University of Groningen on the Counting of Mass Books Irving, A

University of Groningen

On the Counting of Mass Books Irving, A J M

Published in: Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date: 2017

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA): Irving, A. J. M. (2017). On the Counting of Mass Books. Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft, 57 (2015), 24-48.

Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license. More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne- amendment.

Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Download date: 30-09-2021 ALw 57 / p. 24 / 7.11.

ANDREW J. M. IRVING

ON THE COUNTING OF MASS BOOKS1

Contents: 1. Introduction / 2. Received Narratives / 3. A Material Approach / 4. Mass Book Manuscripts in the Beneventan Zone / Appendix 1 / 1. The Eleventh Century / 2. The Twelfth Century / Appendix 2 / 1. Sacramentaries in Beneventan Script / 2. Cassinese Missals

1. Introduction In the middle of a list of sumptuous „ecclesiastica ornamenta“ that Desiderius, the „bibliophile abbot“ of Montecassino (1058–1087),2 had acquired or ordered to be made between his election and the date of the dedication of his new Abbey basilica in 1071, Leo Marsicanus, abbey librarian, scribe and commissioned author of the Chronicle of Montecassino, inserts a surprising aside: „He ordered a similar treatment [adornment with a silver binding] for one, and a second sacramentary for the altar, and likewise for two gospel books, and one epistolary. For up until that time both the gospel and the epistle were read from a plenary missal; it is now well-known just how disgraceful that practice was back then.“3 In other words, according to Leo the reason that the abbot undertook the con- siderable expense of having bound in silver two sacramentaries, two Gospel books, and one epistolary, was that his confreres at the venerable abbey of St Benedict had up until that time engaged in the „inhonestum“ practice of reading the mass lections from a plenary missal – a book which instead of keeping separate

1 Research for this paper was conducted with the generous support of a post-doctoral research fellow- ship at the Institute of Sacred Music at Yale University. I remain indebted to the ISM faculty and staff and colleagues for the opportunity both to undertake these first steps in my longer term research into the Latin mass book in twelfth-century, and for providing an incomparable interdisci- plinary environment for the rigorous and fruitful exchange of ideas and questions concerning liturgical history, theology, and practice. I wish also to thank the editors of ALw for their meticulous reading, generous suggestions, and helpful questions. 2 The phrase is Francis Newton’s: The Scriptorium and Library at Monte Cassino, 1058–1105. Cambridge 1999 (Cambridge Studies in Palaeography and Codicology 7) 253. 3 Chronica monasterii casinensis 3,18: „Similiter fecit et de sacramentoriis altaris uno et altero et duobus nichilominus evangeliis et epistolario uno. Nam usque ad illud tempus in plenario missali tam evangelia quam epistole legebantur, quod, quam esset tunc inhonestum, modo satis advertitur“; Die Chronik von Montecassino. Ed. Hartmut Hoffmann. Hannover 1980 (MGH.SS [Scriptores in folio 5] 34) 384 (translation and emphasis are my own). References to page numbers of Hoff- mann’s edition are provided hereafter in parentheses following citations of the work. The authoritative study of the composition of the Chronicle is Hartmut Hoffmann, Studien zur Chronik von Montecassino, in: DA 29. 1973, 59–162. See also his introduction to Die Chronik von Montecassi- no, p. VII–XII, and Anna Maria Fagnoni, Un cronista medievale al lavoro. Leone Ostiense e la prima redazione della Cronaca Cassinese. Problemi di analisi, in: Scripta Philologa 2. 1980, 51–129; ead., Storia di un testo. La Cronaca di Montecassino, in: StMed 25. 1984, 813–832; Newton, Scriptor- ium (n. 2 above) 16–30.

ALw 57. 2015, 24–48 ALw 57 / p. 25 / 7.11.

On the Counting of Mass Books 25

these texts in separate volumes, combined mass readings with prayers and chant repertory in a single volume. Leo’s concise explanation for Desiderius’s initiative rings like a hollow board as one steps down the neat stairs of the librarian’s list. Not only does the brief ex- cursus interrupt the regular rhythm of a straightforward, albeit encomiastic, inventory of ecclesiastical treasure, but the tone is oddly vituperative. The intensity of Leo’s disparagement of the earlier practice can be gauged by the only other time that Leo uses the adjective „inhonestum“ in the Chronicle. In his account of the year 1071, Leo writes that, as papal vicar for the reform of monasteries in southern Italy, Desiderius had taken the unusual measure of deposing the powerful abbot of S. Maria in Tremiti because „many disgraceful and unspeakable things (multa inhonesta et nefanda) … were being rumoured about the rectors of the monastery“.4 One is prompted to ask: what lies underneath this brief but passionate inter- ruption? While it is unsurprising that Leo should wish to portray Abbot Desider- ius as the extirpator of disgraceful customs and acts, the question remains why and under what circumstances is the practice of using of a plenary missal instead of the trio of sacramentary, epistle and gospel book deemed „disgraceful“. How and why are different values attributed to old and new patterns in the community’s use of liturgical books that distribute the same texts differently, and what is at stake for the community and its chronicler in the change? Perhaps most interesting of all, this brief remark flies in the face of a consensus of broader historical narratives regarding trends in Western European liturgical book production in the late-eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, according to which missals were not re- jected but increasingly preferred over sacramentaries in this period. Leo’s account of the rejection of a former Cassinese practice („usque ad illud tempus“) that seems elsewhere in Europe to be a new and ever more popular practice invites us to revisit old questions and assumptions regarding the transition from sacramentary to missal as the predominant form of mass book in the medieval West. This paper will treat this subject under three headings: first, we shall reconsider the received narratives regarding the dates and reasons for the transition from sacramentary to missal; second, we shall propose a different approach to the question; and third we shall return to the subject of mass books written in Southern Italian Beneventan script, as a preliminary case study of the usefulness of this approach. No solutions will be proposed here: what I hope to do instead is to make a strong case for the need to revisit the question, and make a modest proposal for a way forward.

4 Chronica monasterii casinensis 3,25: „Preterea cum de rectoribus Tremitensis cenobii, quod nobis antiquitus pertinuisse Romanorum quoque pontificum privilegia pleraque testantur, multa eo tem- pore inhonesta et nefanda diffamarentur, eidem Desiderio ad disquirendum et disponendum illud, prout sibi optimum videretur, data ab apostolico auctoritas est“ (MGH.SS [Scriptores in folio 5] 34,392). ALw 57 / p. 26 / 7.11.

26 Andrew J. M. Irving

2. Received Narratives The received narrative of the development in the history of mass books is usually sketched as follows: between the mid-eleventh century and the early-thirteenth century, the earlier prevailing model of mass book, the so-called „sacramentary“ – often defined somewhat broadly as a book containing the prayers needed by the priest at celebrations of the mass (sometimes in conjunction with chant, or readings, or other ritual material) – began to cede ground to what has been called the „plenary missal“ – that is, a book that combines chant, prayers, and readings together with the „ordo missae“ in a single volume either in distinct sections, or, as will eventually be the dominant form, in integrated, and sequentially ordered series. The precise date of this gradual but significant transition is usually somewhat vaguely defined in the text books of liturgical history. Not infrequently dates that appear to conflict with one another can be found even within a single modern author. In the description of a gradual change much depends, of course, on whether the date refers to the beginning, the middle, or the end of the transition, and this can, at times, be difficult to determine from the summary presentation offered by the standard liturgical manuals. Josef Andreas Jungmann, for instance, describes „a new arrangement of the liturgical books [which] breaks into the picture“ in what he calls „the Gothic Period“ – not without some disapproval.5 More precisely, he writes that, „In the thirteenth century, the plenary missal gains the upper hand in place of the sacramentary“.6 Hans Bernhard Meyer agrees that the „Vollmissale“ reigned from the thirteenth century, but adds that it may have been dominant in Italy as early as turn of the millennium.7 Stephen van Dijk and Joan Hazelden Walker date the fullness of the transition slightly earlier than Jungmann, writing: „the missal becomes ‚the‘ Mass book towards the end of the twelfth century“; the thirteenth century date holds, in their opinion, only for the fully rubricated ver- sions of the missal.8 Cyrille Vogel wrote that already in the late tenth century „le Liber sacramentorum commence à céder du terrain au Missalis plenarius“,9 but that it is not until the thirteenth that the plenary missal is „de règle“.10 Éric Palazzo suggests, however, that it is the eleventh century that „marked a decisive turn in the history of the missal“, for at that time, he argues, „the sacramentaries … yielded to complete manuscripts … which specialists call plenary missals. As a consequence

5 Josef Andreas Jungmann, Missarum Sollemnia. Eine genetische Erklärung der römischen Messe. 5., verb. Aufl. Wien [e. a.] 1962, 1,138: „Um diese Zeit bricht sich eine neue Ordnung der liturgischen Bücher Bahn …“. 6 Ibid.: „Im 13. Jahrhundert gewinnt an Stelle des Sakramentars das Vollmissale die Oberhand“. 7 Hans Bernhard Meyer, Eucharistie. Geschichte, Theologie, Pastoral. Mit einem Beitr. von Irmgard Pahl. Regensburg 1989 (GdK 4) 214. 8 Stephen J. P. van Dijk – Joan Hazelden Walker, The Origins of the Modern Roman Liturgy. The Liturgy of the Papal Court and the Franciscan Order in the Thirteenth Century. Westminster [e. a.] 1960, 61. 9 Cyrille Vogel, Introduction aux sources de l’histoire du culte chrétien au moyen-âge. Spoleto 1966 (BStMed 1); réédition anastatique préfacée par Bernard Botte. Spoleto 1981 (with additional bibliography) 87. 10 Ibid. 88 n. 296. ALw 57 / p. 27 / 7.11.

