¹ The Missal of the New Minster, Winchester, ed. Turner, D. H., HBS 93 (London, 1962), vi;Google Scholarsee also Gneuss, H., ‘A Preliminary List of Manuscripts Written or Owned in England up to 1100’, ASE 9 (1981), 1–60 (no. 837), andGoogle Scholar‘Liturgical Books in Anglo-Saxon England and their Old English Terminology’, Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Lapidge, M. and Gneuss, H. (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 91–141 (no. A.1).Google Scholar

² The oldest book representing what we call a missal is the fragment, Monte Cassino, Archivio della Badia, 271 (s. viii); see Wilmart, A., ‘Un missel grégorien ancien’, RB 26 (1909), 281–300; the text is printed inGoogle ScholarDold, A., Vom Sakramentar, Comes und Capitulare zum Missale, Texte und Arbeiten 34 (Beuron, 1943). It is z6 in SG (see below, n. 9), and item 701 inGoogle ScholarGamber, K., Codices Liturgici Latini Antiquiores, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (Freiburg, 1968) (henceforth CLLA ). See alsoGoogle ScholarChavasse, A., ‘Les fragments palimpsests du Casinensis 271 (Sigle z6). A coté de l'Hadrianum et du Paduense, un collatéral, autrement remainé’, Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 25 (1983), 9–33. Another early book, the earliest witness to a homogenized text, has been published byGoogle ScholarGamber, K., ‘Fragment eines mittelitalienischen Plenarmissale aus dem 8. Jahrhundert’, Ephemerides liturgicae 76 (1962), 235–41, and his discovery has been discussed byGoogle Scholarvan Dijk, S.J.P., ‘Gregory the Great, Founder of the Urban Schola Cantorum’, Ephemerides liturgicae 77 (1963), 335–66, at 355–6, andGoogle Scholar‘Recent Developments in the Study of the Old-Roman Rite’, Studia Patristica 8 (Berlin, 1966) 11, 299–319, at 309–10. It is CLLA, no. 1401. For these books and others consultGoogle ScholarNussbaum, O., Kloster, Priestermönch, und Privatmesse: ibr Verhältnis im Westen vonder Anfängen bis zum bohen Mittelalter (Bonn, 1961), pp. 178–85;Google ScholarHuglo, M., in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Sadie, S., 20 vols. (London, 1980) XII, 365–7 (s.v. ‘Missal’), andGoogle ScholarJeffery, P., ‘The Oldest Sources of the Graduale: a Preliminary Checklist of MSS copied before about 900 AD’, Jnl of Musicology 2 (1983), 316–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarFor the missal ‘phenomenon’, see Jungmann, J. A., Missarum Sollemnia, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (Vienna, 1949) 1, 269–94, andGoogle Scholarvan Dijk, S. J. P., The Origins of the Modern Roman Liturgy (London, 1960), pp. 45–66.Google Scholar

³ Gjerløw, L., Adoratio Crucis, the Regularis Concordia and the Decreta Lanfranci. Manuscript Studies in the Early Medieval Church of Norway (Oslo, 1961), pp. 29–67; Gneuss, ‘A Preliminary List’, no. 872.Google Scholar

⁴ For the first, now Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 173, see Warren, F.E., ‘An Anglo-Saxon Missal at Worcester’, The Academy 28 (07–12 1885), 394–5;Google ScholarDelisle, L., ‘Mémoire sur d'anciens sacramentaires’, Mémoires de l' Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 32 (1886), 57–423, at 272;Google ScholarTurner, C.H., ‘The Churches at Winchester in the Early Eleventh Century’, JTS 17 (1916), 65–8;CrossRefGoogle ScholarHohler, C.E., ‘Some Service Books of the Later Saxon Church’, Tenth-Century Studies, ed. Parsons, D. (London and Chichester, 1975), pp. 60–83 and 217–27, at 224, n. 55; and Gneuss, ‘A Preliminary List’, no. 764 (not a sacramentary).Google ScholarFor the other, now preserved as fragments, see Schmid, T., ‘Smärre Liturgiska Bidrag, viii’, Nordisk Tidskrift für Bok- och Biblioteksväsen 31 (1944), 25–34; Gneuss, ‘A Preliminary List’, no. 936.Google Scholar

⁵ One fragment is ed. Gjerløw, L., ‘Missaler brukt i Bjørgvin bispedømme fra misjonstiden til Nidarosordinariet’, Bjørgvin bispestol, ed. Juvkam, P. (Oslo, 1970), pp. 73–128; Gneuss, ‘A Preliminary List’, no. 789.Google ScholarFor others, see her ‘Missaler brukt i Oslo bispedømme fra misjonstiden til Nidarosordinariet’, Oslo bispedømme 900 ar. Historiker studier, ed. Birkeli, F., Johansen, A.O. and Molland, E. (Oslo, 1975), pp. 73–142; Gneuss, ‘A Preliminary List’, nos. 871 and 875.Google Scholar

