Approaching the Communion Melodies

Approaching the Communion MelodiesAuthor(s): Brad MaianiSource: Journal of the American Musicological Society, Vol. 53, No. 2 (Summer, 2000), pp.209-290Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the American Musicological SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/832009 .

Accessed: 10/06/2014 22:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of California Press and American Musicological Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Musicological Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.110 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 22:10:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=amusoc

http://www.jstor.org/stable/832009?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Approaching the Communion Melodies BRAD MAIANI

The communion has long been known as an exceptional sort of plainchant. The biblical book of choice for other proper items of the Mass is decidedly the Psalter, but as Peter Wagner showed at the turn of

the last century psalmic communions are a comparative minority; over half the repertory derives from other textual sources.' Communion chant melodies (hereafter "communions") are also distinguished by melodic traits that set them apart. For reasons that are not entirely clear, they received frequent conflicts in modal assignment, with over one-quarter of the cycle characterized by discrepancies in modal classification (twice the proportion of any other Mass chant).2 Stylistically, communions have been described as the most eclectic genre of the Mass propers, ranging as they do from brief melodies indistinguishable from the simplest Office antiphon to pieces rival- ing ornate responsorial chants in scope, melismatic density, and virtuosity. These theoretical and stylistic inconsistencies give further weight to the no- tion of the communion as a chronologically stratified genre, as does their frequent appearance in books for the Office, where many serve a dual liturgical role as Great Responsories for Matins.3 "Communions," notes David Hiley, "... are highly inconsistent in style, and point in many different directions, musically and liturgically. The impression remains of a fragmented repertory,

This study is dedicated to the memory of James McKinnon. I also wish to thank Tobias Considine, Letitia Glozer, Elmar Juchem, and Georg Predota.

1. Peter Wagner, Introduction to the Gregorian Melodies, 2d ed., trans. Agnes Orme and E. G. P. Wyatt (London: Plainsong and Medieval Music Society, 1901), 103.

2. On modally unstable communions, see Urbanus Bomm, Der Wechsel der Modalitfitsbestim- mung in der Tradition der Messgesinge im IX. bis XIII. Jahrhundert (Einsiedeln, 1929; reprint, Hildesheim: Olms, 1975), 53-112; Michel Huglo, Les Tonaires: Inventaire, analyse, comparaison (Paris: Societd Franqaise de musicologie, 1971), 402-12; and Keith Allan Fleming, "The Editing of Some Communion Melodies in Medieval Chant Manuscripts" (Ph.D. diss., Catholic Univer- sity of America, 1979).

3. For a survey of the repertory of these "responsory-communions" see Brad Maiani, "The Responsory-Communions: Toward a Chronology of Selected Proper Chants" (Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1996), 1-38.

[ journal of the American Musicological Society 2000, vol. 53, no. 2] ? 2000 by the American Musicological Society. All rights reserved. 0003-0139/00/5302-0001$2.00



210 Journal of the American Musicological Society

the investigation of whose layers of material is one of the most intriguing tasks facing scholarship."4

This study is an attempt to expose three of those layers, through close melodic analysis in conjunction with recent discoveries about the communion's development as a discrete liturgical genre. I begin with an investigation of that larger group of psalmic chants related by their style, modality, form, and stability of transmission, which are referred to in what follows as the "core" communions (see Table 1). I will introduce their characteristics by way of the chant In salutari tuo, before turning to explore other communion melodies that share its salient features. In the second part I examine psalmic communions that differ from the core group in various ways, and interpret their differences as products of a late stylistic revision, concurrent with mid- eighth-century liturgical adjustments to the dates to which they are assigned. After forming a comparative base with these two layers of the psalmic repertory, we will be prepared to approach, in the third part, the responsory- communions. It is these particular items that are largely responsible for the notoriety of the genre, representing as they do a sizable portion of its nonpsalmic and modally unstable chants. Their dual liturgical function, in addition to their anomalous textual, theoretical, and melodic behavior, are inter- preted here as signs of their comparatively late introduction into the Roman plainchant repertory. They may well figure among the last items added to the cantus romanus before its mid-eighth-century export north to the Franks.

Core Communions of the Lenten Ferias and the Sundays after Pentecost

The majority of the psalmic communion melodies share a distinct set of characteristics--common, it should be said, to both the Roman and Gregorian dialects--and their modal assignments are for the most part invari- able. Melody types and recurrent formulas (the melodic traits that chant scholars tend to rely on in analyzing particular chant repertories) are by and large absent from these pieces, a circumstance that precludes comparative analysis based on pitch correspondence alone. They manifest, nonetheless, their own variety of musical consistency, specifically in their treatment of the musical space they inhabit and the manner in which the semantic and syntactic units of their texts relate to that space.5

4. David Hiley, Western Plainchant: A Handbook (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 120.

5. The lack of formulaicism and absence of type melodies is said to be characteristic of the Roman communion settings as well as the Gregorian: "The melodies of the Old Roman communions are unlike those of the introits, graduals, alleluias, tracts, second-mode responsories and office antiphons in that they are neither centonate nor consistently formulaic. It is only by reason of their final cadences that these melodies may be truly called formulaic" (Joseph Michael Murphy,



Approaching the Communion Melodies 211

Table 1 "Core" Psalmic Communions

Incipit Psalm Modal assignment

Ab occultis Ps. 18, 13.14 E; 4 Acceptabis Ps. 50, 21 E; 4 Cum invocarem Ps. 4, 2 D; 1, 2 Domine deus meus Ps. 7, 2 D; 2 Domine dominus noster Ps. 8, 2ab D; 2 Domine quis Ps. 14, 1.2a F; 6 Dominus regit me Ps. 22, 1.2 D; 2 Erubescant et conturbentur Ps. 6, 11 E; 1, 4 Gustate Ps. 33, 9 C; 3 In salutari tuo Ps. 118, 81.84.86 D; 1 Inclina Ps. 30, 3 4 Intellege Ps. 5, 3.3.4a F; 5 Iustus dominus Ps. 10, 7 F; 5 Memento Ps. 118, 49-50 E; 4 Qui meditabitur Ps. 1, 2b.3b E; 3 Quis dabit Ps. 13, 7 D, A; 5 Servite domino Ps. 2, 11.12 E; 5 Tollite Ps. 95, 8-9 F; 4 Tu domine Ps. 11, 8 F; 3 Vocem meam Ps. 4, 5.7 F; 6 Vovete Ps. 75, 12, 13 A; 2

Style. I begin with the simple observation that core communions may be cat- egorized by their movement through discrete divisions of a modal octave, specifically trichords, tetrachords, and pentachords.6 We see that each phrase of In salutari tuo (Ex. 1) moves through one of the three units indicated in the five-line key (specifically a pentachord and trichord built on the final, and a second pentachord built on the third above the final). This is typical of all core communions: they rarely employ more than three spatial units in the course of a single melody, and their phrases remain primarily within the limits of a fifth. Using range as a preliminary analytical tool, then, it may be said that these melodies are conservative in their treatment of musical space.

"The Communions of the Old Roman Chant" [Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1977], 488). Isolation of melody types and formulaic traits is based on comparative analysis, predicated on the categorization and interpretation of similarities in pitch dispersion. Its most successful applications can bring whole melodic families to light and make clearer the processes that inform entire liturgical genres. I find the most illuminating and original application of the comparative method to plainchant to be Edward Nowacki, "Studies on the Office Antiphons of the Old Roman Manuscripts" (Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 1980). See also Edward Nowacki, "The Syntactical Analysis of Plainchant," International Musicological Society: Report of the Twelfth Congress, Berkeley 1977, ed. Daniel Heartz and Bonnie Wade (Kassel: Birenreiter, 1981), 191- 201.

6. In the analyses that follow, each spatial unit may be ornamentally extended by step with upper and lower neighbors.



Example 1 In salutari tuo (Ps. 118, 81. 84. 86; twenty-first Sunday after Pentecost) mode D; 1

Mont. 159, 22 - - _ -

In sa- lu- tari tu- o a- nima me - a et i ver- bum tu-um spe - ra- vi.

Rome F22, i

f99v:]#,. 1 M

In sa- lu- tari tu- o a- ni- mam me - am et in verbo tu- o spe - ra - vi.

OP

Quan-do faci-es de per-se-quen-ti- bus me iu- di- ci- um? ,--I

Quan-do faci-es de per-se-quen-ti- bus me iu- di- ci- um?

(P)

In- i- qui per-se-cuti sunt me ad-iu-va me do - mi - ne de - us meus.

(Tncr) i s

In- i- qui per-se-cuti sunt me ad-iu-va me do - mi - ne de - us me - us.




In terms of surface texture and melodic contour, core communions articulate their spatial units in a consistent manner. They are primarily stepwise and always employ full- or half-arch forms. True recitational passages are nonexis- tent. Their surface texture is predominantly neumatic; purely syllabic textures are as rare as ornate melismatic sweeps. Though the Roman dialect is often rightfully described as more melismatically dense than the Gregorian, this comparison does not apply to core communions--both traditions treat surface texture in a similar fashion. Here again, In salutari tuo is representative.7

The core communions' spatial units align closely with their texts. Briefly stated, range units are distributed according to the sense units of a psalm, to articulate sense construction spatially at the level of sentence, phrase, and clause. In any genre of liturgical chant, the basic principle of the melodic phrase is the rhetorical structure of a delivered text. Because of the core communions' re- strained use of musical space, however, and their uniformity of texture and arched melodic contour, range units and sense construction interact in a manner that is distinct in its consistency, as both the Roman and Gregorian readings of In salutari tuo demonstrate. The first complete sentence (concluding with the verb "speravi") consists of two sense units; the Roman version sets the first with an arch through a pentachord, while the Gregorian gives a more circumscribed gesture through a trichord (elaborated with G as a brief upper neighbor). Both dialects set the second sense unit to an incomplete pentachordal arch following the conjunction "et," with the descent forestalled on F ("spe-ra-vi"). The central, simple sentence is spatially distinguished by the renegotiation of this same pentachord, here by a descending half-arch form. Similarly, the closing line's two sense units are each made distinct by range. The first ("iniqui persecuti sunt me") travels through a pentachord built on the third above the final (P3), while the second sets the same spatial division built on the final itself (P). In the Roman setting, the trichord on the final is briefly heard at the beginning of this line; similarly, both dialects travel through an entire pentachord on the closing two words. Other than in these introductory and cadential gestures, the melody of In salutari tuo is designed spatially according to the sense of its text.

The treatment of musical space and sense construction seen in In salutari tuo is typical of core communions, for which the following generalizations apply. Each simple sentence of a core communion negotiates a single spatial unit that rarely exceeds the range of a pentachord.8 For complex or compound

7. An exception is lustus dominus (transcribed and reviewed below), in which both dialects preserve a prominent melisma on the final syllable of the second phrase ("di-lex-it").

8. This observation is applied differently in the Gregorian and Roman dialects. In the former, the complete negotiation of a range unit is most often distributed evenly over the sense unit to which it is applied in a single arched gesture. Parallel Roman settings may travel through a range unit several times in multiple arches; still, each sense unit is governed by a single unit of musical space, regardless of the number of times it is traversed.




sentences, the same unit of range may be used in both clauses (as in the first line of the Roman setting of Ex. 1), or the second may be set with another spatial module (as in the Gregorian reading of the same line). In either case, range exploits sense construction: musical space functions primarily to differ- entiate complete sense units from one another. Exceptions to this tendency function as a device of initiation or termination (as in the final line of In salutari tuo), instead of an internal melismatic embellishment typical of ornate responsorial chants. They occur most often in final phrases and never accom- pany more than two words of text. The brief articulation of a spatial unit above or below that in which the majority of a phrase travels serves to decorate the initiation or conclusion of a sense unit, without diminishing the precedence of a governing trichord, tetrachord, or pentachord.

Modality. Core communions accentuate particular tones of the modal octave in which they move. This allows for a second set of analytical observations concerning the core melodies' points of melodic attraction, treatment of leaps, and approach to period construction, and the predominant modal stability that results.9

As noted above, the first-mode In salutari tuo moves through three spatial units, each articulated by stepwise arch forms of a neumatic surface texture. Due to their role in articulating sense construction, and the arch forms by which they are traversed, these units' lower boundary tones are heard as points of special melodic focus in comparison with other available pitches. It will be noticed that the three range units of In salutari tuo are all based on the final and its upper third. A similar observation applies to most core psalmic communions, regardless of modal class. Their range units are based on the final, reciting tone, and their respective upper thirds (deuterus plagal chants form an exception to be discussed below).1'

The treatment of leaps in the core communions also gives prominence to these same pitches. Of thirteen leaps in the Gregorian setting of In salutari tuo, ten initiate from or terminate on those tones that ground a melody's

9. In what follows, the term "mode" refers only to its function as a set of defining characteristics for judging degrees of melodic similarity. These can range from the near-complete invariance of a melody type to chants related only by their particular scale segment, ambitus, and concluding pitch. I seek to explain why certain pitches predominate within particular octave species, and by what means they are brought to the foreground. "Mode" also implies, of course, the intervallic makeup of abstract scale segments, the reconciliation of those segments with the Boethian Greater and Lesser Perfect Systems, and the portions of those systems that act as "affinities." The term, in other words, also refers to the methods by which medieval theorists attempted to codify the total spatial universe in which plainchant moves. See Harold S. Powers, "Mode," in The New Grove Dictionary ofMusic and Musicians 12:376-91.

10. Tetrardus psalmic communions are also exceptions to be discussed below; as we shall see, all but three are characterized by modal instability, and all ten differ with the core group on stylistic and formal grounds.




spatial activity." Exceptions serve an embellishing function similar to that provided by range at the concluding line of In salutari tuo. The interval of a third surrounding the final or reciting tone is also used for leaps, but only under specific textual circumstances. This usually involves a technique of phrase termination, whereby cadential approach is signaled by an "encircling third" applied to a sense unit's ultimate, penultimate, or antepenultimate word. The Gregorian setting of In salutari tuo provides four examples, three of which function to announce impending closure melodically ("tu-o a-nima mea," "persequenti-bus me judicium," and "Domi-ne deus meus") with a fourth that sets up the second phrase's drive upward to the reciting tone ("ver-bum tuum"). (These appear as white notes in the transcriptions and are parenthesized in the key to Example 1.)12 Here, as in all core communions, encircling thirds operate as a melodic dissonance that articulates the conclusion (or, less often, the initiation) of an independent sense unit of text.

Finally, a related observation describes the role played by modality in the construction of musical periods. Most often, a period sets two sense units, which together form a complex or compound sentence. In the majority of cases, these larger rhetorical structures are set so as to initiate and terminate on the same tones made prominent by spatial activity and leap treatment. All three complete sentences of In salutari tuo begin and conclude on the final, the third above, or the reciting tone (presented as open note-heads in the key). There are, of course, exceptions to this tendency; internal passages sometimes initiate or conclude on the subfinal as well. But it may be said that compound or complex rhetorical units are normally framed by those same pitches that inform a melody's partitioning of musical space and its leap activity.13

These procedures result in melodies whose "tonality" is unambiguous and centralized, well suited for the neat categorization and abstract speculation so beloved by Carolingian theorists. The consequence is a body of chants whose theoretical tradition is highly stable--the core communions' modal assignments are fixed from the earliest tonaries investigated by Michel Huglo to the graduals and treatises of the eleventh century and beyond (with three relatively insignificant exceptions to be discussed below).

11. Twenty of twenty-two leaps in the Roman setting emphasize these same pitches. As far as I can determine, leap placement is not tied to the text in any systematic way: leaps may occur anywhere within a phrase with no binding rules of accentuation, initiation, or termination.

12. I find no consistent accentual regulations governing the use of this device. 13. Two elements germane to the Roman dialect require qualification here. Roman cadences

that conclude with a podatus whose lower tone is one of the prominent pitches mentioned above are not counted as exceptions (see the end of the first phrase of Intellege). Elided cadences in the Roman settings (where a pitch representing the lower boundary tone of a range unit is forestalled by step until the initiation of the subsequent phrase) are also ignored (see the close of the first phrase of Dominus regit). See Bruno Stdiblein and Margareta Landwehr-Melnicki, Die Gesinge des altrdmischen Graduale Vat. lat. 5319, Monumenta monodica medii aevi 2 (Kassel: Barenreiter, 1970), 37.




Formulaicism and structure. Taken together, the above considerations lead to observations on the core psalmic communions' structure and use of formulaicism. Other than brief cadential gestures (like those closing the three Gregorian periods of In salutari tuo), there is little evidence of "standard" melodic material that would accord with Paulo Ferretti's theory of centonization.'4 Core communions of a given mode are all related in their accentuation of the predominant tones just described, but the manner in which those tones are brought to the fore to construct musical phrases and periods cannot be reduced to any meaningful melodic subgroups that would suggest any one as a reworking of, or a model for, another.

This lack of formulaicism has structural consequences, of course. One can contrast the core communions' approach to formal construction with the closed forms typical of other, more formulaic genres. One is the true "type- melody," in which a given number of standard phrases are applied to multiple texts, regardless of their length. Here, internal expansion can involve simple recitation to accommodate longer texts, or the insertion of unique material between predetermined melodic procedures. In either event, the main formal outline rests on the material shared by other melodies of the type. A second closed form is related to psalmody, in which multiple periods are constructed to approximate psalmodic recitation procedures germane to a given mode, with a resulting antecedent-consequent structure. Finally, a third type (related to the first) repeats a large-scale cadential gesture, a complete phrase, or both, to result in a form that is closed through literal or partial restatement.