On the Counting of Mass Books 27

from the first half of the twelfth century on there were fewer sacramentaries than missals“.11 In fact, both Vogel and Palazzo are themselves dependent on the work published in the 1950s by the Canadian liturgical scholar Emmanuel Bourque.12 While much of Bourque’s analysis of the textual history of the early Roman mass books has largely been replaced by more recent scholarship, his account of the transition from sacramentary to missal lives on – albeit sometimes unacknowledged – in the frequently cited footnotes of Vogel and Palazzo. The compelling nature of Bourque’s argument lay in the fact that he provided both a narrative of development and some figures to serve as supporting evidence. Bourque’s account runs as follows: broadly speaking, the „reign of sacramentaries“ ends with the beginning of the twelfth century. However, missals „steal a march“ on sacramentaries already in the second half of the eleventh century; by the first half of the twelfth century sacramentaries are „décidément dépassés“, they are ex- ceptions in the thirteenth century, and merely „curiosités archaïques“ in the fourteenth.13 As supporting evidence Bourque provides in a footnote that was to have lasting influence a series of figures drawn from Victor Leroquais’s four-volume repertory of manuscript sacramentaries and missals preserved in French public libraries published in 1924.14 The picture that emerges from Bourque’s figures is striking: the sacramentary is king up until the twelfth century, but in the thirteenth century „the plenary missal is the rule everywhere, its competitor having practically disappeared“.15 A careful re-reading of Leroquais, entry by entry, reveals however that Bour- que’s numbers are less than accurate, especially with respect to the pivotal twelfth century. Some of this inaccuracy derives from the fact that Leroquais cautiously organizes his repertory of manuscripts according to a relative chronology, assign- ing manuscripts to the beginning, middle, end, and turning points of centuries, and not the discrete fifty-year sections that Bourque uses. Appendix 1 provides my own count of the „sacramentaires“ and „missels“ in Leroquais’s repertory for each of his loose divisions. While the numbers provided by Bourque for the eleventh and thirteenth centuries represent the data inexactly, they do not alter the basic picture that emerges from Leroquais’s repertory of the dominance of „sacramentaires“ before the

11 Éric Palazzo, Le Moyen Âge des origines au XIIIe siècle. Paris 1993 (Histoire des livres liturgiques) 125: „… le XIe siècle marque tout de même un tournant décisif dans l’histoire du missel: c’est en effet à ce moment que les sacramentaires et les libelli missarum cèdent la place à des manuscrits complets que les spécialistes ont nommé ‚missels pléniers‘ … dès la première moitié du XIIe siècle, les sacramentaires sont minoritaires par rapport aux missels …“. 12 Emmanuel Bourque, Étude sur les sacramentaires romains. 2: Les textes remaniés. 2: Le sacramentaire d’Hadrien. Le supplément d’Alcuin et les grégoriens mixtes. Roma 1958 (SAC 25); 2,2 – the third volume of Bourque’s Étude – appeared after his death in 1953. 13 Bourque, Étude (n. 12 above) 504. The same phrasing appears, without reference to Bourque, in Vogel, Introduction (n. 9 above) 88. 14 Bourque, Étude (n. 12 above) 504 n. 10; see Victor Leroquais, Les sacramentaires et les missels manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France. 1–3. Paris 1924. 15 Bourque, Étude (n. 12 above) 504 n. 10 (my translation). ALw 57 / p. 28 / 7.11.

28 Andrew J. M. Irving

twelfth century on the one hand, and of „missels“ in the thirteenth on the other. What is more troubling, however, is Bourque’s presentation of data for the pivotal twelfth century. The figure that Bourque gives from Leroquais’s repertory for the total number of „missels“ preserved in French public libraries produced during the twelfth century – 111 – turns out to be a simple error: this number represents, in fact, the total number of manuscripts – both „missels“ and „sacramentaires“ combined – from that period. Unfortunately, Bourque’s data containing an inadvertent error was recycled without correction by Vogel,16 and has, through further references in standard handbooks, become faulty foundational evidence in the received French, English, and Italian narratives of the date of the transition from sacramentary to missal. Moreover, the corrected table reveals that the „triumph“ of the plenary missal in the twelfth century is not quite as conclusive as has often been stated. Leroquais’s use of the terms „missel“ and „sacramentaire“ can be somewhat fluid in the repertory: contents labelled „sacramentaire“ in one instance may be labelled „missel“ in a different witness. This is in part a function of the complex and variable nature of the manuscripts themselves, a subject to which we shall return. However, even simply counting the numbers of each type as Leroquais labels them reveals that over 35% of twelfth-century mass books in Leroquais’s repertory are labelled „sacramentaires“, and the majority of these – 24/41 – are not, as Vogel stated, „tous du début du siècle“.17 The relatively even split between „sacramentaires“ and „missels“ in the „2ème moitié“ and the „dernier quart“ of the twelfth century is not the kind of statistic one would expect if sacramentaries were „décidémment dépassés“ by this time, as Bourque alleged.18 In fact, at least according to the surviving evidence gathered by Leroquais, production of missals truly outnumbered that of sacramentaries only at the end of the twelfth century. If Leroquais’s catalogue can be relied upon, the decisive turning point in the dominance of production of surviving missals over that of surviving sacramentaries seems, at least as far as French evidence is concerned, to have occurred at the turn of the thirteenth century, and not the beginning of the twelfth. Let us now turn to the question of what motivated the change in production preferences. The commonly adduced reasons for the reversal in the fortunes of the sacramentary stand equally in need of re-examination. One early and apparently obvious hypothesis, that the missal predominated simply because it was more convenient to use, has now largely been discounted. As Bourque observed rather sardonically already in the early fifties, it beggars belief that it would take four

16 Bourque’s data appear, without reference to Bourque, in Vogel, Introduction (n. 9 above) 88 n. 296; translated into English and revised: Cyrille Vogel, Medieval Liturgy. An Introduction to the Sources. Rev. and transl. by William George Storey – Niels Krogh Rasmussen – John K. Brooks Leonard. Washington 1986 (NPM Studies in Church Music and Liturgy) 134 n. 288; the same data (from the English revision of Vogel) are referred to in Palazzo, Le Moyen Âge (n. 11 above) 125 n. 2; translated into English: Éric Palazzo, A History of Liturgical Books from the Beginning to the Thirteenth Century. Transl. by Madeleine Beaumont. Collegeville 1998, 108. 17 Vogel, Introduction (n. 9 above) 88 n. 296. 18 Bourque, Étude (n. 12 above) 504. ALw 57 / p. 29 / 7.11.

On the Counting of Mass Books 29

centuries of copying mass books to hit on this more convenient design, and then, within the space of just fifty years, all of the West „discovered“ this „magic formula and rallied behind it“.19 A second and more persistent thesis linked the origin of the missal to the rise of private masses. It is supposed that a priest celebrating mass without the assistance of cantor, lector or deacon, and yet required to read the texts usually divided amongst these ministers, would more conveniently have chant texts and readings united with prayer texts in a single volume. This argument is however now widely dismissed, since, as van Dijk and Hazelden Walker argued more than half a century ago, it can be demonstrated that: 1) private and votive masses were celebrated long before the missal was a „favoured or common liturgical book“; 2) neither votive masses nor most private masses required a full missal since „they were not condi- tioned by the cycle of the liturgical year“; 3) the provision of musical notation in large numbers of twelfth-century missals is difficult to explain if it is argued these were intended for private celebrations: it is unlikely that the celebrant chanted the mass proper to himself, or, that he was capable of working his way through the notation, even if he had wanted to;20 4) although the increase in popularity that missals appear to have enjoyed may coincide with or perhaps even be fuelled by the rise in the practice of saying private masses, this does not elucidate how or why „private Mass followed the evolution of the Mass books rather than determined it“.21 Two explanations for the eventual dominance of the missal do retain some currency. The first may be styled the „ecclesiological thesis“. It has been most recently sustained by Palazzo, who suggests that the rise of the missal is due to a „certain evolution“ in the ecclesiology of the liturgy that led to a concentration of the liturgical action in the hands of the celebrant.22 A second and related thesis, often adduced in support of the ecclesiological hypothesis, attributes the triumph of the missal to a rubric that required the celebrant to recite in a low voice all the parts of the mass. If the celebrant was required to read all of these texts including chant repertory sotto voce even when they were performed by other ministers, it would seem only logical that this would prompt a demand for an integrated series of formularies of the kind found in the plenary missal.23 Let us consider the first of these two related hypotheses. There is little doubt that during the course of the central to high Middle Ages the liturgical action of

19 Ibid. 507 n. 27: „Il reste étrange que, pendant quatre siècles et plus, on ait perdu de vue ce motif ‚économique‘. À un moment donné, tout l’Occident, en un demi-siècle, ‚découvre‘ (?) cette formule magique et s’y rallie …“. 20 The Cluniac customary of Ulrich expressly orders a priest celebrating a missa privata to read rather than sing the chant: „totum cantum, qui ad eam pertinet, pro edicto Patrum nostrorum magis legit in directum quam unquam audeat cantare“ (PL 149,724C). Regarding the customary of Ulrich, see now: Susan Boynton, The Customaries of Bernard and Ulrich as Liturgical Sources, in: From Dead of Night to End of Day. The Medieval Customs of Cluny. Du cœur de la nuit à la fin du jour. Ed. Susan Boynton – Isabelle Cochelin. Turnhout 2005 (Disciplina Monastica 3) 109–130. 21 Van Dijk – Hazelden Walker, Origins (n. 8 above) 61. 22 Palazzo, Le Moyen Âge (n. 11 above) 124; id., History (n. 16 above) 107. 23 Vogel, Introduction (n. 9 above) 88. ALw 57 / p. 30 / 7.11.

