oriented notations.294 In her transcriptions, Rankin does not list the quilismas she encounters in the manuscripts consulted.295 The representation of the grouping of neumes from her point of view has a higher importance.
In my transcriptions I have listed the grouping of neumes in general and for quilismas, I have chosen the “light passing tone”-interpretation by representing these tones by a smaller dot in blue. The precise notation of pitches and the (beautifully detailed) representation of the flow of their liquescent elements in the Fragments and U 406 are impressive. Here I see competent scribes at work, who intentionally sought for selected options representing melodic realisations that matched the style of their community when singing a given musical phrase.
In the analysed Utrecht responsories, the quilisma appears 121 times. Analysis 2, A dextris est mihi, has the highest occurrence of quilismas. Whereas the other responsories score between 2 and 8 quilismas, in the Fragments this responsory has 19 quilismas, in U 406 16.
Where boundary pitches are a third or minor third apart, the pitch between the boundaries fits a diatonic background. Narrower pitch boundaries pose the Gregorian theorist who adheres to the Guidonic principles for problems. But these boundaries do occur frequently in the Utrecht sources: a major second (for instance in both sources Analysis 1, Intuens in
294 Tonortschrift: terminology as applied by Handschin (1950). Quoted by Rankin 2011, 13 295 Rankin 2011, 129.
121 caelum, phrase 5 & 6, hominis and virtutis, the lower boundary pitch is f, the higher is g.
Similar cases with boundary pitches on d-e, f-g, g-a and c-d occur.296 If implying semitonal steps (and not glissandi), these observations do not fit into a diatonic approach; when assuming the remains of a pre-Guidonic, non-diatonic performance tradition, it would fit. It would be interesting to analyse whether in U 406 quilismas occur on a minor second; I could not find them in the Fragments.
Microtonal clivis
The microtonal clivis occurs 29 times in 17 phrases of the chants analysed. De Loos interprets the phenomenon as ornamentation rather than as an extra step of a tone system, for which she finds insufficient indicators in the palaeographical contexts of the sources analysed by her.297 For this reason she proposes the term ‘micro-chromatism’, the appliance of a “chroma”, smaller than a semitone.298 But in the context of the current musicological terminology to my opinion this is more confusing than elucidating. I tend to agree with De
Loos’s conclusions about the meaning of the micro clivis in its melodic context; referring to the exposition in the previous section, the micro clivis can be characterised as an ornamental neume, taking into account McGee’s remarks about a wrong terminology discussed in the previous section. The microtone occurs between e-f and b-c (Volpiano: j-k) positions, indicating a higher intonation of the lower note of the second. In the responsories analysed, the microtonal pitch is always reached in a downward step from c or f. The microtonal porrectus, possibly indicating an upward microtonal interval, does not occur in the chants analysed and, as observed by De Loos, is a very rare neume in U 406.
296 In respectively Analysis 5, Diligam te domine, verse phrase 1, on tibi; Analysis 5, Diligam te domine, verse phrase 2, on meis; Analysis 2, Sancte dei pretiose, respond phrase 4, on populo and Analysis 5, verse phrase 2, on eris. 297 De Loos 1996, 194. 298 De Loos 1996, 196.
122 The position of the micro clivis drew my attention when transcribing the Utrecht responsories. In the chants analysed, the micro clivis appears at the beginning of the opening phrase of a respond or a verse and as final note of elements. Of the 29 micro clives listed, 12 appear as the final note of a phrase. In the respond, this invariably is phrase 4; the micro clivis occurs as final neume in verse phrases as well. In Analysis 4, Deus qui sedes even both verse phrases end with a micro clivis. From a performative and mnemonic point of view, the position of the microtonal neume in relation to the final element of a phrase may be of more importance than De Loos’ conclusion that the microtonal neume is not an extra step of the tone system. In the context of a systematic centonisation, meaning linking of elements, essential for memorizing and thus for the transmission of a performance tradition, especially the final note of an element is of the essence. The meaning or function that could be attributed to the position of the 17 microclives at the start of a phrase is less clear. In
Table 9, the 11 non-final positions as in the Fragments have been listed. In U 406 there are but 7 occurrences, but those are in the same positions as in the Fragments. An asterisk indicates the beginning of the text concerned. More examples will have to be analysed in order to find more indications for a possible relation between the occurrence of a microtonal clivis and its position in the incipit, as the outcome of Table 9 might suggest.
123 The occurrence of micro clives in the Fragments Analysis Phrase Non-Final Position Final Position 1 R1 * Intuens in caelum V1 caelum V2 * vidit 2 - - 3 R1 * A dextris est R4 * dilatum est V1 * Conserva me V2 meum 4 R1 * Deus qui sedes R4 tribulatione V1 pauper V2 adiutor 5 V1 dominum V2 * et ab inimicis 6 V1 immaculatam 7 R3 ad implebis V1 * Conserva me 8 V1 * Cumque Table 9 The occurrence of micro clives in the Fragments * first words of the phrase concerned
An analysis of the positions of these microtonal neumes in the remainder of both Utrecht sources and - if an underlying structure can be detected - in a wider geographical context, for instance that of the manuscripts belonging to the Utrecht-Stavelot-Trier group, could provide additional insight in how the application of microtonal neumes fits into Helsen’s theories as presented.
124 4. Summary and Conclusions
The catalogue of Utrecht University Library lists fragments of a notated antiphonary with call number HSS: Hs. Fr. 4.3. under the title “Antifonarium (fragmenten)” (“the Fragments”). The
Fragments are accessible online. In total, the digitized collection consists of twenty folios.
The legibility of a number of folios is limited. The folios (except one kept by the Leuven
University Library - included in the digitised collection - provenance unknown) were bound as flyleaves in five late-fifteenth century books from the Utrecht Benedictine abbey of St
Paul’s.
The first part of my study has described previous research about the Fragments and provided additional insights by the complete transcription of the texts and by codicological and palaeographical analysis. The knowledge about the actual textual and musical content of the Fragments up until this point was limited to some isolated observations about their liturgical content and their music notation. Whether the Fragments belonged to one and the same antiphoner was always assumed, but never analysed in detail. As to their dating, in previous research the underlying palaeographical features of the Fragments were never specified. The proof for a Utrecht Benedictine provenance was limited to the books for which the Fragments served as flyleaves. It was necessary to answer the open questions before embarking on the musicological issues.
My study confirms that all Fragments have a common source, namely, an antiphonary, used at St. Paul’s abbey. The Fragments contain parts of the liturgy of the Divine Office between the third Sunday of Advent and the third Sunday of Lent. The provenance of the
Fragments is clear, but for a Utrecht origin, only circumstantial evidence could be found.
One initial was left unfinished, as was a calendar, including its illuminations. I consider these observations as indicators of a local production of the antiphonary to which the Fragments
125 belonged. It seems unlikely that an antiphonary produced elsewhere - to be sold or to be given as a present to the abbey - was handed over in an unfinished state. And indeed, in the twelfth century, the abbey had a scriptorium: one manuscript is known (currently kept by the Vatican, Bibliotheca Apostolica, Reg. Lat. 509) with an inscription that it was written at St
Paul’s abbey in Utrecht in 1158. The circumstantial evidence at this stage overwhelmingly points towards St Paul’s abbey as Schriftheimat.
Based upon the measures of the folios and the relatively small sizes of the letters and the neumes, it may be assumed that cantors have used the antiphoner for reference and/or instruction, not for use during liturgical celebrations. The palaeographical analysis redated the writing of the Fragments to 1100-1120. If correct, they are then the oldest known diastematic representatives of what De Loos has defined as the Utrecht-Stavelot-Trier group.
This refers to the common characteristics of the music notation in manuscripts written in a number of monasteries and secular chapters in the Low Countries and the region of Trier between the twelfth and the early fourteenth century. The same neumes at the outset were applied in an adiastematic context. Another, more recent example of the diastematic notation of the Utrecht-Stavelot-Trier group is the antiphoner NL-Uu 406 (“U 406”). This manuscript, held by the Utrecht University Library, was used in the collegiate chapter of
Saint Mary’s in Utrecht and, according to palaeographical analysis carried out in the context of this study, was written during the first half of the twelfth century (whereas previous statements dated the writing of this manuscript in the second half of the century). Aspects of the notation in U 406 were analysed by Ike de Loos in her doctoral dissertation (1996).
One of the characteristics of the neumes of the Utrecht-Stavelot-Trier group is the purported representation of microtonal intervals.
126 The introduction of the staff (attributed to Guido d’Arezzo) in the Low Countries took place around 1100. It had two important but different impacts. First, it introduced the representation of distinct pitches, which was difficult in the preceding adiastematic notation.
It dramatically improved the possibilities of learning chant “by the book”; transmission had become less dependent upon the individual perception of the melodies by a cantor who taught his students the interpretation of the melodic lines by his predecessors. Although this system worked relatively well as a consequence of a number of built-in mnemonic devices, many variants were possible and learning the huge repertory by heart must have been an enormous effort for each member of a religious community. Second, the staff notation, as propagated in Guido’s writings, is based upon a diatonic concept that allows for semitones only between E and F and between B and C. In addition, the lowering of B by a semitone to a
B rotundum (round b, ♭) is allowed. In diatonic theory, other semitones and dieses, what nowadays would be classified as microtonal intervals, did not exist. The Fragments and U
406 contain (at least) two neumes representing such microtonal intervals, a micro-clivis and a micro-porrectus, both indicating pitches between E and F and B and C. Treatises since
Boethius (often referring to Greek sources) provide insight in how on the monochord one could determine the position of these pitches.
In her dissertation, De Loos’s conclusion for the manuscripts of the Utrecht-Stavelot-Trier group is that the microtonal intervals were applied as ‘colouring elements’, ornamentation, without a structural function, which assumes a fixed step in the modal system. For this she did not find any proof in U 406. Supposing the presence of microtonal intervals, the
Fragments, like the other manuscripts belonging to the Utrecht-Stavelot-Trier group, can be interpreted as remaining traces of a clash between a pre-Guidonian performance culture
127 and a diastematic notation based upon a diatonic framework. These notational traces vanished in the course of the thirteenth century.
With the insights and observations of the first part of my study, it was possible to address the two musicological questions:
1. Is it possible to find common recurrent melodic and graphical characteristics of the
plainchant of the Office as notated in the Fragments and in U 406?
2. Comparing these characteristics with other contemporary antiphonaries, is it
possible to detect a ‘Utrecht style’?
The musicological research of the present study concentrates on the visible traces of a possible ‘Utrecht’ performance style when the Fragments were written. Applying Apel’s categories, the following elements were distinguished:
1. Liturgical category: the Divine Office
2. Genre: the great responsories
3. Form: textual and musical aspects of the genre
4. Tonality: modal characteristics
5. Notation: neumes on a Guidonic staff.
Helsen’s work added a wider geographical scope to the inquiry. It deals with the 950 great responsories in the antiphonary MS Bibliothèque nationale de France, fonds latin Paris
12044 (‘Paris 12044’), including amongst others a comparison of these responsories as notated in this manuscript with 310 responsoria in U 406. The manuscript P 12044 was written in a Benedictine monastery at Saint-Maur-des-Fossés (France) around the same time as the Fragments and, like the Fragments, contains a music notation of neumes written on a
Guidonic four-line staff.
128 The great responsories are part of the liturgy of the Divine Office and are sung during
Matins. A responsory consists of a respond, mostly consisting of six phrases, followed by a verse with two phrases. As to memorize the vast repertory of plainchant, it was structured by musical elements and recurring connections between them. Within each tradition, per mode, the cadences of phrases had patterns of note sequences linked to the number of syllables of such cadences and to the constellation of the accents applicable to the final words of a phrase. Helsen, like Frere and Holman, limits her analysis to the responds since the melodic verse material consist mainly of standard tones. The final note of a phrase
Helsen calls its goal pitch. In each respond in such tradition, the phrases’ endings had a characteristic sequence of goal pitches - in Helsen’s terminology, a road map. By applying these standard sequences as a mnemonic technique, it was possible for each performer to create his own virtual musical archive with an underlying logic, enhancing the memorisation of the repertory that up to the ninth century was transmitted orally. However, even after the introduction of the staff, in practice most of the repertory had to be learned by heart. In that context, the mnemonic techniques kept their value. In her analysis of recurrent textual and musical elements in P 12044 and U 406 (and seven other antiphonaries from different regions in Europe), Helsen concentrates on the textual differences that have an impact on cadences and road maps, including the goal pitches which constitute them. Extending
Helsen’s methodology of labelling these musical (standard) elements of the phrases in responsories to the Fragments as well, I could structure the comparison with the textual and musical material as used in U 406 and P 12044. I have included the responsories’ verses into the comparison, expecting additional insights by that. Relating to the same labelling system and to the same categorisations she uses, in my analysis, I introduced microtonal intervals as a criterion that could be an indicator for a common local ‘Utrecht style’ in the Fragments and
129 in U 406. The occurrence of the east Frankish idiom, where E and B are avoided in favour of
F and C respectively, is a distinctive characteristic when comparing the Utrecht sources with
P 12044, and was added as a criterion as well. However, as a style element it is applicable to the entire Germanic region east and southeast of Utrecht and as such the comparison has a different scope than the evaluation of other differences or concordances between the
Utrecht sources and P 12044. Melismas were compared for their melodic material a) as in the Utrecht sources and b) as in the Utrecht sources and P 12044. Regarding the notation, apart from the observation that in the chants analysed in P 12044 no quilismas occur, I concentrated on the Utrecht sources. Three notational issues were highlighted: the occurrences of virga and punctum, the possible interpretations of the quilisma in a (partly?) non-diatonic context like the Utrecht manuscripts and the preference of the notators of U
406 for somewhat more ‘complicated’ neume combinations in certain constellations.
For the analysis, eight legible responsories from the Fragments, U 406 and P 12044 were transcribed and analysed. All conclusions should be interpreted within the limited context of these eight analyses and cannot be assumed to be automatically applicable to the rest of the repertory as in these antiphonaries.
Since the Fragments are the starting point for the analysis, the respond-verse pairs as in the Fragments are the basis for the comparison. The liturgies in the other sources are quite different though. In a number of cases it was necessary to combine responds and verses from different responsories, since the combinations responds-verses are different. These differences apply as well within Utrecht.
My analysis shows that the great responsories in the Fragments and U 406 have a high degree of similarity. From a textual point of view, the repertory compared is very stable.
Virtually no textual variations were detected and none have had an impact on the melodic
130 elements. Without exception, the notators applied the same modal characteristics in both sources. As to the formal differences, the average rate was 1 difference on 18 phrases (7 differences in 128 phrases compared. This, like the texts and the modal characteristics, also points to a strong musical relation between the two Utrecht sources. The same comparison between the Utrecht sources on the one hand and P 12044 on the other hand results in a difference rate of about 1:3 (36,5 differences in 112 phrases compared).
The comparison between the neume symbols of the Fragments and U 406 confirms earlier observations by De Loos, that they are highly similar. In the constellations of neume strings, the preponderance of virgae in U 406 in comparison to puncta, mentioned by De
Loos as a distinct trait of U 406 in comparison to Hartker and Bamberg antiphonaries, could not be observed in the responsories compared. For the description and analysis of quilismas, the existing terminology was rephrased, defining the phenomenon as a pitch structure with two boundary pitches - of which the second represents a higher pitch - and an optional element in between. It was observed that in both Utrecht sources the boundary pitches often are less than a minor third apart. This could implicate the performance of non-diatonic pitches in a diatonic context.
The most interesting observations of the present study relate to the positions of the micro clives, perhaps indicating a role in the mnemonic system supported by the elements as presented. Boethius distinguishes between two semitones, one with a smaller interval than the other, but he does not specify their application(s) in their melodic (or other possible, currently not yet rediscovered) contexts. The micro clivis and the micro porrectus might be neumes expressing the difference between the two intervals. De Loos, in 1996, classifies microtonal intervals as ornamentations. In U 406, De Loos could not find microtonal neumes as a structural element in chant. In vain she sought for the occurrence of
131 micro neumes as distinctive, additional tone steps intrinsically linked to the mode in which they are applied. For the microtonal intervals, the analysis of the eight Utrecht responsories from the Fragments seems to point into another structural direction however. In the responsories analysed, twenty-nine micro clives appear in seventeen phrases in responds as well as in verses. In the Fragments, the neume occurs more often, but where micro clives appear in the same responsories in both Utrecht manuscripts, they have the same positions.
First, they are found as the final interval of the fourth phrase of responds and as the final interval of one of both verse phrases. In Deus qui sedes (the feast of Stephen, a responsory remarkably often referred to in the present study), even both phrases of the verse have a micro clivis at the end. The second position of the micro clivis for the time being cannot be better categorised than ‘non-final’. In those positions, the micro clivis in the majority of cases is positioned in the incipit of the respond or the verse.
The answers to the musicological questions regarding traces of a ‘Utrecht style’ remain hypothetical. Looking at visible traces in the manuscripts, the wording and the modes applied are identical for both Utrecht sources and Paris. The melismas, even the longest and most complex one on collegio in Deus qui sedes, are very similar. As was to be expected,
Utrecht is distinctive where the occurrences of east Frankish and west Frankish dialects are compared with P 12044: Utrecht definitely has more east Frankish phrases. But a member of a Benedictine congregation of St Maur-les-Fossés most probably could not have localised the chant as performed by a Utrecht confrère by this distinction alone, since most Benedictines east and south east of Utrecht applied that dialect. Some elements are ‘unique’ in the sense that they do not appear in P 12044 nor in the other manuscripts analysed by Helsen. I was nonetheless able to trace a number of concordant melodies/elements in the database
Globalchant. They emerge four centuries later in an antiphonary from Augsburg cathedral.
132 Perhaps Utrecht was the example, but it was more probably the Benedictine congregations in the Rheinau area who signed for this tradition. In this sense, both ‘unique’ and ‘Utrecht style’ very much deserve their quotation marks. A regionally more restrictive distinction might have been the use of microtonal elements. Boethius referred to two different semitones, one with a smaller interval than the other. I do not exclude the terminology
‘ornamental’ for these neumes and/or pitch sequences as applied by De Loos. McGee’s objection against the terminology rather refers to visible distinctions between ‘normal’ and
’ornamental neumes’; these are irrelevant in the context of a predominantly auditive transmission of a tradition. The registration of microtonal intervals in the Utrecht sources at
- what from the small selection of analysed responsories seem to be - crucial, structuring positions apparently was important for the Utrecht notators. If traits of a ‘Utrecht style’ exist, they must be sought in the application of the microtonal intervals in the positions as found in both the Fragments and U 406. Most probably, this is to be seen as a characteristic of the Utrecht-Stavelot-Trier tradition. The next logical step to test this hypothesis would be to analyse the manuscripts of this tradition in depth.
133 Manuscripts consulted
F-Pn lat. 12044 Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris. Online accessible via http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b6000531z
NL-Uc ABM 62 Catharijneconvent, Utrecht.
NL-Uu HSS: Hs. Fr. 4.3. Universiteitsbiblitheek Utrecht, Utrecht. Online accessible via http://objects.library.uu.nl/reader/index.php?obj=1874- 258856&lan=en#page//10/84/11/108411986037142495240705333532903752902.jpg/mod e/1up
NL-Uu 406 Universiteitsbiblitheek Utrecht, Utrecht. Online accessible via http://www.diamm.ac.uk/jsp/Descriptions?op=SOURCE&sourceKey=1355 Registration required (free).
134 Bibliography
Antiphonaire Monastique: XIIe siècle: Codex 601 de la Bibliothèque Capitulaire de Lucques, edited by Mocquereau, A. Tournai: Société Saint-Jean l'évangéliste : Desclée : Lefebvre & Cie, 1906. http://archive.org/details/palographiemus0509gaja. Accessed February 3, 2013. Antiphonaire Monastique: XIIIe siècle, Codex F. 160 de la Bibliothèque de la Cathédrale de Worcester, edited by Mocquereau, A. Tournay, Belgium: Société Saínt-Jean l'Evangéliste, 1922. Apel, Willi. Gregorian Chant. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1958. Beekman, A. Tien Eeuwen Egmond : Ontstaan, Bloei en Ondergang van de Regale Abdij van Egmond : Een Bundel Opstellen, verzameld bij gelegenheidvan het tiende eeuwfeest der Stichting in 1950. Heemstede: De Toorts, 1950. Benedict. Benedicti Regula. Hanslik, Rudolf (ed). Vindobonae: Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1960. Black, Jonathan. "The Divine Office and Private Devotion." The Liturgy of the Medieval Church, edited by Heffernan, Thomas J. and E. Ann Matter, 45-72. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 2001. Boethius, Bower, Calvin and Palisca, Claude. Fundamentals of music. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Broer, Charlotte. "Sporen Van Cluny? De Abdijen Van Sint-Paulus in Utrecht En Sint-Laurens in Oostbroek-De Bilt." De Nalatenschap Van De Paulusabdij in Utrecht, edited by Hildo van Engen and Kaj van Vliet, 23-36. Hilversum: Verloren, 2012. ——— Monniken in het moeras: de vroegste geschiedenis van de abdij van Sint-Laurens in het Oostbroek bij Utrecht (Broer, Utrecht 2011), 46-47) ——— Uniek in de stad: De oudste geschiedenis van de kloostergemeenschap Op De Hohorst bij Amersfoort, sinds 1050 de Sint-Paulusabdij in Utrecht: haar plaats binnen de Utrechtse Kerk en de ontwikkeling van haar goederenbezit (ca. 1000 - ca. 1200). Broer, Utrecht: 2000. Buijk, Ronald. Charterdoos 4, (term paper for the course ‘Middeleeuwse Handschriften’, History Department Utrecht University, HSS U 11 no. 17, Utrecht University Library, Special Collections Department), Utrecht 1984. Cantusdatabase.org Cardine, Eugene. Sémiologie grégorienne. Solesmes: Abbaye Saint-Pierre de Solesmes, 1970. Carruthers, Mary J. The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture. Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Catholic Church. Nocturnale Romanum: Antiphonale Sacrosanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ Pro Nocturnis Horis. Heidelberg/Rome: Hartker Verlag, 2002. Clemens, Raymond and Graham, Timothy. Introduction to Manuscript Studies. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2007. Corbin, Solange. "Die Neumen" Palaeographie der Musik, nach den Plaenen Leo Schrades, eds. Wulf Arlt and Leo Schrade. 3.5. Köln: Arno Volk-Verlag, 1973. Cowdrey, H. E. J. Pope Gregory VII, 1073-1085. Oxford; Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1998. De Bruin, Renger. Geschiedenis van de stad Utrecht. Utrecht: Matrijs, 2000.
135 De Loos, Ike. "Duitse en Nederlandse muzieknotaties in de 12e en 13e eeuw." PhD diss., Utrecht: Utrecht University, 1996. ———. "Introduction." Utrecht, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, MS 406 (3.J.7), edited by Steiner, Ruth, v-xix. Ottawa, Canada: Institute of Mediaeval Music, 1997. ———. "Drama als liturgie - liturgie als drama." Spel en spektakel, edited by Hans van Dijk and Bart Ramakers, 35-56. Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2001. ———. "Plange Quasi Virgo. an Archeological Study of the Utrecht Responsory Tradition." The Di Martinelli Music Collection. Musical Life in Collegiate Churches in the Low Countries and Europe. Chant and Polyphony. Leuven, Alamire Foundation, 2000. ———."Modes and Melodies in the Great Responsories." Antiphonaria: Studien zu Quellen und Gesängen des mittelalterlichen Offiziums, edited by David Hiley, Vol. VII, 171-200. Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 2009. ———. The transmission of the "Responsoria Prolixa" according to the manuscripts of St Mary's church Utrecht. Tijdschrift van de Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 49(1) (1999), 5-31. ———. "Responsory Verses: What do they Tell Us about Chant Traditions?"IMS Intercongressional Symposium Budapest, August 2000, 2003. Declercq, Georges. "Van 'Renovatio Ordinis' tot 'Traditio Romana'. De abdij van Egmond en de Vlaamse kloosterhervorming van de 12e eeuw." Egmond tussen Kerk en wereld, edited by Jurjen Vis and Peter Gumbert, 163-181. Hilversum: Verloren, 1993. Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Félix. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. trans. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987. Downey, Charles T. and Steiner, Ruth. An Utrecht Antiphoner : Utrecht, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit 406 (3.J.7): Printouts from an Index in Machine-Readable Form : A CANTUS Index. Ottawa, Canada: Institute of Mediaeval Music, 1997. Falconer, Keith. "The Modes before the Modes: Antiphon and Differentia in Western Chant." The Study of Medieval Chant: Paths and Bridges, East and West: In Honor of Kenneth Levy, edited by Levy, Kenneth, and Peter Jeffery , 131-145. Woodbridge, Suffolk; Rochester, NY: Boydell Press, 2001. Ferreira, Manuel Pedro. "Music at Cluny: The Tradition of Gregorian Chant for the Proper of the Mass—Melodic Variants and Microtonal Nuances." PhD diss., Princeton: Princeton University, 1997. Frere, Walter Howard. Graduale Sarisburiense; a Reproduction in Facsimile of a Manuscript of the Thirteenth Century. London: B. Quaritch, 1894. Froger, Jacques. "Les pretendus quarts de ton dans le chant grégorien et les symboles du ms. H. 159 de Montpellier," Études Gregoriennes XVII (1978), 145-178. Gerbert, Martin. Scriptores Ecclesiastici De Musica Sacra Potissimum. Milano: Bollettino Bibliografico Musicale, 1931. Gerlach, Oliver. Im Labyrinth des Oktōīchos. Über die Rekonstruktion mittelalterlicher Improvisationspraktiken in liturgischer Musik. Vol. 1-2. Berlin: s.n., 2006. Geuenich, Dieter. Verbrüderungsverträge als Zeugnisse der monastischen Reform des 11. Jahrhunderts in Schwaben [s.l.]: [s.n.], 1975. Gevaert, François Auguste. La mélopée antique dans le chant de l'église latine. Gand: A. Hoste, 1895. Gmelch, Joseph. "Die Viertelstonstufen im Messtonale von Montpellier." PhD diss., Freiburg, Freiburg University, 1911.
136 Guido and Jos Smits van Waesberghe. Gvidonis Aretini Micrologvs. [S.l.]: American Institute of Musicology, 1955. Gumbert, Peter. "Boeken en Boekhouding. Egmondse boeken onder abt Jan de Weent (1381-1404)." In het spoor van Egbert : Aartsbisschop Egbert van Trier, De Bibliotheek en geschiedschrijving van het klooster Egmond, edited by Jurjen Vis, Hilversum: Verloren, 1997. ———. "Codicological Units: Towards a Terminology for the Stratigraphy of the Non- Homogeneous Codex." Segno e Testo no. 2 (2004): 17-24. ———. "Handschriften in de bibliotheek van het Paulusklooster." De Nalatenschap van de Paulusabdij in Utrecht, edited by Hildo van Engen and Kaj van Vliet, 91-100. Hilversum: Verloren, 2012. Haines, John. "The Origins of the Musical Staff." Musical Quarterly 91, no. 3-4 (2009): 327- 378. Hansen, Finn Egeland. Layers of musical meaning. Copenhagen: Royal Library, 2006 Hansen, Finn Egeland. The Grammar of Gregorian Tonality: An Investigation Based on the Repertory in Codex H 159, Montpellier. Copenhagen: Dan Fog, 1979. Hansen, Finn Egeland. "Editorial Problems Connected with the Transcription of H 159, Montpellier: Tonary of St. Benigne de Dijon." Études Gregoriennes XVI, (1977): 161-172. Heffernan, Thomas J., and E. Ann Matter. The Liturgy of the Medieval Church. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 2001. Heisler, Maria Elisabeth. "Die Problematik des ‘germanischen’ oder ‘deutschen’ Choraldialekts." Studia Musicologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. 27 (1985): 67- 82. Helsen, Katherine Eve. ”The Great Responsories of the Divine Office. Aspects of Structure and Transmission.” PhD diss., Regensburg: Regensburg University, 2008. Hesbert, René Jean, and Prévost, Renatus. Corpus Antiphonalium Officii. Roma: Herder, 1963. Hiley, David. Western Plainchant: A Handbook. Oxford [England]; Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1993. Hiley, David "Staff." Oxford University Press, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/26519. Accessed December 30, 2012. Holman, Hans-Jørgen. "The Responsoria Prolixa of the Codex Worchester F 160." PhD diss., Ann Arbor: Indiana University, 1961. Hucke, Helmut. "Toward a New Historical View of Gregorian Chant." Journal of the American Musicological Society 33, no. 3 (1980): 437-467. Hughes, Andrew. "Charlemagne's Chant or the Great Vocal Shift." Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies 77, no. 4 (2002): 1069-1106. ———. Medieval Manuscripts for Mass and Office: A Guide to their Organization and Terminology. Toronto London Buffalo: University of Toronto press, 1995. Huglo, Michel. Les Anciens Répertoires de Plain-Chant. Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2005. Huglo, Michel and Ferreira, Manuel Pedro. "Cluniac Monks." Grove Music Online (2001): Accessed November 1, 2012. Hundertmark, Hein, Van Vliet, Kaj and De Kam, Rene. De Paulusabdij: achter de muren van Utrechts oudste klooster. Utrecht: Matrijs, 2010.