⁶ Gneuss, ‘A Preliminary List’, nos. 143, 212 (not a sacramentary), 255 (almost unreadable, perhaps a missal; see Ker, N.R., ‘A Palimpsest in the National Library of Scotland: Early Fragments of Augustine “De Trinitate”, the “Passio S. Laurentii” and other Texts’, Trans, of the Edinburgh Bibliographical Soc. 3 (1948–1955), 169–78), 454, 524, 572 and 649.Google Scholar

⁷ Gjerløw, Adoratio Crucis, p. 50. A section of Gamber, CLLA, is devoted to a list of missalia plenaria. As the list makes clear, Italy is the true home of the full missal, but this is precisely what we should expect of the centre of Western Christendom: the creation of a book designed to be used by individual clergy intent on fulfilling their pastoral duties in the field. In laying out his material, however, Gamber has neglected to cite any English or Scandinavian fragments, making the picture he paints of the diffusion of this important liturgical book very distorted. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to postulate on negative evidence that the Franks did not use the missale plenum soon after it was available to them.

⁸ The basic book, s. xv on vellum, contains primarily sermons of St John Chrysostom.

⁹ The editions are:

Ge = Sacramentary of Gellone (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 12048), ed. Dumas, A., Liber Sacramentorum Gellonensis, 2 vols., CCSL 159 and 159A (Turnhout, 1981).Google ScholarGo = Missale Gothicum (Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 317), ed. Mohlberg, L.C., Missale Gothicum (Rome, 1961).Google Scholar Ha =Hadrianum (SG1, 83–348).

SG1 = Le Sacramentaire Grégorien: ses principales formes d'après les plus anciens manuscrits, ed. Deshusses, J.. 1: le Sacramentaire, le Supplément d'Aniane (Fribourg, 1971).Google Scholar

Sg = Sacramentary of St Gall (St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 348), ed. Mohlberg, L.C., Das frankische Sacramentarium Gelasianum in alamannischer Überlieferung (Müinster, 1918).Google Scholar

Sp = The Supplement to the Hadrianum (SG1, 349–605).

Tc = Textes complémentaires pour la messe [SG11] (Fribourg, 1979).Google Scholar

Va = The Vatican manuscript of the Gelasian Sacramentary (Vatican City, Bibl. Apost. Vat., Reg. lat. 316), ed. Mohlberg, L.C., Eisenhöfer, L. and Siffrin, P., Liber Sacramentorum Romanae Aeclesiae ordinis anni.circuli (Rome, 1960).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 5 79 (s. x–xi); The Leofric Missal as used in the Cathedral of Exeter, ed. Warren, F.E. (Oxford, 1883). The main part of this book (c. 900) will be cited as LeofA.Google Scholar

¹¹ Rouen, Bibl. mun., Y.6 (274) (s. xiⁱⁿ); The Missal of Robert of Jumièges, ed. Wilson, H.A., HBS 11 (London, 1896) (cited below as Jum).Google Scholar

¹² This manuscript (cited as O) and the sacramentary of Giso of Wells are cited as Whc. and Vit. in Missale ad usum ecclesie Westmonasteriensis, ed. Legg, J. W., 3 vols., HBS 1, 5 and 12 (London, 1891–1897) 111; D. Grémont and L. Donnat, ‘Fleury, le Mont Saint-Michel et l'Angleterre à la fin du Xe et au début du Xle siècle à propos du manuscrit d'Orléans No. 127 (105)’, Millènaire monastique du Mont Saint-Michel, 4 vols. (1966–71) 1,751–93. The fundamental study of these books and the period is Hohler, ‘Some Service Books’.Google Scholar

¹³ See above, n. 1.

¹⁴ See above, n. 12.

¹⁵ Work on this text was greatly facilitated by the comprehensive edition of the Roman prefaces by Moeller, E., Corpus Praefationum, 5 vols., CCSL 161, 161A–D (Turnhout, 1980). That it took so long to unravel was due to the fact that the editor prints (as no. 739) the version of this preface from the Leonianum (L), but neither the eighth-century text based on it nor the ninth-century revision. As a consequence, one must reconstruct those texts from the notes provided for no. 739. The editor also cites the version of this preface from Vat. lat. 3325 (ed. H.M. Bannister, ‘Liturgical Fragments’, JTS 9 (1908), 398–421, at 414–15) under both nos. 291 and 739. Despite this, the text is no. 739 alone. Bannister states that ‘on the whole the fragment agrees mostly with L’ (p. 415); but in light of Moeller's work it can be linked to the received text of most of the Frankish Gelasians.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 270: The Missal of St Augustine's, Canterbury, ed. Rule, M. (Cambridge, 1896); Laon, Bibliothèque municipale, 238 (s. xii¹).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Legg, J.W., The Sarum Missal (Oxford, 1916), pp. 387–91. Mrs Gjerløw has published a fragment of a twelfth-century English noted missal from the diocese of Bergen which has [Sexta die post Natali Domini], Missa de Sancta Maria per Nativitatem Domini, In Circumcisione Domini: ‘Missaler brukt i Bjørgvin’, pp. 93–7.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Vatican City, Bibl. Apost. Vat., Ross. lat. 204 (s. xi); ptd Sacramentarium Rossianum, ed. Brinktrine, J., Römische Quartalschrift, Supplement-Heft 25 (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1930).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Tours, Bibliothèque du Petit Séminaire, without signature. The Petit Séminaire in Tours has been closed for some years, but this precious book and others formerly in its collection are now safely at the Bibliothèque municipale.