30 Andrew J. M. Irving

the mass was increasingly concentrated in the „celebrant’s hands“: other ministers (and their books) in solemn celebrations were beginning to be seen as decorative rather than constitutive. Whether, however, the triumph of the missal is the pro- duct of this gradual development, or rather was simply one of a number of factors that facilitated this development is not as clear as we might hope. Moreover, the practice of having an assisting cleric (whose presence was at least formally required even for private masses from the thirteenth century)24 or even a server read the epistle is attested well into the thirteenth century – long after the triumph of the missal.25 Neither is the use of gospel books in conjunction with missals unknown. In Cistercian custom, for instance, in a mass „cum uno ministro“ (therefore, also for a missa privata) the missal („missale“) was to be laid on the altar to the right, and the gospel book („textum“) on the left: even if the priest is to read the gospel, he is to pick up a different book to do so.26 The rubric found in Southern German missals of Passau (1491), Augsburg (1555), and the pontifical missal of Eichstätt (1466) ordering the celebrant to kiss the „evangelium“ on the left side of the altar before turning to the missal at the right at the beginning of the celebration of mass hints at the possibility of the perseverance of the use of a separate gospel book in combination with a „liber missalis“.27 The rubric in these sources has been inter- preted as referring to kissing of the appointed gospel pericope in the missal, which would allow the interpretation that in fact only one book was on the altar, kissed on the left and then used on the right. However, as Dominik Daschner has pointed out, no mention is made in the rubrics of the transfer of the missal at the beginning of the mass, yet at this point in the celebration the missal was lying on the right- hand side of the altar, and the kiss of the „evangelium“ is to be performed on the

24 Jungmann, Missarum Sollemnia (n. 5 above) 1,297, cites, as an example, the Synod of Trier (1227): Can. 8: „nullus sacerdos celebrare missam praesumat sine clerico respondente“. 25 A rubric of the Dominican Ordinarium of 1256 suggests that the practice of having a „servitor“ read the epistle persisted, albeit with some disapproval, even into the middle of the thirteenth century: Ludovicus Theissling – Franciscus Guerrini, Ordinarium iuxta ritum sacri Ordinis fratrum praedicatorum. Romae 1921, 249 („Ex libro cui titulus ‚Missale minorum altarium‘“), no. 123: „meliusque est ut Epistolam relinquat Sacerdoti dicendam, quam quod ipse dicat, cum non est in aliquo sacrorum Ordinum constitutus“ (my emphasis); cited in part by Jungmann, Missarum Sollemnia (n. 5 above) 1,298 n. 105. 26 Ecclesiastica Officia 54,7: „Missale in dextro cornu altaris. textum in sinistro ponat. quod post evangelium auferat“, in: Ecclesiastica Officia. Gebräuchebuch der Zisterzienser aus dem 12. Jahrhun- dert. Lateinischer Text nach den Handschriften Dijon 114, Trient 1711, Ljubljana 31, Paris 4346 und Wolfenbüttel Codex Guelferbytanus 1068. Dt. Übers., liturgischer Anhang, Fußnoten u. Index nach der lat.-franz. Ausgabe von Danièle Choisselet – Placide Vernet, übers., bearb. u. hg. von Hermann M. Herzog – Johannes Müller. Langwaden 2003 (Quellen u. Stud. zur Zisterzien- serliteratur 7) 208. 27 Franz Anton Hoeynck, Geschichte der kirchlichen Liturgie des Bisthums Augsburg. Augsburg 1889, 372: „Deinde progrediens ad cornu sinistrum osculetur evangelium faciens in eo crucem et dicens: Pax Christi, quam nobis dominus … Post hec vadit ad cornu altaris dextrum et in crucifixo libri missalis fiat crux, quam osculando dicat: Tuam crucem adoramus Domine …“. See Dominik Daschner, Die gedruckten Meßbücher Süddeutschlands bis zur Übernahme des Missale Romanum Pius V. (1570). Frankfurt/M. [e.a.] 1995 (RSTh 47) 47 n. 26; also Jungmann, Missarum Sol- lemnia (n. 5 above) 1,403–404. ALw 57 / p. 31 / 7.11.

On the Counting of Mass Books 31

left. Daschner posits that by the fifteenth century the rubric refers not to the kissing of the gospel book, as the wording states, but to the kissing of the altar, where the gospel book in former times had lain.28 In whatever way the rubric was performed, however, what is clear is that the wording of the rubric even in these late sources does not assume that the unification of liturgical roles in the celebrant necessarily equates with the use of (much less the need for) a singular, compen- dious book. The claim that the missal’s eventual dominance is due to the rubrical require- ment that the celebrant recite all of the readings and chant propers sotto voce even when they were being performed by other ministers, is usually evidenced by a series of recycled abbreviated references to sources, upon which like Bourque’s numbers, it pays to shed some light. Though both Vogel and Palazzo imply that from the eleventh century priests were „under obligation to recite in silence the readings and the sung parts of the mass even when they are performed by ministers or singers“ in fact, evidence of how quickly this practice spread – even in Rome – is remarkably scant.29 One text adduced as the earliest witness of this practice is the Ordo officiorum that prescribes the liturgy of the recently installed canons of the Lateran basilica in the mid-twelfth century (c. 1145).30 However, the only chant proper that this important ordo specifies that the bishop is to read is the introit; the remaining proper chant texts are not mentioned.31 While the bishop is to read the epistle, this is to take place after the subdeacon has read it, and from the same book used by the subdeacon: it is not a simultaneous reading requiring the dupli-

28 Daschner, Meßbücher (n. 27 above) 47–48 n. 26: „Möglicherweise ist davon auszugehen, daß auch in diesen Diözesen an der linken Altarseite nicht mehr das Evangeliar geküßt wird, das früher hier lag, das es aber inzwischen nicht mehr gibt, sondern statt dessen der Altar selbst durch einen Kuß an dieser Stelle verehrt wird …“; he sees a parallel in the Ordo misse secundum morem Ecclesie Ratisponensis (c. 1500) which instructs the celebrant to kiss the altar on the gospel side. 29 Vogel, Introduction (n. 9 above) 88: „… l’obligation faite au célébrant, depuis la fin du XIe siècle, de réciter en silence les lectures et les pièces métriques, même quand elles sont exécutées d’autre part par les ministres ou les chantres“; cf. Palazzo, Le Moyen Âge (n. 11 above) 124: „A partir du XIe siècle, le célébrant était tenu de réciter, au moins à voix basse, les parties chantées de la messe, même si elles étaient par ailleurs exécutées par le chœur, de même que les diverses lectures, alors pronon- cées par le diacre et le sous-diacre“. Vogel refers the reader to an article discussing the rationale for the revision of Easter Vigil (cf. Sacra Congregatio Rituum, Decretum: De solemni vigilia paschali instauranda, in: EL 65. 1951, 1*–9*) in 1950: Annibale Bugnini, Commentarium, ibid. 12*–46*, here 29*: Tit. II: „De Vigilia Paschali“, cap. IV: „De lectionibus“, no. 15: „Quomodo legendae“. Ironically, this source is concerned principally with demonstrating the scarcity of evidence for the duplication of the readings by the celebrant in the Roman tradition: „Instauratio hodierna plane respondet sive puriori traditioni romanae sive dignitati hierarchicae celebrantis, qui uti caput coetus liturgici congregati in Missa exercet plenitudinem functionis sui ordinis“; the author of the Com- mentarium refers to Lambert Beauduin, Messe basse ou messe solennelle?, in: QLP 5. 1920, 90–97, here 97: „… n’est-il pas légitime de souhaiter un retour à la vraie tradition romaine?“ 30 Cited by Jungmann, Missarum Sollemnia (n. 5 above) 1,140; Vogel, Medieval Liturgy (n. 16 above) 134 n. 291; and Meyer, Eucharistie (n. 7 above) 211–212. 31 Bernhardi cardinalis et Lateranensis ecclesiae prioris Ordo officiorum ecclesiae Lateranensis. Hg. von Ludwig Fischer. München [e. a.] 1916 (Hist. Forsch. u. Quellen 2–3) 80–84, here 80: „… episcopus altare reuerenter deosculans ad sedem propriam cum ministris hinc inde sustentantibus eum officium legendo reuertitur“. ALw 57 / p. 32 / 7.11.

32 Andrew J. M. Irving

cation of a text. No mention is made of a duplicated reading of the gospel.32 Thus, while the bishop celebrant, the deacon, and subdeacon are to read together the introit, the Gloria in excelsis, the Creed, and the Sanctus while these are being sung by the choir,33 the ordo sheds no light at all on the origin of the recitation of the full proper of chants and readings, nor, for that matter on the provision of various entirely notated chant melodies for the ordinary of the mass. Even if the spread of this custom outside Rome were to be tracked, it is difficult to see how this ordo explains the origin or increasing popularity of the combination of chant propers (with, or without neumes), readings, and prayer texts in a single volume. Later papal ordines similarly lack any indication of the duplication of readings and chant propers by the presiding bishop or priest. In the „Order of the Mass according to the Use of the Roman Church (Court) before 1227“ edited by Van Dijk and completed by Hazelden Walker, there is mention of the presbyter reading the introit, but not of the rest of the ordinary, nor of the readings or proper chant.34 The Ordinal of Gregory X (c. 1274) refers to the recitation of the Gloria in excelsis while it is being sung by the choir, and presumes the reading of the epistle by the pontiff, but again does not mention the full set of chant propers nor the gospel.35 The very source underlying the article to which Vogel refers his read- ers for „further information“ on the subject, Beauduin’s 1920 article arguing that the celebrant’s recitation is not ancient nor even for the most part medieval practice, makes the case that it was William Durandus, writing in the last quarter of the thirteenth century, long after the domination of the missal, who was the earliest commentator to observe that during a papal liturgy the introit, and the full ordinary of the mass (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei) are to be read while they are also being sung. However, even in this source they are to be read not by the pontiff, but by his assisting chaplains, and the reading of the gradual, alleluia or tract, offertory, and post communion is explicitly excluded by Duran- dus.36 Finally, the fourteenth-century collection of Roman curial ordines prepared

32 Ibid. 81: „Lecta uero epistola subdiaconus ante episcopum ueniens et altari reuerenter inclinatus eandem flexo poplite legendam episcopo representat“. 33 Ibid. 80: „Cum autem Gloria in excelsis deo episcopus inceperit, diaconus ac subdiaconus et presbyter ei circumstantes hunc hymnum secum deuote perlegunt“; ibid. 82: „… Postquam autem episcopus Credo in unum deum inceperit, deuote perlegunt illud cum eo diaconus et subdiaconus ac presbyter“; ibid. 83: „… Cum prefatione dicta Sanctus in choro dici ceperit, diaconus et subdiaconus hinc inde accedentes perlegunt cum episcopo hunc angelicum cantum“. 34 Stephen J. P. van Dijk – Joan Hazelden Walker, The Ordinal of the Papal Court from Innocent III to Boniface VIII and Related Documents. Fribourg 1976 (SpicFri 22) 493–526, here 500: „perlegit introitum cum ministris“; some manuscripts read: „perlegit introitus cum ministris suis“. 35 Ibid. 585: „Et dicta Gloria. finit eam cum aliis circumstantibus. choro cantante. dicendo [et in terra pax et cetera] … Interim subdiaconus vadit cantare epistolam debitam. Et ipse papa. dictis oratio- nibus. debet [legere eam] ut prius“. 36 Guillelmus Duranti, Rationale divinorum officiorum 4,11,2: „Et nota quod licet domino pape cele- branti, uel missam audienti, legatur a capellanis suis introitus et ‚Kyrieleyson‘ et ‚Gloria in excelsis‘ et ‚Credo‘ et ‚Sanctus‘ et ‚Agnus‘, non tamen graduale uel alleluya uel tractus uel offertorium uel postcommunio, pro eo quod illa instructoria et introductoria sunt, quibus ipse non eget“; ed. An- selme Davril – Timothy M. Thibodeau. Turnhout 1995 (CChr.CM 140) 292–293; the same passage is cited in Bugnini, Commentarium (n. 29 above) 28*. ALw 57 / p. 33 / 7.11.