In each case, melodic repetition produces formal results that are comparatively independent of textual constraints. Because repeated gestures are in some sense applied to a text, purely melodic considerations take priority over that text. In the core communions, on the other hand, there are no type melodies, nor does the antecedent-consequent construction typical of psalmody play any formal role. While brief stylized cadential figures are often found, these figures-because of their brevity-provide no structural consequences; they are essentially anonymous events proper to a modal class that are often routine in other liturgical genres as well. Because it is the specific demands of the text being declaimed that govern nearly every level of musical delivery in the core communions, form is fundamentally open, and unique to each indi- vidual melody. The structure of each core communion melody is determined by, or rather a product of, the unique sense construction of its particular text.

Stability of transmission. Finally, the written tradition of the core psalmic communion repertory is highly stable. Example 2 compares the Montpellier

14. See Paulo Ferretti, Esteticagregoriana (Rome: Pontificio istituto di musica sacra, 1934), 114-30; on the basis of their lack of formulaicism Ferretti called the communions "melodie origi- nali" (p. 96). Ferretti's centonization theory, and its application in subsequent secondary studies, has been the subject of severe criticism; see Leo Treitler, " 'Centonate' Chant: Ubles Flickwerk or Epluribus unus? " this Journal 28 (1975): 1-23.



Example 2 In salutari tuo (Ps. 118, 81. 84. 86; twenty-first Sunday after Pentecost) mode D; 1

Mont.

22 -

ri 1 i In sa- lu- tari tu- o a- nima me - a et in ver- bum tu-um spe - ra - vi. Quan-do faci-es de

Graz 8071V f 161

. . , - , ' , "

Ben. 34,V f. 263 MA -

Paris 903, 258

mN

Ch. 47, - ,

/ 99

In sa- lu- tari tu- o a- nima me - a et in ver- bum tu-um spe - ra - vi. I Quan-do faci-es de

Ein. 121, / / / / / / / g o/o/ /

Rome C . F22'f. :. .- IV.- -iV,

In sa- lu- tari tu- o a- ni- mam me - am et in verbo tu- o spe - ra - vi. Quan-do faci-es de Rome C 5319,

m f 123t

-

N

mm

A

m -

, I V M MiMmra mm,

tAfter Stiblein and Landwehr-Melnicki 1970, 418



Example 2 continued

Mont. 159,

22..... per-se-quen-ti- bus me iu- di- ci- um? In- i- qui per-se-cuti sunt me ad-iu-va me

Graz 807 - m

[ = f 161

Ben. 34, f 263 --R

Paris 903,258

[

Ch. 47, m

m 99 per-se-quen-ti- bus me iu- di- ci- um? I In- i- qui per-se-cuti sunt me I ad-iu-va me

Ein. 121, I. / / P 339

Rome

55

per-se-quen-ti- bus me iu- di- ci- um? In- i- qui per-se-cuti sunt me ad-iu-va me

Rome A I 5319, - I I .. *. f 123 % I i



Example 2 continued

Mont.

159,I 22+

domi- ne deus meus.

Graz 807,0 f. 161

F; 7_ I-,, Ben. 34, f 263

Paris 903,258

Ch. 47, 99

domi- ne deus meus.

Ein. 21, / 1 339

Rome F22, f 55

domi- ne deus meus. Rome

f. 123 I M

I-~i~p- I-I=




159 setting of In salutari tuo with three additional heighted Gregorian sources and neumes from the manuscripts Einsiedeln 121 and Chartres 47.15 Variants exist, but none alters the shape of the tune in any significant way, nor do any of them detract from the immediate impression that each reading is essentially an attempt to duplicate a model. They are of the variant types described by David Hughes as "trivial," such as the semitone pair E-F on "anima" in Montpellier 159 and Benevento 34 (which is subsumed under a unison in the other diastematic readings); the redistribution of pitches in Graz 807 at "salutari," and on "tuum" and "facies" in Paris 903 and the Beneventan manuscript; the lack of an ornamental neume on "sunt" in these same two sources; and the filling in of a third on "iudicium" that is missing in Graz.16 This latter book also presents a third on this same word's closing syllable where the other sources cadence with a second (see also the word "mea" in the initial phrase). These are minor differences of surface detail and not of substance, and none produces the effect Hughes attributes to a "substantive" variant, which "creates a perceptibly new version of a melody." The Roman melodic dialect, though transmitted orally for centuries after the earliest notated Gregorian sources, preserves the core communions in a comparably stable written form. As Joseph Murphy's transcriptions show, variants in the Roman tradition are frequently of the same "trivial" nature as those in the Gregorian, suggesting that the Roman core communions were largely stabi- lized by the time of their writing as well.17

Stability of transmission is also apparent when one compares Roman and Gregorian settings of the core communions with one another. There is no disagreement among scholars that the two melodic dialects are products of a common fund. The extent of their correspondence can and does vary, however, on a chant-by-chant basis. For certain melodies the two traditions are in remarkably close agreement; others betray a more distant relationship, and still others show little or no melodic association. Where the dialects diverge, it would appear that one tradition-or more likely both-was codified in ways that may say as much about regional stylistic preference as the common source from which both evolved. Why it is that the two (obviously related) dialects should show close agreement for some melodies, while other chants of the same genre do not, is a question of great interest and import.

15. The following manuscript abbreviations will be used throughout the course of this study: Mont. 159 (Montpellier, Bibliotheque de l'Ecole de M&dicine, MS H159), Graz 807 (Graz, Universitditsbibliothek, MS 807), Ben. 34 (Benevento, Biblioteca Capitolare VI, MS 34), Paris 903 (Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, fonds latin, MS 903), Ch. 47 (Chartres, Bibliotheque Muni- cipale, MS 47), Ein. 121 (Einsiedeln, Stiftsbibliothek, MS 121), Rome F22 (Vatican City, Biblio- teca Apostolica Vaticana, Archivio di San Pietro, MS F. 22), Rome 5319 (Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Archivio di San Pietro, MS lat. 5319), and Bodmer 74 (Cologny-Geneve, Biblioteca Bodmeriana, MS 74).

16. David G. Hughes, "Evidence for the Traditional View of the Transmission of Gregorian Chant," this Journal 40 (1987): 377-404.

17. Murphy, "The Communions," 520-1075.




I find the core communion settings within these two dialects to be closely related, as measured by the following indices: (1) agreement in final; (2) similar placement and density of neumatic passages; (3) similarity of melodic contour on a phrase-by-phrase basis; and (4) use of the same range unit in setting parallel units of text.'8 That both dialects share the stylistic, modal, and formal procedures described above further demonstrates their correspondence. I interpret this close relationship between the two melodic traditions as indicative of the antiquity of the core communion chants, and as evidence that they are preserved in written forms close to the source from which both spring.

A final measure of stability of transmission involves modal assignments. As there is no evidence of theoretical speculation (or any systematic attempt at melodic classification) known to have existed in Rome before the thirteenth century, modal stability is technically applicable only to comparative studies of the Gregorian dialect.19 However, modally stable core communions are, for the most part, those same chants whose Roman and Gregorian readings prove to be close melodic proximates when measured by the similarity indices just described. Conversely, we will presently examine melodies with unstable modal classifications to which our comparative criteria do not so readily apply. Modal stability is here viewed as a broad indicator of a stable transmission process, of which In salutari tuo is again representative.

To clarify the manner in which the above observations apply to other core communions, it may be helpful to collapse them into analytical modules. Example 3 provides such an attempt for protus chants. Open note-heads represent those focal tones emphasized by leap treatment and period construction. Stems and beams connecting these pitches highlight the spatial units germane to protus melodies (each is labeled in the upper left corner according to the unit of musical space it comprises). Range units not based on the final are marked numerically by their lower boundary tone (Tr3 = a trichord built on the third above the final). Black notes represent upper boundary tones that do not serve as pitches of period initiation or termination. Finally, black notes in parentheses represent encircling thirds that begin or end independent sense

18. Not all core communions follow each of these similarity indices: we will examine a melody below (Tu domine) in which the two traditions differ in significant ways. In spite of their differences, both the Roman and Gregorian dialects adhere to the stylistic, modal, and formal characteristics discussed above.

19. On the tonary secundum usum curiae romanae see Huglo, Les Tonaires, 225-31. The implications of the lack of an early Roman theoretical tradition have been discussed by Helmut Hucke, who argues that the dependence of the Gregorian dialect on the Carolingian system of the eight psalm tones is evidence for the "standard" transmission having taken its existing form outside of Rome. See Helmut Hucke, "Karolingische Renaissance und Gregorianischer Gesang," Die Musikforschung 28 (1975): 12. See also Pierre Riche, "Le Renouveau culturel ' la cour de Pepin III," Francia 2 (1974): 59-70; and Hucke, "Die Herkunft der Kirchentonarten und die friinkische Uberlieferung des Gregorianischen Gesangs," in Bericht iiber den Internationalen Musikwissenschaftlichen Kongress, Berlin 1974, ed. Peter Nitsche (Kassel: Birenreiter, 1980), 257-60.



Example 3 Protus modules and analyses

authenfic: . _. plagal: A. . . . . i . . li f

1

. . .. ... iI

PROTUS:

Cum invocarem (Ps. 4; Tuesday in Lent I) mode D; 1, 2 P P P P P (TB) Tr Cum invocarem te exaudisti me deus justitiae meae I in tribulatione dilatasti me I miserere mihi domine et exaudi orationem meam. P P P P P

Domine deus meus (Ps. 7; Saturday in Lent I) mode D; 2 Trt Tr Tr3 Tr (TB) (TB) Tr Domine deus meus in te speravi I libera me ab omnibus persequentibus me et eripe me. Tr Tr P Tr Tr

Domine dominus (Ps. 8; Monday in Lent II) mode D; 2 [universa drops to b] Tr P (TB) Tr* Domine dominus noster quam admirabile est nomen tuum in universa terra. Tr P (TB) Tr

Dominus regit me (Ps. 22; Saturday in Lent IV) mode D; 2 P Tr Tr P (TrB) Dominus regit me et nihil mihi deerit I in loco pascuae ibi collocavittt I super aquam refectionis educavit me. P P Tr P



Example 3 continued

In salutari tuo (Ps. 118; 21st Sunday after Pentecost) mode D; 1 Tr P P In salutari tuo animam meam et in verbo tuo speravi I quando facies de persequentibus me iudicium? P P P

P3 P (P) iniqui persecuti sunt me I adiuva me domine deus meus. (Tr) P3 P (P)

Vovete (Ps. 75; 17th Sunday after Pentecost) mode A; 2 Tr Tr Vovete et reddite domino deo vestro I omnes qui in circuitu eius affertis munera I P Tr

P Tr (TB) Tr terribili et ei qui aufert spiritum principum I terribili apud omnes reges terrae. P Tr (TrB) [ ]Tr

Exceptions: Cantabo (Ps. 12; 2d Sunday after Pentecost) mode A; 2 Domine(nus) firmamentum (Ps. 17; Monday in Lent V; 4th Sunday after Pentecost) mode D; 2 Laetabimur (Ps. 19; Tuesday in Lent IV) mode D; 2 Narrabo (Ps. 9; Tuesday in Lent II; 1st Sunday after Pentecost) modes D, A; 2

t5319 descends to b on the word "deus"; the other Roman MSS do not go below c and thus remain within the boundaries of a trichord. ttMicrotonal descent in Mont. 159 on collocavit not in Triplex sources.




units (these appear as white notes in the transcriptions and are italicized in the shorthand analyses below).20 An additional terminative embellishment unique to three protus plagal chants is also placed in parentheses, consisting of a trichord below the final.

Example 4 gives Gregorian and Roman readings for the second-mode Dominus regit me which, like In salutari tuo, demonstrates our analytical tendencies within a protus environment.21 The readings of both dialects are composed of a neumatic surface texture. All phrases articulate stepwise arch forms, which travel primarily through two spatial units distributed according to sense construction. The opening line is governed by a full pentachordal arch, with the descent setting the second sense unit following the conjunction "et." Phrases two and three also consist of two sense units, and in each the preposi- tional phrase is spatially differentiated from the main clause either by the renegotiation of the same range unit (second line of the Gregorian reading) or by a shift from pentachord to trichord. Each period's points of departure and cadence are the lower boundary pitches of the spatial units (with the exception of the Gregorian initiation of the phrase "in loco pascuae" on the subfinal). These same tones are further reinforced by their function as launch- or goal- tones for leap activity; exceptions are all encircling thirds, which signal either the initiation of a line of text (do-mi-nus; a-quam) or impending closure (e- du-ca-vit). Range serves a similar purpose: in the Gregorian reading, final cadential approach is announced by a brief descent into the trichord below the final on the penultimate syllable of the concluding word. Finally, the two dialects preserve readings that are quite similar in all details. There are minor discrepancies in surface texture; the Roman presents a more florid reading at "a-quam re-fec-ti-o-nis," whereas the Gregorian is more ornate at the close of the third phrase. Generally speaking, however, the two dialects agree in neumatic placement and density, and share details of melodic contour and range.

Shorthand analyses of the remaining core protus communions appear below the analytical modules (Ex. 3), where it may be seen that the traits demonstrated by In salutari tuo and Dominus regit apply to only six of the ten chants assigned to this maneria (protus communions at odds with the core chants are listed at the end). We will return to these chants after exploring other psalmic communions akin to In salutari tuo and Dominus regit.

For reasons that will presently be made clear, it is best to move on to tritus melodies before turning to third- and fourth-mode items (see Ex. 5). Stylisti- cally, lustus dominus is in most respects similar to the protus examples just reviewed. Arch forms predominate, and the three spatial units through which this melody moves are distributed in strict accordance with sense construction. All four phrases remain for the most part within the range of a fifth or less,

20. For clarity of presentation, these italicized syllables reflect only the Gregorian use of encircling thirds, in the present example and in those that follow.

21. The five-line key of this example shows only elements proper to this chant: the analytical modules in Example 3 apply to all protus core communions.



Example 4 Dominus regit me (Ps. 22, 1. 2; Saturday Lent IV) mode D; 2

Mont. 159,34 9 -

Do-mi-nus regit me et nihil mihi de- e- rit.

Do-mi-nus regit me et nihil mihi de- e- rit. 3 .

In o-mi-nu co pas re- g me et ni- hi mihi delo - cae-it. I l -E - 11 , /mr" t I

In loco pas- cu- e i- bi me col- lo- ca - vit.

In loco pas- cu- e i- hi me col- lo- ca- vit.

. (TrB)

Su - per a - quam re - fec- i- - nis e- du- ca - me.

Super a- quam re- fec - nis e- du-ca- vit me.

Su - per a - quam re - fec - ti - o- nis e- du- ca - vit me.



Example 5 lustus dominus (Ps. 10, 7; Wednesday in Lent II) mode F; 5

Tr3 PP3 Mont. M 159,63,""

j -- I J

lus - tus do - minus et iusti- ti - am di - lex - it

Rome * I m

f.27 - "* i.. ..MA

lus - tus do - minus et iusti- ti - am di - lex - it

P (P)

E - qui - ta - tem vi - dit vul - tus e - ius.

@ (P)

E- qui- ta- tem vidit vultus e- ius.




though the pentachord at phrase two is extended by upper and lower neighbors in the Roman reading. In terms of surface texture, lustus dominus is more dense than the protus melodies just reviewed: the prominent melisma on "di-lex-it" is especially notable in this regard, as is the final phrase. Both dialects share this more ornate texture, however; only the closing syllable of phrase three preserves an instance where one reading (the Roman) is significantly more florid than the other. Also of note, this same phrase opens on G in the Roman and thus initiates a period on a tone other than the final, reciting note or their respective upper thirds. The first period is framed by reciting tone and final in both dialects, however, and both versions close on F: thus in no way is the prevailing tonal focus challenged by the Roman reading's initiation of phrase three. These same focal tones are further emphasized by leap treatment, with the typical exception of an encircling third at the close of the Roman reading's second phrase (and in both dialects at "vul-tus"). The two settings are particularly close in terms of melodic contour, and share our remaining similarity indices as well. As Example 6 shows, these characteristics also apply to the remaining tritus psalmic communions.22

The stylistic, modal, and formal tendencies I have outlined remain in play even when the two dialects preserve versions of a melody that are more fundamentally at odds. Example 7 demonstrates this with the Gregorian and Roman settings of Tu domine. As suggested by the final cadence on "in eternum," the Gregorian version is assigned to the third mode. This melody is typical of other authentic deuterus core communions in its movement through two alternating tetrachords built on the final and its upper third, with a concluding cadence emphasizing a trichord. The Roman reading cadences on F, however, and is similar to the conclusion of lustus dominus. Its tritus character is confirmed in the Bodmer 74 and Rome 5319 sources by a fifth-mode differentia. The entire Roman setting, particularly the triadic initiation of the second line, can be heard as a succession of pentachordal and trichordal phrases typical of tritus melodies. Turning away from intonational and cadential gestures, however, one finds similarities in melodic contour between the two readings: without knowing that Roman scribes heard F as the focal sonority for this piece, one could give the initial phrase a T3 analysis just like the Gregorian (the absence of B6 in Roman manuscripts makes this alternative even more possible, though the frequent proximity of F makes it likely that B was sung flat throughout to avoid a tritone). A spatial analysis for Tu domine, unlike the above melodies, is thus subject to interpretive judgments about

22. Unlike core protus communions (whose periods consistently begin and conclude on the final, reciting tone, their upper thirds, or the subfinal), all tritus core chants contain a period that conflicts with this general tendency (as seen in the Roman reading of Iustus dominus, phrase three). It is notable, however, that each of these melodies contains only one such "infraction." All remaining periods are framed by the same tones that ground their selected range units and are emphasized by leap treatment. Otherwise, tritus core communions are of a piece with the protus chants just reviewed.