²⁰ Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, 404 (s. xii).

²¹ Hohler, ‘Some Service Books’, pp. 61–2.

²² Paris, BN, lat. 9439.

²³ Opfermann, B., ‘Un frammento liturgico di Fulda del IX secolo’, Ephemerides liturgicae 50 (1936), 207–23.Google Scholar

²⁴ Sexta die is the rubric in the Sarum Missal and in the Sarum Gradual, Graduate Sarisburiense, ed. Frere, W.H. (London, 1894), pl. 18.Google Scholar

²⁵ The twelfth-century gradual of Rouen (Paris, BN, lat. 904) calls this Sunday Dominica infra; facsimile in Le Graduel de l'église cathédrale de Rouen au XIIIe siècle, ed. Loriquet, H. et al. , 2 vols. (Rouen, 1907).Google Scholar

²⁶ This usage, the common appellation for this Sunday and a standard position for it, is that of the Gregorian Sacramentary modified by the Supplement.

²⁷ Ge 10, Sg 10 and Sp v.

²⁸ Tours, Bibliothèque Municipale, 184, a ninth-century sacramentary of Tours, has O.s.d. dirige, Muneribus, Da nobis. The books of Sarum use have O.s.d. dirige, Accepta domine quaesumus sacrificium, Sumpto sacrifirio domine. In the books cited in the previous note, a mass O.s.d. dirige, Concede quaesumus domine ut oculis, Per huius domine operationem mysterii, is employed for the second Sunday after Christmas.

²⁹ The formulae are Deus qui salutis, Muneribus, Da nobis, the very prayers used in the Eighth-century Gelasians for the Sunday after Christmas; see above, n. 27. The masses in the two English books cited earlier (n. 16), are the prayers in the Hadrianum. For Paduense (Pa), see SG1, 50–60 and 607–84. It needs to be pointed out that Dom Deshusses has printed Pa as a table of incipits and has supplied variant readings in the notes to Ha; he has not reedited the manuscript.

³⁰ Sacramentarium Fuldense, ed. Richter, G. and Schönfelder, A. (Fulda, 1912); rptd as HBS 101 (London, 1980) with a new introduction by D.H. Tripp.Google Scholar

³¹ 4 beata dei] beatae BN lat. 9434 | maria] add. offerimus Petit sem.

³² 8 ut] om. BN 9434 Petit sem. | et] om. BN lat. 9434 | 9 mariae virginis] virginis mariae Petit sem. | 11 tuus] tuis Fulda | 12 Qui] qui te BN lat. 9434, qui vivis et regnas cum deo Petit sem. If we care to consider Saint-Denis as the place where the prototype of our mass was compiled, then Fulda and Tours are obvious places where it could have gone. The celebrated sacramentary of Fulda has been determined to belong to a family of sacramentaries called provisionally the family of Saint-Amand. ‘The St. Amand type of sacramentary is frequently, and in particular at Fulda, found associated with a set of masses for non-Roman saints which must have been compiled at or with some reference to the monastery of St Denis near Paris’ (Hohler, C., ‘The Type of Sacramentary used by St. Boniface’, Sankt Bonifatius (Fulda, 1954). pp. 89–93, at 92). Our early source for this mass from Saint-Denis is a sacramentary written for it at Saint-Amand (R), a book sharing numerous singular variants in the text of the Supplement with books of Tours.Google Scholar

³³ Morin, G., ‘Le plus ancien Comes ou lectionnaire de l'église romaine’, RB 27 (1910), 41–71;Google ScholarChavasse, A., ‘Les plus anciens types du lectionnaire et de l'antiphonaire romains de la messe’, RB 62 (1952), 3–94, at 65–72 and 84–5; andGoogle Scholar‘L'épistolier romain du codex du Wurtzbourg. Son organization’, RB 91 (1981), 280–331.Google Scholar

³⁴ Wilmart, A., ‘Le lectionnaire d'Alcuin’, Ephemerides liturgicae 51 (1937), 136–97, and Chavasse, ‘Les plus anciens types’, pp. 49–58.Google Scholar

³⁵ Frere, W.H., The Roman Epistle Lectionary, Studies in Early Roman Liturgy 3 (Oxford, 1935),1–24.Google Scholar

³⁶ Morin, G., ‘Liturgie et basiliques de Rome au milieu du VIIe s. d'après les listes d'évangiles de Wurzbourg’, RB 28 (1911), 296–330;Google ScholarChavasse, , ‘Les plus anciens types’, pp. 28–49, and ‘L'evangéliaire romain de 645: un receuil’, RB 921 (1982), 33–75.Google Scholar