On the Counting of Mass Books 33

by Giacomo Gaetani Stefaneschi (Avignon, Bibl. mun., Ms. 1706) requires only that the pope, on feast days, say the introit together with the Kyrie with all the assisting cardinals.37 This does not exclude the possibility that the practice of the celebrant’s duplication of the chant and lectionary propers spread in non-pontifical celebrations and exerted influence on the development or the popularity of a single book containing chant texts, readings, together with prayers. The mid-thirteenth-century Francis- can ordo „Indutus planeta“ requires that priest and attending ministers read the introit and Kyrie eleison, the Sanctus and the Benedictus, and that while the subdeacon reads the epistle, the priest celebrant, having spread the corporal, sit to read the epistle and the gradual „cum aliis, que ante evangelium legenda sunt“.38 The pastoral reach of the Franciscan Order from the thirteenth century may have contributed to the spread of this liturgical practice outside the order.39 However, even this ordo does not mandate the duplication of the entire set of lectionary and chant propers, and a recent study has questioned not only the attribution of the ordo to Haymo of Faversham and the date 1243, but how widely „Indutus planeta“ was known even within Italy before the end of the thirteenth century.40 In any case, the ordo seems too late to be considered a causal factor for the increase in popularity and dominance of the missal format by the beginning of the thirteenth century. In sum, the evidence cited for the duplication of readings and chant pieces by the celebrant is too scarce and too late to be considered as a reason for the rise and eventual dominance of the missal. A systematic study of the spread and adoption of the practice of duplicating across time and region that would permit us to determine whether it prompted, coincided with, or resulted from the production of missals is both lacking and needed. Finally, the thesis that the missal is „eminently a ‚parochial‘ book“ posited by van Dijk and Hazelden Walker, and, more recently, by Hans Bernhard Meyer, warrants further study.41 There is certainly a logic to the argument that the parochial set-

37 „Sammlung A“ 35,2: „… Stans in loco sedis, papa dicit introitum cum omnibus cardinalibus [et] Kirie“; Bernhard Schimmelpfennig, Die Zeremonienbücher der römischen Kurie im Mittelalter. Tübingen 1973 (BDHIR 40) 214; there is no suggestion that the pope reads any other text or chant other than the celebrant’s prayers. 38 Stephen J. P. van Dijk, Sources of the Modern Roman Liturgy. The Ordinals by Haymo of Faversham and Related Documents (1243–1307). Ed. with an introd., and a description of the manuscripts. 1– 2. Leiden 1963 (SDF 2) 2,7–14: „… incipit legere introitum cum ministro vel ministris; similiter et Kyrieleison … Dum vero legitur epistola a subdiacono, sacerdos extendit corporale … Quo peracto, in missa conventuali vadit sacerdos ad sedem. Lecta vero epistola et graduali cum aliis, que ante evangelium legenda sunt, cum ministro vel ministris in sede perlectis, subdiaconus parat calicem … Finita vero prefatione, dicit Sanctus cum ministro vel ministris mediocriter inclinatus super altare et signat se signo crucis cum dicit Benedictus qui venit“. 39 Meyer, Eucharistie (n. 7 above) 214. 40 Anna Welch, Liturgy, Books and Franciscan Identity in Medieval Umbria. Leiden [e.a.] 2016 (Medieval Franciscans 12) 76–77: „… it is significant that no copies of the Ordinal seem to exist before c. 1260: its distribution may not have been widespread in the thirteenth century, and what copies survive are all of central Italian origin, suggesting a localized distribution of the revision“. 41 Van Dijk – Hazelden Walker, Origins (n. 8 above) 65–66, here 65; Meyer, Eucharistie (n. 7 above) 214. ALw 57 / p. 34 / 7.11.

34 Andrew J. M. Irving

ting, which may have allowed for only a reduced ceremonial would recommend the use of „a composite Mass book with all texts arranged in the order in which they occurred at more solemn celebrations“, and that increasing emphasis on the development of pastoral care may have contributed to the popularity of a single book for the „parish priest“.42 The growth of the parochial system in the eleventh and twelfth centuries is not in question.43 However, further study of extant evidence is required to determine whether single-volume mass books, containing chant, readings, and prayers, were already the preferred type of mass book for smaller ecclesial settings before the expansion of the parochial system in the eleventh and twelfth centuries (in which case greater number of missals would merely be in continuity with earlier patterns), or whether the growth in the parochial system coincided with or occasioned a change in preference. It is important to ask and to attempt to determine what proportion of surviving missals from these centuries can be securely associated with parish settings. As we shall see, early preferences for integrated missal format mass books in Southern Italy are associated with monastic and not parochial settings, as was the single-volume combination of chant, prayer, reading, and ritual texts in the eleventh-century Missale Basileense („Codex Gressly“).44 Such caveats serve only to underline the desirability of a comparative survey of extant manuscripts according to their intended function or actual use in religious houses, cathedrals, chapels, or parishes. It seems likely that no single cause can be attributed to the origin, rise, or eventual domination of the missal format of the mass book. In view of the lack of broad, transregional studies of the surviving evidence of mass books of all types in the period of significant change in production preferences, i.e., the late-eleventh to the early-thirteenth century, the question of the motivating causes for the transition in preference for missal over sacramentary must, for the moment, remain open. Before turning to a new approach to the subject, I would like to make two additional remarks concerning problems with interpreting extant data that must, I think, inform any fruitful re-examination of the subject. It is an obvious fact that the ravages of time, war, Revolution, theft, and rodents have rendered our dataset incomplete. Leroquais’s repertory includes just two mass books associated explicitly with Cluny for instance,45 and not one attributed to Fleury: we always run the risk that the surviving evidence is skewing the historical picture. But as much as loss should concern us, we should also attend to survival and ongoing use. What we are looking at in tables providing tallies of sacramentaries vs. missals in each section of a century is, of course, changing rates of production (at least so far as these can be gathered from extant manuscripts), and not changing rates of use. As

42 Van Dijk – Hazelden Walker, Origins (n. 8 above) 65. 43 See, for example, Norman John Greville, A History of the English Parish. The Culture of Religion from Augustine to Victoria. Cambridge 2000, 39: „By the early twelfth century a rudimentary parochial system had been extended over much of the country“. 44 Anton Hänggi – Pascal Ladner, Missale Basileense saec. XI (Codex Gressly). Freiburg/Schweiz 1994 (SpicFri 35). 45 Paris, BNF, lat. 874 (s. XIV), and lat. 881 (s. XV/XVI). ALw 57 / p. 35 / 7.11.

On the Counting of Mass Books 35

any student of liturgical manuscripts knows, most manuscripts remained in use at least for several decades, and not infrequently for more than one century. We must then try to take into account a kind of cumulative effect of the persistence of manuscript mass books. To suggest otherwise in a book culture in which deluxe products were costly and revered, would be akin to suggesting that all current model cars will cease to be driven or sold as soon as the new model comes out. The on-going use of manuscript mass books often depended on their adaptation, and that leads us to a more serious qualification about the conclusions that can be drawn from Leroquais’s repertory: the problem of nomenclature. The broad definitions of sacramentary (a collection of celebrant’s prayers) and missal (containing prayers, chants, readings, and the Ordo Missae) are useful broad modern labels for different types of liturgical text collections. But the binary opposition of the two terms does not reflect the diversity of surviving evidence of individual (and countable) witnesses from the period in question. As scholars have long noted, collections of prayers for use by the celebrant („sacramentaries“) are sometimes augmented by marginal notes providing the incipits of chants and/or readings added at the time of copying, a little later, or in succeeding decades.46 Hybrid forms that resist simple labels survive from our earliest surviving examples of „sacramentaries“ well into the twelfth century.47 Scholars have struggled to settle on labels for these complex and varied forms. The use, for example, of the terms „primitive missal“ (van Dijk, Palazzo) or „missel factice“ (Vogel) to describe a mass book in which prayer, chant, and lectionary propers are all included in a single volume but in discrete sections, fails to distinguish clearly between single and multiple codicological units. In those mass books that combine prayers with chant, and/or readings, in a single unit albeit in separate sections (of which we have surviving examples from the earliest period), and in those early examples (i. e., prior to c. 900) of the integration of prayers, readings, and chant in a single mass book we want to know how these sections were designed to fit together, materially, if not necessarily textually speaking.48 In those cases in which the combination is the result of a later binding, what is of interest, of course, is to know when the units were bound together and for what purpose. In sum, our terms „sacramentary“ and „missal“ are rather crude labels for what is a diverse collection of extant made-to-order and frequently adapted materials. Manuscript cataloguers may be constrained to put a label on the manuscript before them, but if catalogues are to be used to tally up the number of examples of each

46 Jungmann, Missarum Sollemnia (n. 5 above) 1,139. 47 Of the 43 mass book items in French Libraries to which Leroquais attributes a date between „VIIIe siècle“ and „Xe–XIe siècle“, no fewer than 12 are described as including elements other than the celebrant’s prayers (lections, chant, ritual elements later associated with the pontifical) that are contemporaneous with the copying of the celebrant’s prayers. 48 See the forthcoming article of Susan Rankin, Carolingian Liturgical Books. Problems of Categoriza- tion, in: Gazette du livre médiéval; tab. 1 in the article lists no fewer than fourteen „integrated plenary missals“ copied „before c. 900“. I thank the author for kindly sharing the proofs of her work during the final stages of the preparation of this article. ALw 57 / p. 36 / 7.11.