137 Hundertmark, Hein. "Naar Adelbolds voorbeeld. De kerken van bisschop Bernold." De Nalatenschap Van De Paulusabdij in Utrecht, edited by Hildo van Engen and Kaj van Vliet, 37-68. Hilversum: Verloren, 2012. Hunt, Noreen. Cluny under Saint Hugh, 1049-1109. Notre Dame, Indiana: Indiana University, 1977. Racinet, Philippe. Les maisons de l’ordre de Cluny au moyen âge - évolution et permanence d’un ancien ordre bénédictin au nord de Paris. Brussels: Nauwelaerts, 1990. Jansen, H. P. H. and A. Janse. Kroniek van het klooster Bloemhof te Wittewierum. Hilversum: Verloren, 1991. Jaski, Bart. "Een codicologische queeste naar de oudste handschriften en handschriftfragmenten van de Paulusabdij." De Nalatenschap Van De Paulusabdij in Utrecht, edited by Hildo van Engen and Kaj Van Vliet, 103-164. Hilversum: Verloren, 2012. Kennedy, Michael. "Guido d'Arezzo." Oxford University Press, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/opr/t237/e4572. Accessed December 31, 2012 Klugseder, Robert. Quellen des gregorianischen Chorals fuer das Offizium aus dem Kloster St. Ulrich und Afra Augsburg. Tutzing: H. Schneider, 2008. Koláček, Jan. "Global Chant Database" http://www.globalchant.org . Accessed February-April 2013. Kwakkel, Erik. "Biting, Kissing and the Treatment of Feet: The Transitional Script of the Long Twelfth Century." Turning Over a New Leaf: Change and Development in the Medieval Script, edited by Kwakkel, Erik, Rosamond McKitterick and Rodney M. Thomson, 79-126. Leiden: Leiden University Press, 2012. Lampen, W. "De boekenlijst van de oude abdij van Egmond." Tien eeuwen Egmond: ontstaan, bloei en ondergang van de regale abdij van Egmond. Een bundel opstellen verzameld bij gelegenheid van het tiende eeuwfeest van de Stichting in 1950, edited by A. Beekman. Heemstede: De Toorts, 1950. Levy, Kenneth, and Jeffery, Peter. The Study of Medieval Chant: Paths and Bridges, East and West: In Honor of Kenneth Levy. Woodbridge, Suffolk; Rochester, NY: Boydell Press, 2001. Levy, Kenneth. "A New Look at Roman Chant II." Early Music History 20, no. 1 (2001): 173- 198 ———. “Charlemagne’s Archetype of Gregorian Chant.” Journal of the American Musicological Society 40, no. 1, (1987), 1-30. ———. "On the Origin of Neumes." Early Music History 7 (1987), 80-81. Lutz, Cora. Remigii Autissiodorensis Commentum in Martianum Capellam. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965. Maloy, Rebecca. Inside the Offertory: Aspects of Chronology and Transmission Inside the Offertory. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2010. Mascareñas, Oscar. "A Syntactical Study of the Quilisma and Oriscus." Cantus Planus (2006): 537-547. McGee, Timothy J. ""Ornamental" Neumes and Early Notation." Performance Practice Review 9, no. 1 (1996): 39-65. Mekking, Aart. "Een kruis van kerken rond Koenraads hart." Utrecht. Kruispunt van de middeleeuwse kerk, edited by Aart Mekking, 21-54. Zutphen: Clavis, 1988.
138 Meyer, Christian. Mensura Monochordi : La Division Du Monocorde, IXe-XVe siècles. Paris: Société française de musicologie: Editions Klincksieck, 1996. Mol, Hans. "Inleiding.” De nalatenschap van de Paulusabdij in Utrecht, edited by Hildo Van Engen and Kaj Van Vliet, 9-23. Hilversum: Verloren, 2012. Mostert, Marco. "Medieval Studies, Modern Times." IMC Conference Leeds, IMC Conference, July 2001, 2001. Mostert, Marco. "Kennisoverdracht in het klooster. Over de plaats van lezen en schrijven in de vroeg-middeleeuwse monastieke opvoeding." Scholing in de middeleeuwen, edited by R. E. V. Stuip, and C. Vellekoop, 87-125. Hilversum: Verloren, 1995. Nowacki, Edward. "The Gregorian Office Antiphons and the Comparative Method." The Journal of Musicology 4, no. 3 (1985): 243-275. Paléographie Musicale. Facsimilés Phototypiques Des Principaux Manuscrits De Chant grégorien, Ambrosien, Mozarabe, Gallican. Publiée Par Les Bénédictins De l'Abbaye De Solesmes. Solesmes, 1889, etc: 1889. Palisca, Claude V. "Guido of Arezzo." Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com /subscriber/article/grove/music/11968. Accessed March 4, 2013. Pascall, Robert. "Style", Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/27041. Accessed February 27, 2013. Pesce, Dolores and Guido. Guido d'Arezzo's Regule Rithmice, Prologus in Antiphonarium, and Epistola Ad Michahelem : A Critical Text and Translation. Ottawa, Canada: Institute of Mediaeval Music, 1999. Pfisterer, Andreas. “Skizzen zu einer gregorianischen Formenlehre.” Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 63(2), (2006), 145-161. Phillips, Nancy “Notationen und Notationslehren von Boethius bis zum 12. Jahrhundert”. Die Lehre vom einstimmigen liturgischen Gesang. Geschichte der Musiktheorie, vol. 4, ed. Thomas Ertelt and Frieder Zaminer. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2000, 293-623. Raillard, Felix. “Emploi des quarts de ton dans le chant l’eglise” Revue archéologique 15 (1858), 487-491. Rankin, Susan. "On the Treatment of Pitch in Early Music Writing." Early Music History 30, (2011): 105-175. Szkiet, Christine. Reichenauer Codices in Schaffhausen : die frühen Handschriften des Schaffhäuser Allerheiligenklosters und ihre Stellung in der südwestdeutschen Buchmalerei des 11. Jahrhunderts. Kiel: Ludwig, 2005. Smits van Waesberghe, Joseph. De Musico-Paedagogico Et Theoretico Guidone Aretino Eiusque Vita Et Moribus. Florentiae: L.S. Olschki, 1953. Smits van Waesberghe, Joseph. "Die Rheno-Mosa-Mosellanische Neumenschrift" Dia-Pason = de omnibus : Ausgewählte Aufsätze von Joseph Smits van Waesberghe : Festgabe zu seinem 75. Geburtstag. Buren: F. Knuf, 1976), 108-112. Steiner, Ruth. "Local and Regional Traditions of the Invitatory Chant." Studia Musicologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 27, no. 1/4 (1985): 131-138. Thurston, Herbert and Meehan, Thomas. “Catholic Directories,” The Catholic Encyclopedia V (n.p.:Robert Appleton Company, 1909). Reprinted in The Catholic Encyclopedia Online Edition, ed. K. Knight
139 Treitler, Leo. With Voice and Pen: Coming to Know Medieval Song and how it was made. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Van den Hove van Genderen, Bram. ““Rebell ende ongehoirsam”. Problemen rond de hervorming van de Utrechtse Paulusabdij.” De nalatenschap van de Paulusabdij in Utrecht, eds. Hildo van Engen and Kaj van Vliet, 201-258. Hilversum: Verloren, 2012. Van Vliet, Kaj. "Lijst van abten, priors en monniken in de Paulusabdij." De nalatenschap van de Paulusabdij in Utrecht, edited by Hildo van Engen and Kaj van Vliet , 37-68. Hilversum: Verloren, 2012. Vincent, Alexandre. “Emploi des quarts de ton dans le chant grégorien constaté sur l'antiphonaire de Montpellier.” Revue Archeologique, XI, 262-272 (1854). Wagner, Peter. Neumenkunde: Palaeographie des liturgischen Gesanges. Vol. I,III. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1912. Zijlstra, Marcel. "Het Officie van Sint Adalbert. Visitekaartje van een middeleeuwse abdij." Egmond tussen Kerk en wereld, edited by Jurjen Vis and Peter Gumbert, 193-214. Hilversum: Verloren, 1993. Zijlstra, Marcel and De Boer, Nienke. Tractatus de musica et tonarius e codice Bibliothecae Universitatis Ultraiectensis (Utrecht UB 406). Utrecht: Instituut voor Muziekwetenschap, Universiteit Utrecht, 1993.
140
Appendices
Appendix 1: Cataloguing fragments
Increasingly, manuscript fragments become the subject of research. Often, fragments from one original manuscript are found dispersed as flyleaves in several books of a library, or dispersed over several libraries.
Case:
Three fragments from the same antiphonary dispersed over three sources in two libraries to be put as one corpus in an electronic database (further “edb”).299
Fragment with siglum I 1 folios r/v, 3 chants Library A
Fragment with siglum II 2 folios r/v, 4 chants Library A
Fragment with siglum III, 3 folios r/v, 5 chants Library B.
The three fragments of the antiphonary show 12 chants of the original. Fragments and chants refer to the some no-longer existing original corpus, an antiphonary for instance. For this, researchers agree to put the results of his analysis into an open access edb. Since previous research refers to those sigla already, the two libraries are not willing to change their respective sigla. Recently more fragments were discovered in yet another library, which might have belonged to the same antiphonary.
------
299 Depending upon the (expected) total size of the file and the institutional context of the research, researchers might consider using spreadsheets. The selection of chant elements, as well as their encoding normally is relatively simple. The method presented here works for spreadsheets as well.
141 Since the researchers intend to present the corpus as one source in the edb, they have to put the fragments and their respective folios in a virtual binder.
1. Since there are three sources (each with its own siglum) and two libraries involved,
the sigla cannot be used as source reference for the original corpus. In cases like this,
the corpus needs another edb source code. If the origin of the source is known, the
code could relate to the location where the manuscript was produced
(Schriftheimat); otherwise another code for the virtual binder is needed; preferably it
should contain “fr.” (for fragments).
2. Once the fragments have their virtual binder, the researchers have to establish the
original liturgical sequence of the chants as dispersed over the three sources. In this
case we assume:
a. chant 1-3 Siglum III, Libr B folio 3r/v
b. chant 4,5,6 Siglum I, L. A folio 1r/v
c. chant 7,8 Siglum II, L. A folio 1r/v
d. chant 9,10 Siglum II, L. A folio 2r/v
e. chant 11 Siglum III, L. B folio 2r/v
f. chant 12 Siglum III, L, B folio 1r/v
3. The next step consists of establishing codes that match with the system of the
general index of the edb, without losing the established liturgical sequence of the
chants, as presented under 2. above. The CANTUS database case as presented here,
in principle will refer to all kinds of databases.
4. The first column of the general index in CANTUS “folio”, shows the sequence 001,
002, 003 etc. This sequence dictates the sequence of the folios plus the chants on
them. The second column of the general index of CANTUS, “sequence”, gives the
142 sequence of the chants on the folio concerned; the remainder columns provide
additional textual and musical information. The rows are to represent the liturgical
sequence as encountered on the folios. In order to encode the folios in the sigla
correctly, we give the position of each folio in the list under 2. an extra letter in
alphabetical order, preceding the numerical sequence of the general index. The code
ends with the r/v indication. In case the researchers have discovered lacunae in
between fragments, it is advisable to apply a double or triple letter code. I will come
back to this at the end.
a. chant 1-3 Siglum III, Libr B folio 3r/v aa001r/v
b. chant 4,5,6 SIglum I, Libr. A folio 1r/v ba001r/v
c. chant 7,8 Siglum II, Libr. A folio 1r/v ca001r/v
d. chant 9,10 Siglum II, Libr. A folio 2r/v ca002r/v
e. chant 11 Siglum III, Libr. B folio 2r/v da002r/v
f. chant 12 Siglum III, Libr. B folio 1r/v fa001r/v
In this phase of the transformation it is important to understand that the information
contained in the second and the third column of the table above, relate to a folio of a
document on some shelf of a library. The code in the fourth column reflects the
original sequence of the folios in the original corpus. That is why chants 7-10 receive
the same letter code, but different numbering: contrary to the other chants these are
situated on two subsequent folios of the same source. However, if chant 12 had
originated from Siglum II, library A, the alphanumerical code would remain fa001r/v,
since it refers to another location in the original corpus. The code ca003r/v would put
chant 12 underneath ca002r/v and disturb the sequence as intended.
143 If finally, for each newly constructed index number, the sequence of the chants as on
the folio has been allocated, the general index will present the sequence of the folios
with the correct sequence of all chants as in the original corpus (with or without
lacunae).
5. The resulting index would look like this:
folio sequence incipit
aa001r 1 chant 1
aa001v 1 chant 2
aa001v 2 chant 3
ba001r 1 chant 4
ba001r 2 chant 5
ba001v 1 chant 6
ca001r 1 chant 7
ca001v 1 chant 8
da001r 1 chant 9
da001v 1 chant 10
ea001r 1 chant 11
ea001v 1 chant 11, continued
fa001r 1 chant 12
fa001v 1 chant 12, continued
6. When the sequence of chants originating from one corpus is encoded for the general
index as described under 1-4, CANTUS will present the chants in the correct liturgical
order. It will be possible to filter and sort the elements of the original corpus and the
144 original corpus as such like sigla. To enable other researchers to track the sigla
assigned to the fragments that compose (parts of) the original corpus, the researcher
should provide the edb staff with an equivalent of the list, presented in 3. above.
7. New fragments of the same manuscript are discovered in a third library:
chant 1,2,3 Siglum IV, L. C folio 1r/v
chant 4,5,6 Siglum IV, L. C folio 2r/v
chant 7,8,9 Siglum IV, L. C folio 3r/v
Their position on the liturgical calendar is between aa 001v and ba001r. Now the
double (triple) lettercode avoids that the corpus needs to be re-encoded after where
the new found folios have to put in the database, by applying the letter combination
“ab” to the fragments to be inserted. The database will reorder the fragments
directly behind the chants with the opening code “aa”.
145 Appendix 2: The transcription of the calendar
See the digitized Fragments page 6, E fol 149 2v. The numbers between brackets relate to the CANTUS ID’s.
Line Date Left column Right Column nr. Prophetae predicaverunt Ecce deus meus. (002503) Ad finibus dies domini (002215) 1 (004392)
2 Spriritus domini. (004998) a Propter syon (004400)
3 ecce veniet dominus ut sedeat (002551)
4 a annunciate In evangelio (several) Misus est gab[ri]el angelus. Constantes estote (001899) Paratus 5 (003794) 6 15-12 xviii Kalendae [ ] feria v. esto israel. (001899) veni domine et noli. (004217) 7 16-12 xvii feria v In laudibus a Domine a lybano. (002163) Ego autem ad domini (002565) vigilare animo(several) 8 De syon veniet dominus (002120)a De syon. (002121)
9 Convertere dominus.a.Deus a lybano (002163) 10 Dominus legifer. In evangelio. (002415) Scitote (004834) Hodie scietis (003119) Crastina die delebitur iniquitas (001940/007998) 11 ex quo facta est vox (002750) 12 17-12 xvi Kalendae Ianuarii feria Crastina erit (001941) Magnificatur est (003670) 13 vi In evangelio a Joseph fili David (003507) 14 Veniet dominus in potestate (005338) 15 Ad te domine levavi animam (920024)
16 Exspectetur sicut a ecce rex (002806)/ several
17 Veniet dominus In evangelio (005338) 18 18-12 Omnis vallis. xv ad laudibus 19 feria [ ] Canite tuba (001757) 20 19-12 xiiii Kalendae Ianuarii 21 feria ii In laudibus a
22 Ecce veniet dominus princeps (002550) 300 a dum venerit a ecce iam +venit+ (002476+)/ sev. 23
24 Hauriens a Egredietur 25 dominus de loco. In evangelio (002612) 26 Egredietur virga de radice (002613)
Rorate +caeli+ (004668?) +Emite+ (002642) 27
28 agnum. Ut cognoscans 29 Da mercedem Lex per (002087) 30 moysen data (003612/3) 31 In bethlehem terra juda. (?)
300 CANTUS: cum venerit
146
32 Nolite timere (003896)
33 Veniat iterum angelus tuus (005330) 34 Intuemini (003391) Expectabo (several)
147 Appendix 3: Neume tables
Table&of&Utrecht&neumes&as&occurring&&in&the&transcribed&responsoria&of&the&Fragments
Transcription% Sign%Name Shorthand Symbol Comments applied Bivirga biv here%in%combination% with%climacus --k-k-j-h-3
Climacus cl --h-g-f---3 Climacus:%%%%%%Bivirga%climacus bivcli ---hgf----3 Clivis cs --g-f-3-gd-3 Clivis%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"Micro%clivis" mcs --k-iIj---3 Clivis%praepunctis% cspp -f-g-h-g---3 Epiphonus ep --hg-----3 Oriscus or --h------3 Pes ps --f-g-3-fk-----3 Pes%subbipunctis pssp -h-k-h-g-----3 Porrectus po -h-f-h------3 Porrectus%praepunctis popp -e-f-g-e-f----3 Pressus%maior% pma 1--h-h-g----3 Pressus%minor%% pmi here%in%combination% with%clivis --kh3-hg----3 Punctum p --g------3
148 Transcription% Sign%Name Shorthand Symbol Comments applied Quilisma qi --g-H-j-----3 Quilisma%torculus qito ---h-J-k-g------3 Quilisma%torculus% qitopp praepunctis -g-h-J-k-h------3 Quilisma%torculus%resupinus% qitorpp praepunctis -g-h-J-k-h-k-----3
Quilisma%torculus% qisp subbipunctis -h-J-k-h-g-----3
Scandicus sc ---f-g-h-----3 ScandicusCClimacus sccl --e-f-h-f-e----3 Stropha:%%Bistropha%(isolated) bis -----h-h-----3
Stropha:%Tristropha tirs ----h------3
Torculus to ----f-h-f---3 Torculus%%%%CPressus%minor topmi -f-h-f-f-e--3 Torculus%Resupinus tor -f-h-f-h-g--3 Virga v --g------3 Virga%strata vs --g------3 Tractulus tract is%the%diminutive%of%the% Latin%tractus,%meaning% "to%draw%out"
149 Transcription% Sign%Name Shorthand Symbol Comments applied Flat%sign 1--ij------3 Adapted%flat%sign 1--Ij-----3 f%C%clef%1
f%C%clef%2
c%C%clef
Axis%of%notation%in%both% Utrecht%MSS%rather%steep
150
Neume Table of U 406 as presented in Charles T. Downey and Ruth Steiner, An Utrecht Antiphoner : Utrecht, Bibliotheek Der Rijksuniversiteit 406 (3.J.7) : Printouts from an Index in Machine-Readable Form : A CANTUS Index (Ottawa, Canada: Institute of Mediaeval Music, 1997), xiii-xiv.
151
152
Neume table of F-Pn lat 12044 as presented in Katherine Eve Helsen, The Great Responsories of the Divine Office. Aspects of Structure and Transmission, PhD diss. ed. (Regensburg: Regensburg University, 2008), 51-54.
153
154
155
156 Appendix 4: The folio sequence: the liturgical calendar
Folio Clus- Site Page Feast Nr of Remarks ter Chnts 4.3 C 3r 1 1 Dom. 3 Adventus 6 4.3 C 3v 2 Dom. 3 Adventus 17
F qu 116 1r 2 3 Dom. 4 Adventus 7 Ex libris F qu 116 1v 4 Dom. 4 Adventus 7
E fol 149 2r 3 5 Ant. Maiores 8 Ex libris E fol 149 2v 6 Ant. Maiores (end) Continuation of last O Antiphon. Calendar
E fol 149 4r 7 Scraped. Unfinished colonnade for calendar (identical to E fol 149 2v) E fol 149 4v 4 8 Vigilia Nat. Domini 12 E fol 149 6r 5 9 Nativitas Domini 5 Illuminated initial E fol 149 6v 10 Nativitas Domini 19 E fol 149 5r 11 Nativitas Domini Illegible E fol 149 5v 6 12 Nativitas Domini 8 E fol 149 3r 7 13 Nativitas Domini 10 E fol 149 3v 14 Nativitas Domini 6
4.3 C 4r 8 15 MA+ Stephani 8 4.3 C 4v 16 Stephani 9 4.3 B 1r 17 Stephani 8 4.3 B 1v 18 Stephani 6 4.3 B 2r 19 MA+ Stephani 13 4.3 B 2v 20 Stephani 4 4.3 B 2v 20 Iohanni Evangelista 4 E fol 147, strip r 21 Iohanni Evangelista Diligebat autem (CANTUS 002232) E fol 147, strip v 22 Iohanni Evangelista
4.3 C 1r (bifolium) 9 23 Innocentium Halfway the page: De Innocentibus Antiphonae (in red). System lines above faded. apart from ad primas and ad vesperas. System lines below: idem, apart from ad vesperas and Invitatiorium. 4.3 C 1v (bifolium) 24 Innocentium ? Only an initial “S” (red, table 3:class 6) is legible 4.3 C 2r (bifolium) 25 System lines scraped. Ex libris. 4.3 C 2v (bifolium) 26 Epiphania 6
X fol 88 fol 2r 10 27 MA+ Dom. 2 p. Epiphanea 6 X fol 88 fol 2r 27 Sabb 2 p. Epiphanea 1 X fol 88 fol 2r 27 Dom. 4 p. Epiphanea 1 X fol 88 fol 2v 28 5
157 Folio Clus- Site Page Feast Nr. of Remarks ter Chnts X fol 88 fol 2v 28 Dominica prima p. 13 Octavam Epiph. X fol 88 fol 1r 29 MA+ 7 X fol 88 fol 1r 29 Feria 2 infra Hebd. I 2 p. Epiph. X fol 88 fol 1v 30 MA+ 8 X fol 88 fol 1v 30 Dominicae II usq VI 8 post Epiph.
E fol 275 1r 11 31 MA+ Feria 6 infra Hebd. I 13 Incipits only p. Epiph. E fol 275 1r 31 Sabbato infra Hebd. I 14 p. Epiph. E fol 275 1r 31 22 E fol 275 1v 32 22
F qu 116 back r 12 33 MA+ Purificatio Mariae 7 F qu 116 back v 34 Purificatio Mariae 3
BRES Manuscript 13 35 Agathae 8 1290 1r BRES Manuscript 36 MA+ Agathae 8 1290 1v
E fol 149 1r 14 37 MA+ Benedicti 9 E fol 149 1v 38 Benedicti 6 Illuminated initial
4.3A 1r 15 39 Dom. 2 Quad. 7 4.3A 1r 39 Feria 2 Hebd. 2 Quad. 3 4.3A 1v 40 MA+ Feria 3 Hebd. 2 Quad. 2 Ex libris 4.3A 1v 40 Feria 4 Hebd. 2 Quad. 4 4.3A 1v 40 Feria 5 Hebd. 2 Quad. 2 4.3A 1v 40 Feria 6 Hebd. 2 Quad. 2 4.3A 1v 40 Sab. Hebd. 2 Quad. 1 4.3A 2r 41 MA+ Sab. Hebd. 2 Quad. 1 4.3A 2r 41 Dom. 3 Quad. 8 4.3A 2v 42 Dom. 3 Quad. 9
158
Appendix 5: List of chants
This appendix contains all chants found in the Fragments with its feasts in the liturgical sequence as found in U 406. The list can be consulted or downloaded via this link.
The CANTUS standard texts (as in Hesbert, volumes 3 and 4 of the Corpus Antiphonalium
Officii) in combination with the analysis tools of the database enabled me to reconstruct many chants of which only a few words are legible. Where legibility is limited I refrained from editing the distinction between legible and reconstructed illegible text parts and copied the standard texts from CANTUS. These reconstructed texts are indicated in italics. Legible texts are in normal font. For text variations see under Variations below.
Sequence301 The order of chant’s appearance on the folio.
Change of cluster
If a folio is the start of a new cluster, the first chant is listed as number 0 if
the text started on the preceding - lost - folio. In that case, the column
“Text fragment” mentions “Preceding text lost” and shows the lost text
preceding two slashes. If the new folio starts with a complete incipit, it
receives the number 1.
The last chant of a cluster is numbered 99. If the text is interrupted, a
double slash in the column “Text fragment” indicates where this is the
case, and the remaining reconstructed text is added. At the end of a
cluster, the text “End of cluster” is added.
301 The explanation from “Sequence” on was copied from http://cantusdatabase.org/description . Accessed May 24, 2012. The preparation by me of a CANTUS file for these fragments is in progress.
159 If a chant is interrupted at the end of a cluster, this is indicated with two
slashes after the last legible word of the cluster on the page concerned.
The missing text after the two dashes was reconstructed based upon the
“Standard texts” as in CANTUS.
A new cluster is indicated by a grey background of the row concerned.
Same cluster
A running text that starts on the preceding page/folio is not mentioned
separately. The first complete incipit on a page/folio gets the number 1.
Liturgical
Occasion/
Feast Name The name of the occasion on which the chant is sung, given in a style and
spelling similar to that employed by Hesbert in volumes 3 and 4 of Corpus
Antiphonalium Officii (CAO), but shortened to 20 characters.
Rubric The rubrics as in the fragments. In many antiphonaries, the rubrics
include the position of the chant in the office. Since this is not or only
seldom the case in the fragments (plus the many lacunae that make
positions even more complicated), I decided to refrain from guesswork
and/or positioning based upon analogies.
Office V First Vespers
C Compline
M Matins
160 L Lauds
P Prime
T Terce
S Sext
N None
V2 Second Vespers
E Antiphons for the Magnificat or Benedictus (“in evangelio”)
H Antiphons based on texts from the Historia
Genre The abbreviations used are:
A Antiphon
AV Antiphon Verse
R Responsory
V Responsory Verse
W Versicle
H Hymn
I Invitatory antiphon
P Invitatory Psalm
Mode The apparent mode of the chant. This is normally a single number in the
left-hand column of this field, with the values 1 through 8 indicating the
mode in which the melody is found in this manuscript. In deciding the
mode of a chant, CANTUS indexers take into account the final, the range,
and any modal formula that may be associated with it, such as the verse
161 of a responsory. Some sources indicate the mode to which they assign a
chant; where this does not coincide with the decision of the indexer, the
latter is what appears in the index.
A question mark in the column is used to show that the mode was not
identifiable; if the mode is not legible, one may assume that the legibility
of the musical notation of the chant is more than mediocre. Two dashes (-
-) indicate that notation was not provided. A question mark in the
column (following a mode number) indicates uncertainty concerning the
modal assignment.
CANTUS ID These 7-digit numbers (plus suffixes) have been created by CANTUS in
order that the large repertory of chants not included in CAO (i.e., not
included in the twelve early antiphoners surveyed by Hesbert) might
begin to be cross-referenced across the database.
These Cantus ID Numbers have been designed to follow the general
numbering scheme created by Hesbert in CAO, with corresponding
numerical prefixes for each genre of chant.
Seq(uence) This number provides an indication of the order in which each chant
appears on the page or folio side: "1" is the first chant, "2" is the second,
and so on.
162 Concordances in CAO: References to the twelve early manuscripts surveyed in volumes 1 and 2
of Corpus Antiphonalium Officii.
Sources representing the Roman cursus are C G B E M V:
C Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 17436 (ninth century, from Compiègne) [RISM: F-Pn lat. 17436] G Durham, Cathedral Library, B. III. 11 (eleventh century, from northern France) [RISM: GB-DRc B. III. 11] B Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, lit. 23 (eleventh or twelfth century, from Bamberg) [RISM: D-BAs lit. 23] E Ivrea, Biblioteca Capitolare, 106 (eleventh century, from Ivrea) [RISM: I-IV 106] M Monza, Basilica di S. Giovanni Battista - Biblioteca Capitolare e Tesoro, C. 12/75 (eleventh century, from Monza) [RISM: I-MZ C. 12/75] V Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, XCVIII (eleventh century, from Verona) [RISM: I-VEcap XCVIII] Sources representing the monastic cursus are H R D F S L: H Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 390-391 (“Hartker antiphoner,” early eleventh century, from St. Gall) [RISM: CH-SGs 390-391] R Zürich, Zentralbibliothek, Rh. 28 (thirteenth century, from Rheinau) [RISM: CH-Zz Rh. 28] D Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 17296 (twelfth century, from St. Denis) [RISM: F-Pn lat. 17296] F Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 12584 (twelfth century, from St. Maur-les-Fossés) [RISM: F-Pn lat. 12584] S London, The British Library, add. 30850 (eleventh century, from Silos) [RISM: GB-Lbl add. 30850] L Benevento, Biblioteca Capitolare, V 21 (late twelfth century, from San Lupo) [RISM: I-BV V. 21]
Variations In CANTUS, standard texts of the chants are based upon Hesbert, volumes
3 and 4 of Corpus Antiphonalium Officii, to be found via the incipits and
the CANTUS ID in CANTUS database. Text that differs from the standard
text is in bold. Repetenda of responsories are indicated in bold italic.
Capital Type The capital types as described in table 3
163
Remarks Various.
164 Appendix 6: The incipits in alphabetical order
An alphabetical list of the fragments’ incipits can be accessed via this link.
The list has the following headers:
Incipit List number Genre Mode Folio
165 Appendix 7: Liturgy and concordances of the Utrecht responsories
Fragments FragmBU4064Concordances Responsoria4Prolixa4in4U4406,4for4the4feasts4in4the4Fragments.4Original4and4complete4sequences.