³⁷ Wilmart, A., ‘Le Comes de Murbach’, RB 30 (1913), 25–69.Google Scholar

³⁸ Hesbert, R.-J., Antiphonale missarum Sextuplex (Brussels, 1935) (henceforth AMS). Both masses for John were undoubtedly included. The mass for Silvester may have consisted only of cues. In setting out the texts of some of the chants, t he scribe uses a point at certain places to separate one word from another or, more commonly, the first syllable of a word from the other syllables. He may do this in the middle of a text o r at the very end. The precise meaning of this usage is obscure. The chants in which it occurs (for which see the edition in the Appendix, below) are:Google Scholar

1. CO. Viderunt omnes for Christmas (III)

2. part of a versus ante officium for Stephen beginning with Alleluia Nunc levite

3. GR. Anima nostra for Holy Innocents

4. Alleluia Te martyrum for Holy Innocents.

³⁹ Le Manuscrit du Mont-Renaud, Paléographie musicale 16 (Solesmes, 1955), andGoogle ScholarBeyssac, G.M. ‘Le Graduel-Antiphonaire de Mont-Renaud’, Revue de musicologie 40 (1957), 131–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarHesbert, R-J., Le Graduel de Saint-Denis. Manuscrit 384 de la Bibliotbèque Mazarine de Paris, Monumenta musicae sacrae 5 (Paris, 1981).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ The sigla Cor, Den1, Den4, Eli, Iri and Vo11 are those of the Abbaye of Saint-Pierre at Solesmes, Le Graduel romain 11: Les Sources (Solesmes, 1957).

⁴¹ Le Graduel romain, edition critique par les moines de Solesmes, iv, Le Texte neumatique, 1: Le Groupement des manuscrits (Solesmes, i960). An earlier volume listed all the sources, even those not used in t he study, and assigned sigla to them. See above, n. 40, as well as Hartzell, K. D., ‘An Unknown English Benedictine Gradual of t he Eleventh Century’, ASE 4 (1975), 131–44;Google ScholarHiley, D., ‘The Norman Chant Traditions – Normandy, Britain, Sicily’, Proc. of the R. Musical Assoc. 107 (1980–1), 1–33. See also below, n. 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴² 42 D.H. Turner compared the post-Pentecost Alleluia list in Le Havre 330 with those in manuscripts from England and northern France: see New Minster Missal, ed. Turner, pp. xx-xxiv.

⁴³ Brou, L., ‘L' Alléluia gréco-latin Dies sanctificatus de la messe du Jour de Noel’, Revue Grègorienne 23 (1938), 170–5; 24 (1939), 1–8, 81–9 and 202–13;Google ScholarWellesz, E., ‘Eastern Elements in English Ecclesiastical Music’, Jnl of the Warburg and Courtauld Inst. 5 (1942), 144–55; andGoogle ScholarEastern Elements in Western Chant (Boston, 1947), pp. 36–44.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Brou, ‘L’Alléluia, p. 2.

⁴⁵ Wagner, P., Ursprung und Entrwicklungder liturgiscben Gesangsformen, 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1901), and consequently in the English translation of that volume, Origin and Development of the Forms of the Liturgical Chant (London, 1907), p. 47. The manuscript is Paris, BN, nouv. acq. lat. 1235 (s.xiiⁱⁿ), I23r.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ This manuscript was also known to Wagner but evidently he missed this text in it. See van Deusen, N., Music at Nevers Cathedral, 2 vols., Musicological Stud. 30 (Henryville, Pa., 1980). The manuscript is Paris, BN, lat. 9449 (s. xi^med), 17r.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Bannister, H.M., Monumenti Vaticani di Paleografia Musicale Latino, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1913) II, pl. 63b. The other manuscript is Erlangen, Universitätsbibliothek, io.ii, 39V.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ The two manuscripts from Nevers have the Greek text on its own; the other has the Latin first and then the Greek. For the third manuscript (from Beauvais): London, BL, Egerton 2615, 47r, see Brou, ‘L’Alléluia, p. 8. The chant from this manuscript is also given in Wellesz, Eastern Elements in Western Chant, pp. 41–2. In Wellesz, ‘Eastern Elements in English Ecclesiastical Music’, p. 46, the author says ‘there are MSS. giving the melody with the Greek text without a break, e.g. Codex Cambrai 61, f. 2Iv’, and then he cites Brou, ‘L’Alléluia, p. 4, where the Greek tune with Latin text (as in the manuscript) is transcribed. The source of the Greek tune with Greek text transcribed by Wellesz into eighth notes and printed by him (p. 46) is unknown to me.

⁴⁹ Facsimile in Wellesz, ‘Eastern Elements’, pl. 17.