36 Andrew J. M. Irving

„type“ of mass book in order to demonstrate the date of a widespread transformation and to deduce reasons for the transformation in contemporaneous shifts in ecclesiology or sacramental theology, it behoves the researcher to read very carefully the description of ingredients of the manuscript below the label. While a taxonomy of variations in mass books is a useful and necessary tool in the succinct categorization and communication of varied evidence, a distinction is to be made between the heuristic employment of such a taxonomy of mass books, the positing of chronology of evolution from the various forms, the description of change in production preference, and the deduction of reasons for such a change.

3. A Material Approach The very inadequacy of the commonly used nomenclature to describe this remarkable transformation in what was one of the most frequently copied and pub- licly used types of book in the Middle Ages suggests an approach to a central aspect of the transition that seems to have been seldom if ever explicitly addressed: that is, the question of design. Simply stated, the question of where, when, and how to include or integrate a number of texts that are sometimes presented in independent volumes and sometimes presented as a single volume is at base a question of design and its implications for the relationship between materials and texts that they convey. Attention to design starts with the material evidence as it stands. Before assign- ing a label to the book object, and before determining a single or even multiple reasons for a change, it seeks quantitative data without prejudice in answer to the question: how are extant mass books from the period of transition put together materially speaking? A material examination of mass books during the period of transition (from the late eleventh to the early thirteenth century) would attend to questions such as these: Where prayer, chant, and readings series are presented in juxtaposed sections in a mass book, were they designed separately and only later bound together, or were they designed together as a single, albeit tripartite unit? How do quire gatherings correspond to any division or juxtaposition in a mass book? If incipits are employed how are they arrayed on the page? Were they added in a space left for them, jotted down in a convenient space in the margin, or were they part of the original design? If the independent series of readings, chants, and prayers (each of which are known to have had independent histories) are integrated, how is that achieved? Do different types of mass books exhibit preferences for long-lines or for columns, for different proportions of the page or of the written space? Are chant pieces routinely written in smaller script, with a different pen, or different ink? Is space left for notation? Are votive masses and commons, or prin- cipal feasts alone supplied with readings? Are certain scriptoria or regions conser- vative in their design innovations while others are more daring? Can patterns of influence in design be tracked across time, region, or community? These are all questions, it seems to me, of design. Preliminary description of material aspects of changes in the design of mass books – understood as „machines au fonctionnement complexe“ as quantitative ALw 57 / p. 37 / 7.11.

On the Counting of Mass Books 37

codicologists have put it,49 or as cultural artefacts with their own „life cycles“50 – may offer just the kind of jolt we need to place the material manuscript evidence at the centre rather than the service of our endeavours to understand what might have been the motives for this transformation. It also has the advantage of widening the lens of our research. Mass books are, after all, books: which is to say, they are artefacts of a broader book-making culture. Once we have a clearer and more descriptive picture of material aspects of the design and production of the variety of mass books produced in this period of change we will be in a better position to determine to what extent transformations in mass books reflect or differ from or anticipate production and design patterns seen in other contemporary books. Pos- sible parallels in the organization and reorganization of complex series of numerous and varied texts in the breviary, in canon law collections, and the pontifical – each of which, like the mass book, underwent dramatic changes in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, may help us to understand whether the redesign and production of mass books reflect or anticipate the pragmatic reorganization of materials in these other manuscript books. A first step in revisiting the question of the transition in mass book design from „sacramentary“ to „missal“ must be, to take a leaf from Leroquais’s repertories, to construct a database of surviving Latin mass book manuscripts and fragments produced during the period of transition from the end of the eleventh century to the beginning of the thirteenth. The census will have the advantage of being far broader in its scope than that afforded by the national boundaries of Victor Lero- quais’s French repertory, or Adalbert Ebner’s Iter italicum,51 while at the same time being more focused, limiting the dataset to those manuscript objects produced during the period of transition. The searchable database will provide up- to-date information regarding the manuscript witnesses’ current location(s), together with any data gleaned from online and printed catalogues regarding codicological features, geographical origin or ecclesiastical use, and current condition. While the precise number of different types of extant mass books will perhaps always remain inexact – in 1922 the remains of 369 missals mostly of Finnish provenance were discovered in the University library in Helsinki alone52 – an

49 Carla Bozzolo – Dominique Coq – Denis Muzerelle – Ezio Ornato, Une machine au fonctionnement complexe. Le livre médiéval, in: Le texte et son inscription. Actes du colloque organisé par le Centre d’études de l’écriture de l’Université de Paris VII et le Groupe paragraphe de l’Université de Paris VIII. Textes de Paul Bady [e.a.] réunis par Roger Laufer [e. a.]. Paris 1989, 69–78; reprinted in: La face cachée du livre médiéval. L’histoire du livre. Vue par Ezio Ornato [e. a.]. Roma 1997 (I libri di Viella 10) 87–95. 50 Michael Johnston – Michael Van Dussen, Manuscripts and Cultural History, in: The Medieval Manuscript Book. Cultural Approaches. Ed. by M. Johnston – M. Van Dussen Cambridge 2015 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature 94) 1–13. 51 Leroquais, Les sacramentaires et missels (n. 14 above); Adalbert Ebner, Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte und Kunstgeschichte des Missale Romanum im Mittelalter. Iter italicum. Freiburg/Br. [e. a.] 1896. 52 See Toivo Haapanen, Verzeichnis der mittelalterlichen Handschriftenfragmente in der Universitätsbi- bliothek zu Helsingfors. 1: Missalia. Helsingfors 1922 (Helsingin yliopiston kirjaston julkaisuja 4); the fragments are now digitized at: http://fragmenta.kansalliskirjasto.fi/. ALw 57 / p. 38 / 7.11.

38 Andrew J. M. Irving

international searchable and updatable database seems an important first step in any attempt to gain a broad and quantitative understanding of patterns of mass book production across time, region, and ecclesiastical community. In addition to the transregional perspective afforded by a database, it will also be important, however, to undertake detailed studies of mass book production, adaptation, and use in particular local regions and particular communities. Leo Marsicanus’s disparaging remark about the utter inappropriateness of the former Cassinese practice of reading pericopes from plenary missals reminds us that broad patterns of change in mass book production and use were locally antici- pated, negotiated, contradicted, supported, or ignored. If we want to understand how practices of mass book production reflected or shaped a community’s ritual practices, which were themselves frequently contested and changing, we shall need to examine not only transregional populations of manuscripts, but also the individual details in the material design of book objects that survive from particular communities. In the concluding section of this paper I should like to return to question of mass book production in Southern Italy in the central Middle Ages with which we began, as a means to give an example of how both approaches may be illuminative.

4. Mass Book Manuscripts in the Beneventan Zone First, a broader transregional database helps us to determine whether the local or regional pattern or change in production is unique, unusual, or in line with trends seen elsewhere. If we compare Leo’s remark regarding the overturning of the use of missal in favour of sacramentaries at Montecassino with the chart in- dicating rates of production of extant sacramentaries and missals in French repo- sitories drawn from Leroquais’s repertory (Appendix 1), at least three points might be made: Leaving aside the question of the reasons for Desiderius’s provision, the production at Montecassino in the 1060s of two sacramentaries (with accompanying epistle, gospel and chant books) does seem correspond to a preference for separate books for the mass that Leroquais’s numbers suggest was generally prevailing north of the Alps at the same time. If Leo’s comment can be trusted, the „disgraceful“ practice of reading pericopes from a plenary missal had been normal practice up until the early years of Desider- ius’s abbacy in the 1060s („usque ad illud tempus“), therefore much earlier than the broader establishment of that norm north of the Alps as far as this can be estimated from the extant books described in Leroquais’s repertory. Leo’s description of value-laden change in preference from the use of missals to the use of sacramentaries at Montecassino in the 1060s seems to run completely contrary to the growing trend in the design of European mass books as this emerges from Leroquais’s repertory. Whatever the precise date of the transition from sacramentary to missal, what is undeniable is the overall trend, the increasing preference for the missal format, with which Desiderius’s action, and Leo’s remark stand in stark contrast. ALw 57 / p. 39 / 7.11.