Orig.4 Orig.4 Feast Office Genre Seq. Incipit Cantus4ID Count Concord Office Genre seq.4 Position4 Incipit Cantus4ID Mode Concord Feast Office Genre Seq.4 Position Incipit Cantus4ID Mode Concord U406 U406 Ecce%apparebit% 006578 1 CBEMVA Dom.%3% Ecce%apparebit% CGBEMVHR Dom.%3% Ecce%apparebit% CGBEMVHR M R 1 dominus%super HRDFSL M R 1 1.1 6578 1 M R 1 1.1 6578 1 Adventus dominus%super DFSL Adventus dominus%super DFSL Ecce%dominator% 006578b 1 CBEMVA Dom.%3% Dom.%3% Apparebit%in% M V 2 dominus%cum HRDFSL M V 1 006578a 1 G%E%V%DFS Adventus Adventus fine%et%non 2 Bethleem% 006254 1 CBEMVA Bethleem% Bethleem% Dom.%3% CGBEMVHR Dom.%3% CGBEMVHR M R 3 civitas%dei% HRDFSL M R 3 1.2 civitas%dei% 6254 7 M R 3 1.2 civitas%dei% 6254 7 Adventus DFSL Adventus DFSL summi%ex summi%ex summi%ex Qui%venturus% 007485 1 CBEMVA Loquetur% Dom.%3% Qui%venturus% CGBEMVHR Dom.%3% M R 4 est%veniet HRDFSL M R 5 1.3 7485 6 M V 4 1 pacem%gentibus% 006254c 7 DFSL Adventus est%veniet%et DFSL Adventus et Deponet%omnes%007485b 1 GE%DFSL Dom.%3% Deponet%omnes% Dom.%3% Qui%venturus% CGBEMVHR M V 5 iniquitates M V 6 1 007485b 6 G%E%DFSL M R 5 1.3 7485 6 Adventus iniquitates Adventus est%veniet%et DFSL Suscipe%verbum%007744 1 CBEMVHR Dom.%3% Dom.%3% Deponet%omnes% M R 6 virgo M V 6 1 007485b 6 G%E%DFSL Adventus Adventus iniquitates Ave%Maria% 007744a 1 CBEMVHR Dom.%3% gratia%plena% Dom.%3% M V 7 M A 7 2. Nox%praecessit* 3967 * BE%R Adventus dominus%tecum% Adventus
Aegypte%noli% 006056% 1 CBEMVA Dom.%3% Aegypte%noli% CGBEMVHR Dom.%3% Suscipe%verbum% CGBEMVHR M R 8 flere%quia HRDFSL M R 11 2.2 6056 4 M R 9 2.1 7744 4 Adventus flere%quia DFSL Adventus virgo%Maria DFSL Dom.%3% Ecce%veniet% 006056b 1 G%DFS Ecce%veniet% Dom.%3% Paries%quidem% M V 9 M V 12 1 006056b 4 G%DFS M V 10 1 007744b 4 G%DFSL Adventus dominus dominus Adventus filium%et Dom.%3% Prope%est%ut% 007438 1 CBEMVA Prope%est%ut% CGBEMVHR Dom.%3% Aegypte%noli% CGBEMVHR M R 10 M R 2.3 7438 3 M R 11 2.2 6056 4 Adventus veniat%tempus% HRDFSL 13 veniat%tempus DFSL Adventus flere%quia DFSL Dom.%3% Qui%venturus% 007438a 1 CGBEM% Qui%venturus% CGBEMVHR% Dom.%3% Ecce%veniet% M V 11 M V 14 1 007438a 3 M V 12 1 006056b 4 G%DFS Adventus est%veniet%et VHRL est%veniet%et L Adventus dominus Dom.%3% Descendet% 006408% 1 CBEMVA Descendet% CGBEMVHR Dom.%3% Prope%est%ut% CGBEMVHR M R 12 M R 17 3.1 6408 4 M R 2.3 7438 3 Adventus dominus%sicut HRDFSL dominus%sicut DFSL Adventus 13 veniat%tempus DFSL Et%adorabunt% 006408b 1 GDFSL Et%adorabunt% Dom.%3% Dom.%3% Qui%venturus% CGBEMVHR% M V 13 eum%omnes% M V 18 1 eum%omnes% 006408b 4 G%DFSL M V 14 1 007438a 3 Adventus Adventus est%veniet%et L reges reges Ecce%radix%Jesse%06606 1 CGBEV% Dom.%3% Ecce%radix%Jesse% CGBE% Dom.%3% M R 14 ascendet HRDFSL M R 21 3.3 6606 8 M A 15 3. Scientes%quia* 4828 4 B%R Adventus ascendet%in VHRDFSL Adventus Multiplicabitur% 007195d 1 F Dabit%illi% Dom.%3% Dom.%3% Descendet% CGBEMVHR M V 15 ejus%imperium M V 1 dominus%deus% 006606b 8? M R 17 3.1 6408 4 Adventus Adventus dominus%sicut DFSL 22 sedem Dom%3.%Adventus:%7%pairs%+%1%isolated(?)%R% Et%adorabunt% Dom.%3% in%Fr,%matched%by%5%complete%pairs%from%U% Dom.%3% M V 18 1 eum%omnes% 006408b 4 G%DFSL Adventus 406,%but%all%from%different%positions%in%the% Adventus reges office. 15 Dom.%3% Dom.%3% Veni%domine%et% CGBEMVHR M R 19 3.2 7824 7 Adventus Adventus noli%tardare DFSL Excita%domine% Dom.%3% Dom.%3% M V 1 potentiam% 007824b 7 G%DFSL Adventus Adventus 20 tuam Dom.%3% Dom.%3% Ecce%radix%Jesse% CGBE% M R 21 3.3 6606 8 Adventus Adventus ascendet%in VHRDFSL Dabit%illi% Dom.%3% Dom.%3% M V 1 dominus%deus% 006606b 8? DFSL Adventus Adventus 22 sedem LAC
Fragments FragmBU4064Concordances Responsoria4Prolixa4in4U4406,4for4the4feasts4in4the4Fragments.4Original4and4complete4sequences.
Orig.4 Orig.4 Feast Office Genre Seq. Incipit Cantus4ID Count Concord Office Genre seq.4 Position4 Incipit Cantus4ID Mode Concord Feast Office Genre Seq.4 Position Incipit Cantus4ID Mode Concord U406 U406 Dom.%4% Egredietur%virga% Dom.%4% Egredietur%virga% M W 1 1. 8044 * C%E%VHRDFS M W 1. 8044 * C%E%VHRDFS Adventus de%radice Adventus 1 de%radice Dom.%4% Canite%tuba%in% CGBEMVHR Dom.%4% Canite%tuba%in% CGBEMVHR M R 2 1.1 6265 1 M R 2 1.1 6265 1 Adventus Sion%vocate DFSL Adventus Sion%vocate DFSL Dom.%4% Annuntiate%in% Dom.%4% Annuntiate%in% M V 3 1 006265b 1 G%DF M V 3 1 006265b 1 G%DF Adventus finibus%terrae Adventus finibus%terrae Dom.%4% Non%auferetur% CGBEMVHR Dom.%4% Non%auferetur% CGBEMVHR M R 4 1.2 7224 2 M R 4 1.2 7224 2 Adventus sceptrum%de DFSL Adventus sceptrum%de DFSL Dom.%4% Pulchriores%sunt% CGBEMVHR Dom.%4% Pulchriores%sunt% CGBEMVHR M V 5 1 007224a 2 M V 5 1 007224a 2 Adventus oculi%ejus DFSL Adventus oculi%ejus DFSL Me%oportet% Me%oportet% Dom.%4% CGBEMVHR Dom.%4% CGBEMVHR M R 6 1.3 minui%illum% 7137 3 M R 6 1.3 minui%illum% 7137 3 Adventus DFSL Adventus DFSL autem autem Hoc%est% Hoc%est% Dom.%4% CGBEMVHR Dom.%4% CGBEMVHR M V 7 1 testimonium% 007137a 3 M V 7 1 testimonium% 007137a 3 Adventus D Adventus D quod quod Dom.%4% Dom.%4% M A 8 2. Nox%praecessit* 3967 4 BE%R M A 8 2. Nox%praecessit* 3967 4 BE%R Adventus Adventus Dom.%4% Egredietur% C%BE% Dom.%4% Egredietur% C%BE% M W 9 2. 8043 * M W 9 2. 8043 * Adventus dominus* VHRDFS Adventus dominus* VHRDFS Dom.%4% Ecce%jam%veniet% CGBEMVHR Dom.%4% Ecce%jam%veniet% CGBEMVHR M R 10 2.1 6596 5 M R 10 2.1 6596 5 Adventus plenitudo DFSL Adventus plenitudo DFSL
Dom.%4% Propter%nimiam% Dom.%4% Propter%nimiam% M V 11 1 006596b 5 DF%L M V 11 1 006596b 5 DF%L Adventus caritatem%suam Adventus caritatem%suam
Dom.%4% Dom.%4% Virgo%Israel% CGBEMVHR M R 12 2.2 7903 8 Adventus Adventus revertere%in DFSL Dom.%4% In%caritate% Dom.%4% In%caritate% M V 13 1 007903b 8 G%DFSL M V 13 1 007903b 8 G%DFSL Adventus perpetua%dilexi Adventus perpetua%dilexi Juravi%dicit% Juravi%dicit% Dom.%4% CGBEMVHR Dom.%4% CGBEMVHR M R 14 2.3 dominus%ut% 7045 8 M R 14 2.3 dominus%ut% 7045 8 Adventus DFSL Adventus DFSL ultra ultra Dom.%4% Dabo%in%Sion% Dom.%4% Dabo%in%Sion% CGBEMVHR M V 15 1 007045zb 8 M V 15 1 007045zb 8 Adventus salutem%et%in Adventus salutem%et%in DFSL Dom.%4% Dom.%4% M A 16 3. Scientes%quia* 4828 * B%R M A 16 3. Scientes%quia* 4828 * B%R Adventus Adventus Dom.%4% Ex%Sion%species% C%BE% Dom.%4% Ex%Sion%species% C%BE% M W 17 3. 8060 * M W 17 3. 8060 * Adventus decoris%ejus VHRDFS Adventus decoris%ejus VHRDFS M R Non%discedimus%7227 Dom.%4% CGBEMVHR Non%discedimus% CGBEMVHR Dom.%4% Non%discedimus% CGBEMVHR 1 a%te M R 18 3.1 7227 8 M R 18 3.1 7227 8 Adventus DFSL a%te DFSL Adventus a%te DFSL 1 M V Domine%deus% 007227a CGBEMV%%%%% Domine%deus% Domine%deus% Dom.%4% CGBEMVHR Dom.%4% CGBEMVHR 2 virtutum% HRD%S M V 19 1 virtutum% 007227a 8 M V 19 1 virtutum% 007227a 8 Adventus D%S Adventus D%S converte% 1 converte converte Dom.%4% M R Egredietur%virga 006641% C%BEMV%%%%%%%% Dom.%4% Intuemini% CGBEMVHR 3 M R 20 3.2 6983 3 Adventus 1 HR%FS Adventus quantus%sit%iste DF%L Dom.%4% M V Et%requiescet% 006641a MV%R%FS Dom.%4% Praecursor%pro% 4 M V 21 1 006983b 3 G%F%L Adventus super 1 Adventus nobis Dom.%4% M R Radix%Jesse%qui 007508% CGBEMV%% Dom.%4% Nascetur%nobis% GBEMVHRD 5 M R 22 3.3 7195 8? Adventus 1 HRDFSL Adventus parvulus%et FSL M V Ecce%virgo% 007508c% MV%F In%ipso% Dom.%4% Dom.%4% 6 concipiet M V 23 1 benedicentur% 007195b 8 SL Adventus Adventus 1 omnes Dom.%4% M R Nascetur%nobis% 007195 CGBEMV% Nascetur%nobis% GBEMVHRD Dom.%4% 7 M R 22 3.3 7195 8? Adventus parvulus 1 HRDFSL parvulus%et FSL Adventus Dom.%4% M R Virgo%Israel% 007903% CGBEMV% Virgo%Israel% CGBEMVHR Dom.%4% 8 M R 12 2.2 7903 8 Adventus revertere 1 HRDFSL revertere%in DFSL Adventus
167 Fragments FragmBU4064Concordances Responsoria4Prolixa4in4U4406,4for4the4feasts4in4the4Fragments.4Original4and4complete4sequences.
Orig.4 Orig.4 Feast Office Genre Seq. Incipit Cantus4ID Count Concord Office Genre seq.4 Position4 Incipit Cantus4ID Mode Concord Feast Office Genre Seq.4 Position Incipit Cantus4ID Mode Concord U406 U406 Dom.%4% M V In%caritate% 007903b% G%DFSL Dom.%4% 9 Adventus perpetua% 1 Adventus Dom.%4% M R Juravi%dicit% 007045% CGBEMV% Dom.%4% 10 Adventus dominus 1 HRDFSL Adventus Dom.%4% M V Juxta%est%salus 007045b% G%DFSL Dom.%4% 11 Adventus 1 Adventus Dom.%4% M R Intuemini% 006983% CGBEMV%% Intuemini% CGBEMVHR Dom.%4% 12 M R 20 3.2 6983 3 Adventus quantus%sit 1 HRDF%L quantus%sit%iste DF%L Adventus Dom.%4%Adventus:%5%complete%pairs%and%2% 12 isolated%R:%1%pair%matches%sequence%and% position,%three%responds%match,%but%from% different%positions
Dom.%4% Dom.%4% Adventus Adventus LAC Vigilia%Nat.% M V Hodie%scietis 007594a% 1 CGBEMV% Hodie%scietis% Vigilia%Nat.% Hodie%scietis% 1 M W 1 8089 * C%B%VH%D%SL M W 1 8089 * C%B%VH%D%SL Domini HRDFSL quia%veniet Domini quia%veniet Vigilia%Nat.% M R Sanctificamini% 007594% 1 CGBEMV% Sanctificamini% CGBEMVHR Vigilia%Nat.% Sanctificamini% CGBEMVHR 2 M R 2 1 7594 7 M R 2 1 7594 7 Domini hodie HRDFSL hodie%et DFSL Domini hodie%et DFSL Vigilia%Nat.% M V Hodie%scietis 007594a% 1 CGBEMV% Hodie%scietis% CGBEMVHR Vigilia%Nat.% Hodie%scietis% CGBEMVHR 3 M V 3 1 007594a 7 M V 3 1 007594a 7 Domini HRDFSL quia%veniet DFSL Domini quia%veniet DFSL Vigilia%Nat.% M R Constantes% 006328% 1 CGBEMV% Constantes% CGBEMVHR Vigilia%Nat.% Constantes% CGBEMVHR 4 M R 4 2 6328 8 M R 4 2 6328 8 Domini estote HRDFSL estote%videbitis DFSL Domini estote%videbitis DFSL Vigilia%Nat.% M V Vos%qui%in% 006328a% 1 CGBEMV% Vos%qui%in% CGBEMVHR Vigilia%Nat.% Vos%qui%in% CGBEMVHR 5 M V 5 1 006328a 8 M V 5 1 006328a 8 Domini pulvere HRDF pulvere%estis DF Domini pulvere%estis DF Vigilia%Nat.% M R De%illa%occulta% 006393% 1 CGBEMV%% Vigilia%Nat.% Sanctificamini% CGBEMV% 6 M R 6 3 7593 8 Domini habitatione HRDF%L Domini filii%Israel HRDFSL M V Ex%Sion%species 006393a% 1 CGBEM%%%%%% Vigilia%Nat.% Sanctificamini% CGBEMVHR 7 M R 7 1 7594 7 HRD Domini hodie%et DFSL M R Sanctificamini% 007593% 7 CGBEMV% Sanctificamini% CGBEMV% Vigilia%Nat.% Hodie%scietis% CGBEMVHR 8 M R 6 3 7593 8 M V 8 1 007594a 7 filii%Israel HRDFSL filii%Israel HRDFSL Domini quia%veniet DFSL Vigilia%Nat.% Vigilia%Nat.% Constantes% CGBEMVHR LAC M R 9 2 6328 8 Domini Domini estote%videbitis DFSL Vigilia%Nat.%Domini:%3%complete% combinations,%1%isolated%V,%1%R:%2%pairs% Vigilia%Nat.% Vigilia%Nat.% Vos%qui%in% CGBEMVHR match%sequence%and%position,%the%isolated% M V 10 1 006328a 8 Domini Domini pulvere%estis DF vers%matches%position,%the%concordant%R% does%not.% Vigilia%Nat.% Vigilia%Nat.% Sanctificamini% CGBEMV% M R 11 3 7593 8 Domini Domini filii%Israel HRDFSL LAC Nativitas% M R Hodie%nobis% 006858% 1 %CGBEMV% Nativitas% Quem%vidistis% CGBEMVHR 1 M R 1 2.1 7470 4 Domini caelorum%rex HRDFSL% Domini pastores%dicite DFSL Nativitas% M V Ipse%invocabit% 3402 1 CGBEMVHR Nativitas% Dicite%quidnam% 2 M V 2 1 007470b 4 B%HRDFSL Domini me% DFSL Domini vidistis%et Nativitas% M R Beata%dei% 006162 1 CGBEMV% Beata%dei% Nativitas% O%magnum% CGBEMVHR 3 M R 5 2.3 6162 7 M R 3 2.2 7274 3 Domini genetrix%Maria HRDFSL genetrix%Maria Domini mysterium%et DFSL M R O%magnum% 007274 1 CGBEMV% Domine%audivi% C% Nativitas% O%magnum% Nativitas% 4 mysterium HRDFSL M R 3 2.2 7274 3 CGBEMVHR M V 4 1 auditum%tuum% 007274a 3 BEMVHRDFS Domini mysterium%et Domini DFSL et L M V Domine%audivi% 007274a% 1 C%BEMV% Domine%audivi% C% Nativitas% Nativitas% Beata%dei% CGBEMVHR 5 auditum HRDFSL M V 4 1 auditum%tuum% 007274a 3 BEMVHRDFS M R 5 2.3 6162 7 Domini Domini genetrix%Maria DFSL et L M R O%regem%caeli 007297% 1 CGBEMV% Nativitas% Sancta%et% CGBEMVHR 6 M R 6 3.1 7569 2T HRDFSL% Domini immaculata DFSL Nativitas% M V Domine%audivi% 007274a% 1 C%BEMV% Nativitas% Benedicta%tu%in% CGBEMVHR 7 M V 7 1 007569a 2T Domini auditum HRDFSL% Domini mulieribus%et DFSL
168 Fragments FragmBU4064Concordances Responsoria4Prolixa4in4U4406,4for4the4feasts4in4the4Fragments.4Original4and4complete4sequences.
Orig.4 Orig.4 Feast Office Genre Seq. Incipit Cantus4ID Count Concord Office Genre seq.4 Position4 Incipit Cantus4ID Mode Concord Feast Office Genre Seq.4 Position Incipit Cantus4ID Mode Concord U406 U406 Nativitas% M R Ecce%agnus%dei% 006575% 1 GBEMV%% Nativitas% Beata%viscera% CGBEMVHR 8 M R 8 3.2 6171 7 Domini qui% HRDFS% Domini Mariae%virginis DFSL M R Ecce%agnus%dei% 006575% 1 CGBEMV% Dies% Nativitas% Nativitas% 9 qui% HRDFS M V 9 1 sanctificatus% 006171b 7 G%RDFSL Domini Domini illuxit Nativitas% M V Hoc%est% 006575a 1 CGBEMV%% Nativitas% Verbum%caro% CGBEMVHR 10 M R 10 3.3 7840 8 Domini testimonium% HRDF% Domini factum%est%et DFSL Nativitas% M V Quod%factum% 006927a% 1 E%D% Nativitas% In%principio%erat% GB% 11 M V 11 1 007840a 8S Domini est%in Domini verbum%et MVHRDFSL Nativitas% M R Verbum%caro% 007840% 1 CGBEMV% Verbum%caro% CGBEMVHR Nativitas% Gloria%patri%et% 12 M R 11 3.3 7840 8 M V 12 2 909000 8S Domini factum%est HRDFSL factum%est%et DFSL Domini filio%et Nativitas% M V In%principio%erat%007840a% 1 GB%MV% In%principio%erat% GB% Nativitas% 13 M V 12 1 007840a 8S Domini verbum% HRDFSL verbum%et MVHRDFSL Domini M V Gloria%patri%et% 006239zd% 1 CGBEMV% Gloria%patri%et% Nativitas% 14 M V 13 2 909000 8S filio%et%... HRDFSL% filio%et Domini Nat%Domini:%5%complete%combinations,%2% 14 isolated%R,%2%isolated%V.%Twho%combinations% match,%but%non%of%them%in%their%original% positions.% LAC M R Surrexerunt% 007735 1 F Stephani 1 quidam%de
M V Commoverunt% 007735a 1 F Hesterna%die% CGBEMVHR Stephani 2 Stephani M R 1 1.1 6810 7 itaque%plebem dominus%natus DFSL M R Intuens%in% 006984 1 CGBE%V% Intuens%in% CGBE% Stephanus%vidit% Stephani 3 M R 12 3.2 006984 3 Stephani M V 2 1 006810a 7 C%BEMVHR caelum HRDFSL% caelum%beatus VHRDFSL caelos M V Cumque% 006984a 1 B%V%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Cumque% Stephanus% CGBEMVHR Stephani 4 aspiceret HRD M V 16 1 aspiceret% 006984a 3 Stephani M R 3 1.2 autem%plenus% 7702 3 DFSL beatus B%VHRD gratia M R Videbant% 007852 1 CGBEMV% Videbant% Surrexerunt% CGBEMVHR Stephani 5 omnes% HRDFSL M R 5 1.3 omnes% 007852 4 Stephani M V 4 1 autem%quidam% 007702b 3 SL DFSL Stephanum Stephanum%qui de M V Stephanus% 006887e 1 C Stephanus% Videbant% CGBEMVHR Stephani 6 autem%plenus M V 6 1 autem%plenus% 007852a 4 Stephani M R 5 1.3 omnes% 7852 4 DFSL gratia Stephanum%qui M R Impetum% 006885 1 C Impetum% Stephanus% C%BEMV%%%%%%%% Stephani 7 fecerunt% M R 13 3.1 fecerunt% 6885 1 CGBEMVHR Stephani M V 6 1 autem%plenus% 007852a 4 HR unanimes unanimes%in DFSL gratia M V positis%autem% 006885a 1 C%BE%V%%%%%%%%%% Lapidabant% CGBEMVHR 8 Stephani M R 7 2.1 7072 4 genibus HRD Stephanum DFSL M R impii%super% 006887 1 CGBEMV% Impii%super% Positis%autem% CGBEMVHR Stephani 9 iustum HRDFSL M R 9 2.2 justum% 6887 7 CGBEMVHR Stephani M V 8 1 007072a 4 genibus%beatus DFSL jacturam DFSL M V Continuerunt% 006887b 1 DFSL Impii%super% CGBEMVHR Stephani 10 aures%suas%et Stephani M R 9 2.2 justum% 6887 7 DFSL jacturam M R Lapides% 007075 1 CGBEMV% Captabant%in% Stephani 11 torrentis%illi% HRDFSL Stephani M V 10 1 006887a 7 BE%HR animam%justi%et dulces M V Mortem%enim% 007075a 1 G%D Stephanus% CGBEMVHR Stephani 12 quam%salvator Stephani M R 11 2.3 servus%dei% 7704 8 DFSL quem M V Gloria%patrei%et% 909000 1 Gloria%patri%et% Intuens%in% CGBE%V% Stephani 13 filioet%spirituo% M V 19 2 909000 1 Stephani M V 12 1 007704c 8 filio%et caelum%beatus HRDFSL% sancti.%Ipsum.
169 Fragments FragmBU4064Concordances Responsoria4Prolixa4in4U4406,4for4the4feasts4in4the4Fragments.4Original4and4complete4sequences.
Orig.4 Orig.4 Feast Office Genre Seq. Incipit Cantus4ID Count Concord Office Genre seq.4 Position4 Incipit Cantus4ID Mode Concord Feast Office Genre Seq.4 Position Incipit Cantus4ID Mode Concord U406 U406 M R Lapidabant% 007072 1 CGBEMV% Impetum% Lapidabant% CGBEMVHR Stephani 14 Stephanum HRDFSL M R 7 2.1 7072 4 CGBEMVHR Stephani M R 13 3.1 fecerunt% 6885 1 Stephanum DFSL DFSL unanimes%in M V Positis%autem% 007072a 1 CGBEMV% Positis%autem% CGBEMVHR Et%testes% 15 M V 8 1 007072a 4 Stephani M V 14 1 006885b 1 G%FSL genibus HRDFSL genibus%beatus DFSL deposuerunt M R Stephanus% 007704 1 CGBEMV% Stephanus% Intuens%in% CGBE% Stephani 16 servus%dei HRDFSL M R 11 2.3 servus%dei% 7704 8 CGBEMVHR Stephani M R 15 3.2 6984 3 caelum%beatus VHRDFSL quem DFSL M V Stephanus% 007704a 1 C%BEMV%%%%%%%% Stephanus% C%BEMV%%%%%%%% Cumque% Stephani 17 autem%plenus HR M V 6 1 autem%plenus% 007852a 4 HR Stephani M V 16 1 aspiceret% 006984a 3 B%VHRD gratia beatus M R Patefactae%sunt% 007358 1 C%BEMV% Sancte%dei% Stephani 18 Stephani M R 17 3.3 7575 1 RDFS januae HRDFSL pretiose M V Vidit%beatus% 007358b 1 C%B%M%HR Ut%tui% Stephani 19 stephanus Stephani M V 18 1 propitiatus% 007575a 1 RDFS interventu M R Sancte%dei% 007575 1 RDFS Sancte%dei% Gloria%patri%et% Stephani 20 M R 17 3.3 7575 1 Stephani M V 19 2 909000 1 pretiose pretiose RDFS filio%et M V Ut%tuo% 007575a 1 RDFS Ut%tui% Stephani 21 propitiatus M V 18 1 propitiatus% 007575a 1 RDFS Stephani interventu Stephani%10%complete%combinations,%5% LAC maqtching%combinations,%none%in%their% Stephani original%positions. Stephani
21 Stephani LAC M V Reges%tharsis 007314a 1 CGBEMV% Reges%Tharsis%et% CGBEMVHR Reges%Tharsis%et% CGBEMVHR Epiphania M V 1 1 007314a 7 Epiphania M V 1 1 007314a 7 HRDFSL% insulae DFSL insulae DFSL M R Hic%est%dies% 006821 1 CGBE%V% Illuminare% CGBEMVHR Epiphania Epiphania M R 2 1.3 6882 5 praeclarus HRDFSL illuminare DFSL M V Et%intrantes% 006821a 1 CGBE%V%%%%%%%% Et%intrantes% Et%ambulabunt% Epiphania domum% HR M V 9 1 domum% 007701a 8 Epiphania M V 3 1 006882a 5 gentes%in invenerunt invenerunt M R In%columbae% 006892 1 CGBE%V% In%columbae% Interrogabat% CGBEMVHR specie% HRDFSL% M R 15 3.3 6892 2T CGBE% Epiphania M R 4 2.1 6981 4 specie%spiritus magos%Herodes DFSL VHRDFSL M V Coeli%aperti% 006892a 1 CGBE%V% Caeli%aperti% Vidimus%enim% Epiphania sunt%super%eum HRDFSL% M V 15 1 006892a 2T Epiphania M V 5 1 006981zb 4 sunt%super%eum stellam%ejus%in Epiphanea:%2%complete%combinations,%1% LAC matching%combination,%from%different% Magi%venerunt% CGBEMVHR Epiphania positions. Epiphania M R 6 2.2 7112 8 ab%oriente DFSL 5 Ab%oriente%magi% Epiphania Epiphania M V 7 1 007112b 8 C%EM%H venerunt Stella%quam% CGBEMVHR Epiphania Epiphania M R 8 2.3 7701 8 viderant%magi%in DFSL Et%intrantes% Epiphania Epiphania M V 9 1 domum% 007701a 8 invenerunt Tria%sunt% CGBEMVHR Epiphania Epiphania M R 10 3.1 munera% 7777 1 DFSL pretiosa Salutis%nostrae% Epiphania Epiphania M V 11 1 007777b 1 G%DFSL auctorem%magi
170 Fragments FragmBU4064Concordances Responsoria4Prolixa4in4U4406,4for4the4feasts4in4the4Fragments.4Original4and4complete4sequences.