⁵⁰ Gaisser, U., ‘Brani greci nella liturgia Latina’, Rassegna Gregoriana 1 (1902), 109–12 and 126–31, at III.Google ScholarVilletard, H., ‘L’“Alleluia: Dies sanctificatus” en grec et en latin’, Rassegna Gregoriana 5 (1906), 5–12, at 8; Wellesz, ‘Eastern Elements’, p. 46.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Wellesz, Eastern Elements, p. 41, n. 1.

⁵² There are no hyphens in the manuscripts. I have added them where I have felt the notation clearly indicates that the syllables are supposed to be considered part of the same word. This is moderately easy to sense in manuscripts having neumes in campo aperto because the music scribe will frequently write them along an imaginary ascending line so as to leave room for the notation appropriate to the next syllable, in case the number of notes for the preceding syllable exceeds the space left for them by the text scribe.

⁵³ There is an erasure immediately before mon. The ‘i’ may have been erased.

⁵⁴ The scribe may have separated keproskeni to give room for writing the ‘k’ of keni the original spelling was kyrion (possibly corrected by the main scribe).

⁵⁵ The original spelling was catabi.

⁵⁶ On the other hand, England and Saint-Vaast being the only places to preserve the form Greek, Latin, Greek (and so forth), it is also conceivable that this form was invented in England.

⁵⁷ The notational scheme for representing pitches is that adopted in Monumenta Monodica Medii Aevi (Kassel, 1956–). It is based on the anonymous Dialogus de musica(c. 1000), for which see the convenient article by Crocker, R.L., ‘Alphabet Notations for Early Medieval Music’, Saints, Scholars and Heroes: Studies in Medieval Culture in honour of Charles W. Jones, ed. King, M.H. and Stevens, W.M., 2 vols. (Collegeville, Minn., 1979) 11, 79–104, at 99.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See also chenite(adorate), lines 3 and 4, where the motive is the same.

⁵⁹ There is an extra note preceding the climacus on sanctificatus (line 2) which must be an error. It is not at the identical place on line 1. Another error, this time in the text, occurs in line 4 where the syllable te of adorate is written four pitches too soon.

⁶⁰ There is a severe textual muddle in line 3 where, as on line 4 in Vor1, te of keproschenite is brought in four notes too soon. The following ton is also brought in four notes too soon.

⁶¹ CC and Bo.

⁶² Planchart, A.E., The Repertory of Tropes at Winchester, 2 vols. (Princeton, 1977) 1, 235.Google Scholar

⁶³ Ibid. 11, 31; Tropes du propre de la messe, 1: Cycle de Noël, ed. R. Jonsson, Corpus Troporum 1 (Stockholm, 1975), 70.

⁶⁴ In Tropes, ed. Jonsson, the editor prefers paraphonista dic domne. I read obtamus and paraphonista in Vaa1.

⁶⁵ The melody for this trope from Paris, BN, lat. 887 (s. xi¹), a Troper from Saint-Géraud at Aurillac, is found in Weiss, G., Introitus- Tropen I: Das Repertoire der südfranzösischen Tropare des 10. und II. Jabrhunderts, Monumenta Monodica Medii Aevi 3 (Kassel, 1970), no. 21. The version in this manuscript omits the last stanza of Planchart's Group A. The attribution to Aurillac is given in Tropes, ed. Jonsson, p. 47. In the latest volume of Corpus Troporum (1982) this attibution is queried.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ For a list of Roman Alleluia verses in the oldest repertory, see K.-H. Schlager, in The New Grove Dictionary, ed. Sadie, 1, 269–76 (s.v. ‘Alleluia’).

⁶⁷ Schlager, K.-H., Thematischer Katalog der ältesten Alleluia-Melodien (Munich, 1965).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Holschneider, A., Die Organa von Winchester (Hildesheim, 1968), p. 44.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Theodore Karp kindly informs me that the tract presently assigned to Holy Innocents (Effuderunt), although it has multiple assignments in the medieval period, is ascribed to that feast in the following manuscripts: Paris, BN, lat. 90}; Rome, Bibl. Angelica, 123; Vatican City, Bibl. Apost. Vat., Ross. lat. 231; Milan, Bibl. Ambrosiana, s. 74 sup.; and Benevento, Bibl. Capitolare, vI.34. For a list of the earliest tracts, see H. Hucke, in The New Grove Dictionary, ed. Sadie, XIX, 108–10 (s.v. ‘Tract’).

⁷⁰ Wellesz, Eastern Elements, esp. 11–18, 36–44 and 50–67.

⁷¹ There are some exceptions to this theory provided by four of the manuscripts cited in Brou, ‘L'Alléluia’, pp. 3–4, as sources for the Greek tune: 11, 13, 14 and 21. Iri also has Multiphariam but the usage of this manuscript is confusing.