Example 6 Tritus modules and analyses

authentic: OTO plagal:

.

L( " '"?P3 TR p TB TRITUS:

Domine quis (Ps. 14; Tuesday in Lent III) mode F; 6 [cui on b (Greg) and g (Rome)] (TB) P (Tr) TB (TB) P Domine quis habitavit in tabernaculo tuo aut quis requiescet in monte sancto tuo? (TrB) P (Tr) TrB P

P TB (Tr) gui ingreditur sine macula et operatur iustitia. P (TrB) TB (P)

Intellege (Ps. 5; Wednesday in Lent I) mode F; 5 [Intende = g] P P P (TrB) P Intellege clamorem meum I intende voci orationis meae rex meus et deus meus quoniam ad te orabo domine. P3 Tr3* P P



Example 6 continued

Iustus dominus (Ps. 10; Wednesday in Lent II) mode F; 5 Tr3 P3 P lustus dominus et iustitiam dilexit I equitatem vidit vultus eius. Tr3 P3 P

Quis dabit(Ps. 13; Monday in Lent III) mode F[A]; 5 [Israel? = d; laetabitur Israel = a] P3 P P TR (Tr3) P Quis dabit ex Sion salutare Israel? I dum avertit dominus captivitatem plebis suae exultavit lacob et laetabitur Israel. P3 P3 Tr3 P Tr3

Servite domino (Ps. 2; Friday after Ash Wednesday) mode F[E]; 5 [Servite (g); iuxta (e)] P P P3 P Servite domino in timore et exultate ei cum tremore I apprehendite disciplinam ne pereatis de via iuxta. P P (P3) P3 (P) P

Vocem meam (Ps. 3; Monday in Lent I) mode F; 6 [non = g] Tr P TB P Tr (TB) P Vocem meam ad dominum clamavi et exaudivit me de monte sancto suo I non timebo milia populi circumdantis me.

Tr Tr Tr (TB) P TB P



Example 7 Tu domine (Ps. 11, 8; Friday in Lent II) modes F; 3

g(T) Mont. ( 159, 45 Tu do - mi - ne ser- va- bis nos

Ronme m ,Mm F22, -- W-9,- . f. 23v

Tu do - mi - ne ser- va - bis nos

et cus- to- dies nos a ge- ne- ra- ti- o- ne hac

et cus- to- dies nos a ge- ne- ra- ti- o- ne hac

in e - ter - num.

[ (TrB) -PI!

in e- ter- num.




modal context that I may well have misunderstood. A similar misunderstand- ing might explain these varied settings: at some point in the transmission process, a scribe or cantor, "mis-hearing" the initial phrase, may have tailored subsequent portions of the melody to accord with his initial impression of the final.23

When and why this divergence between the two traditions occurred cannot be answered here. In spite of their obvious differences, both versions have much in common with the psalmic communions seen above. Lines two and three show a particularly clear example of musical space highlighting sense construction: though the two dialects employ different range units, both dis- tribute those units so as to highlight this particular psalmic text. The preposi- tional phrase "a generatione hac" is distinguished in the Roman setting by the renegotiation of a pentachord, marked in the Gregorian by a shift to a tetrachord on the final. The concluding adverbial phrase ("in eternum") is also made distinct by range. Both readings are neumatic in texture, all phrases are constructed in the arch forms typical of the core melodies seen above, and none is dependent on formulaic gestures. Though obviously different in melodic contour, both readings share similar approaches to style, modality, and form. Analyses of the remaining authentic deuterus core communions appear in Example 8, for which the Gregorian reading of Tu domine may stand as representative.24 (The Roman setting may be compared with other tritus chants appearing in Ex. 6.)25

As noted above, fourth-mode core communions require special comment. The plagal deuterus chants shown in Example 8 are essentially D-mode

23. There is nothing about the particular liturgy to which this chant is assigned that might explain the origin of these varied readings. Nor is there evidence of further instability within a single tradition that might suggest Tu domine as a perennially problematic chant along the lines of the Lenten gospel communions (see Huglo, Les Tonaires, 401; and James McKinnon, "The Eighth- Century Franco-Roman Communion Cycle," this Journal 45 [1992]: 201-11) or the notorious Passer invenit.

24. A related discrepancy between the Roman and Gregorian readings of a core psalmic communion is preserved in Gustate. Like Tu domine, the two dialects are stylistically similar in all respects, and present melodies that are absolutely typical of other core communions sharing their respective finals. The situation for Tollite is similar; though the Roman and Gregorian melodies differ in significant ways, they share internal elements, and both dialects follow the stylistic, modal, and formal norms of the core tradition.

25. Other tritus core communion melodies require comment. Servite domino closes on F in the Gregorian tradition and E in the Roman, yet it closely follows our remaining criteria for mea- suring similarity, and both settings adhere to the analytical tendencies described above. Quis dabit closes on A in the Roman tradition and F in the Gregorian, yet both dialects preserve closely related melodies that are typical of other tritus core communions. Roman and Gregorian settings of Intellege show more frequent conflicts in choice of spatial units, and the Roman second phrase is noticeably more ornate in surface texture than most other core melodies. Otherwise both settings are stylistically, modally, and formally typical of other core communions, and the two dialects present closely related settings as measured by the similarity indices described above.



Example 8 Deuterus modules and analyses

authentic:J plagal: Tr2 nO rAmsm ,[ ?Cy 0 ' Li

DEUTERUS:

Ab occultis (Ps. 18; Monday in Lent IV) mode E; 4 Tr (TrB) P P (TrR) P Ab occultis meis munda me domine et ab alienis parce servo tuo. Tr (TrB) P P (TrR) P

Acceptabis (Ps. 50; 10th Sunday after Pentecost) mode E; 4 (P) P Tr P (P) P

Acceptabis sacrificium iustitiae I oblationes et holocausta super altare tuum domine.

(Tr2) P P P (P) P

Erubescant et conturbentur (Ps. 6; Ember Friday in Lent) mode E; 4 [ 1] P Tr P Tr (P) Erubescant et conturbentur omnes inimici mei I avertantur retrorsum et erubescant valde velociter. Tr Tr P Tr (P)

Gustate (Ps. 33; 8th Sunday after Pentecost) modes C; [6th] (Roman), 3 (Gregorian) T3 (T3) T T T Gustate et videte quoniam suavis est dominus I beatus vir qui sperat in eo.

(TB) Tr Tr P (TrB) Tr



Example 8 continued

Memento (Ps. 118; 20th Sunday after Pentecost [Thursday in Lent V]) mode E; 4 P P Tr2 Tr Memento verbi tui servo tuo domine in quo mihi spem dedisti I haec me consolata est in humilitate mea. P P P P

Inclina (Ps. 30, 3; Seventh Sunday after Pentecost) mode 4 P T Inclina aurem tuam accelera ut eruas nos [not in Roman books]

Qui meditabitur (Ps. 1; Ash Wednesday) mode E; 3 [in tempore = drops to C] (T) T3 T T3 (T) T Qui meditabitur in lege domini die ac nocte dabit fructum suum in tempore suo. T3 T T3 (T) T *

Tollite (Ps. 95; 18th Sunday after Pentecost) modes F; [6] (Roman), 4 (Gregorian) Tr2 Tr Tr (TrB) Tr Tollite hostias et introite in atria eius I adorate dominum in aula sancta eius. Tr (TB) Tr P (TB) P

Tu domine (Ps. 11; Friday in Lent II) modes F; [5] (Roman), 3 (Gregorian) T3 (T) T3 T Tu domine servabis nos et custodies nos a generatione hac in aeternum. P P P

Exception:

Dominus virtutum (Ps. 23; Monday in Lent V [AMs source S]; Second Sunday in Lent [Roman Graduals]) mode E; 3




melodies, similar in most respects to In salutari tuo and Dominus regit.26 Acceptabis for the tenth Sunday after Pentecost is a typical case (see Ex. 9). Acceptabis moves exclusively through the same pentachordal and trichordal units typical of protus communions, but differs in its application of encircling thirds. Along with its more typical function as an intonational or cadential sign, Acceptabis concludes with this dissonance technique. This melody, then, and other fourth-mode psalmic communions, are technical exceptions to the modal norms described above: the spatial units through which they move are not based on the network of tones dependent on final and reciting notes that characterize protus, tritus, and deuterus authentic core communions. Aside from this (intentional?) inflection of a separate modal class, plagal deuterus communions follow our remaining stylistic and formal tendencies almost exclusively (exceptions are highlighted in the analyses given above in Ex. 8), and the two dialects again preserve settings that are closely related with respect to our similarity indices. Included in Example 8 is the modally unstable Eru- bescant et conturbentur, whose conflict of assignment may be related to the similarity of mode-four core communions to protus chants. All sources other than Regino of PrUim classify Erubescant as a fourth-mode melody on the basis of its concluding phrase, though like Acceptabis it imitates a protus environment until its final cadence. Regino, and most theoretical sources prior to the eleventh century, assigned communions according to their opening phrase, rather than using the later method of classification by final.27 His unique assignment of Erubescant to the first mode, then, could result from this analytical practice. We shall have occasion to return to Regino's tonary while examining melodies whose modal instability arises from other factors.

Exceptional Psalmic Communions for the Lenten Ferias and Post-Pentecost Sundays

Modal instability can signal more complex problems than that encountered with Erubescant et conturbentur, problems especially prevalent among psalmic communions assigned to modes seven and eight. Among the thirty-six Lenten and post-Pentecost melodies under discussion, there are ten items with tetrardus assignments. Only three of these are modally stable: seven are assigned to one or more additional modes, with four assigned to three or more separate

26. See Edmond de Coussemaker, Scriptorum de Musica MediiAevi (Paris, 1864-76; reprint, Hildesheim: Olms, 1987), 2:89-90.

27. See Martin Gerbert, Scriptores Ecclesiastici de Musica Sacra I (St. Blasien, 1784; reprint, Hildesheim: Olms, 1990), 231. Regino's admonition may have to do with performance practice. For communions, recitation of psalm verses was followed by a complete restatement of the antiphon, necessitating a smooth transition to the incipit, while responsory practice was to repeat only a portion of the respond's concluding section (see Willi Apel, Gregorian Chant [Blooming- ton: Indiana University Press, 1958], 173-74.



Example 9 Acceptabis(Ps. 50, 21; tenth Sunday after Pentecost) mode E; 4

(P) Mont. (P)

159,521

Ac-cep- ta- bis sa- cri- fi- ci- um iusti- ti- ae.

(Tr2)T Rome F22,tM(Tr2) ff. 67v*;

- - O-f *-

- =' --_ -

19

Ac-cep- ta- bis sa- cri- fi- ci- um iusti- ti- ae.

- -? Ob- la- ti- o - nes et ho- lo- caus - tas

[] o.. m,. m Lm-m "'*'1 ---------

Ob- la- ti- o- nes et ho- lo- caus - tas

su - per al - ta - re tu - um domi- ne.




maneriae. (The psalmic responsory-communion Ne tradideris is routinely assigned to the seventh mode in Gregorian sources, though it is set on F in the Roman books.) With tetrardus chants, then, we move to our second, exceptional category of psalmic communion (see Table 2). In addition to their frequent modal instability, all chants listed in the table are at stylistic odds with the core group, and as we shall see there are atypical instances of formal rounding through large-scale melodic repetition. Finally, the similarity indices applicable to the core Roman and Gregorian readings are frequently lacking. Considering the written and modal stability of the core communions, their open forms, and their consistency of style in both dialects, one might suspect that melodies characterized by such exceptional traits originated as a separate layer of the repertory. There is, in fact, liturgical evidence to suggest that they may well be later additions (or that existing melodies were significantly revised). Before addressing that evidence, we will examine several representative "exceptional" psalmic communion melodies, beginning with Circuibo (Ex. 10).

In terms of the interaction between musical space and text, the Gregorian and Roman settings of Circuibo are functionally similar to core communions. The two dialects move through conflicting spatial locations for most of the first period, however, and in so doing set this text in ways atypical of the core chants. In the Gregorian reading, the first period alone travels through four separate units launched from G, with nearly every word set in spatial relief. Here, the Roman setting is more constrained, remaining for the most part within a tetrachord above the G final. Its descending sweep at "hostiam iubilationis" is notable, however, as hexachordal activity is not found in the core communions. In addition to its spatial variants, the Roman setting's surface texture is frequently at odds with the Gregorian: locations elaborated in the Montpellier reading by wide leaps or chromatic detail ("Cir-cu-i-bo"; "Can- ta-bo") are embellished in the Roman by heightened melismatic density. (At "dicam" the Gregorian reading is the more melismatic of the two.) In comparison with the core communions, then, both dialects preserve a more animated treatment of musical space, and the two melodic traditions display more frequent discrepancies in range and surface texture than is typical of the core group.

Circuibo is also modally unstable, pointing to further instability of transmission. Regino of Priim provides a unique mode-two assignment for Circuibo, for which neither the Montpellier 159 reading nor the Roman reading offers any tangible justification. Gustav Jacobsthal concluded from this that Regino must have had before him a melody unrelated to any surviving written version.28 In contrast with Regino, most theorists vacillated between tritus or

28. Gustav Jacobsthal, Die chromatische Alteration im liturgischen Gesang der abendlindi- schen Kirche (Berlin: Springer, 1897), 50-52. But see Bomm, Der Wechsel, 59; Apel, Gregorian Chant, 171-72; and Fleming, "The Editing of Some Communion Melodies," 94-99.




Table 2 "Exceptional" Psalmic Communions

Incipit Psalm Modal assignments

Cantabo Ps. 12, 6 B; 2 Circuibo Ps. 26, 6 G; 2, 6, 8 De fructu Ps. 103, 13-15 G; 2, 3, 6, 8 Domine memorabor Ps. 70, 16.17.18 G; 8 Dominus firmamentum Ps. 17, 3 D; 2 Dominus virtutum Ps. 23, 10 E; 3, 4 Ego clamavi Ps. 16, 6 C, G; 6, 8 Laetabimur Ps. 19, 6 D; 2 Lavabo Ps. 25, 6.7 G; 8 Narrabo Ps. 9, 23 D, A; 2 Ne tradideris Ps. 26, 12 F; 7 Notas mihi fecisti Ps. 15, 11 G; 1, 4, 5, 7 Redime me Ps. 24, 22 E; 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 Tu mandasti Ps. 118, 4-5 E; 5, 7 Unam petii Ps. 26, 4 G; 5, 7

tetrardus classifications for the Gregorian melody, though the Roman setting gives no reason to question a G-mode assignment. Urbanus Bomm suggests that the modal conflict in Circuibo likely arose from a fluctuating subfinal, which Montpellier 159 preserves unambiguously in a transposed setting on C (I have retransposed back to G to facilitate comparison with the Roman). At the level of G, the subfinal is stated twice as F? ("Cir-cu-i-bo" and "di-cam") and twice as F# (at the final line's "can-ta-bo" and "psal-mum"). As B was the only tone available for chromatic inflection, such a melody was a notational impossibility at any level other than C, which would appear to explain the transposition in Montpellier 159. Later sources suppress this chromaticism and set the melody on G (with the elimination of the half step and assignment to tetrardus) or, conversely, on F.29 Either solution brings Circuibo into accord with medieval theoretical requirements, which, of course, recognized no mode that could accommodate Circuibo as it stands in Montpellier 159. The Roman setting gives no hint of this chromaticism; moreover, where the Gregorian emphasizes the third and fifth above the final in likeness to tritus melodies ("et immolabo," "hostiam jubilationis"), the upper fourth predomi- nates in the Roman setting. It is difficult to grant chronological priority to either of these readings with absolute certainty, though Montpellier 159 may well preserve an early chromatic detail expunged from later sources for its transgression of theoretical norms. What is certain is that the theoretical tradition of Circuibo is decidedly less stable than communions of the core group, with which it also differs stylistically. Moreover, the Roman and Gregorian dialects preserve this melody in forms that are noticeably dissimilar.

29. Fleming, "The Editing of Some Communion Melodies," 94-99.



Example 10 Circuibo (Ps. 26, 6; sixth Sunday after Pentecost) modes G; 2, 6, 8

1S9, mm " a"Ym

Y L m

f67 Cir-cu- i- bo et im-mo-la- bo

e ILT -A- * *

F22, 67 1 _ _ _ _ _ _

Cir-cu- i- bo et im - mo - la - bo

(TB) @ . ?

in ta-ber-na- cu- lo eius, hos- ti- am iu- bi- la- ti- o- nis.

* U * , I. II I

in ta- ber- na- cu- lo eius, hos- ti- am iu- bi- la- ti- o- nis.

Can- ta- bo et psal - mum dicam do - mi- no.

Can- ta-- bo et psal - mum di - cam do - mi- no.