Orig.4 Orig.4 Feast Office Genre Seq. Incipit Cantus4ID Count Concord Office Genre seq.4 Position4 Incipit Cantus4ID Mode Concord Feast Office Genre Seq.4 Position Incipit Cantus4ID Mode Concord U406 U406 Videntes% CGBEMVHR Epiphania Epiphania M R 12 3.2 stellam%magi% 7864 4 DFSL gavisi Reges%Tharsis%et% Epiphania Epiphania M V 13 1 007864a 4 C%BEMVHR insulae In%columbae% CGBE% Epiphania Epiphania M R 14 3.3 6892 2T specie%spiritus VHRDFSL Caeli%aperti% Epiphania Epiphania M V 15 1 006892a 2T sunt%super%eum
Epiphania
Dom.%per% Dom.%per% Domine%ne%in% GBEMVHRD LAC M R 1 1.1 6501 1 annum annum ira%tua%arguas FSL M V 1 Timor%et% 006501a% 1 BEMV%%% Dom.%per% Timor%et%tremor% GBEMVHRD Dom.%per% Timor%et%tremor% GBEMVHRD tremor HRDFSL% M V 2 1 006501a 1S M V 2 1 006501a 1S annum venerunt FSL annum venerunt FSL Dom.%per% M R 2 Deus%qui%sedes 006433 1 GBEMV% Deus%qui%sedes% GBEMVHRD Dom.%per% Deus%qui%sedes% GBEMVHRD M R 3 1.2 6433 4 M R 3 1.2 6433 4 annum HRDFSL% super%thronum FSL annum super%thronum FSL Dom.%per% M V 3 Tibi%enim% 006433a% 1 GBEMV% Tibi%enim% GBEMVHRD Dom.%per% Tibi%enim% GBEMVHRD M V 4 1 006433a 4 M V 4 1 006433a 4 annum derelictus HRDFSL% derelictus%est FSL annum derelictus%est FSL Dom.%per% M R 4 A%dextris%est% 006002% 1 GBEMV% A%dextris%est% GBEMVHRD Dom.%per% A%dextris%est% GBEMVHRD M R 5 1.3 6002 8 M R 5 1.3 6002 8 annum HRDFSL% mihi%dominus FSL annum mihi%dominus FSL M V 5 Conserva%me% 006002a% 1 BEMVHRDFS Conserva%me% Dom.%per% Dom.%per% Dominus%pars% domine% M V 8 1 domine% 007240a 8 BEMVHRD M V 6 1 006002c annum annum hereditatis quoniam%in M R 6 Notas%mihi% 007240% 1 GBEMV% Notas%mihi% GBEMVHRD Dom.%per% Notas%mihi% GBEMVHRD M R 7 2.1 7240 8 M R 7 2.1 7240 8 fecisti HRDFSL% fecisti%domine FSL annum fecisti%domine FSL M V 7 Conserva%me% 006002a% 1 BEMVHRDFS Conserva%me% Conserva%me% Dom.%per% Dom.%per% domine% M V 8 1 domine% 007240a 8 BEMVHRD M V 8 1 domine% 007240a 8 BEMVHRD annum annum quoniam%in quoniam%in M V 8 Media%nocte% 007332a 1 R Diligam%te% Dom.%per% Dom.%per% GBEMVHRD surgebam M R 9 2.2 domine%virtus% 6453 4 annum annum FSL mea M R 9 Custodi%nos% 006385% 1 V%F Laudans% Dom.%per% Dom.%per% domine M V 10 1 invocabo% 006453a 4 BEMVHRDFS annum annum dominum%et M V 10 Mirifica% 006385a% 1 V%F Domini%est% Dom.%per% Dom.%per% GBEMVHRD misericordias M R 11 2.3 terra%et% 6517 8 annum annum FSL plenitudo M R 11 Diligam%te% 006453% 1 GBEMV% Diligam%te% Ipse%super% Dom.%per% Dom.%per% domine HRDFSL% M R 9 2.2 domine%virtus% 6453 4 GBEMVHRD M V 12 1 maria%fundavit% 006517a 8 annum annum mea FSL eum M V 12 Laudans% 006453a% 1 BEMV%%%%% Laudans% Dom.%per% Dom.%per% Peccata%mea% GBE% invocabo HRDFS M V 10 1 invocabo% 006453a 4 BEMVHRDFS M R 13 3.3 7370 1 annum annum domine%sicut VHRDFSL dominum%et M R 13 Firmamentum% 006736% 1 F%L Quoniam% Dom.%per% meum M V 14 1 iniquitatem% 007370a 1 BE%VHR%FSL annum meam%ego M V 14 Protector%meus 006736a% 1 F%L Dom.%per% Dom.%per% Afflicti%pro% G%E% M R 15 10 6060 * annum annum peccatis%nostris VHRDFSL
M R 15 Domini%est% 006517% 1 GBEMV% Domini%est% Dom.%per% Dom.%per% Domine%deus% terra% HRDFSL% M R 11 2.3 terra%et% 6517 8 GBEMVHRD M V 16 1 006060a annum annum Israel%exaudi plenitudo FSL M V 16 Ipse%super% 006517a% 1 GBEMV% Ipse%super% Dom.%per% Dom.%per% maria HRDFSL% M V 12 1 maria%fundavit% 006517a 8 annum annum eum
171 Fragments FragmBU4064Concordances Responsoria4Prolixa4in4U4406,4for4the4feasts4in4the4Fragments.4Original4and4complete4sequences.
Orig.4 Orig.4 Feast Office Genre Seq. Incipit Cantus4ID Count Concord Office Genre seq.4 Position4 Incipit Cantus4ID Mode Concord Feast Office Genre Seq.4 Position Incipit Cantus4ID Mode Concord U406 U406 Cum%ergo% Purificatio% Purificatio% M V 8 1 cognovisset% 007537d 6 D Mariae Mariae accepit Purificatio% Purificatio% Simeon%justus% CGBEMVHR M R 9 2.2 7666 7 Mariae Mariae et%timoratus DFSL Responsum% Purificatio% LAC Purificatio% M V 10 1 accepit%Simeon% 007666a 7 CGB%HRDFSL Mariae Mariae a M R 1 Videte% 007869% 1 CGBEMV% Videte% Videte% Purificatio% CGBEMVHR Purificatio% CGBEMVHR miraculum% HRDFSL M R 11 2.3 miraculum% 7869 3 M R 11 2.3 miraculum% 7869 3 Mariae DFSL Mariae DFSL matris mater%domini mater%domini Purificatio% M V 2 Virgo%concepit% 007869b% 1 B%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Virgo%concepit% B%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Purificatio% Virgo%concepit% B%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% M V 12 1 007869b 3 M V 12 1 007869b 3 Mariae et% R%FSL% et%virgo R%FSL% Mariae et%virgo R%FSL% M R 3 Postquam% 007406% 1 BE%VHR%FSL% Postquam% Postquam% Purificatio% Purificatio% impleti%sunt M R 13 3.1 impleti%sunt% 7406 3 BE%VHR%FSL M R 13 3.1 impleti%sunt% 7406 3 BE%VHR%FSL Mariae Mariae dies dies Purificatio% M V 4 Sicut%myrrha% 008197% 1 F Purificatio% Obtulerunt%pro% M V 14 1 007406a 3 BE%VHR%SL Mariae electa Mariae eo%domino%par M R 5 Postquam% 007406% 1 BE%V%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Purificatio% Purificatio% Cum%inducerent% impleti%sunt HR%FSL M R 15 3.2 6367 1 E%VHRDF%L Mariae Mariae puerum%Jesum Purif%Mariae:%2%complerte%combinations,%1% Lumen%ad% Purificatio% LAC Purificatio% complete%match.% M V 16 1 revelationem% 006367zb 1 Mariae Mariae 5 gentium Purificatio% Purificatio% Gaude%Maria% CGBEMVHR M R 17 3.3 6759 6T Mariae Mariae virgo%cunctas DFSL Purificatio% Purificatio% Gabrielem% CGBEMVHR M V 18 1 006759a 6S Mariae Mariae archangelum DFSL Purificatio% Purificatio% Gloria%patri%et% M V 19 2 909000 6T Mariae Mariae filio%et
Agatha% GBEMVHRD Agatha% GBEMVHRD Agathae M R 1 1.1 6061 7 Agathae M R 1 1.1 6061 7 laetissime%et FSL laetissime%et FSL Mens%mea% Mens%mea% Agathae M V 2 1 006061a 7 GBEMVHR Agathae M V 2 1 006061a 7 GBEMVHR solidata%est%et%a solidata%est%et%a Quis%es%tu%qui% GBEMVHRD Quis%es%tu%qui% GBEMVHRD Agathae M R 3 1.2 7499 8 Agathae M R 3 1.2 7499 8 venisti%ad%me FSL venisti%ad%me FSL Nam%et%ego% Nam%et%ego% Agathae M V 4 1 apostolus%ejus% 007499b 8 G%L Agathae M V 4 1 apostolus%ejus% 007499b 8 G%L sum sum Dum% Dum% GBEMVHRD GBEMVHRD Agathae M R 5 1.3 ingrederetur% 6546 7 Agathae M R 5 1.3 ingrederetur% 6546 7 FSL FSL beata%Agatha beata%Agatha Ego%habeo% Ego%habeo% GBEMVHRD Agathae M V 6 1 mamillas% 006546a 7 Agathae M V 6 1 mamillas% 006546a 7 FSL integras integras Ego%autem% Ego%autem% GBEMVHRD GBEMVHRD Agathae M R 7 2.1 adjuta%a% 6625 4 Agathae M R 7 2.1 adjuta%a% 6625 4 FSL FSL domino domino Gratias%tibi%ago% Gratias%tibi%ago% Agathae M V 8 1 006625a 4 GBEM%H%DFS Agathae M V 8 1 006625a 4 GBEM%H%DFS domine%Jesu domine%Jesu Qui%me% Qui%me% G%EMVH% G%EMVH% Agathae M R 9 2.2 dignatus%est%ab% 7479 2 Agathae M R 9 2.2 dignatus%est%ab% 7479 2 DFSL DFSL omni omni Medicinam% Medicinam% LAC G%EMVH% G%EMVH% Agathae M V 10 1 carnalem% 007479a 2 Agathae M V 10 1 carnalem% 007479a 2 DFSL DFSL corpori corpori M R 1 Ipse%me% 006990 1 GBEMV% Ipse%me% Ipse%me% GBEMVHRD GBEMVHRD Agathae coronavit%qui% HRDFSL M R 11 2.3 coronavit%qui% 6990 8 Agathae M R 11 2.3 coronavit%qui% 6990 8 FSL FSL per per per
172 Fragments FragmBU4064Concordances Responsoria4Prolixa4in4U4406,4for4the4feasts4in4the4Fragments.4Original4and4complete4sequences.
Orig.4 Orig.4 Feast Office Genre Seq. Incipit Cantus4ID Count Concord Office Genre seq.4 Position4 Incipit Cantus4ID Mode Concord Feast Office Genre Seq.4 Position Incipit Cantus4ID Mode Concord U406 U406 M V 2 Vidisti%domine% 006990a 1 GBEMV%% Vidisti%domine% Vidisti%domine% GBEMVHRD Agathae M V 12 1 006990a 8 Agathae M V 12 1 006990a 8 agonem HRDFS% agonem%meum agonem%meum FSL M R 3 Gratias%tibi%ago% 002975 1 GBEMV% Vidisti%domine% GBEMVHRD 13 Agathae M R 13 3.1 7883 5 domine HRDFSL et%exspectasti FSL M R 4 Ego%autem% 006625 1 GBEMV% Ego%autem% Propter% GBEMVHRD Agathae adjuvata%a HRDFSL% M R 7 2.1 adjuta%a% 6625 4 GBEMVHRD Agathae M V 14 1 007883a 5 veritatem%et FSL domino FSL M V 5 Gratias%tibi%ago% 002975 1 GBEMV% Gratias%tibi%ago% Beata%Agatha% GBEMVHRD Agathae M V 8 1 006625a 4 GBEM%H%DFS Agathae M R 15 3.2 6160 1T domine HRDFSL domine%Jesu ingressa FSL M R 6 Beata%Agatha% 006160 1 GBEMV% Beata%Agatha% Agatha%ingressa% Agathae ingressa HRDFSL M R 15 3.2 6160 1T GBEMVHRD Agathae M V 16 1 006160a 1T GBEM%HR%F ingressa carcerem FSL M V 7 Domine%qui%me% 006160b 1 S%L Gaudeamus% Agathae creasti Agathae M R 17 3.3 omnes%in% 6760 1 GBE%HRDFSL domino M/V R 8 Gaudeamus% %006760 1 GBE%%%%% Gaudeamus% Immaculatus% Agathae omnes%in HRDFSL M R 17 3.3 omnes%in% 6760 1 Agathae M V 18 1 006760a 1 dominus domino GBE%HRDFSL M V 9 Immaculatus% 006760a 1 %B%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Immaculatus% Agathae M V 18 1 006760a 1 Agathae dominus HR%FSL% dominus Agathae:%4%complete%combinations,%3%pairs% 9 match,%but%from%different%positions
LAC Dom.%3% M R 1 Videntes% 0077863 1 CGBEMV% Videntes%Joseph% CGBEMVHR Dom.%3% Videntes%Joseph% CGBEMVHR M R 1 1 7863 8 M R 1 1 7863 8 Quadr. Joseph%a%longe HRDFSL a%longe DFSL Quadr. a%longe DFSL M V 2 Cumque% 007863a 1 CGBEMV% Dom.%3% Cumque% CGBEMVHR Dom.%3% Cumque% CGBEMVHR vidissent% HRDFSL M V 2 1 007863a 8S M V 2 1 007863a 8S Quadr. vidissent%Joseph DFSL Quadr. vidissent%Joseph DFSL Joseph Dom.%3% M R 3 Dixit%Judas% 006477 1 CGBEMV% Dixit%Judas% CGBEMVHR Dom.%3% Dixit%Judas% CGBEMVHR M R 3 2 6477 7 M R 3 2 6477 7 Quadr. fratribus%suis% HRDFSL fratribus%suis DFSL Quadr. fratribus%suis DFSL M V 4 Cumque%abisset%006477a 1 CGBEMV% Dom.%3% Cumque%abisset% CGBEMVHR Dom.%3% Cumque%abisset% CGBEMVHR Ruben%ad% HRDFS M V 4 1 006477a 7 M V 4 1 006477a 7 Quadr. Ruben%ad DFS Quadr. Ruben%ad DFS Dom.%3% M R 5 Videns%Jacob% 007858 1 CGBEMV% Videns%Jacob% CGBEMVHR Dom.%3% Videns%Jacob% CGBEMVHR M R 5 3 7858 6 M R 5 3 7858 6 Quadr. vestimenta% HRDFSL% vestimenta DFSL Quadr. vestimenta DFSL Dom.%3% M V 6 Vide%si%tunica% %007858a 1 CGBEMV% Vide%si%tunica% CGBEMVHR Dom.%3% Vide%si%tunica% CGBEMVHR M V 6 1 007858a 6 M V 6 1 007858a 6 Quadr. filii%tui%sit HRDFS% filii%tui%sit DFS Quadr. filii%tui%sit DFS M R 7 Igitur%Joseph% %006878 1 E Joseph%dum% Dom.%3% Dixit%Ruben% CGBEMVHR Dom.%3% CGBEMVHR ductus%est% M R 15 8 6479 8 M R 7 4 intraret%in% 7037 5 Quadr. fratribus%suis DFSL Quadr. DFSL terram M V 8 Misertus%enim% %006878a 1 E Divertit%ab% Dom.%3% Dom.%3% C% est%deus%illius% M V 8 1 oneribus% 007037a 5 Quadr. Quadr. BEMVHRDFS dorsum Dom.%3% M V 9 Gloria patri et filli 909000 1 CGBEMV% Dom.%3% Memento%mei% CGBEMVHR et spiritui sancti M R 9 5 7144 7 Quadr. HRDFSL Quadr. dum%bene%tibi DFSL M R 10 Joseph%dum% %007037 1 CGBEMV% Joseph%dum% Dom.%3% CGBEMVHR Dom.%3% Tres%enim% CGBEMVHR intraret%in% HRDFSL% M R 7 4 intraret%in% 7037 5 M V 10 1 007144a 7 Quadr. DFSL Quadr. adhuc%dies%sunt DFSL terram terram M V 11 Divertit%ab% %007073a 1 C%BEMV% Divertit%ab% Tollite%hinc% Dom.%3% C% Dom.%3% CGBEMVHR oneribus% HRDFS% M V 8 1 oneribus% 007037a 5 M R 11 6 vobiscum% 7769 7 Quadr. BEMVHRDFS Quadr. DFSL dorsum munera M R 12 Memento%mei% %007144 1 CGBEMV% Dom.%3% Memento%mei% CGBEMVHR Dom.%3% Tollite%de% dum%bene%tibi HRDFSL M R 9 5 7144 7 M V 12 1 007769a 7 C%BEMVHR%F Quadr. dum%bene%tibi DFSL Quadr. optimis%frugibus
173 Fragments FragmBU4064Concordances Responsoria4Prolixa4in4U4406,4for4the4feasts4in4the4Fragments.4Original4and4complete4sequences.
Orig.4 Orig.4 Feast Office Genre Seq. Incipit Cantus4ID Count Concord Office Genre seq.4 Position4 Incipit Cantus4ID Mode Concord Feast Office Genre Seq.4 Position Incipit Cantus4ID Mode Concord U406 U406 Dom.%3%XL,%5%complete%combinations,%4% LAC matches,%of%which%3%in%original%sequence Dom.%3% Dom.%3% Iste%est%frater% CGBEMVHR M R 13 7 6999 7 Quadr. Quadr. vester DFSL 12 Dom.%3% Attollens%autem% CGBEMVHR M V 14 1 006999a 7 Quadr. Joseph%oculos DFSL Dom.%3% Dixit%Ruben% CGBEMVHR M R 15 8 6479 8 Quadr. fratribus%suis DFSL Dom.%3% Merito%haec% CGBEMVHR M V 16 1 006479a 8 Quadr. patimur%quia DFSL Dom.%3% Nuntiaverunt% CGBEMVHR M R 17 9 7251 7 Quadr. Jacob%dicentes DFSL Cumque% Dom.%3% M V 18 1 audisset%Jacob% 007251a 7 CGBEMVHR Quadr. quod DFSL
Concordances% Total 125 in%CAO:%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%References%to%the%twelve%early%manuscripts%surveyed%in%volumes%1%and%2%of%Corpus%Antiphonalium%Officii. Sources(representing(the(Roman&cursus(are(C(G(B(E(M(V: C(((((((((((((Paris,(Bibliothèque(nationale(de(France,(lat.(17436((ninth(century,(from(Compiègne)([RISM:(FMPn(lat.(17436] G((((((((((((Durham,(Cathedral(Library,(B.(III.(11((eleventh(century,(from(northern(France)([RISM:(GBMDRc(B.(III.(11] B(((((((((((((Bamberg,(Staatsbibliothek,(lit.(23((eleventh(or(twelfth(century,(from(Bamberg)([RISM:(DMBAs(lit.(23] E(((((((((((((Ivrea,(Biblioteca(Capitolare,(106((eleventh(century,(from(Ivrea)([RISM:(IMIV(106] M((((((((((((Monza,(Basilica(di(S.(Giovanni(Battista(M(Biblioteca(Capitolare(e(Tesoro,(C.(12/75(((((((eleventh(century,(from(Monza)([RISM:(IMMZ(C.(12/75] V(((((((((((((Verona,(Biblioteca(Capitolare,(XCVIII((eleventh(century,(from(Verona)([RISM:(IMVEcap(XCVIII]
Sources(representing(the(monastic&cursus(are(H(R(D(F(S(L: H(((((((((((((Sankt(Gallen,(Stiftsbibliothek,(390M391((“Hartker(antiphoner,”(early(eleventh(century,(from(St(Gall)(((((([RISM:(CHMSGs(390M391] R(((((((((((((Zürich,(Zentralbibliothek,(Rh.(28((thirteenth(century,(from(Rheinau)([RISM:(CHMZz(Rh.(28] D((((((((((((Paris,(Bibliothèque(nationale(de(France,(lat.(17296((twelfth(century,(from(St(Denis)([RISM:(FMPn(lat.(17296] F(((((((((((((Paris,(Bibliothèque(nationale(de(France,(lat.(12584((twelfth(century,(from(St(MaurMlesMFossés)(((((([RISM:(FMPn(lat.(12584] S(((((((((((((London,(The(British(Library,(add.(30850((eleventh(century,(from(Silos)([RISM:(GBMLbl(add.(30850] L(((((((((((((Benevento,(Biblioteca(Capitolare,(V(21((late(twelfth(century,(from(San(Lupo)([RISM:(IMBV(V.(21]
174 Appendix 8: Summary of differences Summary-of-the-differences-per-style-element This table summarizes the differences between the style
DIFFERENCES TEXT MODAL-ELEMENTS MELISMAS FORMAL-ELEMENTS elements as presented in the following analyses 1-8 Goal7pitches Elements (Appendix 9). Fragments7-U-406 Responds The upper table refers to the comparison between the cells%Fragments%and%U%406 12 8 2 12 12 nr%of%comparisons 8 8 8 8 8 Fragments and U 406. Text: per respond there are 6 Total 96 64 16 96 96 phrases. A comparison between the two sources covers Differences 2 0 1,5 1 1 Formal%elements%only Differences 2 refers to 12 phrases in total. Eight analyses result in 96 Comparisons 96 phrases compared. The number of differences is the total Verses cells%Fragments%and%U%406 4 8 2 4 4 number of differences encountered in the 96 cells as in the nr%of%comparisons 8 7 7 8 8 Total 32 56 14 32 32 analysis sheets. The same applies to the modal elements: Differences 0 0 2 4 1 for each Utrecht source 4 modal elements have been Formal%elements%only Differences 5 Comparisons 32 compared, the total number of cells compared is 8 x 8= 64. Differences--Fragments-7--U-406- 128 2 120 0 30 3,5 128 5 128 2 responds-+-verses The formal elements have been counted the same way. Formal%elements%only Differences 7 Per respond one melisma has been compared (the longest Comparisons 128 one), equals two "cells". If the melismas are totally DIFFERENCES TEXT MODAL-ELEMENTS MELISMAS FORMAL-ELEMENTS different or predominantly different, they have been listed Goal7pitches Elements UTRECHT-7-P-12044 as 1 difference, if they are identical save for their east Responds Frankish or west Frankish dialect (yellow cell), it has been cells(%Utrecht)%B%Paris 12 8 2 12 12 nr%of%comparisons 8 7 7 7 7 counted as 0,5 difference. Total 96 56 14 84 84 Differences 1 1 2,5 8 16,5 The lower table refers to the comparison between the Formal%elements%only Differences 24,5 Utrecht sources and P 12044. The counting is the same as Comparisons 84 Verses in the table that compares the Utrecht sources with one cells(%Utrecht)%B%Paris 4 8 2 4 4 another. If P 12044 differs with one of both Utrecht nr%of%comparisons 8 7 6 7 7 Total 32 56 12 28 28 sources, it has been counted as a difference. One chant in Differences 2 1 1 5,5 6,5 Formal%elements%only Differences 12 P 12044 (Analysis 6, Gaudeamus omnes) has a different Comparisons 28 mode and a completely different melody. Comparing goal Differences-Utrecht-7-P-12044- 128 3 112 2 26 3,5 112 13,5 112 23 responds-+-verses pitches and elements with the Utrecht sources is less Formal%elements%only Differences 36,5 relevant here. That is the reason why in the row Comparisons 112 concerned the number of comparisons is 7, not 8. The Utrecht sources have a very similar profile for all elements analysed. Text and modal elements are virtually identical. As for the formal elements, the rate is about 1 difference per 18 comparisons (7:128) When the formal elements of the Utrecht sources are compared with P 12044 the rate is about 1 difference per 3 comparisons (36,5:112). Details can be found in the separate analyses and the text.