⁷² I am freely interpreting here the ‘loi des doublets’ identified by Baumstark, A., Beyssac, G. and Chavasse, A., and articulated by Huglo, M., Les Tonaires (Paris, 1971), p. 296.Google Scholar

⁷³ Corbin, S., Die Neumen, Palaeographie der Musik 1.3 (Cologne, 1977). There are earlier maps:Google ScholarSuñol, G.M., Introduction à la Paléographie musicale Grégorienne (Paris, 1935), pi. B; Les Sources (see n. 35), map 2 (reproduced in Die Neumen). Corbin's study is derived from her doctoral dissertation submitted to the Sorbonne in 1957, ‘La notation musicale neumatique. Les quatres provinces lyonnaises: Lyon, Rouen, Tours, et Sens’. This work has been cited by E. Jammers in Tafeln zur Neumenschrift (Tutzing, 1965), in Die Neumen, and by Corbin and her fellow editors in her series Répertoire de manuscrits médiévaux contenant des notations musicales, but since it has never been available to the public, these citations are meaningless.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, represented by Paris, BN, lat. 12584; a folio is reproduced in colour in Stäblein, B., Schriftbild der einstimmigen Musik (Leipzig, 1977), p. 113; see also Corbin, Die Neumen, p. 123. For Lotharingian neumes generally, consultGoogle ScholarHourlier, J., ‘Le Domaine de la notation Messine’, Revue Grégorienne 30 (1951), 96–113 and 150–8.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ On Anglo-Saxon neumes see the works of Planchart and Holschneider (above, nn. 62 and 68), and my ‘A St. Albans Miscellany in New York’, Mittellateinisches jahrbuch 10 (1975), 20–61;Google Scholarsee also Corbin, S., ‘Paléographie musicale’, Ecole pratique des halutes études. Annuaire 1967–68 (Paris, 1969), pp. 329–41; Die Neumen, pp. 131–40; and The New Grove Dictionary, ed. Sadie, XIII, 128–44, at 143 (s.v. ‘Neumatic Notation, I–IV’). Mlle Corbin prefers the title ‘English neumes’, quoting P. Wagner approvingly in ‘Neumatic Notation’ to the effect that they are ‘not old enough to be described as Anglo-Saxon’. See also Suñol, Introduction, pp.283–91, and the comprehensive descriptions of two Anglo-Saxon neume styles in Bannister, Monumenti Vaticani 1, nos. 226 and 227.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Hesbert, Le Graduel de Saint-Denis, pl. 13, line 16. Compare BN, lat. 12584, in Stäblein, Schriftbild.

⁷⁷ The style of the Cluniac Gradual (Paris, BN, lat. 1087 (s. xi)) is recognizable in the neumes of Deni; see Corbin, Die Neumen, pls. 40 and 41.

⁷⁸ Corbin, ‘Neumatic Notation’, p. 143.

⁷⁹ SG1, 41.

⁸⁰ The Portiforium of St Wulstan, ed. Hughes, A., 2 vols., HBS 89–90 (London, 1958–1960). A fair amount of this manuscript was earlier published inGoogle ScholarThe Leofric Collectar II, ed. Dewick, E.S. and Frere, W.H., HBS 56 (London, 1918). The calender is inGoogle ScholarEnglish Kalendars before A.D. 1100, ed. Wormald, F., HBS 72 (London, 1934), no. 17. A facsimile of p. 643 is seen inGoogle ScholarFrere, W.H., Bibliotheca Musico-Liturgica 1 (London, 1901), pl. 15.Google ScholarIn a brief paper, ‘The Provenance of the Oldest Manuscript of the Rule of St Benedict’, Bodleian Library Record 2 (1941–1999), 28–9, repr. Books, Collectors and Libraries: Studies in the Medieval Heritage [by] N.R. Ker, ed. A.G. Watson (London and Ronceverte, 1985), pp. 131–3, the late Neil Ker gave a small list of mid-eleventh-century books containing writing in a ‘round, upright English hand’ which he assigned to Worcester. After describing the characteristics of the script, and being careful not to imply that parts of these books where this script is found were all written by the same scribe, he proposed the hand of London, BL, Add.ch. 19801 (dated A.D. 1058)as the basic script. Initially the scribe of Roy did not observe its canons, but he came to observe some of them by the time he wrote the Cotton passional. We may compare CCCC 391, p. 591 /1–20, the hand of a scribe whose work is similar to that of the charter, with p. 591/21–30, probably the scribe of Roy. Similarly, cf. CCCC 146, the ‘Pontifical of Bishop Sampson’ (Old Minster, Winchester, s. xiⁱⁿ and xi/xii; provenance Worcester), p. 57/10–24 ( = Roy's scribe) with p. 57/25–30, a more characteristic Worcester hand. This suggests that in this group of manuscripts the passional represents later work and that material added to CCCC 146 at Worcester was begun not late in the eleventh century but in the middle, as Ker suggested in 1941.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Ker, N.R., English Manuscripts in the Century after the Norman Conquest (Oxford, 1960), pp.52–3.Google Scholar

⁸² I owe this information to MrPlanchart, ; see now his ‘Italian Tropes’, Mosaic 18 (1985), 11–31. The Saint-Denis missal is Paris, BN, lat. 1107 (s. xiii² ).Google Scholar

⁸³ None of the manuscripts collated by Deshusses has it.