In terms of melodic contour and melismatic density, the Roman and Gregorian settings of Unam petii have more in common, yet this psalmic responsory-communion is also distinct from the core group (see Ex. 11). Unam petii does not display the chromaticism exhibited by Circuibo, but it too is assigned to both tetrardus and tritus maneriae (the latter classification limited to Regino of Priim and Guido of Arezzo). The conflict could stem from a version with an F final, which would twice require E6 in the Gregorian reading's first phrase.30 This is unlikely, as Bomm notes, for it would require numerous Bbs unnecessary at the level of G (and to my knowledge there is no written evidence to support it). A second explanation, also suggested by Bomm, is the opening phrase's implication of an F mode, specifically its medial cadence at the word "domino." The following word ("hanc") reinforces the temporary centrality of a tritus environment, though this is dispelled shortly thereafter by a G cadence on "re-qui-ram." This latter gesture is itself most often heard in tritus chants and is in fact similar to formulas catalogued by Hans Holman as typical of fifth-mode responsories.3'1 Perhaps the medial cadence, and the phrase that follows, served as the referential point for the tritus classification given by Regino and Guido.32

Like Circuibo, Unam petii is also distinctive in its treatment of musical space. Both readings invoke the hexachord, and following the "wayward" medial cadence the Gregorian extends to a complete octave. Unam petii also contains a formal discrepancy with the core chants. Both dialects repeat the cadence at "requiram" nearly verbatim at the melody's close ("vitae meae"), resulting in a rounding of form not seen in the core communions. As noted above, the formula itself is not distinct (it serves a similar cadential purpose in the core tritus melody lustus dominus reviewed above). Its presence at a medial cadence, however, along with its literal replication at the conclusion, presents an instance of closed formal construction not seen in the core group.

Dominus virtutum (Ex. 12) falls outside the core group on the basis of its radically different Roman and Gregorian settings. Aside from a shared final, the two dialects preserve completely variant melodies, differing in terms of melismatic placement ("vir-tu-tum"; "ip-se"; "glo-ri-e") and general melodic contour. The Gregorian comprises a treatment of musical space that is unlike any of the communions reviewed thus far. Like other mode-four communions

30. Bomm, Der Wechsel, 94-95. 31. Specifically those marked F25 and F34 in Holman's dissertation; see Hans-Jorgen

Holman, "The Responsoria Prolixa of the Codex Worcester F 160" (Ph.D. diss., Indiana Uni- versity, 1961), 441. As a final cadential formula, the cadence at "hanc requiram" appears in sub- stantially the same form in the tritus communions Diffiesa estgratia, Intellege, Iustus dominus, Mense septimo, Panem de celo, and Quinque prudentes (also a responsory-communion). Domine quinque (another responsory-communion) and Mense septimo are tetrardus communions that share this gesture. See also the discussion of the responsory-communions Non vos relinquam and Ultimofestivitatis below, where this figure is employed with formal results similar to Unampetii.

32. Similar to the discussion above regarding the core communion Erubescant et conturbentur.



Example 11 Unam petii (Ps. 26, 4; fifth Sunday after Pentecost) modes G; 5, 7

H (Oct) * Mont. 159, 83 11'M M.

U-nam pe - ti - i a do - mi - no hanc re - qui - ram.

Rome # F22, oil #A M!-

I IB V#

5-l""M"6 66vw.wN " v

U-nam pe - ti - i a do - mi - no hanc re - qui - ram.

ut in- ha- bi- tem in domo domi- ni

ut in- ha- bi- tem in domo domi- ni (D (P)

om- nii- bus di- e- bus vi- te meae.

(P)

- i - - " # 4 mm- "I r

om- nii- bus di- e- bus vi- te meae.



Example 12 Dominus virtutum (Ps. 23, 10; Monday in Lent V [Passion week]) mode E; 4

Mont. 96 159,45 1"IV*

Do - mi - nus vir - tu - tum

Rome W F22, f 40

Do - mi - nus vir - tu - tum

P(P[d]) SF .. - -?0 A

ip - se est rex glo - ri - e.

ip - se est rex glo - ri - e.




it is primarily pentachordal, but this melody explores two conjunct fifths, the first built on the fourth above the final and a second, more typical concluding fifth based on D. Aside from the long melisma on the word "rex" (shared by both dialects), and that on the initial syllable of the Gregorian reading's following word, none of the melodic activity taking place within either of these pentachords is exceptional. What is unusual is not the linear pitch dispersion of this melody, but rather the spatial locations in which that pitch dispersion unfolds: it might be described as an exploration of two conjunct pentachords, the second serving as a sort of spatial transposition of the first. More important for the present purpose, the two dialects display readings that are worlds apart, preserving a breach in the transmission process that extends well beyond that seen in the core communion Tu domine. Redime me and the responsory-communion Ne tradideris are similar in this regard.

Before examining the remaining exceptional chants, it might be useful to consider the implications of the variability exhibited by this group of non-core communion melodies as a whole. The psalmic communions present a striking dichotomy. On the one hand, the core melodies are of a consistent stylistic cast. Most move through no more than three spatial units composed of a pentachord or less, distributed in strict accordance with the sense construction of their texts. Formally, each core melody is unique. Their modal assignments and written transmission are stable, suggesting that they were considered fixed forms close in time to their earliest written dissemination. That the two dialects differ at all obviously indicates change in one tradition--or more likely both-sometime subsequent to the Frankish reception of the cantus romanus, but the similarity between Roman and Gregorian settings of the core melodies clearly shows their origin from a common stock. There exists a second, smaller group of chants, stylistically related to the core group but differing from it in significant ways. Their treatment of musical space is more animated, with phrases that negotiate more range units than is typical of the core group and that frequently extend beyond their pentachordal limits. Their modal instability is also noteworthy, as is the more distant relationship between parallel Roman and Gregorian readings. Finally, there is evidence of closed formal designs that are atypical of the core communions. The stylistic, modal, and formal norms of the core chants, as well as the close relationship their Roman and Gregorian readings display on comparison, are not present in those psalmic communions I have labeled "exceptional."

For at least five chants of this exceptional set, an explanation for their musical peculiarities may be related to the well-known numerical ordering of the Lenten ferial communions. Beginning with Ash Wednesday's Qui meditabitur from psalm 1, the texts of all subsequent weekday communions are arranged in ascending numerical order based on the number of the psalm from which they are derived, a pattern that persists until Friday of Passion week with Ne tradideris from psalm 26. On the basis of this interaction between text derivation and liturgical distribution, one presumes that the Lenten




ferial communions are a homogenous group, created within a relatively circumscribed time frame, to fulfill a definite preconceived plan.33

One logically expects their melodies to show some level of homogeneity as well. That all of them do not suggests that the provision of numerically ordered communions may have taken place in stages. The psalms from which five of our exceptional chants are taken might support that idea, for these five are all derived from the higher-numbered items of the set-specifically Domi- nus virtutum, Redime me, Lavabo, and the Roman responsory-communion Ne tradideris-whose texts derive from psalms 23 through 26 respectively (the psalmic responsory-communion Unam petii also takes its text from psalm 26). That those core communions with texts from the lower-numbered psalms do for the most part demonstrate the expected musical homogeneity could suggest that they originated as a discrete set, perhaps first circulating as a list from which they were selected (like alleluias) on an ad hoc basis. Perhaps when the numeric plan for the Lenten ferias was decided on and the available psalmic communions were so organized, that list was found to be insufficient, leading to the provision of several additional items with texts derived from higher-numbered psalms in a newer musical style.

Such a hypothesis applies to only five of the fifteen exceptional psalmic communions, however; no less than six others are derived from psalms within the numerical series 1 to 22. Yet if we group all fifteen by way of their liturgical assignments, a pattern emerges that may help to explain the musical dichotomy they present in a more concrete fashion (see Exx. 13a and 13b). Ten fall into two calendric categories, with four from the higher-numbered psalms assigned to the ferias following Passion Sunday, and six others to the initial Sundays after Pentecost. Roman liturgical sources show signs of eighth- century adjustments to these same two places in the liturgical year, suggesting the possibility that these communions' unusual melodic characteristics and instability of transmission may indeed be products of their late addition or revision.

The background to these adjustments requires a somewhat lengthy digres- sion, beginning with the early history of Passion Sunday in Roman liturgical practice. In the earliest sources, the date later known as Passion Sunday is referred to only as dominica de mediana, due to its central position in the three- week fast that once preceded Easter.34 Subsequent to the refashioning of the Lenten season into a forty-day fast beginning on Ash Wednesday, later liturgical sources term this Sunday as simply the fifth of Lent, which served as the third of the dominical scrutinies when the Creed was "given" to the catechu- mens (traditio symboli). On the basis of internal evidence preserved in the

33. This abstract arrangement has been the source of much speculation regarding chronology, particularly directed toward those portions of the cycle that show signs of disruption. For an overview and many relevant citations, see Joseph Dyer, "Latin Psalters, Old Roman and Gregorian Chants," KirchenmusikalischesJahrbuch 68 (1984): 20-21.

34. Thomas J. Talley, The Origins of the Liturgical Year (New York: Pueblo, 1986), 167.



Example 13a Communions for the ferias of Passion Week

[Monday vacat in AMS source R; no communion in source B]

Dominus virtutum (Ps. 23; Monday in Passion week [AMS sources C; S] mode E; [4], 3, 4 [Regino in GS II, 62] P(a) P(a) + T(e) Dominus virtutum ipse est rex gloriae. Tr P

Domine(nus) firmamentum (Ps. 17; Monday in Passion Week [AMS source K]; 4th Sunday after Pentecost [all sources]; Lent II [Roman Graduals]) mode D; 2 [deus = G]

Tr Tr + (TB)+Tr P Tr Domine firmamentum meum et refugium meum et liberator meus I deus meus adiutor meus. Tr Tr Tr3 Tr

Redime me (Ps. 24; Tuesday in Passion week) modes E; [4], 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 T + H T T Redime me deus Israel ex omnibus angustiis meis. Tr + P P P

Lavabo (Ps. 25; Wednesday in Passion week) mode G; 8 TB (T) T T T T (TB +T) Lavabo inter innocentes manus meas et circuibo altare tuum domine ut audiam vocem laudis tue et enarrem universa mirabilia tua. TB (Rec) T TB (T) (TrR) T (P) T (TB + T)

Ne tradideris (Ps. 26; Friday in Passion week) modes F; [5], 7 [Ne on a, f, or g in Roman books] T (P) T4 T4 (T) H Ne tradideris me domine in animas persequentium me quia insurrexerunt in me testes iniqui et mentita est iniquitas sibi Tr3 P3 TR (Tr3) P

[Saturday vacat]



Example 13b Communions for the initial Sundays after Pentecost

Narrabo (Ps. 9; 1st Sunday after Pentecost; [Tuesday in Lent II]) modes D, A; 2 [in te = g in Bodmer 74 and Rome 5319] TB + Tr Tr (TB) Tr Narrabo omnia mirabilia tua I laetabor et exultabor in te I psallam nomini tuo altissime. H(a) + Tr + P Tr (TB)* Tr

Cantabo (Ps. 12; 2d Sunday after Pentecost) modes B; [4], 2 [A] (TB) Tr Tr H (P+TrB) Cantabo domino qui bona tribuit mihi et psallam nomini domini altissimi. H(e) (TrB)Tr P (P)

Ego clamavi (Ps. 16; 3d Sunday after Pentecost) modes C, F; 6 [C], 8 [inclina = F] Tr (TrB) P P* [ ] P (TB) Ego clamavi quoniam exaudisti me deus I inclina aurem tuam mihi et exaudi verba mea. Tr (TrB) Tr Tr3 P (TB + Tr)

Domine(nus)firmamentum (Ps. 17; 4th Sunday after Pentecost [Monday in Lent V; Lent II]) mode D; 2 [deus opens on G] Tr Tr + (TB)+ Tr P Tr Domine firmamentum meum et refugium meum et liberator meus I deus meus adiutor meus. Tr Tr Tr3 Tr

Unam petii (Ps. 26; 5th Sunday after Pentecost) modes G; 7, 5 H H T4 T4 T (T) Unam petii a domino hanc requiram ut inhabitem in domo domini omnibus diebus vitae meae. H H T4 T4 H (T)

Circuibo (Ps. 26; 6th Sunday after Pentecost) modes G; 2, 6, 8 [C] [cantabo = a] (TB) Tr (TB) T P (TB)* T Circuibo et immolabo in tabernaculo eius hostiam iubilationis I cantabo et psalmum dicam domino. T T H (TB) T




sermons of Leo the Great (440-461), Pierre Jounel has argued that the following, sixth Sunday was still considered dominica de passionis in Rome at the time of Leo's pontificate.35 In the East, however, this final Sunday before the great pasch was dedicated to a different liturgical theme, commemorating Christ's entry into Jerusalem to the shouted acclamations of the faithful paving his way with palm branches. Though Palm Sunday was known already in the Jerusalem of Egeria's time, no mention of it is made in Roman sources until the so-called Old Gelasian Sacramentary, which is generally thought to reflect the liturgy of the mid-sixth century.36 Here, the sixth Sunday of Lent is called dominica in palmas de passione domini, a title suggesting a fusion of the indigenous Roman tradition (emphasizing the somber theme of the Passion narrative) with the more popular eastern festival (which Jounel describes as a "true feast of Christ the King").37 According to Jounel, lay piety led to in- creasing emphasis on the latter theme.38 The Paduensis Sacramentary (generally considered to reflect Roman liturgical practice of the later seventh century) and the eighth-century Gelasians style the sixth Sunday only as in palmas: no mention is made of the Passion on this or any other Lenten Sunday.39

35. Pierre Jounel, "Le Dimanche des rameaux: Tradition de l'6glise," La Maison-dieu 68 (1961): 45-63; and Jounel, "The Easter Cycle," in The Liturgy and Time, ed. A. G. Martimort, trans. Matthew J. O'Connell, The Church at Prayer 4 (Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1986), 70. Jounel's argument is based on a comparison between Leo's nineteen sermons on the Passion with the earliest gospel readings for Lent's sixth week. In sermon XI, Leo singles out the Passion as a liturgical theme specific to the particular Sunday on which his sermon was to be delivered: "Desiderata nobis, dilectissimi, et universo optabilis munda adest festivitas Dominicae passionis, quae nos inter exultationes spiritualium gaudiorum silere non patitur" (see Jacques-Paul Migne, ed., Patrologiae Cursus Completus ... Series Latina, 217 vols. [Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1844- 55; numerous reprints], vol. 54, col. 349). That the Sunday to which he refers was Lent VI is suggested by consultation of the earliest Evangeliaries, which assign the Passion narratives of Matthew (Sunday), John (Wednesday), and Luke (Friday) to the sixth week of Lent (see Theodor Klauser, Das rimische Capitulare Evangeliorum, Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen und Forschungen 29 [Miinster: Aschendorf, 1935], 23-24). In the third of his Sunday sermons, Leo quotes di- rectly from the Sunday reading from Matthew proper to Lent VI (Migne, Patrologiae, vol. 54, col. 322). In the same sermon, he also notes that the subject of the Passion will be taken up again on the following Wednesday: "Sed quia multum est, dilectissimi, ut omnia hodiernus sermo per- currat, in quartam feriam, qua lectio Dominicae Passionis iterabitur, residua differantur" (ibid.; the entire sermon appears in cols. 318-22).

36. See Leo Cunibert Mohlberg, Liber Sacramentorum Romanae Aeclesiae Ordinis Anni Circuli (Cod. Vat. Reg. lat. 316/Paris Bibl. Nat. 7193, 41/46) (Rome: Herder, 1968), IX. Jounel states, without any systematic argument, that the reference in the Old Gelasian to Palm Sunday is likely a later accretion; see "Le Dimanche," 51-52.

37. Jounel, "The Easter Cycle," 71. 38. Ibid., 70. 39. The Paduensis refers to the sixth Sunday as die dominico ad sanctum iohannem adpalmas.

See Jean Deshusses, Le Sacramentaire gregorien: Ses Principales Formes d'apris les plus anciens manuscrits, 3d rev. and corrected ed., Spicilegium Friburgense 16 (Fribourg: Editions Universi- taires, 1992), 628. The fifth Sunday receives no reference to the Passion theme and is simply titled




If the absence of any reference to the Passion reflects an abandonment of earlier Roman practice, the eighth-century Hadrianum suggests that it was only temporary. Like the later Gelasians, the Hadrianum refers to the sixth Sunday of Lent exclusively as die dominica in palma. The Passion title also returns here, yet now it is applied to the fifth Sunday (as die dom[inica] de passionis).40 Other liturgical sources provide evidence for a change in the thematic status of the fifth week of Lent (Lent V) as well. In the earliest of the Office ordines to list the Matins readings (650-700), lections from the book of Jeremiah (long associated with the Passion narratives) are called for on Lent's sixth Sunday; none is specified for Lent V.41 In the eighth-century Ordo XIIIa (which Michel Andrieu dates 700-750), the Jeremiah readings are shifted back one week, perhaps to coincide with the new distinction of the fifth Sunday of Lent as dedicated to the Passion.42

The adjustment in title and liturgical theme of Passsion Sunday may have also affected the ferial dates that follow it. This week's Saturday has no assigned gospels in the earliest forms of the Roman Evangeliary, yet they do appear in Theodor Klauser's Z-type which he dates to the mid-eighth century.43 It has also been suggested that an addition to the Old Gelasian's prayer sets for Monday are dependant on knowledge of Gregory III's (731-774) establish- ment of the monastery of St. Chrysogonus.44 Finally, adjustments to the ferial liturgies of Passion week may be associated with an intriguing discrepancy in the communion assignment for this same Monday. It is true that Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex sources C and K give the standard Roman Dominus virtutum as the Monday communion, but source S gives Dominusfirmamen- tum from psalm 17: this unique assignment disrupts the numeric ordering of the Lenten communions, and as the verse called for derives from the "correct"

die dom. ad sanctum petrum (ibid., 627). The eighth-century Gelasians read Dominica V in quadragesima and Dominica VI. Ad sanctum iohannem in lateranis. In palmas. See Jean Deshusses, Liber Sacramentorum Gellonensis (Turnholt: Brepols, 1981), 59, 73.

40. Deshusses, Le Sacramentairegregorien, 160, 167. 41. Ordo XIV in Andrieu's classification; see Michel Andrieu, Les Ordines romani du haut

moyen-dge, 5 vols., Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense 11, 23, 24, 28, 29 (Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense Bureaux, 1931-61), 4:39-40.