175 Appendix 9: The analysis of eight Utrecht responsories
Incipit'respond: Intuens'in'coelum CAO 6984 Notational4aspects4 Analysis 1 Incipit verse: Cumque aspiceret beatus Stephanus CAO 6984a' Comments Fragments U'406 P'12044 Feast: Utrecht: Melodies identical as is the notation. Many quilismas, not in Paris (general feature). Quilismas on a,g,f. Fragments U'406 P'12044 The latter in phrases 5 + 6, hominis and virtutis, followed by g. Sequence would be f-f#-g. Link to Fragments page 15 Siglum/folio 4.3 C 4r, page 15 27r 13r Text Link to U 406 f. 27r Respond Fragments U'406 P'12044 Intuens'in'coelum' idem idem Phrase'1 Melismas Period'1'''Respond ' ' Link to P 12044 f13r Phrase'2 Fragments U'406 P'12044
vidit'gloriam'dei'et'ait The melisma on stantem is identical, but only the Fragments have a German setting. U 406 Phrase'3 Respond with exception of the final torculus follows the west Frankish tradition. Period'2'''Respond ecce'video'coelos' Phrase'4 apertos et'filium'hominis' Phrase'5 Fragments U'406 P'12044 Period'3'''Respond stantem'a'dexteris' Phrase 2: U 406 has a melisma on dei. Not in Fragments. P: standard tone only Phrase'6 virtutis'dei Verse CGBE V Concordances HRDFSL Fragments U'406 P'12044 Verse Verse Cumque'aspiceret' idem idem beatus'Stephanus'in' Verse 'vidit'gloriam'dei'et'aitcoelum idem idem
B V Concordances HRD
Music
Respond Fragments U'406 P'12044 Respond Modal4elements Formal4elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Comments'Respond Mode 3 3 3 The elements of theUtrecht sources, except for /g and /mti, are identical to Paris. Phrase 2, beatus in Utrecht follows the most Ambitus e-l e-l e-l Period 1 Respond Phrase'1 occuring setting in Helsen's material. Paris is the exception in her Finalis e e e Goal-pitch d d d sources. See KH 2006, p 255.Phrase 4, contrary to other elemens in Recitation tone h h f Elements D1/mti D1/mti D1 Utrecht, is not German, except for the final torculus. Remark: Phrase'2 CANTUS lists the respond as mode 8, which is an error. Goal-pitch f f f Comments'respond Elements f1/g f1/g f1 Period 2 Respond Phrase'3 Verse Goal-pitch f f e Modal4elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Elements f f e1 Mode 1 1(T) 1 Phrase'4 Ambitus d-h d-h (T) d-h Goal-pitch h h h Finalis d d(T) d Elements h h h Recitation tone 1:'g''2:g 1:'h'''2:'k 1:'g''2:'f Period'3'''''Respond Phrase'5 See Comments Verse Goal-pitch d d d Elements d3/g d3/g d3 Phrase'6 Goal-pitch e e e Elements E1/g E1/g E1 Comments Verse Both phrases of the verses in Utrecht seem to have a different background. The melodies and their goal pitches are different, as are Verse the modi. Phrase 1 ends on an mti, but the transposion in phrase 1 is Formal4elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 +5, whereas the second phrase has a transpoistion of a fourth. In the second phrase, the recitation tone in U 406 does not match with Verse Phrase'1 theory as one would expect l (d2) in stead of k(c2). Goal-pitch e'mti b'mti c House style elements mti mti Phrase'2 Goal-pitch d d(T) d House style elements mti mti
Road Maps Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Verse Phrases 1 (C) 2 (F) 3 (F) 4 (C) 5 (C) 6 (F) 1 2 P12044 d f e h d e c d Fragments d f f h d e e'mti d U 406 d f f h d e b'mti d(T) 23-05-13
176 Analysis 1
Respond Intuens'in'coelum CAO 6984 Verse*Fragm Cumque'aspiceret'beatus'Stephanus CAO 6984a P'12044 Elements ***********************************************************D1************************************************************************* f1 Phrase*1+2 1f--df--f---f---fe--egfe-fe-ded- ef--g-gf--g--ghg--fe--fgh-ijgh---f--egf-f--ef-3 Text *********In*;**tu**;***ens****in*****ce**;**lum**************************************** be******;*******a***;***tus****************************Ste;pha*****;****nus Neumes *********v**ps********v*******v*****csp**pssp***cs*******to ps p cs v to cs sca po p to or ps Elements e1 ***************************************************k*******************************************************************************************h*********** Phrase*3+4 1dg-hk--h---hj--h--h---hg-gf--g---h---ghgf-ef--fe-3 dg--g---hkhgh--k-k--k-k-3 jkl--k-kjh---hj-kjk--h-jkjkg--hg-hijh-3 Text *******vi*****;***dit****glo*;***ri**;**am**de***;*********i*******et******a********;*******it********* *ec**;*ce*****vi*******;*****de****;***o*********************ce***;***los**************a*****;******per*******;*****tos** Neumes *******ps**ps***********p**ps******p*****p*******cs**cs*******v*******v*****pssp******ps*****cs ps p pssp v p p v sca cli ps po v por cs to Elements ***********************************************************************************g*****************************************************************************************************************************d3 E1 Phrase*5+6 1-f-f-ff---fd--fe--fg---g--gfghgh--hg- gh-f-f-fd-d-ef-gh-khgf-gh-jhg--hg---gh---h--hgf-fded-3 -fg--hg--hfg-gh-jghg---egf-f-fe-4 Text *************et****************fi***;***li**;***um******ho;mi******;******nis*****stan**********************;*****************************tem******a*******dex*;*tris**** ****vir*;**tu**;*tis*************************de*******i**** Neumes *********p***p****p***********cs**cs********ps********p***por*************cs********ps**p**p**cs**p**ps**ps******cli4****ps****cs********cs******ps**********v****cs**v****to ps cs po ps por to or cs Goal;pitches Verse 1h--gh--gfghghgfef-fe---gf---gh---gf--efgf--fe- f---df--f--f--ef--f---f--f---efgfe--g--hghgf--efgfef--ed4 Text **********STANDARD*TONE*MODE*3 *STANDARD*TONE*MODE*3 Neumes n.a. n.a. Fragments Elements *********************************************************************D1/mti******************* f1/g Phrase*1+2 1--d--fd--f--f-f-wWe-fgff-ged-ed3 -cdc-c-cf-fd-g-fgh-fhgh-e-egf-ef3 Text **************In***tu**ens*in***ce**;**lum*************************************** *be*****a***;***tus************************Ste;pha***nus** Neumes *************p*****cs******v***v****mcs********pssp**v**cl***cs********** to or ps po sc po p to p v Elements f **************************************************k***************************************************h
except*for*final* Phrase*3+4 to*NOT*German!* 1-deg-hk-h-hk-h-h---hgf-g-hghgfe-e-e-f3 1--dg-g-hkhg-hJk-k-k3 -jkl-k-kjh-hJkjk-gHjkjkj-hg-hkh-3 * Text **********vi***;***dit**glo*;*ri*;am**de***;**i***et******a********;*******it********* **********ec**;*ce***vi*******;**de**;*o*********ce***;***los*********a*****;******per*******;*********tos********************* Neumes qi ps p ps v v pmi v v tos v p v ************ps*v*****pss*******qi****v***v**********sc**********cl*******qir*******qir**************cs***to* Elements ********************************************************************************h*****************************************************************************************************d3/g****************************************************************************************************************** E1/g Phrase*5+6 1--d-dfdf--fe--fg---gh--gf--gGhgh--hg---gh-fd-def-ghkhgf-gGh-khhg--hg---gh---h--hg--ff--dfd------3-fGgh-g-h--hfg---ghkg-hg--ege--fe4 Text *************et******fi*li**;***um****ho;mi******;*********nis*********stan**********************;***********************************tem*******a***************dex*;*tris****** ****vir*;**tu**;*tis********************de*****;******i** Neumes *******************por*******cs***ps********ps******cs******qito*********cs*******ps***cs**trip***csppsp****qi*******cs;pmi**cs*******ps******v********cs***bis******to qipp v v po cspp cs to cs Goal;pitches
P*12044*standard+5* Verse P*12044* standard/* U406:*+*4* 1--hg-gf--gGh-hge-fe-e-g--gh-g-g-g--gh-g-hg--ef-fGgf-fWwe--3 U406:*+*5* ----f-f--fWwe---f-f-eFgfe---g-ghg--hf--efe-hef-ed--4 * Text ***********Cum;*que***********as;*p;i**ce;*ret*be;*a;*tus*ste;*pha;**nus*in*coe;*****lum **********vi***;***dit*************glo*;*ri*;am********de***;**i******et****a******************it********* Neumes *************cs*cs**********qi*******sc***cs***v***v***ps***p****p***p****ps***v*cs*p***ps**qir*******mcs v v mcs v v qis v to cs to po cl 177 Analysis 1
U"406 Elements ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((D1/mti(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( f1/g Phrase(1+2 1--d--fd-f-f-wWe-fgff-ged -cdc-c-cf-fdg-fgh-hgh-e-egf-ef3 Text (((((((((In(6((tu((6(((ens((((in(((((ce((6((lum(((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ((be(((((a(((6(((tus((((((((((((((((((((((((Ste6pha(((nus( Neumes ((((((((((p(((((cs(((((((v((v((mcs(((pss((((((((((cl((( to or ps po sc po p to p v Elements f ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((h
Phrase(3+4 except(for(final( torculus,(NOT( 1-deg-hk-h-hk-hh---hgf-g-hghgfe-e-e-f3 ----dg-g-hkhg-hjk-k- k-jkl-k-kjh-hJkjk-gHjkjkj-hg-hkh-3 German!( Text ((((((((((vi(((6(((dit((glo(6(ri(6am((de(((6((i(((et((((((a((((((((6(((((((it((((((((( ((((((((((ec((6(ce(((vi(((((((6((de((6(o(((ce(((6(((los(((((((((a(((((6((((((per(((((((6(((((((((tos(((((((((((((((((((((( Neumes qi ps v ps v v pmi v v tos v p v ((((((((((((ps((((v(((pss(((((((qi((((v(((v(((((((((sc(((v(((cli(((((((((qir(((((((((((qir(((((((((((((cs(po(( Elements ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((g2(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((G1)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((d3/g( E1/g Phrase(5+6 1--f-fd-dfe-fg-gh-gf-gGhgh-hg ---ghf-defgh-khgf-gHij-ijhg-hg---gh-h-hg-f-f-dfd3 -f-gGhg-h-fhfg-ghkg-hg-egf-fe4 Text ((((((((((((et((((fi(((li((6(((um(((ho6mi(((((nis((((((((((((((((((((stan((((((((((((((((((((((6(((((((((((((((((((((((((((tem((((((a(((dex(6(tris ((((vir(6((tu((6(tis((((((((((((((((((((de(((((6((((((i(( Neumes ((((((((((((v(((cs(((tor(((ps((ps((((((((cl(qir((((cs(((((((((((((((tor((((((((sc(((((((((clsp(((((((qi((((((((pmi(((((cs(((((((ps(vcs(((((((bis((((((to(((( p qir v por cspp cs to cs Goal6pitches ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((mti(b g Verse 1--klk-hjkjhg-k-jk-h-h-h-hk-h-h-h-hg-h-kj-hlk-iIj-3 1hg-hk-k-k-k-klkjh-hjkj-hg-ghk-khjkhg-4 Text (((((((((((Cum(que(((((((((((as(pi((ce(ret(be(a(tus(ste(pha((nus(in(coe(((((lum vi dit glo ri am de i et a it Neumes ((((((((((((to(((((qisp((((((((((((v(ps(v(v(v(((((((ps(((v(v(((((((((((cs(v(cs(((((tor((((mcs( cs ps vs v v to cl qi cl sc css cl
Neumes Phrase(1+2 P(12044 (((((((((v((ps((((((((v(((((((v(((((csp((pssp(((cs(((((((to (ps(((((p(((cs(((((v((((((to((((((cs(((((sca((((((po(((((((((p((((((to((((((or(((((ps Fragments (((((((((((((p(((((cs((((((v(((v((((mcs((((((((pssp((v((cl(((cs(((((((((( to(((((or(((ps((po(((((((((((sc(((((((po((((((p(((((to(((((p(v( U(406 ((((((((((p(((((cs(((((((v((v((mcs(((pss((((((((((cl((( (((to(((or(((ps(((po((((((sc(((((((po((((p((to(((((p(v Phrase(3+4 P(12044 (((((((ps((ps(((((((((((p((ps((((((p(((((p(((((((cs((cs(((((((v(((((((v(((((pssp((((((ps(((((cs (ps(((((p((((((((pssp(((((((v((p((p((v((((((((((((((((((((sca((cli((((((((((((((ps((((((po((((((v((((por(((((((((cs(((((to Fragments (((((((((((qi((((((ps(((p(ps((((v(v((((((((pmi((v(v(((tos((((((((v((((p(v ((((((((((((ps(v(((((pss(((((((qi((((v(((v((((((((((sc((((((((((cl(((((((qir(((((((qir((((((((((((((cs(((to( U(406 (((((((((((qi((((((ps(((v(ps((((v(v((((((pmi((v(v(((((tos((((((((v((((p(v ((((((((((((ps((((v(((pss(((((((qi((((v(((v(((((((((sc(((v(((cli(((((((((qir(((((((((((qir(((((((((((((cs(po(( Phrase5+6 P(12044 (((((((((p(((p((((p(((((((((((cs((cs((((((((ps((((((((p(((por(((((((((((((cs((((((((ps((p((p((cs((p((ps((ps((((((cli4((((ps((((cs((((((((cs((((((ps((((((((((v((((cs((v((((to ((((ps(((cs(((((((po((ps(((((((por(((((((((to((((((or((cs( Fragments (((((((((((((((((((por(((((((cs(((ps((((((((ps((((((cs((((((qito(((((((((cs(((((((ps(((cs((trip(((csppsp((((qi(((((((cs6pmi((cs(((((((ps((((((v((((((((cs(((bis((((((to (((qipp(((((v((v(((((po(((((((((cspp((cs(((((((to(((((((cs( U(406 ((((((((((((v(((cs(((tor(((ps((ps((((((((cl(qir((((cs(((((((((((((((tor((((((((sc(((((((((clsp(((((((qi((((((((pmi(((((cs(((((((ps(vcs(((((((bis((((((to(((( (((p((((qir((((((((v((por((((((cspp((((cs(((to((((((cs((( Verse(1+2 P(12044 n.a. n.a. Fragments (((((((((((((cs(cs((((((((((qi(((((((sc(((cs(((v(((v(((ps(((p((((p(((p((((ps(((v(cs(p(((ps((qir(((((((mcs ((((((((((v(((v(((mcs(((((v(v((((((((qis((((((((((((((((v(((((to((((cs(((((((to(((po((((((((cl( U(406 ((((((((((((to(((((qisp((((((((((((v(ps(v(v(v(((((((ps(((v(v(((((((((((cs(v(cs(((((tor((((mcs( (((((((cs(ps((vs(v(v(((((((((to(cl(((((((((qi(((((cl(((((((sc((((((css(cl(
178 Analysis 2 Incipit'respond: Sancte'dei'pretiose CAO 7575 Notational(aspects( Incipit'verse: Ut'tuo'propriciatus CAO 7575a Fragments U'406 P'12044 Link to Fragments page 18 Feast: Stephani'(Fragments,'Utrecht)'Inventio'St'P'12044 Comments The Utrecht sources are highly identical except for some differences marked red in the analysis. . Phrase 1 of Fragments U'406 P'12044 the Verse has a flat sign on propiciatus. At the end of the same phrase on domi nus a flat sign followed by a tilde-like scribble occurs. In P 12077 the first flat sign occurs on the same spot, the second flat sign is missing. In Link to U 406 f. 27r Siglum/folio 4.3'(1)'v,'p.18 f'27r 'f'167r U 406 the flat sign is repeated on dominus. An explanation, also after comparing references from De Loos (1996, Text 90 and illustrations mentioned there), eludes me. Link to P 12044 f. 167r Respond Fragments U'406 P'12044
Phrase'1 Sancte'dei'pretiose idem idem Period'1'''Respond Phrase'2 protomartyr'Stephane idem idem
qui'virtute'caritatis' Phrase'3 idem idem Melismas circumfultus Period'2'''Respond undique'dominum'pro' Phrase'4 idem idem Fragments U'406 P'12044 inimico'exorasti'populo 'funde'preces'pro'devoto' Phrase5 idem idem Respond Phrase'4,'colPlegio:(Utrecht'sources'identical.''P12044'shorter.'See'separate'analysis. Period'3'''Respond tibi'nunc Phrase'6 collegio idem idem Concordances RDFS n.a.
Verse Fragments U'406 P'12044
Ut''tuo'propiciatus' Ut''tuo'propiciatus' Ut'(tui'propiciatus' Phrase'1 Verse n.a. n.a. n.a interventu'dominus interventu'dominus interventu'dominus Verse nos'purgatos'a'peccato' nos'purgatos'a'peccato' nos'purgatos'a'peccatis( Phrase'2 iungat'caeli'civibus. iungat'caeli'civibus. iungat'caeli'civibus. Concordances RDFS
Music
Respond Respond Modal(elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Formal(elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Comments'Respond Mode 1 1 1 Period'1'''Respond Phrase'1 Phrase(1+2:'P'12044'and'the'Fragments'have'identical'versions','in'U'406' Ambitus cPk cPk cPk GoalPpitch g g f there'are'two'minor'differences.'Phrase(4:'U'406:'dominum'pro'inimico'is' Finalis d d d Elements Ug Ug f7 identical'to'Paris;'the'last'part'of'the'phrase,'exorasti'populo'is'identical'to' Recitation'tone h h h Phrase'2 the'Fragments.'Both'Utrecht'sources'have'the'same'element'at'the'end,'d1' GoalPpitch d d d (P:'d11)''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Elements d15 d15 d15 It'looks'like'the'provenance'of'this'melody'has'a(west(Frankish(background' Comments'respond Period'2'''Respond Phrase'3 as'the'Utrecht''scriptors'do'not'seem'to'have'had'any'reluctance'with'e's'and' GoalPpitch h h h b's.' Verse Elements h13 h13 h13 Modal(elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Phrase'4 Mode 1 1 1 GoalPpitch d d d Ambitus cPk cPk cPk Elements d1 d1 d11 Finalis d d d Period'3'''Respond Phrase'5 Recitation'tone h h h GoalPpitch h h h Elements h3 h3 h3 Comments'''''''verse Phrase'6 GoalPpitch d d d Elements D1 D1 D2 Comments'Verse Phrase(2:'P'12044'and'the'Fragments'have'e'as'finalis.' Verse The'Utrecht'sources'have'an'identical'melody'with'' Formal(elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 exception'of'the'final,'which'in'U'406'is'f1. Verse Phrase'1 GoalPpitch h h h House'style'elements Phrase'2 GoalPpitch e f e House'style'elements P P
Road(Maps Period'1 Period'2 Period'3 Verse Phrases 1'(C) 2'(F) 3'(F) 4'(C) 5'(C) 6'(F) 1 2 179 P12044 f d h d h d h e Fragments g d h d h d h e U'406 g d h d h d h f Analysis 2 Respond Sancte'dei'pretiose CAO 7575 Verse*Fragm Ut'tuo'propriciatus CAO 7575a P'12044
Elements ******************************************************************************************H1********************************************************f7****** d15 Phrase*1+2 1dc--df-gfd-fe-fgf-ded-dc---fg-hgf-ghg-hij--h- -c--df--fd-fg-fghgfg--gf- -fe--dc--df--df-gfg-h---dc--de-fef--ed-3 Text ********Sanc*>te**************************************de***********>***************i**********pre*>*ci**>**o*********>*************se*********** ***pro**>*to>**mar*>**tyr**************Ste*>*pha*****>*****ne** Neumes ********cs*******ps**cli*****cs***to*******to*****cs********ps**cli******to*******p***p***************p****ps******cs**ps**ps**??? *****cs**cs********ps******ps**po*****p******cs****ps*****po*******cs** Elements ******************************************c3**********************************************************************************h13******* h2 d11 =*U*406* Phrase*3+4 df-gh---gf--ghgfg--dfd-dc- -f--gj--hjkjhgf--gh---hk--kj--gj-kh--hghgfgh-3 -dc--defef--ed---dfgfg--d-dcd--c-* -f---fg-hij--hg--gh-kh--h---h--gf--ghg-hj--h- -hghf-gh-ef-ef--ed-3 Text *qui***********vir*>**tu********>*****te****************ka*>*ri**>**ta**********>*******te*******cir*>**cun*>**ful****>***tus ********un*>*di*****>******que*******do****>*****mi****>*****num******pro****i*******>*******ni**>**mi***>******co******ex*>*o***>**ras*****>****ti********po******>*******pu*****>*****lo********* Neumes ***ps**ps******cs*****pssp********to**cs**************p**ps**********pssp*********ps*********ps***cs***ps******cs*********cli**ps**cs* *????********************************************************************************p*******ps***ps*******cs*****ps**cs*******p*******p***cs********to*****ps**p**********por*******ps******ps*ps****cs* Elements ********************************h8***************************************************************h3**** D2 Phrase*5+6 1-hk-l--gh---hkjg-jkh--h- hlkh-jhl---kj--hjkh--h---h--gf---gh- -dhijg-gf-gh-hkIjg-jkh-hgf-gh-hgfg-dfd-dc-e-fgf-gh--dc--de-fef--ed4 Text ***********fun**>**de*******pre******>*******ces**********pro******************de**>**vo****>*****to******ti*>**bi******nunc ******col****************************************>*************************************************************************le***>**gi********>*****o Neumes ********ps****or*****ps********pssp**to*********p******pssp**po***********cs*****to**********p********p******cs********ps** ********ps***cs**cs****ps****pssp**to****cli*******ps******cli>ps***to*****cs***p***to****ps*****cs******ps***po*****cs Goal>pitches ********************************************************************************************************************************************************h e Verse 1h--h-hghg--gf---hf--g--hk--kijh--jh---g--hf--gh--gh---h--hjh--h--3 -gf---g--hk--gf---gh---gh--hjh--h---h--h---gh-hgh--ge--fg---gefd--dfdc--de-4 Text ********Ut*******tu>************i************pro>*pi>**ci>******a>******us********in>***ter>ven>****tu*******do>*mi*******>nus **nos*****pur**>ga>**tos*******a*********pec>****[ca]>* tis iun-gat cae- li ci- vi- bus Neumes *********p***p**por***********cs*****cs********p***ps********cli*******cs*********p**anc**eph***ps*********p********to********p ***cs*********p********ps***cs******ps*********ps***to***********p*****p*****p******cs*****po*****cs******ps********por********pssp******ps Fragments Elements ****************************************************************************************************H1*************************************************Ug*********************************** d15 Phrase*1+2 1ed--d-fgfd-fe-fgf-dfdc---fghgf--gGhg-hij-h---c--df--f-dfg-fghgh--g- -fe--dc--d--dfgfe-f---fe--defef--ed--- Text ******Sanc*>te**********************************************de****>******i****************************pre*>*ci**>*********o*********>***********se******************pro**>*to**>**mar*>**tyr***********Ste*>*pha*>*ne* Neumes **********cs***v****pssp**cs**to*****pssp*********qisp*********qito*****ps******v*******p****ps****v*****sca****qitorpp***v******* cs*****cs*****v*****sccl*******v*******cs******qitor*********cs Elements h13 *******************************************************************************************************************************h2/french+************************************************************************d1
=*U*406* Phrase*3+4 -dEf-gh---gf--ghfg-fgfd---f--gh--hkjg--gh---gGh-hJk--kj--gjkh--hg-hf-gGh-3 1-dc--defd--d---df-fGh--ddc--d-dc----de---f--hij--hIjkjh--h---h--f--hj--h---hg-hf-gGh--defef--ed-3* Text ***qui*************vir*>****tu**>****te************ka*>*ri**>**ta***>*te*******cir*>***********cun*>**ful****>**tus ************un*>**di*****>****que**do****>**********mi*>****num**********pro*******i**>***ni**>**mi***>***********co******ex*>*o***>**ras*>****ti******po******>******pu*****>*****lo********* Neumes ****qi****ps*******cs*****tor********pssp***********v****ps******tosp******ps*********qi*****qi*******cs******cspp*****cs****cs****qi* ***********cs*******qito******v*****ps**qi**********pma**v***cs***********ps*******v********ps*******pssp************v*******v******p****ps******v******cs***cs***qi*********qitor*******cs* Elements ***************************************h8**********************************************************************h3 D2 Phrase*5+*6 1-hkkj--gh---hkjg-jkh--h---hlkh-hkg-hl---kj--hkh--h---h--gf---gGh- --dh-hgf-gGh-dh-hgf-gGh-hkjg-kh-hkjg-kh-hgf-gf-gg-hh--hgf-g-dfddc-fgf-gGh-dc-dEfef-ed-4 Text *fun**>**de*******pre******>************ces****pro*************************de**>**vo****>**to******ti*>**bi******nunc** col - le - gi - o Neumes **cssp******ps*******pssp**to**********v********pssp**to******ps*******cs********to*******v*******v*****cs********qi** ps cli qi ps cli qi pssp cs pssp cs cli cs tract bis cli v to -pmi to qi cs qir cs Goal>pitches ***************************************************************************************************************************************************************h e Verse 1 ---h--hg--hgf---gf--g--hk--kijh--gGh---g--gh--gh--gh---h--hIjh--jjh---3-ghgf--gh--hJk--gf---gh---gh--hijh--h---h--h---hg-hgh--ge--fg--ge-fd--dfdc-dDe-4 Text ********[Ut]*******tu>***********o**********pro>****pi>**ci>******a>*********tus********in>ter>ven>****tu*******do>*mi*******>nus nos pur -ga -tos a pe- cca- to iun-gat cae- li ci- vi- bus 180 Neumes *********ps******v****cs****pmi**********ps*****v*****ps****cli************qi***********p*****ps*****ps****ps*******v******to**********pma pssp ps qi cs ps ps to v v v cs po cs ps cs cs pssp qi U"406 Analysis 2 Elements (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((H1((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( d15 Phrase(1+2 1ed--d-fgfd-fe-fgf-dfdc---fghgf--gGhghh---c--dEf--f-dfg-fghgh--g-3 -fe--dc--d--dfgfe-f---d--def--ed---3 Text ((((((Sanc(5te(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((de((((5((((((i(((((((((((((((((pre(5(ci((5(((((((((o(((((((((5(((((((((((se(((((((((( pro - to - mar - tyr Ste - pha - ne Neumes ((((((((((cs(((v((((pssp((cs((to((((((topmi((((qisp(((((((((qito(biv(v((((p(((((qi((((((v(((sca((((popp((((((((v(((((((((( cs cs v sccl v p sca cs Elements h13 ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((h2(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((d1 =(Fragments( =(P(12044( ( =(Fragments( ( ( Phrase(3+4 -def-gh---gf--ghgf-g--dfdc---f--gh--hJkjg--f---gGh-hJk--kj--gjkh--hg-hf-gGh--31-dc--defd--d---dfgfg--d--dcd-c---f---gh--h--ghjkh--h---h--gf--ghg--h---hg-hf-gGh--defef--ed-3 Text qui vir - tu - te ka - ri - ta - te cir - cun - ful - tus (((((((((((un(5((((di(((((5((((que((do((((5(((((mi(5((num((((((pro(((((((i((5(((ni((5((mi(((5((((((co((((((ex(5(o(((5((ras(5((((ti((((((po((((((5(((((((((((((pu(((((5(((((lo(((((((((
Neumes qi ps cs pssp v topmi v ps qitosp v qi qi cs cspp cs cs qi ((((((((((((cs(((((((qito((((((v(((((popp(((((v(((((po(((((p((((((v((((((ps((((((v(((((((qito(((((((v(((((((v((((((cs((((to(biv(((v((((((cs(((cs(((qi(((((((((qitor(((((((cs( Elements (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((h8(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((h3/g((( D2 Phrase(5+6 1-hkkj--gh---hkjg-jkh--h---hlkh-hkg-hl---kj--hkh--h---h--gf---gGh- ---dh-hgf--gGh--dh-hgf--gGh-hkjg-kh-hgf--gGh-hkjg-kh-hgf--gGh--hgf-g-dfdc-fgf-gGh--d--dEfef--ed-4 Text *fun((5((de(((((((pre((((((5((((((((((((ces((((pro(((((((((((((((((((((((((de((5((vo((((5((to((((((ti(5((bi((((((nunc( col - le - gi - o Neumes ((cssp((((((ps(((((((pssp((to((((((((((v((((((((pssp((to((((((ps(((((((cs((((((((to(((((((v(((((((v(((((cs((((((((qi((((( ps cs-pmi qi ps cs-pmi qi pssp cs cs-pmi qi pssp cs cs-pmi qi cli v to-pmi to qi v qitor cs Goal5pitches ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((h f Verse 1dh---h--hg--hgf---gf--g--hk--kijh--h---g--gf--gh--gh---h--hijh--h---3 -ghgf--gh--hJk--gf---gh---gh- ---h---h--h---hg-hgh--ge--fg--ge-fd--dfdc-dEf-4 Text ((((((((Ut(((((((tu5((((((((((((i((((((((((((pro5(pi5((ci5((((((a5(((((((((tus((((((((in5ter5ven5((((tu(((((((do5(mi(((((((5nus nos pur -ga -tos a pec- [ca]- to iun-gat cae- li ci- vi- bus Neumes (((((((((ps((((((v((((cs((((pmi((((((((((ps(((((v(((((ps((((cli((((((((((((v(((((((p((((cs(((((((ps((((ps(((((((v((((((to(((((((((((v(( pssp ps qi cs ps ps [?] v v v cs po cs ps cs cs pssp qi
Neumes Phrase(1+2 P(12044 ((((((((cs(((((((ps((cli(((((cs(((to(((((((to(((((cs((((((((ps((cli((((((to(((((((p(((p(((((((((((((((p((((ps((((((cs((ps((ps((??? (((((cs((cs((((((((ps((((((ps((po(((((p((((((cs((((ps(((((po(((((((cs(( Fragments ((((((((((cs(((v((((pssp((cs((to(((((pssp(((((((((qisp(((((((((qito(((((ps((((((v(((((((p((((ps((((v(((((sca((((qitorpp(((v((((((( cs(((((cs(((((v(((((sccl(((((((v(((((((cs((((((qitor(((((((((cs U(406 ((((((((((cs(((v((((pssp((cs((to((((((topmi((((qisp(((((((((qito(biv(v((((p(((((qi((((((v(((sca((((popp((((((((v(((((((((( ((cs(((((cs(((((v(((((sccl(((((((v(((((((p((((((sca((((cs Phrase(3+4 P(12044 (((ps((ps((((((cs(((((pssp((((((((to((cs((((((((((((((p((ps((((((((((pssp(((((((((ps(((((((((ps(((cs(((ps((((((cs(((((((((cli((ps((cs( (????((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((p(((((((ps(((ps(((((((cs(((((ps((cs(((((((p(((((((p(((cs((((((((to(((((ps((p((((((((((por(((((((ps((((((ps(ps((((cs( Fragments ((((qi((((ps(((((((cs(((((tor((((((((pssp(((((((((((v((((ps((((((tosp((((((ps(((((((((qi(((((qi(((((((cs((((((cspp(((((cs((((cs((((qi( (((((((((((cs(((((((qito((((((v(((((ps((qi((((((((((pma((v(((cs(((((((((((ps(((((((v((((((((ps(((((((pssp((((((((((((v(((((((v((((((p((((ps((((((v((((((cs(((cs(((qi(((((((((qitor(((((((cs( U(406 (((((qi((((ps(((((((cs((((((pssp((((v((((topmi((((((v((((ps((((((qitosp(((((v((((((qi(((((qi(((((((cs((((((cspp(((((cs((((cs((((qi(((( ((((((((((((cs(((((((qito((((((v(((((popp(((((v(((((po(((((p((((((v((((((ps((((((v(((((((qito(((((((v(((((((v((((((cs((((to(biv(((v((((((cs(((cs(((qi(((((((((qitor(((((((cs( Phrase5+6 P(12044 ((((((((ps((((or(((((ps((((((((pssp((to(((((((((p((((((pssp((po(((((((((((cs(((((to((((((((((p((((((((p((((((cs((((((((ps(( ((((((((ps(((cs((cs((((ps((((pssp((to((((cli(((((((ps((((((cli5ps(((to(((((cs(((p(((to((((ps(((((cs((((((ps(((po(((((cs Fragments ((cssp((((((ps(((((((pssp((to((((((((((v((((((((pssp((to((((((ps(((((((cs((((((((to(((((((v(((((((v(((((cs((((((((qi(( (((((((ps(((cli(((qi((((((ps(((cli(((((qi((((((pssp((cs((((((pssp((cs((cli(((((cs((tract(bis((cli(((v(((((((to(5pmi((((((to(((((qi(((((((cs(((qir(((((((cs U(406 ((cssp((((((ps(((((((pssp((to((((((((((v((((((((pssp((to((((((ps(((((((cs((((((((to(((((((v(((((((v(((((cs((((((((qi((((( ((((((ps((cs5pmi((qi(((((((ps((((cs5pmi((qi(((((pssp((((cs((cs5pmi((qi((((pssp((((cs(((cs5pmi(qi((((((cli((((((v((to5pmi((((to(((qi(((((((((v((((((qitor((((((((cs Verse(1+2 P(12044 (((((((((p(((p((por(((((((((((cs(((((cs((((((((p(((ps((((((((cli(((((((cs(((((((((p((anc((eph(((ps(((((((((p((((((((to((((((((p (((cs(((((((((p((((((((ps(((cs((((((ps(((((((((ps(((to(((((((((((p(((((p(((((p((((((cs(((((po(((((cs((((((ps((((((((por((((((((pssp((((((ps Fragments (((((((((ps((((((v((((cs((((pmi((((((((((ps(((((v(((((ps((((cli((((((((((((qi(((((((((((p(((((ps(((((ps((((ps(((((((v((((((to((((((((((pma pssp((((((((ps((((qi((((((((cs((((((((ps((((((ps((((((((to((((((((v((((((v((((((v(((((((cs(((((po(((((((cs((ps(((((((cs(((cs(((((pssp((((((qi U(406 (((((((((ps((((((v((((cs((((pmi((((((((((ps(((((v(((((ps((((cli((((((((((((v(((((((p((((cs(((((((ps((((ps(((((((v((((((to(((((((((((v(( pssp((((((((ps((((qi((((((((cs((((((((ps((((((ps((((((([?]((((((((v(((((((v((((((v(((((((cs(((((po(((((((cs((ps(((((((cs(((cs(((((pssp((((((qi
181 Analysis 3 Incipit'respond: A'dextris'est'mihi CAO 6002 Notational(aspects Incipit verse: Conserva'me'domine CAO 7240a Fragments U'406 P'12044 Feast: Infra'Hebd.'I''p.'Epiph. Comments Utrecht sources: Neumes applied identical, save for: Respond: phr 6 me-a: Fragments torculus resupinus/U 406 Link to Fragments page 29 Fragments U'406 P'12044 quilisma resupinus. Verse: do-mi-no de-(us) Fragments puncta, U 406 virgae. In P12044, phrase 6, a natural sign appears at lingua mea. In P12044 there are two examples of recurrent compound neumes with 4 Siglum/folio X fol 88 1r, page 29 44r 29v subbipunctis, in stead of the maximum three I encountered in the Utrecht sources: see phrase 3 a pes with 4 Link to U 406 f. 44r Text b-natural in P 12044 (link) subbipunctis on hoc and Verse, phrase 1, a climacus with 4 downward pitches on me. In Utrecht there is no comparison since the melisma is shorter and misses these neumes, in verse, phrase 1, in both sources the cli4 is replaced by a clivis subbipuntis, followed by an oriscus. Respond Fragments U'406 P'12044 Link to P 12044 f. 29v Phrase'1 A'dextris'est'michi' idem idem Period'1'''Respond dominus Phrase'2 ne'commovear idem idem Phrase'3 propter'hoc idem idem Period'2'''Respond Phrase'4 (dilatum'est'[[cor' dilatatum'est'cor' dilatatum'est' Melismas m]]eum meum cor'meum Phrase'5 et exsultavit idem idem Fragments U'406 P'12044 Period'3'''''Respond Phrase'6 'lingua'mea idem idem Respond Concordances In P 12044, phrase 3, the melisma on hoc has the same opening as in the Utrecht sources, but GBEMVHRDFSL has a pes and a clives added.