On the Counting of Mass Books 39

Let us now turn to a consideration of patterns within the Southern Italian region defined by the use of the Beneventan Script, that is, the regional script employed at Montecassino and throughout Southern Italy and along the Dalma- tian Coast. Abbot Desiderius’s initiative and Leo’s explanation of it appear only the more remarkable if we examine trends in mass book design in manuscripts in Southern Italy. What immediately emerges from a census of extant mass-books copied in Beneventan script is the overwhelming preference for the missal format over the sacramentary format from the very earliest period. If the surviving evidence represents at least proportionately the original patterns of production, we can say that, in contrast to the situation north of the Alps, neither before the eleventh- century, nor during it, nor after it did the sacramentary ever hold sway over the missal form of the mass book in the Beneventan Zone. Eight out of nine extant mass books written in Beneventan script that antedate the eleventh century in Beneventan script are missals53, and, for those Beneventan mass books attributed a date between the early eleventh and the turn of the twelfth century over 80% (36/ 43) are missals – all this well before of the dominance of missals north of the Alps. In short, from the earliest period until the most recent mass book witnesses written in Beneventan script,54 the missal format has been consistently and heavily preferred to the sacramentary in the Beneventan Zone.55

53 The eight manuscripts are: Benevento, Archivio di Stato, s. n. [ms. F] (s. X/XI; two scraps of a „missale plenum“; see Virginia Brown, A Second New List of Beneventan Manuscripts (II), in: MS 50. 1988, 622); Benevento, Bibl. Capitolare, VI 33 (s. X/XI „missale“; Elias Avery Lowe, The Beneventan Script. A History of the South Italian Minuscule. 1–2. 2. Ed. by Virginia Brown. Roma 1980 (SusEr 33–34) 2,21; note: the author’s name is written „Loew“ on the title page of the 1914 and the 1980 editions of The Beneventan Script; Lowe changed his name in 1918, following the First World War); Vaticano, BAV, Vat. lat. 4700 (s. Xex „missale plenum“ in Caroline minuscule with Beneventan script on f. 216r-v; see Lowe, The Beneventan Script 2,149); Vaticano, BAV, Reg. lat. 1105, fol. 68–76 (s. X; palimpsested „missale“; Lowe, The Beneventan Script 2,168); Montecassi- no, Archivio dell’Abbazia, cod. 271 p. 33–34.39–42.47–48.53–60.69–76.87–90.97–98.111– 112 (s. X/XI vel s. Xex; palimpsested „missale“ with neumes); Montecassino, Archivio dell’Abbazia, cod. 271, p. 17–18.23–26.31–32 (s. X/XI vel s. Xex; palimpsested „missale“; see Virginia Brown, Early Evidence for the Beneventan Missal. Palimpsest Texts (saec. X–XI) in Montecassino 271, in: MS 60. 1998, 239–306); Paris, BNF, lat. 6894, fol. A, B (s. X; „missale“; Lowe, The Beneventan Script 2,114); Roma, Bibl. Vallicelliana, C 45, fol. 2.4–5.11–20.22.25–27.29–48.50–55.57–58.63–64 (s. X; palimpsested „missale“; Brown, Second New List (II) 613). The single pre-11th-century „sacramentary“ written in Beneventan script is: Split, Riznica Katedrale, Kaptolski Arhiv D 624, fol. 211.214 (s. IXin; „sacramentarium“; the remainder of the manuscript is copied in a twelfth- century Caroline minuscule). For this manuscript see Roger E. Reynolds, Sacramentarium Spala- tense, in: Tesori della Croazia restaurati da Venetian Heritage INC. Catalogo della Mostra (Venezia, Chiesa di San Barnaba, 9 giugno – 4 novembre 2001). Venezia 2001, 164–165 n. 66. For up-to- date bibliography regarding all manuscripts written in Beneventan script, see the indispensable Bib- liografia dei manoscritti in scrittura beneventana, searchable online at http://edu.let.unicas.it/bmb/. 54 The latest extant mass book fragments in Beneventan script currently described are: Dubrovnik, Dominikanski samostan, Fr. 1 (s. XV); see Stjepan Krasić, Dominikanski samostan u Dubrovniku. Dubrovnik 2002; Virginia Brown also recorded the appearance of binding fragments from a fifteenth-century missal in Beneventan script in Molfetta, Archivio capitolare, s.n., but already noted in 1978: „fragments no longer visible; perhaps removed during restoration“; Virginia Brown, A Sec- ond New List of Beneventan Manuscripts (I), in: MS 40. 1978, 239–289, here 283. 55 This quantitative analysis confirms on a surer footing Klaus Gamber’s statement that the „Plenar- ALw 57 / p. 40 / 7.11.

40 Andrew J. M. Irving

And this despite Leo’s vehement disparagement and Desiderius’s initiative at Montecassino. Of the approximately nine or ten extant mass book manuscripts whose origin is securely or reasonably securely attributable to Montecassino itself only one complete codex, Montecassino, Archivio dell’Abbazia, cod. 339, which is datable to Desiderius’s abbacy and is almost certainly one of the two silver sacramentaries in Leo’s 1058–1071 treasure inventory, lacks readings and chant propers, and can therefore be properly called a sacramentary.56 This manuscript is certainly deluxe: the script is extraordinarily uniform and evenly spaced, the mise-en-page employs an exceptionally large ruling unit, the pages are adorned with frequent and finely articulated zoomorphic initials, and broad golden cartouches.57 Yet as magnificent an example of the Beneventan sacramentary as it is, Montecassino 339 does not seem to have represented a new Cassinese norm in any sense. Not only do no other Cassinese exemplars of a sacramentary survive, but in the very period in which Leo the librarian and scribe was compiling his Chronicle and qualifying the reading from the plenary missal as „inhonestum“, the Abbey itself had produced several missal-type manuscripts. At least two missals are attributable to Montecassino in the second half of the eleventh-century,58 two more can be dated to the last quarter of the same century,59 one of which, Borg. lat. 211 (anno 1094–1105), has been shown to have received corrections in Leo’s own hand, and, it has been argued, was among the books he took with him from Montecassino to Velletri when he was elected cardinal bishop of Ostia/Velletri.60 Although no mass books securely attributable to Montecassino antedate the eleventh-century, the pattern of a huge preference for the missal for-

missale“ was the dominant form at least as far as early medieval Southern Italy is concerned; see, inter alia: Klaus Gamber, Fragment eines mittelitalienischen Plenarmissale aus dem 8. Jahrhundert, in: EL 76. 1962, 335–341, here 335: „… es handelt sich dabei fast durchweg um Plenarmissalien“. Further quantitative analysis is required of central Italian manuscripts. 56 The complicated question of precisely how many missals are represented in the numerous mass book fragments at Montecassino has yet to be fully resolved; see Virginia Brown, A Second New List of Beneventan Manuscripts (V), in: MS 70. 2008, 275–355, here 345 n. 16. 57 For colour reproductions and detailed description of illuminations see I codici decorati dell’Archivio di Montecassino. 3: Tra Teobaldo e Desiderio. A cura di Giulia Orofino. Roma 2006, 7.11.20 n. 69; also Newton, Scriptorium (n. 2 above), pl. 15, palaeographical description: 332–333, identifica- tion of the manuscript with the inventory entry: 60–61.254–255. The manuscript was first identified with the entry in the treasure inventory by Herbert Bloch, Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages. 1–3. Cambridge, Mass. 1986, 1,73. 58 Montecassino, Archivio dell’Abbazia, cod. 426 and the fragments preserved in Montecassino, Ar- chivio dell’Abbazia, Compactio VI. For the latter, see Emanuela Elba, I messali „votivi“ in beneventana. Funzione, struttura, decorazione, in: Libri e testi. Lavori in corso a Cassino. Atti del Seminario internazionale. Cassino, 30–31 gennaio 2012. A cura di Roberta Casavecchia [e. a.]. Cassino 2013 (Studi e ricerche del Dipartimento di lettere e filosofia 7) 269–270, 290 fig. 7, 291 fig. 8, 292 fig. 9. 59 Montecassino, Archivio dell’Abbazia, cod. 21, p. 461–462 („s. XIex“; see Brown, Second New List (II) [n. 53 above] 623); Vaticano, BAV, Borg. lat. 211 („s. XIex“; Lowe, The Beneventan Script [n. 53 above] 2,163). 60 Hartmut Hoffmann, Der Kalender des Leo Marsicanus, in: DA 21. 1965, 82–194, here 94–95 (for the date of the manuscript); regarding Leo’s transportation of the manuscript to Velletri when he was elected cardinal bishop of Ostia/Velletri, see Pietro Fedele, L’Exultet di Velletri, in: MAH ALw 57 / p. 41 / 7.11.

On the Counting of Mass Books 41

mat over the sacramentary format in Beneventan mass books in general is clearly replicated in the Cassinese scriptorium, Leo’s remark notwithstanding. Attending to regional data does not answer all the questions, but it does perhaps help indicate what kinds of questions we should be asking. The Beneventan dataset leaves us with a series of conundrums. Why was the missal format of mass book preferred in Southern Italy from the tenth century (our earliest surviving mass book evidence in Beneventan script), and perhaps even earlier given the appearance in the Beneventan Zone of the palimpsested missal fragment in uncial script bound within Montecassino 271, and dated variously to the seventh or to the eighth century?61 What prompted Desiderius to change the house custom of Montecassino? What caused a normal practice – the use of the missal for mass lections – to be deemed disgraceful, at least for certain celebrations? Why was both Desiderius’s action, and Leo’s disparagement of such little effect? What relationship does this failed attempt to change ritual practice have to broader trends in mass book design and ritual use in Northern Italy and North of the Alps? One way to begin to address questions surrounding the preference of missals over sacramentaries at Montecassino is to compare codicological data from Bene- ventan, and, where possible, Cassinese, mass books. As we have noted, both the missal and the sacramentary are highly complex integrated collections of texts. The planning and execution required to produce a series of readily distinguishable prayers and chants (with or without neumes), to convert one book type into another, or, for that matter, to create a type of book with which the local scriptorium may be less familiar – these are all, in one sense, questions of design, skill, materials, and of the interplay between craft tradition and innovation in local scribal practice. The comparison of codicological data can afford us more profound in- sight into the implications of Desiderius’s directive, and might thereby provide a firmer basis on which to postulate the reasons for it. In the admittedly small set of Cassinese mass book manuscripts compared in Appendix II at least three details stand out. First, the extant sacramentaries are, without exception, copied on long-lines; the clear majority of missals, in contrast are written in two columns. Second, the proportions of the inner written space in

30. 1910, 313–320, here 313–315; Lowe, The Beneventan Script (n. 53 above) 1,73; Newton, Scriptorium (n. 2 above) 71–73 at pl. 41 (described 341). 61 The s. VII–VIII palimpsested fragments of a „missale“ (or „sacramentary“ + „lectionary“) in uncial script preserved in Montecassino 271 alongside the palimpsested fragments of two other missals copied in Beneventan script mentioned in n. 53 above appear at p. 49–50.63–66.79–86.91– 96.99–100.103–106.109–110.111–116.119–122.125–126.131–132.135–138.141– 142.145–146.159–160.161–162.271–272 of the manuscript. These folios were also copied „doubtless in Italy“ though it is not certain where (E. A. Lowe, Codices latini antiquiores. 3. Oxford 1938, 32 n. 376); the text is edited in Alban Dold, Vom Sakramentar, Comes und Capitulare zum Missale. Eine Studie über die Entstehungszeit der erstmals vollständig erschlossenen liturgischen Palim- psest-Texte in Unziale aus Codex 271 von Monte Cassino. Beuron 1943 (TAB 34); Dold argues for a date in the eighth century. The fragments were also studied by Antoine Chavasse, Les fragments palimpsests du Casinensis 271 (sigle Z6). À côté de l’Hadrianum et du Paduense, un collatéral, autre- ment remanié, in: ALw 25. 1983, 9–33; Chavasse supports the plausibility of Lowe’s date in the seventh century. ALw 57 / p. 42 / 7.11.