42. See Andrieu, Les Ordines romani 3:482. A comparison of these two ordines figures prominently in Brad Maiani, "Readings and Responsories: The Eighth-Century Night Office Lectionary and the Responsoria Prolixa," bThe ournal of Musicology 16 (1998): 254-82. See also Pio Alfonzo, I responsori biblici dell'Ufficio romano (Rome: Facultas theologica pontificii athenaei seminarii romani, 1936), 7-8.

43. See Klauser, Die r6mische Capitulare, 23, 69, 111. While no Mass propers were assigned this Saturday due to the pope's almsgiving (it is aliturgical in all the sources of Antiphonale Missarum

Sex.,plex and the Roman graduals), it is here elevated to a quasi-liturgical status with

the assignment of readings and a station. 44. Bernard Moreton, The Eighth-Century Gelasian Sacramentary: A Study in Tradition

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), 81; and Moreton, "Mohlberg, Chrysogonus, and the Gelasians of the Eighth Century," Studia Patristica 10 (1970): 394 n. 2




psalm 23 it may well be, as Ren-&Jean Hesbert suggests, a simple error.45 But it is notable that in the Blandiniensis gradual (source B, the earliest indexed in AMS), this same Monday has no communion assignment at all, and the date receives no proper chants whatsoever in the Rheinau manuscript (R).46 Communions are not the only chant type to preserve peculiarities in Passion week; both the Monday and Friday introits, for example, have a history of modal instability.47 Moreover, Helmut Hucke has singled out the Passion Sunday responsories as a separate layer from other psalmic responsory cycles for Eastertide and the Epiphany on the basis of their greater length and the relationship between the responds and their assigned verses.48

Considered together, these observations could reflect an interim stage in the revision of the weekday liturgies of Lent V, made in conjunction with the reformed status of its heading Sunday as dominica de passionis. Clearly there are liturgical adjustments taking place, and although it is difficult to spell out a cause and effect between such adjustments and the musical phenomena described above, it may be that some relationship exists. Perhaps the stylistic, modal, formal, and written discrepancies of the Passion week ferial communions are products of their comparatively late introduction into the Lenten cycle, or at least signs of a revision of existing melodies made concurrent with the change in liturgical status of Lent V to dominica depassionis.

Like the Passion week chants, late liturgical activity could be associated with the musical anomalies of another six of our exceptional psalmic communions, specifically those assigned to the initial Sundays after Pentecost. To demonstrate this, it is necessary to review briefly the various methods for orga- nizing the post-Pentecostal season found in Roman liturgical sources. In the Sacramentaries, the earliest procedure involved the provision of sixteen prayer sets, presumably to be selected at the discretion of the celebrant for ordinary Sundays of the year (including primarily those after Christmas and the post- Pentecostal dates that concern us here); this is the method employed in the Old Gelasian.49 A more calendrically specific means of organization appears in sources from the mid-seventh to mid-eighth centuries, whereby the Sundays after Pentecost are ordered by their proximity to three specific sanctoral dates: June 29 (the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul), August 10 (St. Laurence), and September 15 (Saints Cornelius and Cyprian, later changed to September

45. Ren-&Jean Hesbert, Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex (Brussels: Vromant, 1935), 249 n. 2 (hereafter AMS).

46. It should be noted that this latter absence is not unique; many Lenten ferias are omitted in the curious Rheinau manuscript. See AMS, XIII-XIV.

47. Miserere ... conclucavitis assigned to the first and third modes, Miserere ... tribulor to the fifth and eighth (see Bomm, Der Wechsel, 36, 48).

48. See Helmut Hucke, "Das Responsorium," in Gattungen der Musik in Einzeldar- stellungen: Gedenkschrift Leo Schrade, ed. Wulf Arlt et al. (Bern: Franke, 1973), 167. See also Alfonso, I responsori biblici, 33.

49. See Mohlberg, Liber Sacramentorum, 176-83.




29 [feast of the Archangel Michael]).so Finally, a third system, devised by the Franks, numbered the post-Pentecost Sundays in order. The early unnotated graduals provided a series of twenty-three chant formularies; the number of Sundays from the Pentecost Octave to the last Sunday before Advent ranged from a minimum of twenty-three to a maximum of twenty-eight so that Sundays beyond the twenty-third would simply repeat its set of chants. In addition to the obvious overall simplicity of the Frankish system, it had the ad- vantage of eliminating a troublesome gap at the beginning of the Roman series. Depending on the date of Easter, anywhere from two to six Sundays could fall between Pentecost and the June 29 feast of the Apostles. For these Sundays, the Old Gelasian provided only a single prayer set, officially assigned to the Pentecost Octave, while later Roman books filled in the gap with additional prayer sets and readings even if never achieving the maximum number of six.5'

As James McKinnon has shown, the Roman communion assignments for the initial post-Pentecost Sundays show signs of an analogous adjustment.52 Four are psalmic items borrowed from Lent, three of which were deleted from the Lenten cycle when the scrutinies were moved from Sundays to weekdays. Like the additional prayer sets and readings, these items were assigned to pre- cisely that gap between Pentecost and the 29 June feast of the Apostles; their reassignment, as McKinnon notes, was likely among the last steps in the makeup of the post-Pentecostal communion series. Aside from the demon- strably late Lenten Thursdays (aliturgical until 715-31) and a related instance for the Ascension-Pentecost communions (to be discussed below), there are no other instances of borrowing in the entire communion temporale. This, together with their texts' lack of connection with the remainder of the cycle's pattern of Harvest-Sacrifice themes, recommends their presence at the head of the cycle as coterminous with the final stage of its revision.

These adjustments in communion assignment and calendric organization may be related to the unusual melodic traits of most of our remaining exceptional psalmic communions. As Example 13b shows, all the communions assigned to the first four Sundays after Pentecost are characterized by the same incongruities with the core chants that distinguish those for Passion week. In fact, these traits extend beyond the borrowed Lenten items to the fifth and

50. Here, Sundays are referred to by titles such as dominica Ipost natale apostolorum and the like. For a comparison of various Evangeliaries, Epistolaries, Sacramentaries, and graduals that employ this method, see James McKinnon, "The Roman Post-Pentecostal Communion Series," in Cantus Planus: Papers Read at the Fourth Meeting, Pics, Hungary, 3-8 September 1990, ed. Uiszl6 Dobszay et al. (Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences Institute for Musicology, 1992), 182.

51. Likewise, Klauser's P Evangeliary provides readings for only one intervening Sunday (with the unwieldy title ebdomata IIpostpentecosten ante natale apostolorum) while the later L and Z Evangeliaries provide only the minimum number of two Sunday gospel pericopes; see Klauser, Das rimische Capitulare, 30, 75-76, 115-17.

52. McKinnon, "The Roman Post-Pentecostal Communion Series," 175-86.




sixth Sundays after Pentecost with the responsory-communion Unam petii and Circuibo (see Exx. 10 and 11): the entire period for which new or borrowed prayers are provided in the eighth-century Gelasians. Like the Passion week chants, then, their musical peculiarities could spring from a stylistic up- dating concurrent with their eighth-century reassignment. For those taken from Lent, it may even be that only their texts were borrowed, and that new melodies were provided for chants whose earlier melodic guise as Lenten communions more closely approximated the core group. In any event, the textual homogeneity of the psalmic communions is not matched by their melodic traits, and there is reason to suggest that the "exceptional" items are a second, and likely later, layer of the cycle.

It is impossible to prove that changes in the liturgical calendar had a direct bearing on the musical anomalies of the "exceptional" psalmic communions. Yet when a body of melodically distinctive chants clusters around spots of the calendar that have been subjected to later liturgical adjustment, it seems fair enough to suspect that their distinctive melodic features and instability of transmission are due to their late introduction into the repertory, concurrent with the liturgical activity in question. If this hypothesis has any merit, it would have important repercussions, for a third set of communions is distinguished by related melodic characteristics and an even more curious liturgical history.

The Responsory-Communions

A surprising number of communions are assigned a dual liturgical role, serving as Great Responsories of the Night Office as well as Mass chants. A survey of the extant Roman books, the earliest Frankish graduals of AMS, and twenty- eight Gregorian Office antiphoners reveals a total of forty-one pieces with matching texts and melodies that serve as both communion and responsory chants--a figure representing more than one-quarter of the total Franco- Roman repertory of communions.53 These same responsory-communions are also notable for their texts, specifically for the role they play in the communions' frequent use of books other than the Psalter. Among the total forty-one, only nine derive from the psalms. The remainder take their texts from other sources, and aside from two prophetic items and the nonbiblical Qui me dignatus, all are from the New Testament.54 It may be said, then, that a significant portion of the nonpsalmic communions are further distinguished by their history as Office responsories. Put statistically: while responsory- communions form 28 percent of the core communion repertory, they repre-

53. See Maiani, "The Responsory-Communions: Toward a Chronology," 1-38. 54. See ibid., 42, for a tabular presentation of the text sources for the responsory-

communions.




sent nearly 40 percent of that repertory's nonpsalmic chants, and over 70 percent of the responsory-communions are set to New Testament texts. This single body of chants is thus largely responsible for two of the communions' well-known curiosities.

Responsory-communions are melodically distinctive as well, frequently (and markedly) at odds with the core chants.55 If we again use musical space and sense construction as analytical points of departure, trichords, tetrachords, and pentachords are rarely adequate for spatial analysis. The ambitus of most responsory-communions rarely exceeds that of the core chants--they average a total range that seldom extends beyond a ninth. They differ, however, in the ways in which that range is exploited at the level of the phrase, for the total spatial area through which an entire melody moves is frequently traversed over the course of a single sense unit (or even isolated words and syllables). Conversely, there are passages that are spatially constrained, often distinguished by a quasi-recitational style that is juxtaposed against arched phrases of exceptional scope. Finally, the Roman and Gregorian dialects treat surface texture and text delivery in surprisingly different ways, in comparison with both the core communions and one another.

Passion Sunday's expansive dialogue Hoc corpus, for example, opens with a primarily recitational setting in the Gregorian tradition (see Ex. 14). The opening three phrases' frequent reiteration of the final sets up a tension only released with the narrator's response "dicit dominus." The fourth phrase is more animated, moving through a hexachord with special focus on the reciting note before a semitone cadence on "su-mi-tis." In the closing phrase a more constrained, recitational style returns, with the melody hovering around the tone above the final.56

The opening phrases of the Roman reading are less static than the Gregorian and decidedly more melismatic, with frequent repetitions of two-, three-, and four-note conjunct motives launched from the same tones on which the Gregorian recites; the pes recitation in phrases three and five is also noteworthy. Motivic repetition often overlaps phrase endings and beginnings, and thus obscures text meaning ("tradetur ... hic calix," "est ... in meo san- guinem," "sumitis ... in meam"). As a result, sense construction takes a secondary role to melodic continuity. This relative independence from textual constraints, together with the more ornate and melismatically dense texture, creates the impression of ornamented vocal display as opposed to the Gregorian's more focused delivery.

Unlike the elaborate recitation seen in Hoc corpus, many responsory- communions contain phrases of exceptional range and scope. Like the Passion

55. The discussion that follows focuses primarily on a comparison of the responsory- communions with the core communion repertory, yet they play an equally anomalous role as responsories; see Maiani, "The Responsory-Communions: Toward a Chronology," 175-222.

56. The Easter responsory-communion Pascha nostrum is similar in many respects to Hoc corpus. See Hiley, Western Plainchant, 118-19.



Example 14 Hoc corpus (I Cor. 11, 24.25; Passion Sunday) mode G; 8

Mont. 159,93 on "M

Romze f. 39v

. *wi,1 9 I

Hoc cor - pus quod pro vo - bis tra - de - tur hic ca - lix

no - vi tes- ta- men- ti est in me- o san- gui- nem dicit domi- nus.

S r " -- U . m U -m ' E - MA *A "

no - vi tes- ta- men- ti est in me- o san- gui- nem dicit domi- nus.

hoc faci- te quo- ti- ens- cum- que su- mi- tis in meam com - me-

no vi tes- ta- men- m o san-I gu I nem di1 cit do- m

hoc faci- te quo-ti- ens- cum- que su- mi- tis in meam comr- me-

mo - ra - ti - o - nem.

mo - ra - ti - o- nem.




Sunday communion, however, they too exploit musical space in ways that are distinct from the core chants, which as we have seen articulate the sense construction of their texts by their treatment of musical space. The gospel dialogue Venite post me (see Ex. 15) is composed in the Gregorian of an ambitus of only a seventh (as is the core chant In salutari tuo with which this study began). If we consider the units of range through which each phrase moves, however, and examine the manner in which trichordal, tetrachordal, and pentachordal units are distributed over this text, a different approach to the inter- play between range and language becomes immediately apparent, as does a surprising degree of variance between the Roman and Gregorian settings of Venite. In the Gregorian reading, the second phrase alone spans a seventh, while the Roman traverses a full octave. The range units with which entire phrases are constructed in the core chants are exploited here within much briefer time spans; following the incipit nearly every word of the first period of Venite post me is set in spatial relief. The Gregorian reading articulates a total of four range units, including two tetrachords (built below and above the final G), a hexachord (built on D), and a trichord based on the final. The Roman setting is still more adventurous, moving through five separate spatial units (including a complete octave sweep at "piscatores"). The result is a more animated use of musical space than that displayed by the core communions, one comparatively independent of sense construction. Also of note are the frequent spatial discrepancies between the two dialects' parallel settings, particularly in the closing two phrases ("At illi relictis retibus" and "secuti sunt dominum").

In their treatment of surface texture, responsory-communions are also frequently at odds with the core chants, and Gregorian and Roman settings differ from one another in this respect as well. In the Gregorian reading of Venite post me, syllabic and neumatic textures are systematically paired-here, each period is initiated syllabically ("Venite post me," "at illi relictis retibus," "secuti") and concludes with a contrasting neumatic setting. Whereas the differ- entiation of sense units is largely the product of musical space in the core chants, here the same task is achieved by marked contrasts in surface texture. In this respect the two dialects differ, for the consistently melismatic Roman setting largely forgoes the Gregorian's distinct textural shifts. This is typical of Roman responsory-communion settings, which are routinely more melismatic and ornate than their Gregorian counterparts (and in comparison with the Roman core communion tradition).

Turning to the compilation of isolated phrases in Example 16, we see that the special melodic characteristics of Hoc corpus and Venite post me are shared by other responsory-communions as well.57 The closing phrase of Simili est regnum begins with a blunt syllabic setting followed by a turn to a more neumatic style, where the shift to the upper tetrachord is forestalled until the

57. Transcriptions in the example are taken from Montpellier 159 and Rome F22.



Example 15 Venite post me (Mt. 4, 19-20; Feast of St. Andrew) modes G; 6, 8

(Jesus):TBT + TB + H +

Mont.1 [ 92 "Ve- ni- te post me faci- am vos pis- ca- to- res ho- mi- num."

TB + Tr T+ TB + Oct + T Rome C * o ? e ' -4 *., f 86I*

"Ve- ni- te post me faci- am vos pis- ca- to- res ho- mi- num."

(narrator):Rec + T (Tr)

At il- ii re- lic- tis re- ti- bus et na- vi

H (Tr) -9

At illi re- lic- tis re - ti- bus et na- vi

TB+ T+ T

se - cu - ti sunt do - mi - num.



Example 16 Responsory-communion phrases at stylistic odds with the core communions

(a) Simile est regnum (Mt. 13, 45-46; Birth of Mary) modes G; 6, 8 )BTB + T

de- dit om-ni-a su- a et com-pa- ra- vit e- am. TrB + T

(b) Gaudete iusti (Ps. 32, 1; Saints Tibertius and Valerian) modes E; 1

"L # 1- 0. rec - tos de - cet col - lau - da - ti - o

A A.0-m

~: Lb-

--

w-----~t~

o nW" 077" ---

p *.

" " "AX!N

N

al - le - lu - ia.

V :] *NA -

(c) Responsum (Lk. 2, 26; Purification) mode G; 8 TB + T (TrB)

non vi- su - rum se mor - tem nisi vi - de- ret chris- tum domi - num. S T . T

74. 1

8.Q-,,.



Example 16 continued

(d) Quinque prudentes (Mt. 25, 4.6; St. Agnes) mode F; 5

medii-

a au - tem nocte clamor fac - tus est:

vv #A MI'A --

Ec- ce spon-sus venit: ex- i- te ob- vi- am christo domi- no

(e) Surrexit dominus (Lk. 24, 34; Easter Monday) modes G, F; 1, 6, 7, 8 TrB + P (TrB) (

Sur- rex - it do - mi - nus et ap - pa- ru - it Pe - tro Tr + TrB + P

(f) Christus resurgens (Rom. 6, 9; Easter Wednesday) modes C, F; 3, 6, 7, 8

Xpis- tus re- sur- gens ex mor- tu- is iap a non mo- ri- tur M (H_(_e-)




accented syllable of "com-pa-ra-vit," rather than at the conjunction, as one might expect in a setting more typical of the psalmic core tradition. At "com- paravit," the melody soars through a seventh in the course of only three syllables; Gaudete iusti (Ex. 16b) covers the same area (with a similar gesture) on a single word ("rectos"). The distribution of the opening tetrachords in the Gregorian reading of Responsum (Ex. 16c) is similarly independent of sense construction (though it will be noticed that the Roman setting is confined to a single tetrachord). At the phrase "rectos decet collaudatio," the Gregorian reading of Gaudete iusti is in marked textural contrast to the highly florid Roman, and further differs from it by providing a D final as opposed to the E cadence in the Roman. Quinque prudentes (Ex. 16d) contains two internal phrases that are also notable for their extensive range, as well as for the manner in which both dialects initiate each line. Here the narrator's introduction to the steward's call and the steward's cry itself are both set in melodic relief by shared intonational gestures, presenting an instance of distinct melodic pairing (reminiscent of the psalmic responsory-communion Unam petii) that is found nowhere in the core chants. Both Surrexit dominus and Christus resurgens (melodies with a highly unstable modal tradition, it will be noted) begin with phrases of exceptional range and a more angular Gregorian style as opposed to the predominantly stepwise Roman.