Verse U 406: 44v Phrase'1 Conserva'me'domine' idem idem Fragments U'406 P'12044 quoniam'in'te'speravi Verse Phrase'2 dixi'domino'deus'meus' idem idem Short identical melismas in phrase 1+2, save for some German traits in the Utrecht sources, Verse es'tu. where they are identical. The CAO code for the verse refers to the respond-verse pair 7240- 7240a Notas mihi fecisti-Conserva me. The neumes and pitches applied here are identical to Conserva me in the other combination. Concordances BEMVHRD
Music Respond Modal(elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Respond Mode 8 idem idem Formal(elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Comments'Respond Ambitus f-l idem e-l Link to Globalchant.org Phrase 3 Utrecht style.The phrase is a truncated version of the Finalis g idem idem Period 1 Respond Phrase'1 melisma in P 12044 but as such does not occur in Helsen's list of Recitation tone k idem idem Goal-pitch g g g elements for mode 8. Elements G/g/mti G/g/mti G Comments'respond Phrase'2 Goal-pitch g g g Verse Elements g1/g g1/g g1 Modal(elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Period 2 Respond Phrase'3 Mode 8 idem idem Goal-pitch g g g Ambitus f-l idem idem Elements Ug Ug g1 Finalis g g g Phrase'4 Recitation tone k k k Goal-pitch j/mti j/mti j Elements j1/g/mti j1/g/mti j1 Comments'''''''verse Period'3''''Respond Phrase'5 Goal-pitch h h h Elements h/g h/g h Phrase'6 Goal-pitch g g g Elements G3/g G3/g G3
Comments'verse Verse In the Utrecht sources, the melodic setting largely is west Frankish Formal(elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 by not always avoiding the often recurring j (=b). The phrases are but a few minor differences identical in the three sources.
'Verse Phrase'1 Goal-pitch g g g House style elements - - Phrase'2 Goal-pitch g g g House style elements g g
Road Maps Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Verse Phrases 1 (C) 2 (F) 3 (F) 4 (C) 5 (C) 6 (F) 1 2 182 Mode 8 most frequent in P12044 f g g f d g g g P 12044 g g g j h g g g Fragments g g g j/mti h g g g U 406 g g g j/mti h g g g Analysis 3 Respond A"dextris"est"mihi CAO 6002 Verse*Fragm Conserva"me"domine CAO 7240a P"12044 Element G g1 Phrase*1+2 1g---ghk--k---kj-hjh---h--k---kjk--hk--h-hg-3 -h---kh-jkjh--g--gh-jhgh--hg-3 Text ************A*****dex**:**tris*****est*****************mi*:*chi***do****:**mi**:*nus******************************** ********ne****com*****:*****mo*:*ve*******:*****ar******* Neumes **********p*******sca*****v****cs****to************p***v********po*******ps*******p:cs** **********v****cs*********pssp**p***ps******cli:ps**cs** Element g ***************************************************************************************************j1 Phrase*3+4 1-k--k---j-klhgf-gh-hg -k--k--k-hkj---kj-kjhghg---hk---jlk-k--kj----3 Text **********prop:ter****hoc******************* **di**:*la*:*ta**:*tum****est**********cor*****me*****:*******um*********** Neumes **********v**v**p****pssp(4)****ps***cs** ****v****v**v******cph**********cs*cli:to**********cph*******to******or*cs* Element *******************************************************h************************** **************************************************G3 Phrase*5+6 1---k---kjh--jk--hg--hg-hijh- -ghg-hgfe--fg---gh-khIj--HG4 Text ***************et*******ex***:***ul*:***ta***:*vit** *lin******:*******gua******me*****:******a** Neumes ***************v******cli*******cph****cs******cs*****to **to*******cli(4)*********ps**ps******po******cs Goal*pitch ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************g ****************************************************************************************************************************************************g Verse 1--hk--k--kj--klkj--kjhg--h--hg---hk--k--k--k--k--k--jk--jk--hj--g-hjh-hg- --g--fg---gh--g--g---g--hkhg--hjh---gf--gh---hkj--klkjh---hj-h-ghg--4 Text *********Con:*ser:va***********me*************************do:mi:ne:*********quo:*ni:*******am*****in*****te*****spe:*ra:***********vi* ****di:xi*****do***:mi:******no******de:us***********************me:***us******es********************************************tu Neumes **********eph***v*******cs*******pssp*****cli4***********v**cs*******ps********p****p**p***p***p*******ceph**ps***ps**p**to**cs ******p*****ps*********ps****p****p*******p*******pssp**to***********cs******ps**********to******pssp***********ps**p**to* Fragments Element ***************************G/g/mti g1/g Phrase*1+2 1g---ghJk--k---kiIj---kjh--kh---h--k--khk--hk-hg-3 h---kh-hJkjh--k-g--ghkhg--hg-3 Text ************A*****dex**:**tris*****est*****************mi*:*******chi*********do**:**mi**:*nus***************************************************************************ne****com*****:********mo*:*ve*******:*****ar** Neumes *********p*****qippor******v*********mc*******cli*******cs********p*****v*****po******ps**pmi *******v********cs*****qisp*****v***p****sccl********cs Element *********************************************Ug"""""""**************************************************************************************** j1/g/mti Phrase*3+4 1---k--k---kj-klhg-- -k-k-k--kiIj-khgh---hJk---jlk-kiIj-3 Text ************prop:ter****hoc************************* di -la-tum est cor me - um Neumes **************v******v*****cs*****to*pmi**** v v v mcs cs ps? qi to mcs Element **************************************************h/g G3/g Phrase*5+6 1k---kjh--jk-hg--hg--hk-h--- ghg--fg---g-hJkhk--hg-4 Text *********et*******ex***:***ul*:***ta***:*vit****** l in gua me - a Neumes ****v**********pmi*****eph****cs*****cs****to to ps p qitorpp cs Goal*pitch ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************g *********************************************************************************************************************************************g Verse 1--k--k--kiIj---klk-k-kjhg---hk--k--k---k--k--k---jh---jk---gGhkh--hg-3 --g-fg---gh--g--g---g--hkhg-hkh---ghf--gh---hJk-klkjh---hkhg-hg-4 Text *********Con:*ser:va***********me*************************do:mi:ne:*********quo:*ni:*******am**in*te*********spe:*ra:*vi* ****di:xi*****do***:mi:******no******de:us***********************me:***us******es**********************tu 183 Neumes *********v*****v*****mcs*********to********v*cssp*or*******ps******v***v*****v****v*****v**********cs******ps**********qitopp**cs* *******v*ps******ps******p*****p******p*****pssp******to***********to******ps*******qi***tosp***********pssp****cs Analysis 3 U"406 Element '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''G/g/mti g1/g Phrase'1+2 1-g--ghJk-k-kiIj-kjh-kh-h--k--kjk--hk--hg-3 ---h---kh-hJkjh-g-ghkhg-h-hg-3 Text ''''''''''A'''''dex''8''tris'''''est''''''mi'8'chi'''do''''8''mi''8'nus''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ne com - mo - ve - ar Neumes ''''''''''v'''''''qippor'v'''''mc'''cli''''cs'''''v'v'''''''po'''''ps''''pmi'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''v'''''''cs'qisp''''''v'sccl'''''''''''p''''cs' Element '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''""""Ug"''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' j1/g/mti Phrase'3+4 1--k--k--jklhg-- -k--k--k--k--kiIj-kjhg-hg-hJk---jlk-kiIj-3- Text '''''''''prop8ter''''hoc''''''''''''''''''' di - la - ta - tum est cor me - um Neumes '''''''''''v'''''v'''to'pmi'''''' v v v v mcs cs cssp qi to mcs Element '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''Uh""'''''' G3/g Phrase'5+6 1--k---kjh---jk--hg-hg-hkh- -ghg---fg---ghJkhk-hg--4 Text ''''''''''''''''et'''''ex'''8'''''''ul'8'''''ta'''8''''''vit''' lin gua me - a Neumes '''''''''''''''v'cs''''''''''''eph'''''''cs'cs''''to' to ps qir cs Goal'pitch ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''g g Verse 1--k--k--kiIj---klk-k-kjhg---hk--k--k---k--k--k---jh---jk---ghkh--hg --g-fg---gh--g--g---g--hkhg-hkh---ghf--gh---hk-klkjh---hkhg-hg-4 Text '''''''''con8'ser8va'''''''''''me'''''''''''''''''''''''''do8mi8ne8'''''''''quo8'ni8'''''''am''in'te'''''''''spe8'ra8'vi' di-xi do -mi-no de-us me- us es tu Neumes '''''''''v'''''v'''''mcs'''''''''to'v'cssp'or'''''''ps''''''''''v'''v'''''v''''v'''''v''''''''''cs''''''ps''''''''''qitopp''cs' v ps ps v v v pssp to to ps qi tosp pssp cs
Neumes
Phrase'1+2
P'12044 ''''''''''p'''''''sca'''''v''''cs''''to''''''''''''p'''v''''''''po'''''''ps'''''''p8cs'' ''''''''''v''''cs'''''''''pssp''p'''ps''''''cli8ps''cs'' Fragments '''''''''p'''''qippor''''''v'''''''''mc'''''''cli'''''''cs''''''''p'''''v'''''po''''''ps''pmi '''''''v''''''''cs'''''qisp'''''v'''p''''sccl''''''''cs U'406 ''''''''''v'''''''qippor'v'''''mc'''cli''''cs'''''v'v'''''''po'''''ps''''pmi'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''v'''''''cs'qisp''''''v'sccl'''''''''''p''''cs'
Phrase'3+4
P'12044 ''''''''''v''v''p''''pssp(4)''''ps'''cs'' ''''v''''v''v''''''cph''''''''''cs'cli8to''''''''''cph'''''''to''''''or'cs' Fragments ''''''''''''''v''''''v'''''cs'''''to'pmi'''' ''''v''v'''v''''''''mcs''cs'ps?'''''qi''''''''''to'''''''mcs' U'406 '''''''''''v'''''v'''to'pmi'''''' 'v''''v''''v''''v''''''mcs'cs'cssp'''''''''qi'''''''''to''''''''mcs' Phrase5+6 P'12044 '''''''''''''''v''''''cli'''''''cph''''cs''''''cs'''''to ''to'''''''cli(4)'''''''''ps''ps''''''po''''''cs Fragments ''''v''''''''''pmi'''''eph''''cs'''''cs''''to 'to''''ps''''''''''p''qitorpp'''''''cs' U'406 '''''''''''''''v'cs''''''''''''eph'''''''cs'cs''''to' ''''''''''''to'''''ps''''''''''qir''''''''''cs'' Verse'1+2 P'12044 ''''''''''eph'''v'''''''cs'''''''pssp'''''cli4'''''''''''v''cs'''''''ps''''''''p''''p''p'''p'''p'''''''ceph''ps'''ps''p''to''cs ''''''p'''''ps'''''''''ps''''p''''p'''''''p'''''''pssp''to'''''''''''cs''''''ps''''''''''to''''''pssp'''''''''''ps''p''to' Fragments '''''''''v'''''v'''''mcs'''''''''to''''''''v'cssp'or'''''''ps''''''v'''v'''''v''''v'''''v''''''''''cs''''''ps''''''''''qitopp''cs' '''''''v'ps''''''ps''''''p'''''p''''''p'''''pssp''''''to'''''''''''to''''''ps'''''''qi'''tosp'''''''''''pssp''''cs U'406 '''''''''v'''''v'''''mcs'''''''''to'v'cssp'or'''''''ps''''''''''v'''v'''''v''''v'''''v''''''''''cs''''''ps''''''''''qitopp''cs' '''''''v'ps''''''ps''''''v'''''v'''''v''''pssp'''''''to'''''''''''to''''''ps'''''''qi'''tosp'''''''''''pssp''''cs
184 Analysis 4 Incipit'respond: Deus'qui'sedes CAO 6433 Notational-aspects Incipit verse: Tibi enim derelictus CAO 6433a Fragments U'406 Feast: Infra'Hebd.'I'post'Epiph. Comments The neume sequences in the Utrecht sources are almost completely identical. Fragments U'406 P'12044 Quilisma 2nd step: fragments: j, g. U 406: e, c#, g#. Siglum/folio X fol 88 fol 1r, p. 29 44r 29v Link to Fragments page 29 Text Link to U 406 f. 44r Respond Fragments U'406 P'12044 Deus'qui'sedes'super' Phrase'1 Link to P 12044 f. 29v thronum Period'1'''Respond Phrase'2 et'judicas'aequitatem
esto'refugium' Phrase'3 Melismas pauperum' Period'2'''Respond Phrase'4 in'tribulatione Fragments U'406 P'12044
Identical melisma on tribulatione in phrase 4, the Fragments T+5 against the other two sources. Phrase'5 quia'tu'solus'laborem' Respond In Utrecht, the last interval of the melisma (leading to the goal pitch of the phrase) is f-e/mti, Period'3'''Respond whereas Paris has e-f. Phrase'6 et'dolorem'consideras GBEMV Concordances HRDFSL
Verse Fragments U'406 P'12044 Tibi'enim'derelictus'est' Phrase'1 Verse In phrase 1, on ti-bi, the Utrecht sources have an identical melisma. Paris is highly similar to it. ''Verse pauper Phrase'2 pupillo'tu'eris'adiutor.'' GBEMV Concordances HRDFSL
Music
Respond Respond Modal-elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Formal-elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Comments'Respond Mode 4T 4 4 In mode 4, there is a significant numer of cadences on f, but these are Ambitus d-h (T) d-h c-j Period 1 Respond Phrase'1 to be interpreted as reversed clivis, to avoid a sense of finality where it Finalis e (T) e e Goal-pitch f (T) f f is unwanted (Helsen 2008, 148). The recitation tone of mode 4 is a' ("h"), a fourth above the final. The Recitation tone h(T) h h Elements F1/mti (T) F1/g/mti F1 transposed recitation is d' (Fragments). Fragments T:+5 Phrase'2 Goal-pitch e(T) e f Comments'respond Elements e1(T)/g e1/g f3 Period 2 Respond Phrase'3 Verse Goal-pitch d(T) d d Modal-elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Elements d4(T) d4/g d4 Mode 4 4 4 Phrase'4 Ambitus e(mti)-h(T) e(mti)-h e Goal-pitch e/mti(T) e/mti(T) f Finalis e(mti) e e Elements Uf/mti(T) Uf/mti(T) f Recitation tone g g g Period 3 Respond Phrase'5 Goal-pitch c (T) c c Elements c (T) c c Phrase'6 Goal-pitch e(T) e e Elements E(T) E E
Comments'verse Verse The standard tone as presented by Helsen does not match with the Formal-elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Utrecht sources. However, Globalchant.org has >10 matches with other verse texts for the melodic opening of phrase 5. One antiphon Globalchant CANTUS applies the same melody as well.Both phrases contain mti's in e/f Verse Phrase'1 position (U 406) and in b-c positions (transposed mode 4, Fragments). Goal-pitch e/mti(T) e/mti c See link to the left. Most concordances are in an antiphonary from Elements mti mti Augsburg, the Benedictine manastery SS Ulrich and Afra, written in 185 Phrase'2 1459 by a monk from Melk. See link to Cantus, to the left, for details. Goal-pitch e/mti(T) e/mti d Elements mti mti
Road Maps Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Verse Phrases 1 (C) 2 (F) 3 (F) 4 (C) 5 (C) 6 (F) 1 2 Mode 4 most frequent in P12044 D E/F E/F E/F D E P12044 f f d f c e c d Fragments f (T) e(T) d(T) e/mti(T) c (T) e(T) e/mti(T) e/mti(T) U 406 f e d e/mti(T) c e e/mti e/mti Analysis 4 Respond Deus%qui%sedes CAO 6433 Verse*Fragments Tibi%enim%derelictus CAO 6433a P%12044 Elements ***********************************************************************************************************************F1 f3 Phrase*1+2 1f--gf-f---df---eghf-fef--fe---f--gf-f---df-gfef--ef-3 -df---hg-hij--h--h---hg-gf--gh--ghgh--f-3 Text **********De*:*us***********qui******se********:*********des*****su*:*per***********thro*****:******num******* *** et iu - di - cas e - qui - ta - tem Neumes *******p**cs**ps*or******ps*******p***cs**po*********cs**v**********cs**p*******ps**cli:ps**ps* **********ps*******cs*********ps**p*p**********cs**cs*****po************tor**p* Elements ********************************************************************************************************************d4********* f Phrase*3+4 1h--ghg---fg--gh-jhg-hj--h--hg-g---fg-hgh--fd-efef--ed3 -ce---ghg-hjh--ge--ghgh--gf--e-fgfe-fed--fd-efef-3 Text ********es:to***********re**:**fu********:*******gi*:*um***********pau****:****pe******:******rum************ ****in******tri*******:******bu**:**la*****:*****ti**:****o*******:****************ne* Neumes *********v*****to**********ps**ps*****cli**ps*****p****cs**p**********ps******po*****cs***tor**cs********** *****ps******to******to********cs******tor*******ps**p*****pssp**cli*****cs********tor* Elements ******************************************************************************************************c E Phrase*5+6 1c--d---ef---gf--gh-hg---c--df--fd-ef-gfd-dc-3 -cd---ef--gf--gh-hg---ghgh--f--egf-f--fe4 Text ********qui*:*a*******tu*******so**:**lus************la**:*bo**:*rem********** ********et*******do*:**lo**:***rem***********con**:****si**:**de*****:*****ras Neumes *********p**v***********ps*******cs**ps:cs*************p**ps******cs**ps*****cli**cs** **********ps*******ps***********cs**ps**cs******tor*******p******to****or*****cs Goal:pitch ****************************************************************************************************************************************************e d Verse 1--h--gf-ghg-hgfe-f-fe---dg--g---g--g--gf--gh---gf---egf---fe--3 --f--df--f---f---ef-gfe--g---hghgf--ef--gef-ed--3 Text ************Ti:***bi*******************************************e:****nim****de:*re:*lic:****tus******est*******pau:*****per* ****pu:*pi***:llo*****tu***e**************:ris***********ad:*************iu:************tor.* Neumes *************v******cs****to****cli4****v**cs*************ps***p******p***p*****cs*******ps*******cs*****p*to*********cs ***v********eph****v****v********ps***cli********v*******po*sp*******ps****po*******cs Fragments Elements ****************************************************************************************************F1*(T) e1(T)/g Phrase*1+2 1-k-lk-hJk-jlmkj-k-kiIj---k-lk---klkj--jk--3 -hl---mo-m--m--mml----lm-lmlm--kj-3
Text ***********De*:*us**qui***se********:*********des********su*:*per*****thro******num******* *********et*******iu**di*:*cas*****e*:*qui**:**ta****:***** tem
Neumes ***********v*cs*****qi*****cspp*or**v**mcs*********v*cs*********sccl******or*v **********ps****ps*****v*v****** pmi ps tor cs Elements *****************************************************************************************************d4*(T)********************************************************************************************* Ue/mti Phrase*3+4 1-m-lml---k-l-lml-l---klkl--kh--hJkjk--jh-3 -hj-lml--mom--lk--lmlm--kh--jkmlk-kjh-kh-k-kiIj-3 Text ***********es:to***********re**fu:gi*:*****um****pau****:****pe******:******rum********** ****in******tri*******:*********bu**:****la*****:*****ti**:****o*******:**************ne* Neumes *******v******to********p*v******to*biv**v****tor*********cs*****qir***********cs****** ps to to cs tor cs clpp cl cs v mcs Elements *************************************************************************************Uc(T) E(T) Phrase*5+6 1--g--f--jk--lk--ml--g-hk--kh--jklhg-3 --gh--jk--lk--ml--lmlml--j--jlk-k-j--4 Text ****qui*:*a****tu****so**:**lus****la**:*bo**:*rem****** et do - lo - rem con - si - de - ras Neumes ***********p*****v****ps***cs*******cs*******p*****ps*cs******pmipp**** ps ps cs cs tor v pssp p Elements ***********************************************************************************************************************************************h*mti e/mti Verse 1--m--lk--lLml--mlj-kj---lm--lk---l--l-lk---lm---lk---kl--kIij-3 ----k -hkKlkj--l---lml--mlk---jkljk--lk--m--m-xXm-4 Text **********Ti:******bi*****************************************e:****nim****de:*re:***lic***:tus******est******pau:***per* ********pu:*pi***:llo*****tu***e**************:ris******ad:****************iu:************tor.* 186 Neumes **********v******cs*****qi*************cl*******cs*******ps****v***v****v*****cs******ps********cs*****v******mcs *******v*ps*******?**?*************qippsp*******v*******to*******cli*******popp*************cs*****v******mcs*** U"406 Analysis 4 Elements (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((F1/mti e1/g Phrase(1+2 1f--gf-f---dEf---eghf-fe-f--fwWe---f--gf-f---dfgfef--ef-3 -df---hk--h--h---hg-gf--gh--ghgh--f-e-3 Text ((((((((((De(6(us(((((((((((qui((((((((((se((((((((6((((((((((((((((((des((((((((su(6(per(((((((((((thro(((((6((((((num((((((( et iu - di - cas e - qui - ta - tem Neumes (((((((((v((((cs((((p((((((qi((((((((((cspp(((((or(((v((((((mcs((((((((v((((((cs(((((((((((sccl((((((v(((or(v( ps ps v v pmi or ps tor pma Elements ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((d4/g(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( Ue/mti Phrase(3+4 1h--ghg---f-g--ghg-h--h-ghg-hg-fd-dfef--ed- --de---ghg-hkh--gf--ghgh--fd--efGhgf-fed--fd-f-fwWe-3 Text ((((((((((es6((to(((((((((re(6((fu(((gi(6(um(((((((((((pau((((6(((((((((((((pe((((((((rum(((((( (((((in(((((((((tri(((((((6(((((((bu((6((la(((((6((((((ti((((((((o(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((ne( Neumes ((((((((v((((to((((((((((v(((((v(((to(((biv(((v(((((to((((((cs(cs((((por((((((((cs(((((((( ((((((ps((((((to((((to(((((((((cs(((((tor((((cs(((((((p((((qispp((((cli(((((((cs(((v(((mcs Elements ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((c E E Phrase(5+6 1c--d---ef---gf--hg---c--df--fd-efgfddc- -cd---ef--gf--hg---ghgh--e--egf-e---e4 Text (((qui(6(a(((((((tu(((((((so((6((lus((((((((((((la((6(bo((6(rem((((((( ((((((((et(((((((do(6((lo((6(((rem((((con((6((((si((6((de(((((6(((((ras Neumes ((((((((((p(((((((v(((((ps((((((((cs(((((cs((((((p(((((ps((((cs(((((pmipp(((((( ((((((((((ps((((ps(((((((cs(((((cs((((((((tor(((((((((v(((((pssp((((((((((p Goal6pitch (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((e(mti e/mti Verse 1-h--gf--gGhg-hge---fe--gh--g-g--g--gf--gh---gf--f--fWwe--3 --f-df--f--f--egGhfe--g---ghg--hgf--efgef--ed--f--fWwe-4 Text ((((((((((Ti6(((bi(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((e6((((nim(de6(re6lic(((6tus((((((est(((pau6per( pu- pi -llo tu e -ris ad- iu- tor. Neumes ((((((((((v((((((cs(((((qi((((((((cl(((((((((((cs(((((((ps((((v(((v((((v(((((cs((((((ps((((((((cs(((((v((((((mcs v ps v v qippsp v to cli popp cs v mcs
Neumes
Phrase(1+2
P(12044 (((((((p((cs((ps(or((((((ps(((((((p(((cs((po(((((((((cs((v((((((((((cs((p(((((((ps((cli6ps((ps( ((((((((((ps(((((((cs(((((((((ps((p(p((((((((((cs((cs(((((po((((((((((((tor((p( Fragments (((((((((((v(cs(((((qi(((((cspp(or((v((mcs(((((((((v(cs(((((((((sccl((((((or(v ((((((((((ps((((ps(((((v(v(((((((((pmi(((((((((((ps(((tor((((((cs U(406 (((((((((v((((cs((((p((((((qi((((((((((cspp(((((or(((v((((((mcs((((((((v((((((cs(((((((((((sccl((((((v(((or(v( (((((((((ps((((((ps(((((v(((v(((((((pmi(or((((ps((((tor((((((((((((((pma
Phrase(3+4
P(12044 (((((((((v(((((to((((((((((ps((ps(((((cli((ps(((((p((((cs((p((((((((((ps((((((po(((((cs(((tor((cs(((((((((( (((((ps((((((to((((((to((((((((cs((((((tor(((((((ps((p(((((pssp((cli(((((cs((((((((tor( Fragments (((((((v((((((to((((((((p(v((((((to(biv((v((((tor(((((((((cs(((((qir(((((((((((cs(((((( (((ps((((to(((((((to(((((cs((((((tor((((((((cs(((((clpp(((((((cl(((((cs(v((((((mcs U(406 ((((((((v((((to((((((((((v(((((v(((to(((biv(((v(((((to((((((cs(cs((((por((((((((cs(((((((( ((((((ps((((((to((((to(((((((((cs(((((tor((((cs(((((((p((((qispp((((cli(((((((cs(((v(((mcs Phrase5+6 P(12044 (((((((((p((v(((((((((((ps(((((((cs((ps6cs(((((((((((((p((ps((((((cs((ps(((((cli((cs(( ((((((((((ps(((((((ps(((((((((((cs((ps((cs((((((tor(((((((p((((((to((((or(((((cs Fragments (((((((((((p(((((v((((ps(((cs(((((((cs(((((((p(((((ps(cs((((((pmipp(((( (((((((((((ps(((((ps((((cs((cs(((((((tor(((((((((((v(((((pssp((p U(406 ((((((((((p(((((((v(((((ps((((((((cs(((((cs((((((p(((((ps((((cs(((((pmipp(((((( ((((((((((ps((((ps(((((((cs(((((cs((((((((tor(((((((((v(((((pssp((((((((((p Verse(1+2 P(12044 (((((((((((((v((((((cs((((to((((cli4((((v((cs(((((((((((((ps(((p((((((p(((p(((((cs(((((((ps(((((((cs(((((p(to(((((((((cs (((v((((((((eph((((v((((v((((((((ps(((cli((((((((v(((((((po(sp(((((((ps((((po(((((((cs Fragments ((((((((((v((((((cs(((((qi(((((((((((((cl(((((((cs(((((((ps((((v(((v((((v(((((cs((((((ps((((((((cs(((((v((((((mcs (((((((v(ps(((((((?((?(((((((((((((qippsp(((((((v(((((((to(((((((cli(((((((popp(((((((((((((cs(((((v((((((mcs((( U(406 ((((((((((v((((((cs(((((qi((((((((cl(((((((((((cs(((((((ps((((v(((v((((v(((((cs((((((ps((((((((cs(((((v((((((mcs (((((v((((ps((((v(((((v((((((qippsp(((((((v(((((((to(((((((cli(((((((popp((((((((cs(((((v((((((mcs
187 Analysis 5
Incipit'respond: Diligam'te'domine CAO 6453 Notational-aspects- Incipit verse: Laudans invocabo CAO 6453a Comments Fragments U'406 P'12044 Link to Fragments page 30 Feast: Dom.'II'usq.VI'post'Epiph The neume sequences in the utrecht sources are identical. Quilisma's refer to Phrase 1 e/mti (2x), Phrase 2: Fragments U'406 P'12044 e/mti, phrase 3 e/mti. In the verse, in both sources an f# occurs in both phrases. Link to U 406 f. 44v Siglum/folio X fol 88 fol 1v, p. 30 f 44 v f 30r Text Link to P 12044 f. 30r
Respond Fragments U'406 P'12044 Diligam'te'domine' Phrase'1 idem idem Melismas Period'1'''Respond virtus'mea Phrase'2 idem idem Fragments U'406 P'12044
dominus'firmamentum' Utrecht sources identical, both a high similarity with P 12044 Phrase'3 idem idem Respond meum Period'2'''Respond et'refugium'meum Phrase'4 idem idem
GBEMV Concordances HRDFSL
Verse Fragments U'406 P'12044 Laudans'invocabo' Phrase'1 idem idem Verse All sources identical dominum Verse et'ab'inimicis'meis' Phrase'2 idem idem salvus'ero Concordances BEMV'''''HRDFS
Music
Respond Respond Modal-elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Formal-elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Comments'Respond Mode 4 idem idem Phrase 1:The element is identical to P 1204. Ambitus ck c-k c-j Period 1 Respond Phrase'1 Phrase 3 has been labelled "U", but that is debatable. Mainly due to Finalis d idem idem Goal-pitch e e e the goal pitch f instead of e in P 12044. The rest of the element is Recitation tone h idem idem Elements E E E highly similar to P 12044, be it with germanic traits. * Phrase 4: it looks like the notator of U 4056 made a mistake. All Phrase'2 pitches of the phrase are identical to those of the element E1/g, like Comments'respond Goal-pitch f f f in the Fragments, except for the last note, where he writes an f in Elements f2 f2 f2 stead of an e. Period 2 Respond Phrase'3 Verse Goal-pitch f f e Modal-elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Elements Uf/g Uf/g e Mode 4 idem idem Period 3 Respond Phrase'4 Ambitus d-h d-h d-h Goal-pitch e f* e Finalis e idem idem Elements E1/g E1/g E1 Recitation tone h idem idem
Comments'''''''verse finalis inverted clivis: d for e Verse Formal-elements Fragments U'406 P'12044
'Verse Phrase'1 Goal-pitch e e e House style elements mti mti e Comments'verse Phrase'2 Phrase 2: If one expects the mode of the verse to be indicative for Goal-pitch e(d) e(d) e(d) the respond, the verse should reflect mode 4, with finalis e. However, House style elements mti mti all sources notate d as finalis, which, given the ambitus, would indicate mode 1. In mode 4, cadences on f occur as well (the "inverted E-F clivis", Helsen 2008, 148, in order to avoid a wrong sense of finality here).