42 Andrew J. M. Irving

sacramentaries are notably less square than are the same proportions in missals; this seems to be directly related to the design of missals with two columns, for the two long-line missals have written space proportions that more closely approxi- mate those found in the sacramentaries. Third, the number of ruled lines for writing in sacramentaries is significantly lower than the number employed in missals. A more complete analysis would, of course, compare these findings to codicological data gleaned from larger sets of eleventh-century Cassinese and Beneventan manuscripts and indeed with mass book manuscripts produced elsewhere. One might note, for instance, that the height of the written space of the two-column missals is relatively short when compared with other eleventh-century Cassinese manuscripts with two columns and having similarly sized ruling units; the missals share this characteristic with the two-column gospel books produced at Montecas- sino in the same period.62 More in-depth study might yield further production parallels, yet even this brief comparison reveals, however, that the choice to make a missal or a sacramentary was not simply a matter of putting different texts on a book of identical design: the missal texts were not merely to be poured into an existing mass book mould. The physical format and preparation of the book itself changed in subtle ways in response to the different content. A second way to approach the questions we have outlined is to compare the texts of extant Cassinese and Beneventan sacramentaries and missals, to see if either type tends to be associated with particular local or regional textual tradi- tions. Much like the codicological analysis of the manuscripts, this task is made more difficult by the scarcity of extant Beneventan sacramentaries: only one complete manuscript survives, Montecassino 339. A preliminary comparison between this manuscript and palimpsested fragments of late tenth or early eleventh-century missal in Montecassino 271, and with the late eleventh-century Cassinese missal, Montecassino 127, does furnish some promising data however. A comparison of the surviving Lenten mass propers from the early palimpsested missal folios with the two Cassinese manuscripts reveals that in every instance where there is a dis- crepancy in text, the eleventh-century Cassinese sacramentary and the Cassinese missal, irrespective of their different format, agree against the late-tenth-century manuscript. In other words, it is not the case that the continued use of missal format in the late eleventh-century implies a preservation of older local liturgical variants. Montecassino 339 and 127, sacramentary and missal respectively, are in agreement. In one respect the sacramentary does stand alone, however. Of the three manuscripts, it is the only one to carefully note in the rubrics the Roman stational

62 Montecassino, Archivio dell’Abbazia, cod. 424 („s. XImed“; Lowe, The Beneventan Script [n. 53 above] 2,85) and Lucca, Archivio di Stato, busta 9, c. 263, n. 45 („s. XIex“; single folio; see Virginia Brown, A Second New List of Beneventan Manuscript Fragments (III), in: MS 56. 1994, 299–350, here 318). Newton argues that Montecassino 424 is to be identified as one of the silver-bound gospel books listed by Leo; see Newton, Scriptorium (n. 2 above) 54–55, pl. 3 (plate description 331–332). For a differing interpretation of the manuscript, see Andrew J. M. Irving, (Not) Identi- fying a Desiderian Evangelistary Fragment. BAV, Vat. lat. 10644, f. 28r–31v, in: Scriptorium 66. 2012, 109–155, here 131–144. ALw 57 / p. 43 / 7.11.

On the Counting of Mass Books 43

church of the day’s celebration. The inclusion of this information in the unique Cassinese sacramentary is suggestive, but its true significance could only be determined by a broader study of the inclusion or omission of stational details in rubrics throughout the Beneventan Zone and in Cassinese liturgical books in particular. The two avenues of research mentioned thus far, and the tenor of the paper as a whole have focused on material and textual data and its re-examination. We should not, however, forget the possibility of external influences on the liturgical practice of the Cassinese community. Pope Stephen IX’s express forbidding of the use of the local variety of liturgical chant at Montecassino in 1058 is well known to medieval musicologists and historians of liturgy. Stephen’s roots were in the north: as Frederick of Lorraine, he had been educated and served as archdeacon at Liège, before assisting the reform-minded Leo IX as chancellor (1051). Freder- ick had been first exposed to the local southern Italian chant repertory in 1055 when he accompanied Pope Leo to Benevento,63 and later, when he fled from Henry III to Montecassino, and later to Tremiti.64 In the same year, he was elected abbot of Montecassino under the watchful supervision of another northerner Car- dinal Humbert of Silva Candida, and only a matter of weeks later was elected supreme pontiff. In the course of a two-month stay at the Abbey (with „quite a troop of Romans“ as the Chronicler expresses it with a hint disgruntlement),65 Pope Stephen undertook his familiar themes of the need for reform, the amputa- tion of vice „arguendo, obsecrando, increpando nec non et districtissime intermi- nando“. Then, in scarcely more than ten words, Leo Marsicanus records that Ste- phen abolished the local chant tradition: „Tunc etiam et Ambrosianum cantum in ecclesia ista cantari penitus interdixit“.66 By the height of the abbacy of Desiderius, Frederick’s successor as abbot and the one responsible for implementing the pope’s decree, the Beneventan chant had all but disappeared from Montecassino. This liturgical revolution was imposed on the Cassinese community by a reform-minded northerner, though it was later embraced and brought to fruition by a local son of noble Lombard lineage, born at Benevento, and educated at the venerable abbey of Santa Sofia. The question may be asked then, whether the determination to read the mass lections from separate books, and to abandon the use of the missal in preference for the sacramentary had similar roots in northern reform-minded liturgical practice. If so, the initiative appears to have been far less successful than the extermination of Beneventan chant. Rather like the construction of the German style Westwerk at the west end of the old Abbey basilica by Montecassino’s first reform-minded abbot, the Bavarian Richerius of Nieder- altaich, which lasted scarcely more than fifteen years before being replaced by Desiderius’s palaeo-Christian style basilica, the foreign form does not appear to

63 Cf. Chronica monasterii casinensis 2,84 (MGH.SS [Scriptores in folio 5] 34,332–333). 64 Cf. ibid. 2,86 (MGH.SS [Scriptores in folio 5] 34,336). 65 Ibid. 2,94: „… cum non parva Romanorum manu“ (MGH.SS [Scriptores in folio 5] 34,353); Leo Marsicanus states that Stephen’s stay began on the feast of St Andrew (November 30), and ended on that of St Scholastica (February 10). 66 Ibid.: „… then he also utterly forbad the singing of Ambrosian [i. e., local Beneventan] chant in this church“. ALw 57 / p. 44 / 7.11.

44 Andrew J. M. Irving

have had a lasting effect on mass book production at the Abbey.67 Even in the sole example of a full Cassinese sacramentary that survives, Montecassino 339, almost certainly one of the very sacramentaries whose creation Leo praises, the script is resolutely Beneventan, and the illumination shows little of the Regensburg style that was later to influence and to be adapted by indigenous artistic motifs. Indeed, in some ways the introduction of the sacramentary format at the Abbey of Montecassino had more in common with Desiderius’s construction of the palaeo-Christian basilica: a deliberate evocation of an imagined, venerable, and authoritative past, that served less as foreign instrument of reform, than a bold and eloquent assertion at Montecassino of re-imagined antique forms, paralleled by Montecassino’s assiduous campaign to collect copies of the Church Fathers, and rare or unique classical and Byzantine texts.68 Perhaps the most lasting effect of the decision to abandon the use of the plenary missal was not the abandonment itself – for we have ample evidence that missals continued to be used at the Abbey as they always had been contrary to what we know about the practice elsewhere in Western Europe – but the effect on the mind of the Chronicler and librarian himself. The slightly awkward insertion of the unneeded explanation, the deployment of the word „inhonestum“ in the midst of an otherwise archival list of sacred treasure, suggests some need for explanation or assertion, even thirty years after Desiderius’s munificent donation. Lists are not always what they seem; they are, after all, acts of rhetoric, carefully marshalled and organized in larger accounts of history. I hope that this modest paper, prompted by Leo’s intemperate word, has helped us to listen and look more carefully for what is missing from the librarian’s list in our broader study of the transformation of the Latin manuscript mass book.

Appendix 1 The left column presents totals of sacramentaries (S) and missals (M) in Victor Leroquais’s Sacramentaires et missels dans les bibliothèques publiques de France. Paris 1924, according to Emmanuel Bourque, Étude sur les sacramentaires romains. Roma 1958, 504 n. 10. The right column presents recounted totals. 1. The Eleventh Century

Bourque Leroquais S M S M 1000–1049 14 5 s. X/XIe 1 – s. XIe 4 – s. XIe début 5 1

67 See Angelo Pantoni, Problemi archeologici casinesi. La basilica pre-Desideriana, in: RivAC 16. 1939, 271–288; Giovanni Carbonara, Iussu Desiderii. Montecassino e l’architettura Campano- abbruzzese nell’undicesimo secolo. Roma 1979 (Saggi di storia dell’architettura 2) 41–46. 68 See Newton, Scriptorium (n. 2 above) 325 and passim. ALw 57 / p. 45 / 7.11.

On the Counting of Mass Books 45

s. XIe 1re moitié 6 769 14 5 subtotal 16 8 1050–1099 7 17 s. XIe 2 7 s. XIe 2me moitié 1 970 7 17 subtotal 3 16 21 22 total 19 24 44.19% 55.81%

2. The Twelfth Century Note: Bourque’s number of „missels“ for the century is in fact the total number of manuscripts (S + M = 111).