In sum, the textual and stylistic tendencies typical of the core chants are frequently inapplicable to the responsory-communions. In addition to the elaborated recitation seen in Hoc corpus, both dialects frequently employ phrases of noticeably extended range, reaching well beyond the pentachordal limits through which the more sedate core phrases move. In both dialects, musical space is exploited in purely melodic terms, with techniques of phrase construction less dependent on textual concerns than is typical of the core psalmic communions. Yet the Gregorian is characterized by frequent and wide leaps that appear in rapid succession, as opposed to the stepwise, melismatically dense, and motivically repetitive style more typical of the Roman. Stylistically, then, both dialects differ from the core group, and from one another as well. Full transcriptions of other responsory-communions characterized by these same traits will appear presently; for the moment these examples may stand as representative (see also the shorthand spatial analyses in Ex. 17).58

Modality. Responsory-communions contribute much to the communions' notoriety for modal instability. The tonaries, graduals, and treatises examined by Urbanus Bomm include some fourteen introits, four graduals, seventeen alleluias, and nineteen offertories with conflicting modal assignments, as

58. Not all responsory-communions can be reduced in this fashion, primarily for modal reasons described in what follows.



Example 17 Responsory-communions at stylistic odds with the core group

PROTUS:

Ego vos elegi (Jn. 15, 16ac; Primus and Felicianus) mode D; 1 Sept P P P Ego vos elegi de mundo ut eatis et fructum afferatis et fructus vester maneat. Sept P P P

Gaudete iusti (Ps. 32, 1; Tibertius and Valerianus) mode A [G]; 1 [rectos - G] P Tr Sept P Gaudete iusti in domino alleluia I rectos decet collaudatio alleluia. P P H H

TRITUS:

Pascha nostrum (I Cor. 5, 7.8ac; Easter Sunday) mode F; 6 Tr (TrB) Tr (TrB) Tr H(c) Tr (TrB) Tr TB (TB)Tr Tr Pascha nostrum immolatus est christus alleluia I itaque epulemur in azimis sinceritatis et veritatis alleluia alleluia alleluia. Tr (TrB) Tr Tr H(c) Tr (TrB) Tr TB Tr Tr

Quinque prudentes (Mt. 25, 4.6; St. Agnes) mode F; 6 P (TrB) (TrB) Tr Tr Sept Quinque prudentes virgines acceperunt oleum in vasis suis cum lampadibus I media autem nocte clamor factus est: P (TrB) Tr Tr Oct

Sept Oct ecce sponsus venit I exite obviam christo domino. Oct Sept

TETRARDUS:

Beata viscera (Lk. 11, 27 [paraphrase]; Votive Marian Mass?) mode G [not a Gregorian communion]

Beata viscera Mariae virginis que portaverunt aeterni patris filium. H H H T



S421 4- 9S

4-J O w 4 -J

ced

0.0 4-J 03-4

0421

U

0~

o* H

4-j

U9

4-J

Ow4- pq 2 C1

4-J0

BC14 0 07:

0.03 0E

U Ui (n b



8 U

U 030

I 4-

- HFH

a ?~ 0

HuH




compared to a remarkable thirty-eight communions."9 As it happens, no fewer than seventeen of these unstable items prove to be responsory-communions (see Table 3). The genre's modal instability is to no small degree the product of responsory-communions (if they are removed from the equation, communions exhibit no significantly greater degree of modal instability than do alleluias and offertories).

Bomm has discussed the theoretical tradition of most of these melodies in close detail, and little can be added to his study here other than to note that they are further distinguished as responsory-communions and to provide the Roman settings for comparison. As he observes, modal instability usually results from one or more of the following details: (1) limited ambitus, leading to discrepancies between authentic and plagal classification within a single maneria; (2) hidden chromaticism (as seen above in our discussion of Circuibo); and (3) multimodal inflection (similar to the medial tritus cadence in the psalmic responsory-communion Unam petii, a chant that most sources assign to the seventh mode).60 Of the modally unstable responsory-communions, only Cum invocarem might fall under the first category. Like the post- Pentecost communion Circuibo, the responsory-communions Laetabitur iustus, Pacem meam, and Simile est are all distinguished by conflicts between tritus or tetrardus assignments, and Gregorian sources give ample evidence that hidden chromaticism may be the source of the modal uncertainty associated with these melodies.61 Yet the most frequent cause of conflicting modal assignments within the responsory-communions is the third one cited by Bomm, where initial or medial phrases inflect tonal areas that conflict with that suggested by a melody's concluding cadence.62

The Johannine responsory-communion Ultimo festivitatis for the vigil of Pentecost provides an example (see Ex. 18). As for its modal instability, Ultimofestivitatis is variously classified to modes two and five; thus not only is it assigned to two separate maneriae, those maneriae are not conjunct.63 In

59. See Bomm, Der Wechsel, 53-112. Consultation of additional sources has led to the dis- covery of other modally unstable communions not listed in Bomm's study, including Cum invocarem, Data est mihi, Laetabitur iustus, Quinque prudentes, Tu puer, and Vos qui secuti. See Huglo, Les Tonaires, 96, 402-12; and Fleming, "The Editing of Some Communion Melodies," 146-51.

60. Bomm, Der Wechsel, 24-25. As Table 3 shows, Roman sources preserve five responsory- communions whose finals conflict with chants that are modally stable in the Gregorian tradition (Gaudete iusti, Tanto tempore, Qui me dignatus, Servite domino, and Ne tradideris).

61. For Laetabitur iustus, see the comparative transcriptions and discussion in Fleming, "The Editing of Some Communion Melodies," 146-51; on Pacem meam and Simile est, see Bomm, Der Wechsel, 88-89, 74-75.

62. For Data est mihi and Tu puer, only the oldest tonaries examined by Huglo conflict with these melodies' more widespread protus classifications. I cannot find any notated versions that might explain the deuterus assignments cited in Les Tonaires, 96, 409.

63. Apel notes that most unstable modal classifications involving separate maneriae consist of protus/deuterus or tritus/tetrardus discrepancies, due to the third above the final each pair shares; see his Gregorian Chant, 172. On Ultimofestivitatis specifically, see Bomm, Der Wechsel, 93-94.




Table 3 Modal Distribution of the Responsory-Communions

Protus Deuterus Tritus Tetrardus Unstable

Cantate domino Pater cum essem Non vos relinquam Beata viscera Christus res. (C, F; 3, 6, 7, 8)

Ego vos elegi Qui meditabitur Pascha nostrum Dicite Cum invocarem pusillanimes (D; 1, 2)

Gaudete Tanto temp. Qui me dig. Domine si tu es Data est mihi (G, A; 1) (G; 4) (F, G; 6) (D; 1, 2, 3)

lerusalem surge Servite domino Factus est repente Dum venerit (E; 5) (G, C; 5, 7, 8)

Psallite Hoc corpus Ego sum pastor (G; 2, 4, 7, 8)

Modicum Ego sum vitis (G, C; 4, 7, 8)

Ne tradideris Laetabitur iustus (F; 7) (F; 6, 8)

Responsum Pacem meam (C, D; 5, 6, 8)

Tolle puerum Quinque prudentes (F; 5, 6)

Tulerunt Simile est (G; 6, 8) Video celos Simon lohannes

(G, F; 6, 8) Vox in Rama Surrexit dom. (G, F;

1, 6, 7, 8) Tu puer (D; 1, 2, 4) Ultimofestivitatis (F; 2, 5)

Unam petii (G; 5,7) Venite post me

(G; 5, 6, 8) Vos qui secuti (1, 4)

the eleventh-century De musica, Johannes Afflighemensis calls Ultimofestivi- tatis an authentic tritus chant, and a glance at its concluding cadence gives one no reason to question his classification. In fact, tritus is seemingly in effect from the words "credentes in eum," at which the cadential gesture that figures so prominently in Unam petii is employed (and as in Unam petii, that figure is repeated verbatim at the conclusion of Ultimo).64 Its primarily pentachordal and trichordal activity is indeed typical of tritus melodies, as are the basis tones of the spatial units through which it moves proper to fifth- and sixth-mode chants, and all leap activity and period construction further reinforces Johannes's fifth-mode assignment. On the basis of its concluding three phrases, then, there is no reason to question his tritus classification, which Ultimofestivitatis also receives in the majority of sources consulted by Bomm.

64. Two other responsory-communions, Non vos relinquam and Laetabitur iustus, also provide this figure, and both duplicate it in the same fashion as Ultimofestivitatis.



Ml ; 1%oi

-11

i mI

IFI

m l I I mi

1"7 " + I it111"-



if I ?I 11 ~ I1~ * ,

CE

4 K'

I f I YI tc

I I '

> KI

0 0



I I I l II-I 1. I' i I-- .

,a

III I I?I I I I?I 11 I ~I I

IIf III q I m ~ MI I miI Mil mi1 t b

II

a, a,

K 1

_

"

f i

_ \C

I I

IIItI)iI

'

.- K K K UI

rn rU

a> " T'L I U a ? *



. - 11 I , -

-

" , ? ,

I

N4K

M =M



i




Johannes notes, however, that there is a "lesser" tradition of beginning Ultimo with a phrase he deems "discordant," and he goes so far as to offer a substitute incipit to correct the infraction.65 His disdain may be related to an alternate classification found in other sources: Regino of Priim, Guido of Arezzo, and the manuscript Einsiedeln 121 assign Ultimo festivitatis to the second mode.66 Turning to the first page of Example 18, we see that the introductory tetrachordal gesture does indeed suggest plagal protus; it is not unlike the opening phrase of the core chant Dominus regit examined above (see Ex. 4). This impression is seemingly confirmed by the first period's cadence on A at "dicebat le-sus." Continuing on through the third page of the example, we find that the range unit basis tones are those proper to protus melodies, and they are given additional precedence by leap activity and period structure. Singing through its first seven phrases, then, one could interpret Ultimo as a mode-two melody. It may be that this melody's modal instability and the dissonance to which Johannes refers arise from its opening inflection of a mode other than the tritus phrases with which Ultimo concludes.67

Regino of Pruim also noted the bimodality of Ultimofestivitatis, though in a more indirect manner than that found in Johannes's De musica. As noted above in our discussion of the fourth-mode Acceptabis (Ex. 9), Regino advised that incipits be consulted for the assignment of communion and introit verse tones, but that responsories and graduals be classified by final. The two surviving versions of Regino's tonary (Leipzig, Musikbibliothek, MS Rep. 1.8.93; and Brussels, Bibliotheque Royale, MS 2750-65) indirectly confirm the bimodality suggested by the diastematic sources transcribed in Example 18, and further suggest that this was a trait proper to this melody's ninth-century form as well.68 In the Leipzig manuscript, Ultimofestivitatis is classified as a fifth- mode responsory, and on the basis of Regino's admonition regarding the modal assignment of responsories by final we may presume this decision stems from the tritus behavior of its concluding three phrases and its close on F.69 As a communion, however, the Brussels source lists Ultimo as a plagal protus

65. "Eiusdem toni [the fifth] est et haec communio Ultimofestivitatis, cuius inceptio secundum usus minus est absona." See Joseph Smits van Waesberghe, ed., Johannes Afflighemensis: De Musica cum Tonario (Rome: American Institute of Musicology, 1950), 184. Warren Babb's trans- lation of this passage seems questionable: "The following communion, Ultimofestivitatis die, also is of the same tone [the fifth], and its beginning according to usage sounds less bad"; see Claude V. Palisca, ed., Hucbald, Guido, and John on Music: Three Medieval Treatises, trans. Warren Babb (New Haven, Conn., and London: Yale University Press, 1978), 178. I prefer to read "minus" as a modifier of"usus."

66. Bomm, Der Wechsel, 93-94. 67. It will be noted that the Roman melody's statement of F at "fes-ti-vi-ta-tis" dispels the

impression ofprotus early on, though it too cadences on A at "vive" and "accepturi erant." 68. On the manuscripts containing Regino's tonary and their editions, see Huglo, Les

Tonaires, 71-89. 69. See Mary Protase LeRoux, "The 'De harmonica institutione' and 'Tonarius' of Regino of

Priim" (Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 1965), 225. (The Leipzig source omits communions and introits.)




melody, perhaps in reference to the mode-two character of its incipit and the phrases immediately following.70 Regino's conflicting modal assignments for Ultimofestivitatis, like those for Acceptabis, may thus result from his differing methods of classification according to genre and could suggest that the modal shift preserved in the diastematic sources of Example 18 was a feature of this melody from its earliest circulation.71

The modal instability of Surrexit dominus may arise from related factors (see Ex. 19). Like the fifth Sunday after Pentecost's Circuibo, Surrexit dominus receives both tritus and tetrardus assignments, and in Gregorian sources it is set at three different notational levels (C, F, and G).72 The Montpellier 159 reading (on C) provides a semitone subfinal for the opening two phrases, yet flats that pitch at each appearance in the expansive "alleluia" with which Surrexit concludes. The Graz source notates at G, however, and provides a tetrardus recitation formula; moreover the semitone subfinal of the first two phrases in Montpellier is avoided entirely through partial transposition up a step. The Beneventan and Aquitanian manuscripts notate at the level ofF and give a tritus differentia, and maintain a semitone below the final throughout. As Bomm suggested, these varied notational levels may be an attempt to avoid the chromaticism of the Montpellier reading, which he describes as inflecting both tritus and tetrardus via an alternating subfinal.73 This inflection was either partially suppressed (as in Paris and Benevento), circumvented entirely (Graz), or retained through full transposition to C (Montpellier).

The Chartres and Roman settings of Surrexit dominus suggest a more fundamental shift of tonal focus as a possible source for its conflicting modal classifications and varied notational levels. As Huglo has shown, the Chartres

70. Coussemaker, Scriptorum 2:58, from the Brussels manuscript (which does not include Ultimo as a responsory). The authenticity of the Brussels source remains to be established (Huglo, Les Tonaires, 82-83); nevertheless, the conflicting classifications Ultimo receives in tonaries attributed to Regino are consistent with both the melody's bimodal design and Regino's analytical method. Guido concurs with Regino's second-mode classification of Ultimo as a communion; see Coussemaker, Scriptorum 2:90.

71. It should be noted that Ultimofestivitatis also circumvents the stylistic norms of the core communions. Like Venite post me, Ultimofestivitatis shows frequent shifts in surface texture to articulate its text. The central line of this gospel dialogue consists of three sense units, the outer two of which are neumatic in texture. The central sense unit ("flumina de ventre eius") is set in relief both spatially (through the renegotiation of a pentachord) and by a marked shift to a syllabic surface texture, a shift shared by all Gregorian readings as well as the otherwise more ornate Roman setting. The following line, which gives the narrator's interpretation of Jesus' words, again consists of three sense units, the first two of which are also differentiated by range and surface texture.

72. Similar to Circuibo, Regino of Pruim provides a unique modal assignment for Surrexit dominus, specifically to the first mode. Notated sources give no clue as to why; comparing the treatise's notated incipit with the melody as it stands in the Vatican edition, Bomm notes: "Reg[ino] zeigt dieselben Neumen (auf Surrexit), also wohl auch die gleiche Melodie des Anfangs. Wie er ihn sich als I auth[entische] vorstellen konnte, ist ohne weiteres begreiflich" (Der Wechsel, 75).

73. Ibid., 112.



4rt-

IFI[ m

ml ,...,

1 -I Im

I

I I gi



II . I I[ I Ii --

iII

IlK




Gradual preserves a unique system for modal analysis.74 As with Regino, it most often cites a communion's incipit for modal reference with the following symbols:

i i I (II, III ...) = i[nitium] i[n] primum (secundum, tertium, etc.) or

i em i I (II, III ...) = i[nitium] e[minet] i[n] primum... Sometimes a melody's conclusion is given as the best exemplar of a chant's modal class:

ul em i I (II, III .. .) = ul[tima] (syllaba) em[inet] i[n] pnmum ... For the sixth-mode designation of Surrexit dominus, however, the Chartres scribe cues the melody's central portion with the following:

m i VI = m[edium] i[n] sextum

Where such designations occur, Huglo suggests that the scribe may be refer- ring to a medial cadence as the best indicator of a melody's modal class.75 The version of Surrexit dominus available to the Chartres scribe, then, may have included opening and closing gestures that were considered modally indistinct, at odds with a medial cadence that was deemed a clearer exponent of the tritus classification he provides.