Road Maps Period 1 Period 2 Verse Phrases 1 (C) 2 (F) 3 (F) 4 (C) 1 2 Mode 4 most frequent in P12044 D E/F E/F E/F D E P 12044 e f e e e e(d) 188 Fragments e f f e e e(d) U 406 e f f f* e e(d) Analysis 5 Respond Diligam'te'domine CAO 6453 Verse*Fragm Laudans'invocabo CAO 6453a P'12044 Elements *****************************************************************************************E f2 Phrase*1+2 1f-f-ff--dfe--fg-hg---hg---h--f-ghg--ge- -gef--dcdf---egf-f--ef- Text *********Di*****;********li***;*****gam*********te********do******;*mi***;***ne vir - tus me - a Neumes trip-tract to ps cs cs p p to cs to cs-ps to or ps Elements ***************************************************************************************************************************e E1 Phrase*3+4 1d--fhg--hij---hj--h--hg-g--fgh-jh-ghg---egf-f--ed-f-fe- -c---df--efed--fg--g-fgh-jh-ghg---egf-f--fe4 Text ****do*;*mi***;**nus********fir*;***ma;men***;***tum******************me****;******um************ ***et*****re**;**fu****;****gi***;***um*********************me*****;******um Neumes p to ps ps p cs or sca pssp to to or cs p cs p ps pssp ps v sca cli to to or cs Goal;pitches ******************************************************************************************************************************e d Verse 1-h--gf-ghg-hgfe-f-fe---g--gf--gh--gf---f--e-fgf--fe-3 -f---df---f--f--f--f---f--e-fgfe---g--hg-hgf---ef-hef--ed-4 Text ********Lau;***dans***********************************in;**vo;****ca;****bo******do;**mi;********num et ab i- ni- mi- cis me- is sal- vus e -ro Neumes v cs to cli4 v cs p cs ps cs p p to cs v ps p p p p v p pssp p cs cli ps po cs Fragments Elements *************************************************************************************E f2 Phrase*1+2 1f--eFfgf--fFhg---hg---h--fGghg--ge-- -gf--eEf---egf--e-e-f- Text ********Di*****;********li***;*****gam*********te********do*;*mi***;***ne******** vir - tus me - a Neumes *********tris**qito*******qito********cs********v***qito************cs* cs qi to p+or+v Elements ********************************************************************************************************e/g E1/g Phrase*3+4 1--h--h--hkh---h--h--hg--fgh-kg-hg---egf--dEf-3 -c--df--fed--fg--g-fgh-kg-gf---egf--fe-4 Text ***********do*;*mi;**nus******fir**ma;men***tum*********************me;****um************ ***et*****re**;**fu****;****gi***;***um*********************me*****;******um Neumes ***********p****v*******to**********v*****v**pmi*****sca**cs*****pmi*****to********qi p ps bivcli ps v sca cs cs to cs Goal;pitches ************************************************************************************************************************e*mti d/mti Verse 1-hg--gf---gGhg-hge-fe---g--gf--gh--gf---f--fFgf--fwWe-3 -f---df---f--f--fwWe--f---f--e-fFgfe---g--ghg-hgf---efgef--ed-4 Text ********Lau;***dans***********************************in;**vo;****ca;****bo******do;**mi;********num et ab i- ni- mi- cis me- is sal- vus e -ro Neumes ********cs********cs*********qito**cli******cs*********v****cs******ps*****cs********v**qito********mcs* v ps v v mcs v v p qisp v to cli popp cs
189 Analysis 5 U"406 Elements ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((E f2 Phrase(1+2 1f--eFfgf--fFhg---hg---h--fFghg--ge--3 -gf--eEf---egf--e-e-f- Text ((((((((Di(((((4((((((((li(((4(((((gam(((((((((te((((((((do(4(mi4(((ne(((((((( vir - tus me - a Neumes (((((((((tris((qito(((((((qito((((((((cs((((((((v(((qito((((((((((((cs( cs qi to p+or+v Elements Phrase(3+4 1--h--h--hkh---h--h--hg--fgh-kg-hg---egf--dEf-3 -c--df--fed--fg--g-fgh-kg-gf---egf-fFf-4 Text ((((((((((((do(4(mi4(nus(((((((fir4(ma4men4(tum(((((((((((((((((((me(4((((um(((((((((((( (((et(((((re((4((fu((((4((((gi(((4(((um(((((((((((((((((((((me(((((4((((((um Neumes (((((((((((p((((v(((((((to((((((((((v(((((v((pmi(((((sca((cs(((((((cs(((((to((((((((qi p ps bivcli ps v sca cs cs to p+or+v Goal4pitches ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((e(mti d Verse 1-hg--gf---gGhg-hge-fe---g--gf--gh--gf---f--fFgf--fwWe-3 -f---df---f--f--fwWe--f---f--e-fFgfe---g--ghg-hgf---efgef--ed-4 Text ((((((((Lau4(((dans(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((in4((vo4((((ca4((((bo((((((do4((mi4((((((((num et ab i- ni- mi- cis me- is sal- vus e -ro Neumes ((((((((cs((((((((cs(((((((((qito((cli((((((cs(((((((((v((((cs((((((ps(((((cs((((((((v((qito((((((((mcs( v ps v v mcs v v p qisp v to cli popp cs
Neumes Phrase(1+2 P(12044 (((((((trip4tract(((((((to((((((ps((cs((((((((((cs((((((((p((p(((((to((((((((cs ((((((to((((cs4ps((((((((((to((or((((((((ps Fragments (((((((((tris((qito(((((((qito((((((((cs((((((((v(((qito((((((((((((cs( (((cs(((((((qi((((((((((to((((((p+or+v( U(406 (((((((((tris((qito(((((((qito((((((((cs((((((((v(((qito((((((((((((cs( (((cs(((((((qi((((((((((to((((((p+or+v( Phrase(3+4 P(12044 (((((((((p((to((((((((ps(((((((((((ps(((((((p((((cs((or((sca((pssp((to((((((((((to((or(((((cs(((((p((((cs ((((p((((((ps(((((pssp((((ps((((((v((sca((((cli(((((to(((((((((to(((((((or((cs Fragments (((((((((((p((((v(((((((to((((((((((v(((((v((pmi(((((sca((cs(((((pmi(((((to((((((((qi (((p((((ps((((((bivcli((ps((((((v((sca((((cs((cs(((((((((to(((((((((cs( U(406 (((((((((((p((((v(((((((to((((((((((v(((((v((pmi(((((sca((cs(((((((cs(((((to((((((((qi (((p((((ps((((((bivcli((ps((((((v((sca((((cs((cs(((((((((to((((((((p+or+v( Phrase5+6 P(12044 n.a. Fragments n.a. U(406 n.a. Verse(1+2 P(12044 (((((((((((v((cs(((((((to(((((((cli4((v((((cs((((((p(((((((cs(((((ps(((cs(((((((((((p((p(((((to((((((((cs (((((v(((((((ps((((((((p((p((((((p((((p((((((v((((((p((pssp((((((((((p((cs(((((cli((((((((ps((((((po((((((cs Fragments ((((((((cs((((((((cs(((((((((qito((cli((((((cs(((((((((v((((cs((((((ps(((((cs((((((((v((qito((((((((mcs( (((v((((((ps((((((((((v((((v((mcs(((((((((v(((((((v((((((p((qisp((((((((((v((((((to((((((cli(((((((((popp(((((((((cs U(406 ((((((((cs((((((((cs(((((((((qito((cli((((((cs(((((((((v((((cs((((((ps(((((cs((((((((v((qito((((((((mcs( (((v((((((ps((((((((((v((((v((mcs(((((((((v(((((((v((((((p((qisp((((((((((v((((((to((((((cli(((((((((popp(((((((((cs
190 Analysis 6 Incipit'respond: Gaudeamus'omnes CAO 6760 Notational-aspects Incipit verse: Immaculatus dominus CAO 6760a Fragments U'406 P'12044 Link to Fragments page 36 Feast: Agathae Comments In the Utrecht sources, assuming the interpretation of more complex compound neumes as assumed currently Fragments U'406 P'12044 is correct, a number of different neume sequences expresses the same note sequences. This does not often occur in the Utrecht sources, which mostly have sequences of the the same neumes if the notator wanted to Siglum/folio BRES 1290 1v, p. 36 f 58r f 59v write the same melody. Phrase 2: Fragments virga+pes, U 406 scandicus; Fragments: quilisma plus virga Link to U 406 f. 58r strata (rare neume!) U 406 quilisma + oriscus. In phrase 3, the scandicus-virga+pes restitution occurs once Youtube/ Triplex more. In phrase 6, a punctum-oriscus-virga combiination has been replaced by an quilisma. In the verse, phrase 2 a scandicus in the Fragments has been replaced by a quilisma in U 406. Link to P 12044 f. 59v Text
Respond Fragments U'406 P'12044 Melismas
Period'1'''Respond Phrase'1 Gaudeamus'omnes'in'domino Fragments U'406 P'12044
The melody in P 12044 is totally different, including its melismatic elements. They have been left out of the Phrase'2 diem'festum'celebrantes' Respond comparison. Phrase 2: the Fragments have a melisma on fes-tum, where U 406 does not have a melisma. Phrase 4: Utrecht passione: identical. Phrase 5: Utrecht sources identical. Phrase 6: long melismas on fi- li- Period'2'''Respond Phrase'3 in'honore'Agathae'martyri in'honore sub'honore um de- i. The Utrecht melismas are identical with exactly the same syllable-note distribution in both sources.
Phrase'4 de'cuius'passione'gaudent'angeli
Period'3'''Respond Phrase'5 et'collaudant
Phrase'6 'filium'dei GBE Concordances HRDFSL
Verse Fragments U'406 P'12044
Immaculatus'dominus' In the Fragments, there is but a two-compound-neume melisma on con -se- cra- vit only . In U 406 this '''''Verse Phrase1 idem Verse immaculatam'sibi'famulam melisma is more elaborate compared to the Fragments. in'hoc'fragilitatis'corpore' Phrase'2 positam'misericorditer' idem consecravit. B Concordances HR FSL
Music
Respond Respond Modal-elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Formal-elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Comments'Respond Mode 1 idem 7 Globalchant.org The melody and the mode which apply for both Utrecht sources are completely different from P 12044.A comparison does not make Ambitus c-f' idem Period 1 Respond Phrase'1 fKo sense. For assigning elements to phrases, I have consulted Helsen's Finalis d idem g Goal-pitch d d k Appendix to Chapter 3, Standard elements for mode 1. Recitation tone h idem d Elements UD1 UD1 K1 The melodic incipit of the Utrecht variant is concordant with MS DK- Phrase'2 Kk 3449 8o XVII f 108v 02, an antiphonary originating from and used in the Augsburg cathedral, written (in gothic neumes on a four- P12044: different mode, Goal-pitch d d Comments'respond f line red staff) around 1580. See the link top-left to Globalchant for different melody. Elements Ud2 Ud2 f1 details. The melodies in the Utrecht sources are identical except for a few minor details. The elements are the same and in a number of Verse Period 2 Respond Phrase'3 cases 'unique' as far as related to Helsen's material. The goal- pitches in the Utrecht sources have been compared with the most Modal-elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Goal-pitch f f g frequent occurring road map for mode 1 as presented by Helsen. Mode unclear idem Elements f8 f8 g1 See comments on unusual road map below. Ambitus e-h idem Phrase'4 Finalis f? f Goal-pitch f f l Recitation tone phrase 1: g 2:h idem Elements Ud1 Ud1 l Period 3 Respond Phrase'5 Comments'''''''verse Goal-pitch f f f Elements Uf2 Uf2 f1 Phrase'6 Goal-pitch d d g Elements UD2 UD2 G1 Tradition 1 Comments'verse Verse The goal pitch of phrase 6 is illegible. Formal-elements Fragments U'406 P'12044
'Verse Phrase'1 Goal-pitch h h k House style elements mti K Phrase'2 Goal-pitch f(?) f j House style elements - -
Road Maps Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Verse The Utrecht road map does Phrases 1 (C) 2 (F) 3 (F) 4 (C) 5 (C) 6 (F) 1 2 not occur in any of the P Mode 1 most frequent in P12044 A' D D F C D C D 12044 responsories in 191 P 12044 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. mode 1. In particular: the Fragments d d f f f d h f(?) goal pitches of phr 2 and 6 do not follow anywhere after U 406 d d f f f d h f the preceding ones. . Analysis 6 P"12044 Elements (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((K1 f1 Phrase(1+2 1g--g--gkj--k---lk-lm--l---l---l--lml--klk-3 -k--k---kl--k---kjkh--k--kj-klh-hg--g-hkg-hg-gf- Text (((((((Gau(5de(5(a((5(((mus((((om(((5((nes((((((in(((((do(5(mi((5(((no di - em fes - tum ce - le - bran - te Neumes ((((((((((p((p((((((((to(((((p(((((((cs((ps(((((((p(((((((p((((((p(((to(((((((((((to(( p p ps p por v cs to cs p to cs cs Elements ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((g1 ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((l Phrase(3+4 1f---hk--kjh-hlk-lm--l--lm--l--lj-klkj-h-jkjh---g--gh-jhgh--hg3 1-gh---gh--g---g--ghk--k-lk-lm--l -lm-no--o---mo--mn-m-lm--ml- Text (((((((((sub((((ho((5((no(((((((5(((((((((re(((A((5(((ga(5(the(((((((((((((((((((((((((mar5ti((((((ris((( (((((((((*de((((((cu((5(((ius(((pas(5si((5(((((o((((((((5((((ne(((((((((((((gau((5(((dent(((an(5(ge(((5(((((((((li(((((((( Neumes (((((((((((p(((((ps((((cli((((((to(((ps((((((p((ps(((((((((p((((cs((pssp(((((((((pssp(((((((((p(((((ps((clips((((((cs ((((((((((ps(((((((ps(((((((p(((((((p(((sca(((((((v((cs((ps((((((p((((((((ps(eph((v((((((((eph((ps((p((ps((((((((cs(( Elements ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((f1 G1 Phrase(5+6 1-lmlj---l--k-lmk-kj--g-hkg-hg-gf- -fhk-kk--k--jklkj-hjkjh---gh-jhgh--HG4 Text (((((((((et((((((((((((col5lau(((((((5(((((((dant(((((((((( ((((((fi((((((li(5((um((((((((((((((((((((((((de((((((5(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((i(((( Neumes (((((((((((pssp((((((v(((((p(((to((((((cs(((((p((to(((((((cs((((cs(( ps trip psppsp psppsp ps pssp cs Goal5pitches ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((k j Verse 1l--l--l--lm--nml--klk-kj---kl--k--k---k--k--k--k--k--k-k---kl--k--k3 -k---k---k--k--k--kl--k---lk--kl--lk---k--k-mnm--ml---k--k--k--k--k--ml-mlk---jk--h-lnl-non--lk--lmlm--lk--jkj4 Text ((((((((Im5(ma5cu5la5(((((((((((((((((tus(((((((((((((do5((((mi5(((nus(im5ma5cu5la5tam((((si5bi(((((fa5mu5lam ((((in((((hoc((((fra5((((gi(((((5li5((((ta5((((((tis(((((cor5((((po5(((((((re((((((((po5((((si5((((((((((tam(((((((mi5(((((se5ri5cor5((di5((ter(((con5((se5((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((cra5(((((((((((((((((((((((vit. Neumes ((((((((p(((p((((p(((((ps((((((((cli((((((((to((((cs(ps((((((((((((p((p((((((((p((((((p(((((p(((((p(((((p((p(p(((((((((ps(((p(((((p p p p p p ps p cs ps cs p p to cph p p p p p cs cli cph p to to cs tor cs to Fragments Elements ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((UD1 Ud1 Phrase(1+2 1-d--df--c--d---fg--hgh--ge---fg--gf-fed--e-ed-- -d--d---f-gh--f--gh-fe-fg---gge--df--dc-dEf-f--ed--4 Text ((((((((((Gau(5de(5(a5((mus(om(((nes((((((in((((((((do(5(mi((5(((no di - em fes - tum ce - le - bran tes Neumes (((((((((((v(((((ps((((p((((v((((((((ps((po((?((((((((((((((((ps(((((cs((cli((((((((v(((cs( p p v+ps v ps cs ps pmi ps cs qi vis cs
Elements (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((f8 (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Uf1
Phrase(3+4 1-d--d---f-gh--g---f--h--hJkjh---ghgf---fghgf--g-gf-3 1--d---fgh--g---g--g--gfg--fgfed-dEf-fg-f---fghgh-gfe--fFgfg-gf-3 Text (((((((((((in((((ho((5((no(((((((re(((((((A((((ga(5(the((((((((((mar5((((((((((ti(((((((((((ris(( ((((((((((((((*de((((((cu((5(((ius(((pas(5si((5(((((o((((((((5((((ne((((((((((((((((((((((gau((5(((dent(((an(5(ge(5((li(((((((( Neumes (((((((((((p(((((((p(((((v(ps((v((((((v((((v((((po(((((qisp(((pssp(((((((((((((sccl((((((((vcs ((((((((((((((((((p((((v(ps(((v((((((v((((v((((po(((((((tosp(((((((qi((((ps((((((v((((((porpp(((cli((((((qitor((((((cs( Elements ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((U(f2 Phrase(5+6 1--f---g--g-hkh--h-ghg-fgfed-dEf- --cdEf-ghgf-hd-fed-cdEf-gf--gh--hg-hf-gGh--dEfef--ed--3 Text (((((((((((et(((((((col5((lau(((((((5(dant((((((((((((((((((((((((((( fi - li - um de - i Neumes ((((((((((((v(((((v((((v((((((to((((((v(((((to(((((tosp(((((((qi(((( qipp pssp cs cli qipp cs ps cs cs p+or+v qir cs Goal5pitches (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((h f(?) Verse 1h--h--h--h--hg-hggf---gh--g--g---g--g--g--g--g-fwWe--gh--gh---h--hij-ijijh-h3 -gf---gh---h--h--h--h--h---h--h--h---hk--h--h--h--h--h-h--h--hg-hg---hg--fgh--hgfe--fGh-h- -3 Text ((((((((Im5(ma5cu5la5(((((((((((tus(((((((((do5(((mi5((nus((im5ma5cu5la5((tam(((((si5((((((bi(((((((fa5(((mu5((((((((((lam ((((in((((((hoc(((((fra5gi5(((((li5((ta5(((tis((((cor5po5re(((((po5(((((si5(tam(mi5se5(((ri5((cor5di5(ter((((((((((((con5(((se5((((cra5((((((((((((((((((((([(vit]. Neumes ((((((((v(((((((v(((((v((v((((((cs(((((pmi(((((((((ps(((p(((p(((((((((p(((((p(((((p(((p((p(((((((mcs(((((ps((((ps(((((((v((((((((ps+pma((((((((v(( cs ps v v v v v v v v ps v v v v v v v cs cs cs sca cssp qi v
192 Analysis 6
U"406 Elements ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((UD1 Ud2 Phrase(1+2 1-d--df--c--d---fg--hgh--ge---fg--gf-fed--e-ed------d--d---fgh--fe-fGg---gfe--df--cdf--ed---3 Text (((((((Gau(6de(6(a((6(((mus((((om(((6((nes((((((in(((((do(6(mi((6(((no di - em fes - tum ce - le - bran tes Neumes ((((((((v((((((ps((p((v((v((((((((ps((((((((po((((((((?((((((((ps((cs((((cli((((((((((v(((cs( p p sca cs qi cli-or ps qi-or cs Elements (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((f8 (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Uf1 Phrase(3+4 1-c---c--fgh--g---f--h--hkjh---ghg-f---fghgf--g-gf-3 1--d---fgh--g---g--g--gfg--fgfed-dEf-fg---f--fghgh-gfe--fGgfg-gf-3 Text ((((((((((((in((((ho((6((no((((((re((((((A(6((ga(6(the(((((((((((mar6((((((((((((ti(((((((((((ris((( (((((((((((((de((((((cu((6(((ius(((pas(6si((6(((((o((((((((6((((ne((((((((((((((((((gau((6(((dent(((an(6(ge(((6(((((((((li(((((((( Neumes (((((((((((((p((p(((((((((sca(((((v((((((v(((((v(((((((qisp((((((((to(((((v((((((((sccl((((((v(((((cs(( (((((((((((((p(((((((sca((((v((((((v((((v((((((po((((((tosp(((((((((qi((((ps((((((((v((((porpp(((((cli(((((((qitor(((((((((cs( Elements ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Uf2 Ud1 Phrases(5+6 1--fg---g--g-hkh--h-ghg-fgfed-dEf-- --cdEf-g-hgf-hd-fed-cdEf-gf--gh--hg-hf-gHh--dEfef--ed--3 Text (((((((((((((et(((((((col6((lau(((((((6(dant((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( fi - li - um de - i Neumes ((((((((((((eph((((((((v(((v((to((((((v((to((((((((tosp((((((qi(( qipp v cli cs cli qipp cs ps cs cs qi qitor cs Goal6pitches ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((h f Verse 1h--h--h--h--hg-hggf---gh--g--g--g--g--g--g--gf---gh--gh---h--hijh--h-3 -gf---gh---h--h--h--h--h---h--h--h---hk--h--h--h--h--h--h--h--hg-hg---h--fGghg--hkh-hgfe--fGg-h-gf-4 Text (((((((((Im6(ma6cu6la6((tus(((((((((((((((((do6mi6nus(im6ma6cu6la6((((tam((((((si6(((((bi(((((((fa6(((mu6((((lam in hoc fra-gi- li- ta -tis cor-po-re po- si- tam mi-se-ri- cor- di- ter con- se- cra- vit. Neumes ((((((((((v(((((v(((((v((((v((((((cs((pmi(((((((((ps(((v((((v(((((v((((v(((v((((((v((((((((cs((((((((ps((((((ps(((((((v((((((to((((((((((v cs ps v v v v v v v v ps v v v v v v v cs cs v qito to cssp qi v cs
Neumes
Phrase(1+2
P(12044 ((((((((((p((p((((((((to(((((p(((((((cs((ps(((((((p(((((((p((((((p(((to(((((((((((to(( ((((((((p((((((p(((((((ps((((p((((((((por((((((((v((cs(((((to((((((cs(((((p((to(((((((cs(((cs Fragments (((((((((((v(((((ps((((p((((v((((((((ps((po((?((((((((((((((((ps(((((cs((cli((((((((v(((cs( (((p((p((((((((v+ps((((((((v((((ps((cs(((ps((((((pmi(((((ps((((((((cs((((qi((((vis((cs(((((((( U(406 ((((((((v((((((ps((p((v((v((((((((ps((((((((po((((((((?((((((((ps((cs((((cli((((((((((v(((cs( (((((((((((((((p((p((((((((sca((((((cs((((((qi((((((((cli6or((ps((((qi6or(((((((cs(((((
Phrase(3+4
P(12044 (((((((((((p(((((ps((((cli((((((to(((ps((((((p((ps(((((((((p((((cs((pssp(((((((((pssp(((((((((p(((((ps((clips((((((cs ((((((((((ps(((((((ps(((((((p(((((((p(((sca(((((((v((cs((ps((((((p((((((((ps(eph((v((((((((eph((ps((p((ps((((((((cs(( Fragments (((((((((((p(((((((p(((((v(ps((v((((((v((((v((((po(((((qisp(((pssp(((((((((((((sccl((((((((vcs ((((((((((((((((((p((((v(ps(((v((((((v((((v((((po(((((((tosp(((((((qi((((ps((((((v((((((porpp(((cli((((((qitor((((((cs( U(406 (((((((((((((p((p(((((((((sca(((((v((((((v(((((v(((((((qisp((((((((to(((((v((((((((sccl((((((v(((((cs(( (((((((((((((p(((((((sca((((v((((((v((((v((((((po((((((tosp(((((((((qi((((ps((((((((v((((porpp(((((cli(((((((qitor(((((((((cs( Phrase5+6 P(12044 (((((((((((pssp((((((v(((((p(((to((((((cs(((((p((to(((((((cs((((cs(( ((((((ps((trip(((((((((((psppsp((psppsp((((((ps((pssp((cs Fragments ((((((((((((v(((((v((((v((((((to((((((v(((((to(((((tosp(((((((qi(((( (((((((((qipp((((((((pssp(((cs(((cli(((((qipp(((cs((((((ps(((((cs(cs((p+or+v(((qir(((((((((cs(( U(406 ((((((((((((eph((((((((v(((v((to((((((v((to((((((((tosp((((((qi(( (((((((((qipp(((((v((cli(((((cs((cli(((((qipp(((((cs((((((ps(((cs(((cs((((((((qi(((((((qitor(((((((cs(( Verse(1+2 P(12044 ((((((((p(((p((((p(((((ps((((((((cli((((((((to((((cs(ps((((((((((((p((p((((((((p((((((p(((((p(((((p(((((p((p(p(((((((((ps(((p(((((p (((((p((((p(((((((p(((((p(((((p(((ps(((p(((((((((((((cs((ps((cs((((((((((p((p(((((((to((cph(((((((((((((p(((((p(((p(((((p((((p((((cs(((((cli(((((cph((((((((p((to((((((((to(((((cs(((((((tor((((((((cs((((((to( Fragments ((((((((v(((((((v(((((v((v((((((cs(((((pmi(((((((((ps(((p(((p(((((((((p(((((p(((((p(((p((p(((((((mcs(((((ps((((ps(((((((v((((((((ps+pma((((((((v(( (((((cs((((((ps(((((((v(((((v(((((v(((((v(((((v(((((((v(((((v((((v((((((ps((((((((v((v((((((((v(((v((((((v((((v((((v((cs(cs((((((((((((cs(((((sca((((((cssp((((((qi((((((v U(406 ((((((((((v(((((v(((((v((((v((((((cs((pmi(((((((((ps(((v((((v(((((v((((v(((v((((((v((((((((cs((((((((ps((((((ps(((((((v((((((to((((((((((v (((cs((((((((ps(((((((((v((((v(((v((((((v(((((v(((((((v((((((v((((v(((((((ps((((((v((((v(((((v((((v((((((v((((v((((((v(((((cs((cs((((((((v((((((qito((((((((to(((((((cssp(((((qi(((((((v((cs(
193 Analysis 7 Incipit'respond: Notas'mihi'fecisti CAO 7240 Notational0aspects0 Incipit verse: Conserva'me'domine CAO 7240a Fragments U'406 P'12044 Feast: Dom.'Per'Ann. Comments Respond: phr 1 opening Fragments: virga, pes. U 406: scandicus. Phr 1: Fragments applies puncta, U 406 Fragments U'406 P'12044 virgae. Same applies in phr. 4 Oriscus: Domine. Position: g. (U 406, Fragments unclear) Verse: Phr 5 do-mi- Link to Fragments page 29 no de-(us) Fragments puncta, U 406 virgae. Siglum/folio X fol 88 fol 1r, p. 29 44r 29v Text Link to U 406 f. 44r Respond Fragments U'406 P'12044 Notas'michi'fecisti' Link to P 12044 f. 29v Phrase'1 Melismas domine Period'1'''Respond 'vias'vitae Phrase'2 Fragments U'406 P'12044
ad'implebis'me'laetitia' Melismas in Phrases 4+6 The melismas in Utrecht are identical. The differences with th Paris melismas refer Phrase'3 Respond to some Germanic traits in the melody lines. Period'2'''Respond Phrase'4 cum'vultu'tuo delectationes'in' Phrase'5 Period'3'''Respond dextera'tua Phrase'6 'usque'in'finem. GBEMV' Concordances Fragments U'406 P'12044 HRDFSL' Short melismas in Phrases 1+2. The melismas in Utrecht are identical. The differences with the Paris Verse melismas refer to some Germanic traits in the melody lines.
Verse U 406: 44v
Conserva'me'domine' idem idem Phrase'1 quoniam'in'te'speravi 'Verse dixi'domino'deus' idem idem Phrase'2 meus'es'tu. Concordances BEMVHRDFS
Music
Respond Respond Modal0elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Formal0elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Comments'Respond Mode 8 idem idem In the 2nd phrase, the Utrecht MSS have a different element, which Ambitus c-l idem idem Period 1 Respond Phrase'1 does not occur in Helsen's lists, whence the preposition 'U'. Finalis g idem idem Goal-pitch f f f .Helsen's Appendix Chapter 3_b_Transcription_ mode_8_Standard_ Recitation tone g-k idem idem Elements F1 F1 F1 Elements lists 3 'h' elements, which differ from the Uh element in the Utrecht MSS. Phrase'2 Im the respond, the Utrecht sources by hardly avoiding the h Goal-pitch h h g (Reminder: the 'h' in the methodology of Helsen, following the non- Comments'respond Elements Uh Uh G1 repetitive alphabet scale as applied in a.o. Montpellier H159, stands Period 2 Respond Phrase'3 for a') in this respond rather look west Frankish than east Frankish. Verse Goal-pitch g g g Modal0elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Elements g6/g g6/g g6 Mode 8 idem idem Phrase'4 Ambitus f-l idem d-d' Goal-pitch g g g Finalis g g g Elements G1/g G1/g G1 Recitation tone k k k Period 3 Respond Phrase'5 Goal-pitch d d d Elements d2 d2 d2 Phrase'6 Goal-pitch g g g Elements G1 G1 G1
Comments'verse Verse In the Utrecht sources, the melodic setting of both phrases in the Formal0elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Verse is east Frankish. The melody of verse in total is largely identical to P 12044.