⁸⁴ The sigla are: B = Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, 91 (B1) and 86 (B2); N = Paris, BN, lat. 2292; V = Cologne, Bibliothek des Metropolitankapitels, 88 (V1)and 137(V2);X = Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Genevièe, 111; Y = Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Edili 121; Z1 = Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 6333; Ω = Trento, Castel del Buon Consiglio, without signature.

⁸⁵ SG1, 74.

⁸⁶ AMS, pp. xxiii–xxiv; in Hesbert's edition it is S.

⁸⁷ Hohler has hypothesized that O ( = Orléans 127: see above, n. 12) may be a Saint-Denis sacramentary rewritten for use in England: ‘Some Service Books’, pp. 65–6.

⁸⁸ See above, n. 39.

⁸⁹ Le Groupement des manuscrits, pp. 214 and 245. They revised their estimate of the date of the notation from s. x^ex to s. xiⁱⁿ in light of Beyssac's arguments (p. 290). See also M. Huglo, The New Grove Dictionary, ed. Sadie, 1, 484 (‘s.v. ‘ Antiphoner’), and ‘Les Chants de la Missa Greca de Saint Denis’, Essays Presented to Egon Wellesz, ed. Westrup, J. (Oxford, 1960), pp. 74–83.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ In Huglo, Les Tonaires, p. 9 1, n. 2.

⁹¹ I do not consider seriously the neumes identified as possibly from Saint-Denis published by Bannister, Monumenti Vaticani, pi. 46a. They are not in the least calligraphic.

⁹² Le Groupement des manuscrits, chart opposite 213, and 245.

⁹³ Bo^a is the siglum used by Professor Planchart to designate the prototype of Bo: see The Repertory I, 40–3.

⁹⁴ For this manuscript, see Corbin, Die Neumen, p. 123.

⁹⁵ It is in the Würzburg Comes; see Morin, ‘Le plus ancien Comes’.

⁹⁶ See above, n. 34. There are facsimiles of 15 V m Paléographie musicale 13, 78 and of 15 V and 16 v in A. Staerk, Les Manuscrits Latine du V^e au XII^e siècle conserves à la Bibliothèque Impériale de Saint-Petersburg, 2 vols. (St Petersburg, 1910), pls. LX and xxi.

⁹⁷ CLLA, no. 1005. The date must be emphasized. Corbin would have it eleventh century (Die Neumen, p. 130), and Frere and the Paléographie musicale would have it tenth.

⁹⁸ D. Escudier has examined ninety manuscripts of Corbie in the Biblioth´que Nationale in Paris dating from the eighth to the beginning of the twelfth century. He found notation in thirty-nine. Of these, five are liturgical books. In addition to lat. 11522, 12052, and 18010 (listed in Corbin, Die Neumen), he includes 11589 and 12051. The last is the ‘Missale S. Eligii’, the manuscript chosen by Mé nard as the basis for his edition of the Gregorian Sacramentary. It is a Corbie book of s. ix² which has tenth-century neumes over the same text as that in the sacramentary of Ratoldus (BN, lat. 12052, 45r; reproduced in Paléographie musicale 13, 76). Escudier's study is reported in ‘Des Notations musicales dans les manuscrits non liturgiques anterieurs au XIIe siècle’, Bibliothèque de l Ecole des Chartes 129 (1971), 27–48, and two plates. I should like to thank M. Escudier for sending me photocopies of prints from BN, lat. 1205 2.

⁹⁹ The Claudius Pontificals, ed. Turner, D.H., HBS 97 (London, 1971).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ For the estimate of the date of its arrival at Worcester, see above, n. 80.

¹⁰¹ See above, n. 4, and Gneuss, ‘A Preliminary List’, no. 764.

¹⁰² See above, n. 80

¹⁰³ Printed in Wormald, English Kalendars, no. 18.

¹⁰⁴ See above, n. 99.

¹⁰⁵ The calendar is in Wormald, English Kalendars, no. 16.

¹⁰⁶ peter Clemoes had kindly provided the following notes: CCCC 198 has textual connections originally with the southeast, but seems to have been in the west of the country by the time certain additions were made in the second half of the eleventh century; it was certainly at Worcester by the thirteenth century when it was annotated by the ‘tremulous’ Worcester hand. CCCC 178 was written s. xi¹ in an unknown place, probably in the Worcester area, and was at Worcester by the third quarter of the eleventh century. Cotton Otho B. X, fols. 29–30, were written at an unknown place, s. xi^med, and were at Worcester by the thirteenth century when they were annotated by the ‘tremulous’ Worcester hand. Hatton 115 was similarly written at an unknown place (s. xi² ), but was annotated in the thirteenth century by the ‘tremulous’ Worcester hand.