The Roman setting might bear this out. Though it opens on G, to sing through the second phrase with this pitch as a tonal center would result in a direct tritone at the final syllable ("Pe-tro"). It seems likely that F was the intended focus of the first Roman period, with B sung flat throughout: this interpretation allows for a trichordal analysis that at least more closely approximates the Gregorian readings (each of which, it will be noted, begins on a tone other than its final). Better evidence that this was the case is available at the medial cadence, that singled out by the Chartres scribe, where the final syllable is set to a cadential formula (elaborated at the end) similar to the one Murphy has established as proper to F-mode Roman communions (compare this with the concluding three syllables of lustus dominus in Ex. 5).76 Turning to the Roman setting of the alleluia, we see that this concludes with a similar formula set on G, a gesture Murphy identifies as proper to G-mode communion melodies. The conflicting modal classifications of Surrexit dominus, if considered together with the Chartres 47 scribe's selection of the medial cadence as representative of the tritus classification he provides, may stem from two opening phrases that were perceived as inflecting an F mode, with a

74. Huglo, Les Tonaires, 105-9. 75. Huglo counts seven other chants classified in this manner in Chartres 47 (Les Tonaires,

107). 76. Murphy, "The Communions," 401.




concluding "alleluia" set in relief via a shift in tonal focus to G.77 If such a "modulation" was an early feature of the melody (as the Chartres scribe's analysis and the Roman cadential formulae might suggest), then the chromaticized subfinal of the Montpellier reading may itself be a later notational adjustment, one masking a detail better preserved in the Roman and Chartres manuscripts.

Bimodality might even be related to the text of a chant. To conclude our discussion of the responsory-communions' modal instability, Example 20a provides Gregorian settings of Simon Iohannes for the feast of St. Peter. Like its settings of the eighth-mode Circuibo and the sixth-mode Surrexit dominus, the Montpellier 159 reading of Simon Iohannes provides a fluctuating subfinal via transposition to C. Simon appears in that portion of the manuscript dedicated to tritus melodies, but on the first page of the example every occurrence of the subfinal is given as Bb (suggesting tetrardus), while the following page shows two instances of B-durum (surrounding a single Bb on the word "quia"). Bomm suggests the Montpellier assignment to tritus was made due to the concluding statement of the subfinal as a natural. Staves three and four give Aquitanian settings that are near intervallic duplicates with one another and with Montpellier; however, the London 4951 reading is set on F and sup- plies a sixth-mode differentia, while Paris sets on G and gives a tetrardus psalm tone. The Graz manuscript also notates on G, and while it is similar in most details to the Aquitanian readings, the tetrardus environment is made more pronounced by repeated emphasis on the eighth mode's reciting tone. On the words "diliges," "nosti," and "domine," Graz leaps from its G final to C, whereas the other three diastematic sources jump to the reciting tone proper to the sixth mode at the upper third. It will be noted that all sources leap to the upper fourth on the first "domine," even those that classify Simon Iohannes as a tritus chant. Thus the Gregorian tradition of this melody inflects both tritus and tetrardus in various ways: via a chromaticized subfinal, emphasis on both the reciting tones those subfinals imply, and varied notational levels at C, F, and G.

Beneventan and Roman readings of Simon lohannes preserve yet another tradition of this melody, where shifting modality distinguishes the two conversants of this dialogue text (see Ex. 20b).78 The opening words of Jesus are stated at the level of F, with a clearly tritus melody until the line's end. Here, at the question, both readings cadence on G, the tone on which Peter's response begins. This response is set to three equally clear tetrardus phrases, and

77. Considering that the incipit is the most oft-cited modal reference point used by the Chartres scribe, perhaps his singling out of the medial cadence is related to the fact (noted above) that no Gregorian readings initiate on the finals proper to the mode to which they are assigned.

78. Example 20b gives readings from Benevento, Biblioteca Capitolare VI, MS 38, and Rome F22, which are representative of this melody and text in all the Roman Mass and Office sources in which it appears (Simon Iohannes does not appear in the Bodmer manuscript [Cologny-Gen&ve, Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, MS 74]).



III ilt iII I iii

i l I a ..

K ii

. ?-n ?

. '"..

Sr- -

a a is * 1 2 o 0

o.

K K

I I a a'

?4

E KI ~ UIL mII E 00



PPA It o 0

' ' CI 4 ' s

II '~ ( i CI

' I I I Uj

I I

In i --a I--

*1

_, , mkl I I ". II ' b ~

4) 4)

.j "1 ,a ,

_ ,**

, ,! ? ~ ,

1- I lI I '

0- ' 0

i I ? , '0

, _

o II .



I ,

g II

II-

a

c 0

Uc 0rrIIc




on the third the Beneventan version concludes Simon lohannes on G. The Roman tradition provides an additional phrase consisting of Jesus' reply and concludes with a standard tritus cadence at the F level at which the piece began (similar to the medial gesture in Surrexit dominus).79

On the basis of its Beneventan and Roman settings, then, it would appear that one explanation for the modal instability of Simon lohannes is an intentional inflection of both tritus and tetrardus, an inflection distributed to highlight the conversants of its dialogue text. It is impossible to assign chronological priority to these or any of the Gregorian readings in Example 20a; one can only say that bimodality is a feature associated with this chant from its earliest circulation, that scribes and cantors utilized its possibilities in varied and fascinating ways, and that it is quite distinct from the norms of the core communion tradition. Along with the three melodies just discussed, I would include Christus resurgens, Dum venerit, Ego sum pastor, Ego sum vitis, and Unam petii in that category of responsory-communions whose theoretically unstable tradition seems likely to arise from multimodal inflection.

Formulaicism and structure. The majority of responsory-communions are, like the core chants, free of the standard melodic material typical of responsories. One distinct passage does appear in five separate melodies, however, a passage noted long ago in a study of two responsory-communions singled out for their related incipits, texts, and dual liturgical function: Ego sum vitis and Ego sum pastors8 A related melodic gesture appears also in three other responsory-communions of varying modality--Dum venerit, Vox in Rama, and to a lesser extent Christus resurgens--where it occurs in both introductory and internal phrases (see Ex. 21). The only communion to preserve this modally ambiguous gesture that does not also serve as a responsory is Domine quinque talenta, and while it is not a responsory-communion in the strict sense, Peter Wagner noted that the melody of this chant is also adapted for the responsory text Euge serve bone.81 Why this gesture should wander among chants of two liturgical genres, and why so many of the melodies that contain it are characterized by extreme modal instability (see Table 3), cannot be answered at present. But it may be said that there is a clear association between the Ego sum figure and gospel dialogue chants serving in two liturgical genres,

79. It seems probable that this final response was an earlier feature of Simon Iohannes that was omitted in later sources; among the AMS graduals only the most ancient (the Blandienensis) concludes with "pasce oves meas" (AMS, 138). See also the Chartres 47 reading, where at the "plus his?" cadence the scribe adds the significative letters "n 1" (non levare?).

80. Joseph Pothier, "Antiennes de Communion 'Ego sum vitis' et 'Ego sum pastor,' " Revue du chantgregorien 20 (1912): 133-39.

81. See Peter Wagner, Gregorianische Formenlehre, Einffihrung in die gregorianischen Melodien 3 (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hiirtel, 1921), 327-28; and Ruth Steiner, "The Parable of the Talents in Liturgy and Chant," in Essays in Musicology: A Tribute to Alvin Johnson, ed. Lewis Lockwood and Edward Roesner (Philadelphia: American Musicological Society, 1990), 1-15.




Example 21 The Ego sum figure

(a) Ego sum vitis (Jn. 15, 5; St. Geor ge; St.Vitalis) modes G, C; 4, 7, 8

E - go sum vi - tis ve - ra

(b) Ego sum pastor (Jn. 10, 14; Easter II) modes G; 2, 4, 7, 8

E- go sum pastor bo- nus

(c)Dum venerit (Jn. 16, 8; Easter IV) modes G, C; 5, 7, 8

Spi - ri - tus ve - ri - ta - tis

(d) Vox in Rama (Mt. 2, 18; Innocents) mode G; 7

no- lu- it con- so- la - ri

(e) Domine quinque talenta (Mt. 25, 20. 21; St. Clement) modes G; 4, 8

Do - mi - ne quin-que ta - len - ta

(f) Christus resurgens (Rom. 6, 9; Easter Wed.) modes C, F; 3, 6, 7, 8

Chris-tus re - sur - gens ex mor - tu - is

which could suggest that melodies containing it are of a related, chronologically circumscribed origin. Certainly cross-chant melodic duplication of this kind is in marked contrast to the free melodic construction of the core communions.

The reappearance of the Ego sum gesture has no structural consequences for any of the melodies containing it. When used it appears a single time, as




one of multiple phrases that together comprise open forms primarily dependent on the unique sense construction of the texts they set. Yet, as noted several times in the course of this study, there are responsory-communions more akin to Unam petii, in which significant melodic repetition results in closed forms that are atypical of the core chants. One such instance was noted in our brief discussion of Quinque prudentes (Ex. 16d). Also noted above, three responsory-communions employ exactly the same gesture that rounds out the form of Unam petii, including Ultimo festivitatis, which presents the figure twice in close succession following its shift to tritus (Ex. 18; this same gesture reappears in a similar fashion in the Johannine Non vos relinquam as well as in Laetabitur iustus). Several other gospel responsory-communions place their repeated gestures so as to function intonationally rather than cadentially; one example may be seen in the lengthy gospel dialogue Pater cum essem in which the two halves of the text are melodically marked with related phrases that are similar in terms of melodic contour and tonal focus. To a lesser extent, Responsum also has a binary structure, due to the similar gestures that initiate the Gregorian reading's two periods (absent in the Roman setting). Finally, a near-literal repeat of a single phrase (followed by two melodically unrelated alleluias) appears in the two opening lines of the Roman reading of Pacem meam (see Ex. 22). The result is an AA'B design in which temporary priority is given to purely melodic considerations, unlike the core chants whose phrases are melodically unique and spatially tailored to the sense construction of their texts. Closed forms are quite prevalent among responsories; one wonders whether the presence of such structural anomalies among the responsory-communions is an indication of the genre in which they originated. As we shall see, four responsory-communions with such designs (Non vos relinquam, Pacem meam, Pater cum essem, and Ultimo festivitatis) are among a particularly intriguing set that appears to have been borrowed for use as Ascension-Pentecost communions quite late in the cycle's development.

Stability of transmission. The Gregorian reading of Pacem meam, it will be noted, does not preserve the structural repeats of the Roman version, and differs from it in terms of melodic contour, surface texture, and final.82 These observations lead to a word on the frequent dissimilarities encountered in the two dialects' responsory-communion settings. In terms of surface texture, we have seen that the two dialects are at frequent odds: Roman responsory- communion settings are routinely more ornate and melismatically dense in comparison with parallel Gregorian readings. While the majority of phrases do follow similar melodic contours in both dialects, there are instances of absolute disagreement (as seen in the conclusion of Gaudete iusti, Ex. 15b). Three responsory-communions represent a more fundamental breach between the two melodic traditions: like Passion Monday's Dominus virtutum,

82. Several Gregorian sources do match the Roman G final, but all begin at the same level as Montpellier and move upward a step at the first alleluia; see Bomm, Der Wechsel, 88-89.



.,..I

n u m | o o

0 0o - IN 0

^ 1111 111 E ( I




the responsory-communions Qui me dignatus, Pacem meam, and Tanto tempore appear to contradict the conventionally held assumption that a common melodic tradition underpins the two dialects, an assumption that was seemingly confirmed by the core psalmic communions.

Perhaps the most striking instance of a breakdown in the two dialects' relationship is the lengthy gospel dialogue Tanto tempore (Ex. 23). Though the Roman reading is set an octave higher than the Gregorian, at first glance one could argue for some degree of melodic similarity at the initial phrase. At the second phrase, however, the two dialects differ in significant ways; the recitational Gregorian setting, spanning a trichord, receives an expansive and ornate reading in the Roman that covers a full seventh. The second period presents an even more fractured relationship, one characterized by melodic and textual discrepancies that extend to considerations of range, textural surface density, the placement and melodic contour of the alleluia, and even the omission of a pronoun in the Gregorian (or its addition in the Roman). While a closer relationship exists at the third period, the alleluias with which both settings conclude are in substantial conflict (the readings also close, it will be noted, on different finals). That the two melodic dialects should preserve such remarkable variants in settings of the same text argues for this melody's origin as separate from the core layer. While Tanto tempore offers a particularly extreme case of cross-dialect instability, the examples throughout the third part of this study have shown that its specific discrepancies are in no way unique to this chant. In sum, the similarity between the two dialects that characterizes the core communions' written tradition is frequently absent in the responsory- communions.

With the responsory-communions, then, we have a body of melodies that differ in numerous and striking ways with the core psalmic chants discussed at the outset of this study.83 As in those communions for Passion week and the initial post-Pentecost Sundays, it is tempting to ask if their special traits might be at least partially explained by issues of chronology--a hypothesis that would seem to be supported by their nonpsalmic texts, their extreme modal instability, and the striking variants their Roman and Gregorian readings so frequently display.

Exploring the possible reasons for the written and cross-dialect instability of the responsory-communions might assist in a better understanding of their origins and help to clarify the chronological stratification suggested by the repertory as a whole. At the point of their mid-eighth-century adoption in Francia, perhaps the responsory-communions were not as well assimilated by

83. Not all responsory-communions are stylistically anomalous with the core communions (see Maiani, "The Responsory-Communions: Toward a Chronology," 116-29), but the vast majority are characterized by the unique features that have been the subject of the third part of this study.



4.4 a i

E

E EEm

A -

E E




either the Romans or the Franks as were the core psalmic chants. The remarkable stability of transmission displayed in non-Roman sources for other plainchant genres, and the arguments advanced by Kenneth Levy and David Hughes about what that stability implies for ninth-century Carolingian chant, might be applicable to the present discussion, even though our subject involves an earlier stage of transmission.84 If one presumes that absolute melodic duplication was an eighth-century ideal of both Roman and Carolingian singers, then perhaps the similarity between the two dialects' core communion settings is evidence for their comparative antiquity (as was suggested above). Under this scenario, the melodic similarities preserved in the core communions of the two dialects could be the result of their stability before the trans- fer: because they had reached an essentially fixed form in Rome before the mid-eighth century, that fixity could be more faithfully passed on to Carolingian singers attempting to emulate Roman practices. With this in mind, one could suggest that the cross-dialect instability displayed by the exceptional responsory-communions might result from their more recent en- trance into the Roman repertory, and that that instability should be inter- preted as a sign of cantors struggling to assimilate new items in a novel style not as well fixed in the memories of those charged with their preservation and transmission.

On the other hand, the longer survival of the Roman dialect in an exclusively oral tradition might be invoked to explain its frequent dissimilarities with the Gregorian settings. As is well known, the earliest written evidence for the Roman melodies dates from as late as 1071, more than a century later than comparable documents from the north.85 One could interpret the unstable written and theoretical transmission of the exceptional responsory- communions as the inevitable result of reinterpretive processes that survive in writing, vestiges of the intentional, year-to-year reconstruction in performance that has been suggested as the preliterate norm by Helmut Hucke, Leo Treitler, and Hendrick van der Werf.86 In particular, the Roman readings'

84. In a series of provocative articles, Kenneth Levy has promulgated the theory of a lost written archetype, notated in "nuance poor" Paleofrankish neumes, that served as a model for the earliest surviving sources and contributed to the written stability those sources convey. See four articles by Levy: "Abbot Helisachar's Antiphoner," this Journal 48 (1995): 171-86; "On Gregorian Orality," this Journal 43 (1990): 185-227; "Charlemagne's Archetype of Gregorian Chant," this Journal 40 (1987): 1-30; and "On the Origin of Neumes," Early Music History 7 (1987): 59-90. See also Hughes, "Evidence for the Traditional View."

85. Specifically, the "St. Cecilia" manuscript (Cologny-Geneve, Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, MS 74). For a facsimile edition and commentary see Max Liitolf, ed., Das Graduale von Santa Cecilia in Trastevere (Cod. Bodmer 74), 2 vols. (Cologny-Geneve: Foundation Martin Bodmer, 1987).

86. See Helmut Hucke, "Toward a New Historical View of Gregorian Chant," this Journal 33 (1980): 437-67; Hucke, "Zur Aufzeichnung der altr6mischen Offertorien," in Ut mens concordet voci: Festschrift Eugtne Cardine, ed. Johannes Berchmans G6schl (St. Ottilien: Eos-Verlag, 1980), 296-308; Hucke, "Gregorianische Fragen," Die Musikforschung 41 (1988): 304-30; Leo Treitler, "Homer and Gregory: The Transmission of Epic Poetry and Plainchant," The Musical




discrepancies with the Gregorian would be explained as the result of their longer traffic in an oral environment.87 While I confess an intuitive bias toward this latter view as the more probable cause of the cross-dialect instability of the responsory-communions, I am obliged to admit that such processes seem not to have been applied to the core psalmic communions, perhaps because they were viewed as more venerable items for which such license was deemed inap- propriate.88 In any event, whether their dissimilarities stem from problems of assimilation on the part of cantors and scribes attempting to duplicate a given model verbatim, or are remnants of oral transmission processes whose rules and methods are not yet fully understood, either theory would have the majority of responsory-communions as relative latecomers to the Roman propers.

There is further evidence to suggest that the majority of responsory- communions could well be a younger layer of the repertory in comparison with the core Lenten and post-Pentecost items. As James McKinnon has shown in a recent study of the Franco-Roman communion cycle, every gospel communion from Easter to the sixth Sunday following (including ferias) draws its text from its assigned date's gospel reading at Mass.89 This pattern is abruptly broken at the Sunday after the Ascension, when the text of Pater cum essem (John 17, 12-15) conflicts with the pericope from the fifteenth chapter of John. This disruption continues until Non vos relinquam for the Saturday after Pentecost: of the eight communions assigned to these dates all but one are gospel items, and all are thematically appropriate to the liturgical themes of the Ascension and Pentecost; but unlike the remainder of the season's communions, none takes its text from the day's gospel reading. These chants are distinguished by more than lack of derivation from the Evangeliary: McKinnon shows that no fewer than five of these eight chants appear in Gregorian Office manuscripts as responsories (as does Psallite for the feast of the Ascension itself); moreover, of the remaining three at least two are employed as Office antiphons. McKinnon explains this borrowing as the last

Quarterly 60 (1974): 333-72; Treitler, "Oral, Written and Literate Process in the Transmission of Medieval Music," Speculum 56 (1981): 471-91; Treitler, "Reading and Singing: On the Genesis of Occidental Music-Writing," Early Music History 4 (1984): 135-208; and Hendrick van der Werf, The Emergence of Gregorian Chant: A Comparative Study of Ambrosian, Roman, and Gregorian Chant, 2 vols. (Rochester, N.Y.: the author, 1983). See also Peter Jeffery, Re- Envisioning Past Musical Cultures: Ethnomusicology in the Study of Gregorian Chant (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 11-50; and Leo Treitler's review of Jeffery's book in "Sinners and Singers: A Morality Tale," this Journal 47 (1994): 137-71.