'Verse Phrase'1 Goal-pitch g g b House style elements g/mti g/mti Goal-pitch g g g House style elements g g
Road Maps Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Verse Phrases 1 (C) 2 (F) 3 (F) 4 (C) 5 (C) 6 (F) 1 2 Mode 4 most frequent in P12044 D E/F E/F E/F D E 194 P12044 f g g g d g b g Fragments f h g g d g g g U 406 f h g g d g g g
Analysis 7 Respond Notas&mihi&fecisti CAO 7240 Verse*Fragm Conserva&me&domine CAO 7240a P&12044 Elements *******************************************************************************************************F1 G1 Phrase*1+2 1fgh--g---gh--g---g--g--gh---h--h--hg-hkg-gf- -k-kjh--jk-lkjh-jkjh---gh-jhgh--hg- Text *******No**:***tas*****mi**:*chi*****fe*:*ci*:*sti*******do*:*mi*:*ne vi - as vi - te Neumes **********sca*****p********ps****p*******p*****p*****ps*******v******v**cs*****po**cs p cli ps cli pssp ps pscs cs Elements **************************************************************************************************g6************** f3 Phrase*3+4 1f--h--klk--kh---k---kl--lj-kl--h-jkjhgh--hg- -hj-kjhg---k-kk--lkj-kjhg---hg-hgfg--gf- Text *******ad*:*im*:*ple**:*bis******me*****le**:****ti*****:***ti******:************a********* cum vul - tu tu - o Neumes ***********p**v********to***cs*********v********ps***cs**ps********p**psspcs************cs******* ps cli4 p tract cli cli4 cs pscs cs Elements **************************************************************************************************************d2 G1 Phrase*5+6 ---f--ghg--h--g--gh--g---g---gh--fe--dg---ghfed--dfdc-dfd- -ghgf-gh--g---gh-kjh-jkjh-g-h-jh-gh--HG4 Text *de*:*le**:***cta*:**ti*:**o***:*nes*****in*****dex*:*te*:****ra********tu******:******a****************** us - que in fi - nem Neumes ****p**to**********p**p**ps********p********p******ps**cs********ps**************pssp*******pssp*******to pssp ps p ps cli pssp p v cs ps cs Goal:Pitch *****************************************************************************************************************************************************************g **************************************************************************************************************************************************g Verse 1--hk--k--kj--klkj--kjhg--h--hg---hk--k--k--k--k--k--jk--jk--hj--g-hjh-hg- --g--fg---gh--g--g---g--hkhg--hjh---gf--gh---hkj--klkjh---hj-h-ghg--4 Text *********Con:*ser:va***********me*************************do:mi:ne:*********quo:*ni:*******am*****in*****te*****spe:*ra:***********vi* ****di:xi*****do***:mi:******no******de:us***********************me:***us******es********************************************tu Neumes **********eph***v*******cs*******pssp*****cli4***********v**cs*******ps********p****p**p***p***p*******ceph**ps***ps**p**to**cs p ps ps p p p pssp to cs ps to pssp ps p to Fragments Elements ********************************************************************************************************************F Uh Phrase*1+2 1---f-gh--g--gh--g--g--g-ghk-h--h--hg--hkh-hgf-3 --kjh--klk---ghkhg--h-ghkh-- Text *******************No**:***tas*****mi**:*chi*****fe*:*ci*:*sti*******do*:*mi*:**************ne vi - as vi - te Neumes *****************v**ps*********p**ps******p********p*****p*sca*******p**p*******cs******qito**cs+?pmi? biv cli qito sccl p cspp Elements ************************************************************************************************g6/g***** f3/g Phrase*3+4 Text *********ad*:*im*:**ple**:*****bis**********me*******le**:****ti*****:*****ti******:***a******1-f---h--klk--jh--klj--kl--lj-kl--hkhg-h-hg-3 --hkjg---k--lk-khg---hk-hgf--g-gf---3 cum vul - tu tu - o Neumes **********v*******v*****to******sc********to********ps***cs******qi******qisp***v***cs**** pssp bist cs cssp ps cli v cs Elements *******************************************************************************************************************************d2** G1/g Phrase*5+6 Text **********de*:*le**:***cta*:**ti*:**o***:*nes*****in*****dex*:*te*:****ra********tu******:******a*1-f--gh--h--g--gh--g---g---gh--fe--dg---ghfed--dfdc-dfd **us**************que*****in*****************************fi*******:******nem-ghgf--gh-g---ghJkjh-hJkjh---ghkgh-h--hg--4 Neumes ***********v****ps**v********p***ps********p******p*******ps****cs*******ps******tosp*******tssp********to **pssp*****ps****v******qisp********qisp**********sccl*****v******cs Elements *******************************************************************************************************************************************************g/mti g Verse 1--k--k--kiIj---klk-k-kjhg---hk--k--k---k--k--k---jh---jk---ghJkh--hg-3 --g-fg---gh--g--g---g--hkhg-hkh---ghf--gh---hJk-klkjh---hkhg-hg-4 Text *********Con:*ser:va***********me*************************do:mi:ne:*********quo:*ni:*******am**in*te*********spe:*ra:*vi* ****di:xi*****do***:mi:******no******de:us***********************me:***us******es**********************tu Neumes *********v*****v*****mcs*********to*v*cssp*or*******ps*********v***v*****v****v*****v**********cs******ps**********qitopp**cs* *******v*ps******ps******p*****p******p*****pssp******to***********to******ps*******qi***tosp***********pssp****cs 195 Analysis 7 U"406 Elements ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((F1 Uh Phrase(1+2 Text ((((((((((((((No((5(((tas(((((mi((5(chi((fe(5(ci(5(sti(((((1---fgh--g---h--h---g--f--ghk---g--g--gf-hkg-hgf-3((((do(5(mi(5(ne --kjh--klk---ghkhg--h-ghkh--- vi - as vi - te Neumes (((((((((((((((sca((((((v(((v(((v(((((((v(((((p((((sca(((((((((v((v((cs((((((qito((cli+or(( biv cli qito sccl v cspp Elements ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((g6/g( f3/g Phrase(3+4 1-f---h--klk--jh--klj--kl--lj-kl--hJkhg-h---hg- -hkjg---k--lk-khg---hk-hgf--g-gf---3 Text ((((((((((((ad(5(im(5((ple((5((bis(((me(((((((le((5((((ti(((((5((((((((((ti((((((5(((a((((((((( ((((((cum((((((vul(5((tu((((((((((((((((((((((tu(((((5((((((((((((((o(( Neumes (((((((((v(((((((((v(((((((to((((((sc((((((to((((((((ps(((((cs(((((((((qi(((qisp(((v((((cs(((( pssp bist cs cssp m ps cli v cs Elements (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((c( G1/g Phrase(5+6 1--f--gh--h--g--gh--g---g---gh--fe--dg---ghfed--dfdc-dfd- -ghgf--gh-g---ghJkjh-hJkjh---ghkgh-h--hg--4 Text (((((((((((((de(5(le((5(((cta(5((ti(5((o(((5(nes(((((in(((((dex(5(te(5((((ra((((((((tu((((((5((((((a(((((((((((((((( us - que in fi - nem Neumes ((((((((((((((v((((((ps((((v((((((p(((ps((((((((v(((((((((v(((((((ps((((cs(((((ps(((((((posp(((((((pssp((((((po( pssp ps v qisp qisp sccl v cs Elements ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((g ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((g Verse 1--k--k--kiIj---klk-k-kjhg---hk--k--k---k--k--k---jh---jk---ghkh--hg --g-fg---gh--g--g---g--hkhg-hkh---ghf--gh---hk-klkjh---hkhg-hg-4 Text (((((((((Con5(ser5va(((((((((((me(((((((((((((((((((((((((do5mi5ne5(((((((((quo5(ni5(((((((am((in(te(((((((((spe5(ra5(vi( ((((di5xi(((((do(((5mi5no((((((de5us((((((((((((((((me5(((us((((((es(((((((((((((((((tu Neumes (((((((((v(((((v(((((mcs(((((((((to(v(cssp(or(((((((ps((((((((((v(((v(((((v((((v(((((v((((((((((cs((((((ps((((((((((qitopp((cs( (((((((v(ps((((((ps((((((v(((((v(((((v((((pssp(((((((to(((((((((((to((((((ps(((((((qi(((tosp(((((((((((pssp((((cs
Neumes
Phrase(1+2
P(12044 ((((((((((sca(((((p((((((((ps((((p(((((((p(((((p(((((ps(((((((v((((((v((cs(((((po((cs (((((p((cli(((((((ps((((cli((((((((pssp((((((ps(((pscs(((((((cs(( Fragments (((((((((((((((((v((ps(((((((((p((ps((((((p((((((((p(((((p(sca(((((((p((p(((((((cs((((((qito((cs+?pmi? (((((biv(cli(((((qito(((((((((sccl(((((((((p(((cspp(((((((( U(406 (((((((((((((((sca((((((v(((v(((v(((((((v(((((p((((sca(((((((((v((v((cs((((((qito((cli+or(( (((((biv(cli(((((qito(((((sccl(((((((((((v(((cspp(((((((((
Phrase(3+4
P(12044 (((((((((((p((v((((((((to(((cs(((((((((v((((((((ps(((cs((ps((((((((p((psspcs((((((((((((cs((((((( (((((((((ps((cli4(((((((((((p(tract((cli((((((cli4(((((((((((((((cs((pscs((cs( Fragments (((((((((((((((((v((ps(((((((((p((ps((((((p((((((((p(((((p(sca(((((((p((p(((((((cs((((((qito((cs+?pmi? (((((biv(cli(((((qito(((((((((sccl(((((((((p(((cspp(((((((( U(406 (((((((((((((((sca((((((v(((v(((v(((((((v(((((p((((sca(((((((((v((v((cs((((((qito((cli+or(( (((((biv(cli(((((qito(((((sccl(((((((((((v(((cspp((((((((( Phrase5+6 P(12044 ((((((((((sca(((((p((((((((ps((((p(((((((p(((((p(((((ps(((((((v((((((v((cs(((((po((cs (((((p((cli(((((((ps((((cli((((((((pssp((((((ps(((pscs(((((((cs(( Fragments ((((((((((v(((((((v(((((to((((((sc((((((((to((((((((ps(((cs((((((qi((((((qisp(((v(((cs(((( ((((((pssp((((((bist(((cs(((cssp(((((((ps((cli(((((((((v(((((cs U(406 (((((((((v(((((((((v(((((((to((((((sc((((((to((((((((ps(((((cs(((((((((qi(((qisp(((v((((cs(((( ((pssp(((((((bist((((cs((cssp((m(ps(((cli((((((v((((cs((((((((((((( Verse(1+2 P(12044 ((((((((((eph(((v(((((((cs(((((((pssp(((((cli4(((((((((((v((cs(((((((ps((((((((p((((p((p(((p(((p(((((((ceph((ps(((ps((p((to((cs ((((((p(((((ps(((((((((ps((((p((((p(((((((p(((((((pssp((to(((((((((((cs((((((ps((((((((((to((((((pssp(((((((((((ps((p((to( Fragments (((((((((v(((((v(((((mcs(((((((((to(v(cssp(or(((((((ps(((((((((v(((v(((((v((((v(((((v((((((((((cs((((((ps((((((((((qitopp((cs( (((((((v(ps((((((ps((((((p(((((p((((((p(((((pssp((((((to(((((((((((to((((((ps(((((((qi(((tosp(((((((((((pssp((((cs U(406 (((((((((v(((((v(((((mcs(((((((((to(v(cssp(or(((((((ps((((((((((v(((v(((((v((((v(((((v((((((((((cs((((((ps((((((((((qitopp((cs( (((((((v(ps((((((ps((((((v(((((v(((((v((((pssp(((((((to(((((((((((to((((((ps(((((((qi(((tosp(((((((((((pssp((((cs
196 Analysis 8 Incipit'respond: Videntes'ioseph'a'longe CAO 7863 Notational,aspects, Incipit verse: Cumque'vidissent'ioseph CAO 7863a Comments U'406'is'very'consequent'in'applying'a'punctum'for'the'lowest'note'in'the'Phrase,4:'venite:'Fragment'pes+virga,'U'406' Feast: Dom.'3'Quadr. scandicus.'Videamus:'Fragment'virga'plus'clivis,'U'406'quilismaPtorculus.,Phrase,6:'Somnia:'Fragment''quilisma' Fragments U'406 P'12044 praepunctisPsubbipunctis,'U'406'scandicusPclimacus.'The'microtonal'intervals'in'phrase'5'are'notated'in'micro'clives.' Siglum/folio 4.3A (2)r, p. 41 f 76r f 78v Text Link to Fragments page 41
Respond Fragments U'406 P'12044 Videntes'Joseph'a' idem idem Phrase'1 Melismas Link to U 406 f. 76r longe Period'1'''Respond loquebantur'mutuo' idem idem Phrase'2 fratres'dicentes Fragments U'406 P'12044 Link to P 12044 f. 78v ecce'somniator'venit idem idem Phrase'3 Respond Phrase,4:'Som(p)nia:'In'all'sources,'the'melismata'are'identical.'' Period'2'''Respond venite'occidamus' idem idem Phrase'4 eum' et'videamus'si'prosint' et'videamus' et'videamus'si' Phrase'5 illi quid'prosint'illi prosint'illi Period'3''Respond Phrase'6 'somnia'sua idem idem
CGBEMV Concordances Fragments U'406 P'12044 HRDFSL Phrase,2:'dicebant:'In'all'sources,'the'melodic''line'is'the'same,'but'the'melisma'in'the'Fragment'is' Verse somewhat'more'elaborate'than'in'the'other'two'sources.''
Verse
Cumque'vidissent' Joseph'fratres'sui' Phrase'1 quod'a'patre'cunctis' fratribus'plus' Verse amaretur oderant'eum'nec' poterant'ei'quicquam' Phrase'2 pacifice'loqui'unde'et' dicebant.'
CGBEMV Concordances HRDFSL
Music
Respond Respond Modal,elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Formal,elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Comments'Respond Mode 8 idem idem Phrase 3: The Utrecht sources have identical melody lines and Ambitus d-n idem idem Period 1 Respond Phrase'1 notations, that do not coincide with Helsen's sources. The database Finalis g idem idem Goal-pitch k k k Globalchant could not be of help for additional comparison here, Recitation tone k idem idem Elements K/g K/g K/g since that database only searches on note sequences of incipits. Not only the melody, but also P12044's goal pitch of phrase differs. It is Phrase'2 not d but f. Goal-pitch g g g Phrase 4: Kate Helsen's transcription in Appendix 3, Responsories Comments'respond Elements g10/g g10/g g10 Paris 12044 in Ms order gives the first element of this phrase the Period 2 Respond Phrase'3 code "g11" as where it is "g12". Phrase 5 In the Utrecht sources, the second element of the phrase Verse Goal-pitch d d f is a east Frankish variant of the melody in P 12044. However, in the Modal,elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 Elements U/d U/d f Fragments the goal pitch is b-flat, which is rather striking. In spite of Mode 8 idem idem Phrase'4 this difference, I have assigned the same label to this element as for Ambitus f-l idem idem Goal-pitch g g g U 406, since apart from the goal-pitch and a different secund in the Finalis g idem idem Elements G G G melodic setting of videamus, the phrase is completely identical. Recitation tone k idem idem Period 3 Respond Phrase'5 Comments'''''''verse Goal-pitch i/g h/g h Elements h/g h/g h Phrase'6 Goal-pitch g g g Elements G G G Comments Verse Phrase1 Has mti's at the 2nd syllable in the Utrecht sources. Iin its consequent evasion of b1 in comparison to P 12044 this phrase is a good Verse example for the east Frankish style. In that Formal,elements Fragments U'406 P'12044 respect, Phrase 2 shows a rather mixed picture, as it is less consequent in its avoidance of b1. In Verse Phrase'1 both phrases, P 12044's goal-pitches have shifted Goal-pitch f f g one note upwards from f to g and from g to h in House style elements g/mti g/mti comparison to the Utrecht sources. CANTUS' mode code for this verse is 8S, indicating that it is Phrase'2 a special melody rather than the application of the Goal-pitch g g h standard tone for its mode. The special melody House style elements P - was applied in both traditions in Utrecht.
Road Maps Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Verse Phrases 1 (C) 2 (F) 3 (F) 4 (C) 5 (C) 6 (F) 1 2 P12044 k g f g h g g h Fragments k g d g i/g g f g 197 U 406 k g d g h/g g f g Respond Videntes(ioseph(a(longe CAO 7863 Verse*Fragm Cumque(vidissent(ioseph CAO 7863a Analysis 8 P(12044 Standard*Element ************************************************************************************************K g10 Phrase*1+2 1gh--gh--g---gh--e---h---kl--lk-lnl-m-l-klk-3 k--l--m--n---m--l--k---l--k-kj---hg--gh-kjh-jhg--hg- Text Vi - den - tes Jo - seph a lon - ge lo- que-ban-tur mu - tu - o fra- tres di - cen - tes Neumes **********ps******ps**p********ps*******p*******v********ps**cs**to******v***p****to p p p p p p v p cs cs ps cli cli cs Standard*Element *******************************************************************************************f g12 Phrase*3+4 1gh--g---gh--ge--fg--f---efede--de-fef- --d--ghk--h---g--h--kl--lk---kh-jkjhgh--hg- Text ec - ce somp-ni - a - tor ve - nit ve - ni - te oc - ci - da - mus e - um Neumes **********ps******p*****eph*cs*p*******s*****p********psspp**ps******po p sca p p p ps cs cs pspp cs Standard*Element **************************************************************************************************************h* G Phrase*5+6 1-gh---d--g--g--fg-h-hg---g---h--g---f-ghg-hij--h- -hgfe-d-de-fghkjhk--fg--g---gh--hg-g4 Text et vi - de - a - mus si pro - sint il - li somp - ni - a su - a Neumes **********ps***********p****p****p**ps**p****cs*******p*****v*******p********p**tor****ps*******p cli p ps ps psspp ps p ps cs p GoalEpitches ***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************g h Verse 1-hk--kj---jg--hj--h-hk-k-k-k-k-kijh---h---gh--g---gh--g---h--g--f---h---Ijk--h--gh--gg-3 -f -jh---hk--k---k---kl--h--g---g---g-g---g--h--jk--gh---hg---g--hkh-gh---g---hkh--hj-klkhg-hj-h-hjh-4 Text Cum -que vi- dis- sent Jo-seph fra-tres sui quod a pa -tre cunc-tis fra- tri-bus plus a- ma- re -tur o- de-rant -eum nec po- te- rant ei quic -quam pa-ci -fi -ce lo qui un- de et di -ce- bant. Neumes *********eph****cs**********cs**ps****ac**ps*****p**p**p*******ps***********p********p*****p********ps*******p***ps**p**v**p*p*p**************ps*****p*****ps*****pEv p cph ps p p ps p p ps-p ps p p p ps ps cs p to cph p to cph psspp ps p to Fragments ((((( Standard*Element ********************************************************************************************K/g g10/g Phrase*1+2 1gh--gh--g---gh--g---h---kl-lk-lnl-nlk-lk-3 -k--l--l--l---m--lk--k---k--kj---hg--ghkh-hkh--hg---3 Text *********Vi*E**den*E*tes****Jo**E**seph****a**lonE**ge************************* **loE*queEbanEtur**mu*E*tu*E*o******fraE*tres******di**E**cen********E**********tes Neumes *********ps*****ps****p********ps*****p********v******ps**cs*****to*****cli******cs*** p v v v v cs v v cs cs topp to cs Standard*Element *******************************************************************************Ud g12/g Phrase*3+4 1gh--g---gh--he--fg--f---fed--e-fd-- -d--f-gh--g---f--h--kl--lk---kh-hJkhg-hg-3 Text ********ec**E*ce****somE**ni**E****a*E****tor****ve******E*****nit************** ***ve*E*ni***E***te*****oc*E*ci*E*da*E*mus******e**********E*****um**** Neumes *********ps*****v*******ps*****cs*****ps******v*****bivcli****v****cs* p p ps v p v ps cs cs qitosp cs Standard*Element j/g G=12044 Phrase*5+6 1-hg--gh---d--d--f--f-h-hg--g---h---g---fGghkh-hij --h-gf-fed-def-ghjkjh-hk--fg---g-gh-hg-g4 Text **********et******vi*E******de*E*a*E*mus*******************si****pro*E*sint****il***E**********li* ****som*****************E******************************ni*E*****a****su**E**a Neumes ***********cs**ps*********p*****p*****v****p***v**cs*******p*******v********v******qitopp******ps v cs cli trip qippsp ps ps p ps cs v GoalEpitches *********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************f/mti g Verse 1gk--kIij---kg-hk--k---kl--k---k--k---kl-k---g---f---fg--f---f--f---fg--f--f---g---k--k--kh--gf-3 -g--hk--k---kl-k---k---kl--kj--hg---gh---gh---g-h--jk--hk---hkh--hg---g--hkhg--h---gh--hjkj-klkjh--hkhg-hg--4 Text ********Cum*Eque********viE****disE***sent**JoEseph*****fraEtres*sui*******quod*a********pa**Etre***cuncEtis****fraE***triEbus**plus******aE*maE**re***Etur ****oE**deErant****Eeum*********nec**poE***teE****rant*****ei**quic*Equam*paEciEfi**Ece*********loE*****qui******unE**de********et******di******EceE*******************bant.* Neumes ********ps********mcs*****cs*******ps**v*******ps********v*******v****v*******ps****v******v*********p****ps******p********p****p*******ps********p**p*********v******v****v***ps***pma* v ps v ps v v ps cs cs ps ps p v ps ps to cs v pssp v ps qito tosp pssp cs
198
Analysis 8 U"406 Standard'Element ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''K/g g10/g Phrase'1+2 1gh--gh--g---gh--g---h---kl-lk-lnl-nlk-lk-3 -k--l--l--l---m--lk--k---k--kj---hg--g-hkh-hkh--hg---3 Text '''''''Vi'9''den'9'tes''''''Jo9''seph''''a''''lon9''ge''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''lo9'que9ban9tur''mu'9'tu'9'o''''''fra9'tres''''''di''9''cen''''''''9''''''''''tes Neumes '''''''''ps'''''ps''''v''''''''ps''''v''''''v''''''ps''cs'''''to'''''cli''''''cs''' p v v v v cs v v cs cs topp to cs Goal9pitches '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''U/d g11/g Phrase'3+4 1gh--g---gh-- --fed--e-fd-- -d--fgh--g---f--h--kl--lk---kh-hJkhg-hg- Text ''''''''ec''9'ce''''som9''ni''9''''a'9''''tor''''ve''''''9'''''nit'''''''''''''' '''ve'9'ni'''9'''te'''''oc'9'ci'9'da'9'mus''''''e''''''''''9'''''um''' Neumes '''''''''ps'''''v'''''''ps''''''''''?'''?'''''''?''''bivcli''''v''''cs' p sca v p v ps cs cs qitosp cs Goal9pitches ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''h/g G=12044 Phrase'5+6 1-gh---d--d--f--fghg--g---h---g---fGghkh--h--h-- ---h-gf-fed-def-g-hjkjh-hk--fg---g-ghg-hg-g Text '''''''''''et''''''''vi'9'de'9'a'9'mus''''''''''''si''''pro'9'sint''''il''''''9''''''''li'' ''''''''som'''''''''''''''''9''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''ni'9'''''a''''su''9''a Neumes ''''''''''ps''''''''''p''p''''v''''''cspp'''''v'''''''v'''''''v''''''''''qitopp'''''''''''bistr v cs cli tract+p p sccl ps ps p to cs v Standard'Element ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''f/mti g Verse 1gk--kIij---kg- --kl--k---k--k---kl-k---g---f---fg--g---g------g--g--g---h---k--k--kh--gf-3 -g--hk--k---kl-k---k---kl--kj--hg---g-- --g-h-jk--hk---hJkh--hg---g--hkhg--h---gh--hjk-klkjh--hkhg-hg--4 Text ''''''''Cum'9que''''''''vi9''''dis9'''sent''Jo9seph'''''fra9tres'sui'''''''quod'a''''''''pa''9tre'''cunc9tis''''fra9'''tri9bus''plus''''''a9'ma9''re'''9tur ''''o9''de9rant''''9eum'''''''''nec''po9'''te9''''rant'''''ei''qui''''''pa9ci9''fi'''9ce'''''''''lo9'''''qui''''''un9''de''''''''''et''''''di''''ce9'''''''''''''''''''''bant.' Neumes ''''''''ps''''''''mcs'''''cs''''''?''?''''ps''''''''v'''''''v''''v'''''''ps''''v''''''v'''''''''p''''ps''''''p''''''''p''''p'''''''p''''''''p''p'''''''''v''''''v''''v'''ps'''pma' v ps v ps v v ps cs cs ps ps p v ps ps qito cs v pssp v ps qito tosp pssp cs
Neumes
Phrase'1+2
P'12044 ''''''''''ps''''''ps''p''''''''ps'''''''p'''''''v''''''''ps''cs''to''''''v'''p''''to ''''''''p''''p''''''p'''p'''''''p'''''p'''''''''''''''v''p'''cs'''''''''''cs'''ps'''cli'''''''cli''cs Fragments '''''''''ps'''''ps''''p''''''''ps'''''p''''''''v''''''ps''cs'''''to'''''cli''''''cs''' ''''p''''v''''v''''v''''''''''v'''cs''''''v''''''v''''''cs''''''''cs'''topp''''''to'''''''''cs U'406 '''''''''ps'''''ps''''v''''''''ps''''v''''''v''''''ps''cs'''''to'''''cli''''''cs''' ''''p''''v''''v''''v''''''''''v'''cs''''''v''''''v''''''cs''''''''cs'''topp''''''to'''''''''cs
Phrase'3+4
P'12044 ''''''''''ps''''''p'''''eph'cs'p'''''''s'''''p''''''''psspp''ps''''''po '''''p''''''sca''p''''''''''p''''p''ps'''''''cs''''''cs'''''pspp''''''''''cs Fragments '''''''''ps'''''v'''''''ps'''''cs'''''ps''''''v'''''bivcli''''v''''cs' ''''p'''p''''ps''v''''''''''p'''v''''''ps'''''cs'''''cs''''qitosp''''cs'' U'406 '''''''''ps'''''v'''''''ps''''''''''?'''?'''''''?''''bivcli''''v''''cs' ''''p'''''sca''''v''''''''''p'''v''''''ps'''''cs'''''cs''''qitosp''''cs''' Phrase5+6 P'12044 ''''''''''ps'''''''''''p''''p''''p''ps''p''''cs'''''''p'''''v'''''''p''''''''p''tor''''ps'''''''p ''''''''cli''p''ps''ps'''''psspp''''''''''ps''p''''''''ps'''''cs''p Fragments '''''''''''cs''ps'''''''''p'''''p'''''v''''p'''v''cs'''''''p'''''''v''''''''v''''''qitopp''''''ps ''''v''cs'''''cli''''trip''''qippsp''''ps''ps''''''''''p''''ps'''cs''v U'406 ''''''''''ps''''''''''p''p''''v''''''cspp'''''v'''''''v'''''''v''''''''''qitopp'''''''''''bistr '''''v''cs'''''cli''tract+p'p''sccl''''''ps'''''ps''''''''''p'''to'''cs''v Verse'1+2 P'12044 '''''''''eph''''cs''''''''''cs''ps''''ac''ps'''''p''p''p'''''''ps'''''''''''p''''''''p'''''p''''''''ps'''''''p'''ps''p''v''p'p'p''''''''''''''ps'''''p'''''ps'''''p9v '''p''''''''''cph''ps''''''''p''p''''''''''''ps'''p''''''p'''''''ps9p''ps''p''p'p'''''''''''''ps''ps'''''''''cs'''''''''p''to'''''''cph''p''''''''''''to''''cph'psspp''''''ps''p''''''to' Fragments ''''''''ps''''''''mcs'''''cs'''''''ps''v'''''''ps''''''''v'''''''v''''v'''''''ps''''v''''''v'''''''''p''''ps''''''p''''''''p''''p'''''''ps''''''''p''p'''''''''v''''''v''''v'''ps'''pma' '''''v''ps''''v''''''''ps'''v''''v''''''''''''ps''cs''''''''cs''''''ps'''''''ps'''''''p''''v''''''ps''ps''''''''''to'''''''cs'''''''v''''''pssp'''''v''''''ps'''''qito'''''''tosp''''''''pssp''''''cs U'406 ''''''''ps''''''''mcs'''''cs''''''?''?''''ps''''''''v'''''''v''''v'''''''ps''''v''''''v'''''''''p''''ps''''''p''''''''p''''p'''''''p''''''''p''p'''''''''v''''''v''''v'''ps'''pma' '''''v''ps''''v''''''''ps'''v''''v''''''''''''ps''cs''''''''cs''''''ps'''''''ps'''''''p''''v''''''ps''ps'''''qito'''''cs'''''''v''''''pssp'''''v''''''ps'''''qito'''''''tosp''''''''pssp''''''cs
199