Bourque Leroquais S M S M 1100–1199 41 111 s. XIIe début 4 9 s. XIIe 1re moitié 7 14 s. XIIe 6 371 subtotal 17 26 s. XIIe 2me moitié 12 1872 s. XIIe dernier quart 8 1173 s. XIIe fin 4 15 subtotal 24 44 41 111 total 41 70 36.94% 63.06%

69 Included in this tally is Paris, BNF, lat. 9436 (Saint-Denis, s. XI1) which Leroquais labels „missel“; the manuscript does not, however, contain readings. 70 This tally includes Nogent-sur-Marne, Bibliothèque Smith-Lesoüef, Ms. 3, which Leroquais labels „missel“. Leroquais notes that the manuscript is divided into two parts: 1) fol. 7–64 „gradual“ (neumed); 2) fol. 65–179 „sacramentaire“. The manuscript does not contain any readings. 71 This tally includes Lille, Bibl. mun., Ms. 24 (Saint-Pierre, Lille; s. XII and XIV), which Leroquais labels „missel“. He notes, however, that only fol. 1–18 contain complete formularies, and these comprise votive masses for the Blessed Virgin; otherwise the manuscript contains neither readings nor chant pieces. 72 This tally includes Paris, BNF, lat. 9437 (Prieuré de Foicy; s. XII2), which Leroquais labels a „missel“. He notes, however, that most of the formularies contain prayers only; chant pieces are indicated only by the incipits; formularies with readings and chant are „the exception“. Leroquais also counts Paris, BNF, lat. 12056 (Saint-Sépulcre, Jerusalem; s. XII2) a „missel“; he observes, however, that the formularies within the temporale and the sanctorale contain the prayers only; on fol. 9–63 gospels of the temporale and sanctorale, of votive and commons have been added in another contemporaneous hand. 73 This tally includes Dijon, Bibl. mun., ms. 114 (Cîteaux; s. XII 4/4) which Leroquais labels a „missel“; when describing the manuscript he writes, however, „le missel ou plus exactement ‚le sacramentaire‘“; Leroquais, Les sacramentaires et missels (n. 14 above) 1,353. ALw 57 / p. 46 / 7.11.

46 Andrew J. M. Irving

Appendix 2 Sigla of Beneventan Manuscripts BNC 31 Benevento, Bibl. Capitolare, 31 FRA 135 Frosinone, Archivio di Stato, inv. 135 (4) MCB 127 Montecassino, Archivio dell’Abbazia, cod. 127 MCB 271a Montecassino, Archivio dell’Abbazia, cod. 271 (palimpsest), p. 33–34.39– 42.47–48.53–60.69–76.87–90.97–98.111–112 MCB 339 Montecassino, Archivio dell’Abbazia, cod. 339 MCB 3006 Montecassino, Archivio dell’Abbazia, Compactio VI. Labelled „Plenarmissale I“ by Alban Dold, Umfangreiche Reste zweier Plenarmissalien des 11. und 12. Jhs. aus Monte Cassino, in: EL 53. 1939, 111–167. A fragment apparently from the same missal also appears in Montecassino, Archivio dell’Abbazia, cod. 370, pp. 1/16 and 305/320; see Brown, Second New List (II) (n. 53 above) 345 n. 16 and 347 MCB 3007 Montecassino, Archivio dell’Abbazia, Compactio VII and Compactio XXII. This is the plenary missal that Dold styled „Plenarmissale II“ (Dold, Umfangreiche Reste [see above]). Binding fragments of the same missal appear to be preserved in Montecassino, Archivio dell’Abbazia, cod. 336.338.362.370.387.389.407. 428: see Brown, Second New List (II) (n. 53 above) 345 n. 16 and 347–348. Brown notes the possibility that these fragments together with fragments in Mon- tecassino, Archivio dell’Abbazia, Compactio XXII may „come from more than one missal“. In a forthcoming article Richard Gyug identifies all but 2 of the 227 folios present in the two manuscripts as belonging to a single manuscript, produced outside Montecassino (possibly in the Abbruzzi) but adapted for use at the Abbey; see Richard Gyug, Reconstructing a Beneventan Missal. Montecassino, Ar- chivio dell’Abbazia Compactiones VII and XXII, in: Miscellanea Cassinese. I thank the author for sharing the proofs of the article. NOA 236 Norcia, Archivio storico comunale, Fondo notarile 236 NYM 8301 New York, Morgan Library, M. 830 A. Leaves of the same manuscript can be found at: Charlottesville, Marvin L. Colker Collection 286; Chicago, Newberry Library, MS 163; Leiden, Bibl. der Rijksuniversiteit, MS B.P.L. 2842; London/ Oslo, Schøyen Collection, MS 55; Oberlin, Oberlin College Allen Memorial Art Museum, Hymnology Collection, MS 58.19; Riverside, California Baptist College, Annie Gabriel Library, s.n.; Roma, Edward Ullman Collection, s.n.; Waco, Baylor University, Guy Crouch Music and Fine Arts Library, Jennings Collection, 2. SPS 2204 London/Oslo, Schøyen Collection, Ms. 2204 VBR 211 Vaticano, BAV, Borg. lat. 211 VRA 3 Veroli, Archivio Capitolare, s.n.

1. Sacramentaries in Beneventan Script VRA 3 MCB 339 SPS 2204 FRA 135 Date s. XI1 1058–1087 s. XIIin s. XII2 Origin uncertain Montecassino Bari Type prov. Alatri Dimensions 291x132 296x218 234x160 225xc.157 Demiperimeter 423 514 394 382 ALw 57 / p. 47 / 7.11.

On the Counting of Mass Books 47

Proportions b/h 0.454 0.736 0.684 0.698 Written space inner 220x106 220x125 210x95 151xc.100 Written space outer 220x145 Inner written space proportions b/h 0.482 0.568 0.452 0.662 No. of columns 1 1 1 1 No. of lines 22 18 21 17 Ruling unit 5.05 12.94 10.5 9.44 Neumes no no yes no Preservation 2 folios complete 3 bifolia fragm. of bifolium

2. Cassinese Missals I I ol. 211 f I/X X s. MC 205x135 340 0.659 150x80 150x90 0.533 1 101 No 27 5.77 VBR I I I/X ol. X f es .30 s. MC 248x178 426 0.718 207x109 207x122 0.527 1 1 c 7.14 Y NYM 8301 I I I/X ol. X f s. MC 365x270 635 0.740 313x213 0.681 2 27 12.04 No 9 MCB 3007 . 236 ex ol I X bif .267x MC 389x272 661 0.699 c 180 0.674 2 27 6.92 No 1 s. NOA . 127 ol f ex I X . MC 370x265 635 0.716 275x185 275x205 0.673 2 28 10.19 No 532 s MCB + 2 ol. I f X es . rag. MC 345x240 585 0.696 250x175 0.7 2 24 10.87 69 f Y s MCB 3006 1A I 27 7.54 – ol. f –28 X/X es .250x Naples? 270x190 460 0.704 c 196* 0.784 2 27 16 7.26 Y s. MCB . I 6.96 33 ol f –30 X/X es uncertain 330x235 565 0.712 265x195 0.736 2 29 139 6.72– Y s. BNC - - r s ime space space itten unit lines col- vation wr propo b/h per r of of er itten itten igin r r Or Dimension Demi ter Proportions b/h W inner W outer Inn space tions No. umns No. Prese Ruling Neumes Date ALw 57 / p. 48 / 7.11.

48 Andrew J. M. Irving

Über das Zählen von Büchern für die Messe – Zusammenfassung Ausgehend von einer Notiz in der Chronik von Montecassino aus dem späten 11. Jahrhun- dert, in der die frühere Praxis der Abtei abgewertet wird, die Messperikopen aus dem „missale plenarium“ vorzutragen, untersucht der Beitrag das Quellenmaterial zum Übergang vom Sakra- mentar zum Plenarmissale im langen 12. Jahrhundert. Eine sorgfältige Relecture von Victor Le- roquais’ Katalog der Sakramentare und Missalien in den öffentlichen Bibliotheken Frankreichs korrigiert einen allgemein verbreiteten Irrtum; die bisherigen Angaben, die dem Quellenbefund zu diesem Übergang entnommen wurden, werden analysiert und als mangelhaft befunden. Ein neuer methodischer Ansatz (zugleich ein neues Projekt) wird beschrieben, der die Frage quanti- tativ und unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Gestalt der Missalien angeht. Die Studie schließt mit einer Analyse süditalienischer Bücher für die Messe als Beispiel dafür, wie die Methode anzuwen- den ist, und versucht eine Deutung, was möglicherweise den Anlass zur Notiz in der Chronik von Montecassino gegeben hat.

Du comptage des livres liturgiques pour la messe – Résumé L’objectif de l’article est de reprendre à nouveaux frais les preuves de la transition entre le „sacramentaire“ et le „missel plénier“ durant le 12e siècle. Il prend comme point de départ une remarque de la Chronique du Mont Cassin de la fin du 11e siècle qui critique la pratique anté- rieure de l’abbaye qui consiste à lire des péricopes du Missel plénier. Une relecture attentive du catalogue de Victor Leroquais concernant les sacramentaires et les missels dans les bibliothèques publiques de France corrige une erreur citée habituellement. Bien plus, les causes déduites de cette „preuve“ de la transition entre sacramentaire et missel plénier sont analysées et jugées insuf- fisantes. L’auteur décrit une nouvelle approche (et un nouveau projet) qui aborde la question sous l’angle de la quantité et de la forme. L’article se conclut par une analyse des livres pour la messe de l’Italie méridionale comme un exemple de l’utilisation de cette approche, et suggère une motivation possible à la remarque de la chronique.

On the Counting of Mass Books – Summary Taking as its starting point a remark in the late-eleventh-century Chronicle of Montecassino disparaging the earlier practice of reading mass pericopes from the „missale plenarium“ at the Abbey, the article re-examines evidence for the transition from „sacramentary“ to „plenary missal“ in the long twelfth century. A careful re-reading of Victor Leroquais’s catalogue of sacramentaries and missals in French public libraries corrects a commonly cited error, and the received reasons adduced from this evidence for the transition are analysed and found wanting. A new approach (and project) is described which tackles the question quantitatively and from the point of view of design. The essay concludes with an analysis of Southern Italian mass book evidence as an example of the use of this approach, and proposes a possible motivation for the Chronicler’s remark.