87. This is the view taken by Paul F. Cutter in "The Old-Roman Chant Tradition: Oral or Written?" this Journal 20 (1967): 167-81: "Much of the discrepancy between the Old-Roman and Gregorian chants must be due to change in the Old-Roman itself between the time of the split [i.e. after the chant's mid-eighth-century adoption in the north] and the time of its scriptural redaction" (p. 180).

88. See Hughes, "Evidence for the Traditional View," 378. 89. McKinnon, "The Eighth-Century Franco-Roman Communion Cycle," 188-90.




stage in the communion cycle's final revision before its export to the Franks, and because of the unique concentration of borrowed items with which the Easter season concludes he describes that revision as having taken place in liturgical sequence from Advent to Paschaltide.90

If the responsory-communions of the Roman Office sources are factored into the equation, we find that this remarkable exchange between the two genres extends throughout the entire Paschaltide season, beginning with Easter Sunday's Pascha nostrum and continuing until the Saturday after Pentecost with Non vos relinquam (see Table 4). Of a total of twenty-two temporale assignments, fourteen are responsory-communions, and an additional three are those borrowed Office antiphons located by McKinnon. Like the Passion week and post-Pentecost chants, all are characterized by the stylistic, modal, and formal traits that we have called evidence for a late melodic style, as well as a more distant melodic relationship between the Roman and Gregorian dialects than is typical of the presumably older core chants.

The Easter to Ascension responsory-communions are, however, those that comply with the Lectionary, making it all but certain that the genre for which they were originally intended was the communion. This being the case, one might conclude that these items present the reverse order of the borrowing that was displayed by the Ascension-Pentecost group. Considering the implications such borrowing seems to have had for the communion cycle, what might this suggest for the responsories of the Easter season?

There is the distinct possibility that the Paschaltide complex of responsory- communions might signal a late attempt to fill repertorial gaps in two genres simultaneously, an attempt that spurred the provision of new items in a unique style that is anomalous to both liturgical genres to which they are assigned. This proposal is suggested by an exploration of the Paschaltide responsory repertory and the history of the development of the Night Office Lectionary. It so happens that the Roman and Gregorian Office sources show a shortage of Paschaltide responsories that is as striking as that seen in the Ascension- Pentecost communions.91 The Roman Office sources are particularly sugges- tive in this regard, since they contain just over half of the minimum number of responsories required for the Paschaltide liturgies. Moreover, a significant revision of the Roman Office Lectionary and its attendant responsories seems to have been undertaken concurrently with that McKinnon showed to have occurred for the communions, a revision that may well have occasioned the addition of new responsory chants that share many affinities with our

90. In their periodic construction and use of standard melodic formulas these Ascension- Pentecost responsory-communions are reminiscent of responsory style (they include Ultimofes- tivitatis). They are in many ways as curious to the Office repertory as they are as communions, however, particularly in their use of gospel texts; see Maiani, "The Responsory-Communions: Toward a Chronology," 122-30.

91. See Maiani, "The Responsory-Communions for Paschaltide," Studia Musicologia 39 (1998): 233-40; and Maiani, "Readings and Responsories," 220-21.




Table 4 Communion Assignments from Easter to Pentecost

Feast Readings Incipit Text source Comments

Easter I Cor. 5, 7-8 Pascha nostrum I Cor. 5, 7-8 Mon. Lk. 24, 13-35 Surrexit dominus Lk. 24, 34 Tues. Acts 13, 26-33 Si consurrexistis Col. 3, 1-2 Wed. Acts 3, 13-19 Christus resurgens Rom. 6, 9 Thurs. Acts 8, 26-40 Populus acquisitionis I Pt., 2, 9 Fri. Mt. 28, 16-20 Data est mihi Mt. 28, 18-19 Sat. I Pt., 2, 1-10 Omnes qui Gal. 3, 27 Post Easter I Jn. 20, 24-31 Mitte manum tuam Jn. 20, 27 Post Easter II Jn. 10, 11-16 Ego sum pastor Jn. 10, 14 Post Easter III Jn. 16, 16-22 Modicum Jn. 16, 16 Post Easter IV Jn. 16, 5-14 Dum venerit Jn. 16, 8 Post Easter V Jn. 16, 23-30 Cantate domino Ps. 95, 2 Pater cum essem

in Rome Greater Litany Lk. 11, 5-11 Petite et accipietis Lk. 11, 9-10 Ascension Mk. 16, 14-20 Psallite domino Ps. 67, 33-34 Sun. Jn. 15, 26-16, 4 Patercum essem Jn. 17, 12-15 Tristitiavestra

in Rome Vigil of Pent. Jn. 14, 15-21 Ultimo festivitatis Jn. 7, 37-39 Pentecost Acts 2, 1-11 Factus est repente Acts 2, 2-4 Mon. Jn. 3, 15-21 Spiritus sanctus docebit Jn. 14, 26 antiphon Tues. Jn. 10, 1-10 Spiritus qui a patre Jn. 15, 16-17 antiphon Wed. Jn. 6, 44-51 Pacem meam Jn. 14, 27 [Thurs. vacat] Fri. Lk. 5, 17-26 Spiritus ubi vult Jn. 3-8 antiphon Sat. Mt. 20, 29-34 Non vos relinquam Jn. 14, 18

Note: Items in italics are responsory-communions. Items are underlined if the gospel communion text dis- agrees with the Mass Lectionary.

exceptional responsory-communions.92 The possibility exists that some, perhaps the majority, of the exceptional responsory-communions are novel products of an eighth-century musico-liturgical effort to fill a shortage of repertory in both chant genres to which they are assigned.

Though the repertory of communions remains to be explored in its en- tirety, the striking differences between the "core" chants, the "exceptional" psalmic items, and the responsory-communions seem clear. In particular, the melodic and textual curiosities of the former group seem best explained by their provision at different stages of the cycle's creation as a complete liturgical unit, and the responsory-communions would appear to reflect a later (and less perfectly assimilated) layer of the genre.

92. Maiani, "Readings and Responsories," 175-220.




Works Cited

Primary Sources Ben. 34 Benevento, Biblioteca Capitolare VI, MS 34 Ben. 38 Benevento, Biblioteca Capitolare VI, MS 38 Bodmer 74 Cologny-Geneve, Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, MS 74 Ch. 47 Chartres, Bibliotheque Municipale, MS 47 Ein. 121 Einsiedeln, Stiftsbibliothek, MS 121 Graz 807 Graz, Universititsbibliothek, MS 807 Mont. 159 Montpellier, Bibliotheque de I'Ecole de Medicine, MS H159 Paris 903 Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, fonds latin, MS 903 Rome F22 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Archivio di San Pietro,

MS F. 22 Rome 5319 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Archivio di San Pietro,

MS lat. 5319

Secondary Sources Alfonzo, Pio. I responsori biblici dell'Ufficio romano. Rome: Facultas theologica ponti-

ficii athenaei seminarii romani, 1936. Andrieu, Michel. Les Ordines romani du haut moyen-dge. 5 vols. Spicilegium Sacrum

Lovaniense 11, 23, 24, 28, 29. Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense Bureaux, 1931-61.

Apel, Willi. Gregorian Chant. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1958. Bomm, Urbanus. Der Wechsel der Modalitditsbestimmung in der Tradition der Mess-

gesdnge im IX. bis XIII. Jahrhundert. Einsiedeln, 1929. Reprint, Hildesheim: Olms, 1975.

Coussemaker, Edmond de. Scriptorum de Musica Medii Aevi. 4 vols. Paris, 1864-76. Reprint, Hildesheim: Olms, 1987.

Cutter, Paul F. "The Old-Roman Chant Tradition: Oral or Written?" This Journal 20 (1967): 167-81.

Deshusses, Jean. Le Sacramentaire gregorien: Ses Principales Formes d'apres les plus anciens manuscrits. 3d rev. and corrected ed. Spicilegium Friburgense 16. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1992. -. Liber Sacramentorum Gellonensis. Turnholt: Brepols, 1981.

Dyer, Joseph. "Latin Psalters, Old Roman and Gregorian Chants." Kirchenmusika- lischesJahrbuch 68 (1984): 11-30.

Ferretti, Paulo. Esteticagregoriana. Rome: Pontificio istituto di musica sacra, 1934. Fleming, Keith Allan. "The Editing of Some Communion Melodies in Medieval

Chant Manuscripts." Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 1979. Gerbert, Martin. Scriptores Ecclesiastici de Musica Sacra. 3 vols. St. Blasien, 1784. Re-

print, Hildesheim: Olms, 1990. Hesbert, Ren-&Jean. Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex. Brussels: Vromant, 1935. Hiley, David. Western Plainchant: A Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1993. Holman, Hans-Jbrgen. "The Responsoria Prolixa of the Codex Worcester F 160."

Ph.D. diss., Indiana University, 1961. Hucke, Helmut. "Das Responsorium." In Gattungen der Musik in inzeldarstellungen:

Gedenkschrift Leo Schrade, edited by WulfArlt et al., 144-91. Bern: Franke, 1973.




. "Die Herkunft der Kirchentonarten und die frdinkische Uberlieferung des Gregorianischen Gesangs." In Bericht iiber den Internationalen Musikwissen- schaftlichen Kongress, Berlin 1974, edited by Peter Nitsche, 257-60. Kassel: Birenreiter, 1980.

-- . "Gregorianische Fragen." Die Musikforschung 41 (1988): 304-30. * "Karolingische Renaissance und Gregorianischer Gesang." Die Musik-

forschung28 (1975): 4-18. . "Toward a New Historical View of Gregorian Chant." This Journal 33

(1980): 437-67. . "Zur Aufzeichnung der altr6mischen Offertorien." In Ut mens concordet voci:

Festschrift Eugine Cardine, edited by Johannes Berchmans Gbschl, 296-308. St. Ottilien: Eos-Verlag, 1980.

Hughes, David G. "Evidence for the Traditional View of the Transmission of Gregorian Chant." This Journal 40 (1987): 377-404.

Huglo, Michel. Les Tonaires: Inventaire, analyse, comparaison. Paris: Societ6 Franqaise de Musicologie, 1971.

Jacobsthal, Gustav. Die chromatische Alteration im liturgischen Gesang der abendlindi- schen Kirche. Berlin: Springer, 1897.

Jeffery, Peter. Re-Envisioning Past Musical Cultures: Ethnomusicology in the Study of Gregorian Chant. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Jounel, Pierre. "The Easter Cycle." In The Liturgy and Time, edited by A. G. Marti- mort, translated by Matthew J. O'Connell, 33-76. The Church at Prayer 4. Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1986.

. "Le Dimanche des rameaux: Tradition de l'6glise." La Maison-dieu 68 (1961): 45-63.

Klauser, Theodor. Das ri'mische Capitulare Evangeliorum. Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen und Forschungen 28. Miinster: Aschendorf, 1935.

LeRoux, Mary Protase. "The 'De harmonica institutione' and 'Tonarius' of Regino of PrUim." Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 1965.

Levy, Kenneth. "Abbot Helisachar's Antiphoner." This Journal 48 (1995): 171-86. . "Charlemagne's Archetype of Gregorian Chant." This Journal 40 (1987):

1-30. . "On Gregorian Orality." This Journal 43 (1990): 185-227.

.. "On the Origin of Neumes." Early Music History 7 (1987): 59-90. Lfitolf, Max, ed. Das Graduale von Santa Cecilia in Trastevere (Cod. Bodmer 74). 2

vols. Cologny-Geneve: Foundation Martin Bodmer, 1987. Maiani, Brad. "Readings and Responsories: The Eighth-Century Night Office Lec-

tionary and the Responsoria Prolixa." The Journal ofMusicology 16 (1998): 253-82. . "The Responsory-Communions for Paschaltide." Studia Musicologica 39

(1998): 233-40. - . "The Responsory-Communions: Toward a Chronology of Selected Proper

Chants." Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1996. McKinnon, James. "The Eighth-Century Frankish-Roman Communion Cycle." This

Journal 45 (1992): 179-227. -. "The Roman Post-Pentecostal Communion Series." In Cantus Planus: Papers Read at the Fourth Meeting, PMcs, Hungary, 3-8 September 1990, ed. Laiszl6 Dobszay et al., 175-86. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences Institute for Musicology, 1992.




Migne, Jacques-Paul. Patrologiae Cursus Completus... Series Latina. 217 vols. Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1844-55. Numerous reprints.

Mohlberg, Leo Cunibert. Liber Sacramentorum Romanae Aeclesiae Ordinis Anni Cir- culi (Cod. Vat. Reg. lat. 316/Paris Bibl. Nat. 7193, 41/46). Rome: Herder, 1968.

Moreton, Bernard. The Eighth-Century Gelasian Sacramentary: A Study in Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.

-- . "Mohlberg, Chrysogonus, and the Gelasians of the Eighth Century." Studia Patristica 10 (1970): 391-95.

Murphy, Joseph Michael. "The Communions of the Old Roman Chant." Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1977.

Nowacki, Edward. "Studies on the Office Antiphons of the Old Roman Manuscripts." Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 1980.

-- . "The Syntactical Analysis of Plainchant." In International Musicological Society: Report of the Twelfth Congress, Berkeley 1977, edited by Daniel Heartz and Bonnie Wade, 191-201. Kassel: Birenreiter, 1981.

Palisca, Claude V., ed. Hucbald, Guido, and John on Music: Three Medieval Treatises. Translated by Warren Babb. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1978.

Pothier, Joseph. "Antiennes de Communion 'Ego sum vitis' et 'Ego sum pastor.' " Revue du chant grigorien 20 (1912): 133-39.

Powers, Harold S. "Mode." In The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians 12:376-91. Edited by Stanley Sadie. 20 vols. London: Macmillan, 1980.

Riche, Pierre. "Le Renouveau culturel a la cour de Pepin III," Francia 2 (1974): 59-70.

Smits van Waesberghe, Joseph, ed. Johannes Affligemensis: De Musica cum Tonario. Rome: American Institute of Musicology, 1950.

Stiblein, Bruno, and Margareta Landwehr-Melnicki. Die Geseange des altriimischen Graduale Vat. lat. 5319. Monumenta Monodica Medii Aevi 2. Kassel: Birenreiter, 1970.

Steiner, Ruth. "The Parable of the Talents in Liturgy and Chant." In Essays in Musi- cology: A Tribute to Alvin Johnson, edited by Lewis Lockwood and Edward Roesner, 1-15. Philadelphia: American Musicological Society, 1990.

Talley, Thomas J. The Origins of the Liturgical Year. New York: Pueblo, 1986. Treitler, Leo. " 'Centonate' Chant: Obles Flickwerk or E pluribus unus?" This Journal

28 (1975): 1-23. - . "Homer and Gregory: The Transmission of Epic Poetry and Plainchant." The

Musical Quarterly 60 (1974): 333-72.

- . "Oral, Written and Literate Process in the Transmission of Medieval Music."

Speculum 56 (1981): 477-91. . "Reading and Singing: On the Genesis of Occidental Music-Writing." Early

Music History 4 (1984): 135-208.

- . "Sinners and Singers: A Morality Tale." Review of Re-Envisioning Past

Musical Cultures: Ethnomusicology in the Study of Gregorian Chant, by Peter Jeffery. This Journal 47 (1994): 137-71.

Van der Werf, Hendrick. The Emergence of Gregorian Chant: A Comparative Study ofAmbrosian, Roman, and Gregorian Chant. 2 vols. Rochester, N.Y.: the author, 1983.

Wagner, Peter. Gregorianische Formenlehre. Einfiihrung in die gregorianischen Melodien 3. Leipzig: Breitkopfund Hirtel, 1921.




. Introduction to the Gregorian Melodies. Translated by Agnes Orme and E. G. P. Wyatt. 2d ed. London: Plainsong and Medieval Music Society, 1901.

Abstract

This study attempts to expose three chronological layers of the communion repertory. I begin by compiling a set of analytical norms for the communions of Lent and the Sundays after Pentecost, which take their texts from the Psalter and are ordered numerically based on their source psalm. The majority of these chants are closely related in style, and their written tradition is quite stable. Those that form exceptions to the norm are assigned to feasts known to have been introduced or adjusted comparatively late in liturgical history, and it is argued here that their unusual musical traits might be taken as evidence for their addition or adaptation at a late stage of the cycle's evolution. A third set of communions is closely allied with these presumably younger psalmic chants. In addition to their curious use as both responsories for matins and communions at Mass, they are largely responsible for the well-known textual, modal, and stylistic heterogeneity of the communion repertory as a whole. The majority of these "responsory-communions" are assigned to the Paschaltide season, which also has recently been cited as the subject of late liturgical revision and expansion. These dual genre chants may well be among the last items added to the Roman plainchant repertory before its official export to the north in the mid-eighth century.



Documents

Approaching the Communion Melodies