130809 Lousberg Leo MA Thesis Musicology and Medieval Studies
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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