¹⁰⁷ Ker, N.R., Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), no. 250. It may have been there late in the eleventh century when an unknown scribe copied a list of books at the end of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Tanner 3. We do not know where this list was written but there is a distinct possibility it was written at Worcester. Item 46, an ‘expositio psalterii’, fits Royal 4. A. XIV perfectly: see M. Lapidge, ‘Surviving Booklists from Anglo-Saxon England’, Learning and Literature, ed. Lapidge and Gneuss, pp. 33–89, at 69.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Gneuss, ‘A Preliminary List’, no. 454. The only other sources with which they might be compared are: (1) Exeter, Cathedral Library, 3548A, fragments of a missale plenum in two columns in a continental hand, for which see Ker, N.R., Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries 11 (Oxford, 1977), pp. 859–40 (not a sacramentary); and (2) Cambridge, University Library, Gg.3.32, the last leaf, pasted down, another fragment of a missal in two columns written in a continental hand. Regarding this last leaf, I do not know when the parent manuscript may have come to England and include it here only for completeness. The format is close to the Exeter fragments.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Ker, , Catalogue, no. 249. The Salisbury Psalter, ed. C., and Sisam, K., EETS os 242 (London, 1959), Passim but esp. 52–6.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ The Salisbury Psalter, p. 53.

¹¹¹ For the scriptorium at Worcester in the tenth century, see Bishop, T.A.M., ‘The Copenhagen Gospel Book’, Nordisk Tidskrift för Bok- och Biblioteksväsen 54 (1967), 33–38, and English Caroline Minuscule (Oxford, 1971), p. xxii and nos. 18, 19, 20 (and p. xxv), 21 and 22. We should not neglect three books cited by Gneuss, ‘A Preliminary List’, nos. 341, 383 and 412, which may have been produced either at Worcester or York, but they hardly alter the picture.Google Scholar

¹¹² Gneuss has noticed some ‘striking correspondences’ between the Old English interlinear gloss in Royal 2.B. v and the vocabulary of the Old English Benedictine Rule, known to have been the work of Æthelwold: ‘The Origin of Standard Old English and Æthelwold's School at Winchester’, ASE 1 (1972), 63–83. The earliest copy of the OE Rule is contained in Oxford, Corpus Christi College 197 (siglum x), a book possibly written at Worcester as I have said above, and for which consultGoogle ScholarGretsch, M., ‘Æthelwold's translation of the Regula Sancti Benedicti and its Latin Exemplar’, ASE 3 (1974), 125–51. x belongs to a group including w (Cambridge, CCC 178, pp. 287–457; s. xi¹, from Worcester) and j (London, BL, Cotton Titus A. iv, fols. 2–107; s. xi^med, possibly from Winchester).Google Scholar

¹¹³ Ker, Catalogue, no. 251.

¹¹⁴ Turner, C.H., Early Worcester Manuscripts (Oxford, 1916).Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ S.P. Millinger, ‘Liturgical Devotion in the Vita Oswaldi’, Saints, scholars and Heroes, ed. M.H. King and W.M. Stevens, n, 239–64. The attribution to Byrhtferth of the Vita S. Osmaldi has been accepted by Lapidge, M., ‘The Hermeneutic Style in Tenth-century Anglo-Latin Literature’, ASE 4 (1975), 67–111, at 90–3.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ For the provenance, see the paper cited in n. 80. Ker did not go so far as to claim an origin at Worcester for Hatton 48, but a good case can be made for believing it was written there: Sims-Williams, P., ‘Cuthswith, seventh-century abbess of Inkberrow, near Worcester, and the Würzburg manuscript of Jerome on Ecclesiastes’, ASE 5 (1976), 1–21, at 4–5.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Robinson, J.A., St. Oswald and the Church of Worcester, British Academy Suppl. Papers 5 (London, 1919), and P.H. Sawyer, ‘Charters of the Reform Movement: the Worcester Archive’, Tenth Century Studies, ed. Parsons, pp. 84–93 and 228, supporting Robinson against Eric John.Google ScholarSee also Brooks, N., ‘Anglo-Saxon Charters: the Work of the Last Twenty Years’, ASE 3 (1974), 211–34, at 228–9.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Gransden, A., ‘Cultural Transition at Worcester in the Anglo-Norman Period’, Medieval Art and Architecture at Worcester Cathedral, Brit. Archaeol. Assoc. Conference Trans. 1 (1978 for 1975), 1–14 I support Miss Gransden except where her characterization of Worcester during the bishopric of Oswald (p. 2) runs counter to the views of Robinson and Sawyer cited in the previous note.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ I should like to thank friends and scholars who gave me information, suggestions and encouragement over many, years, and who may have read this paper in whole or in part at various stages of its preparation: P. Clemoes, T. Karp, R.W. Pfaff, A.E. Planchart, H. Pohlsander, A.G. Watson and especially C. Hohler.

Between the completion of this paper (June 1986) and its publication, a substantial contribution by Hiley, D. has appeared: ‘Thurstan of Caen and Plainchant at Glastonbury: Musicological Reflections on the Norman Conquest’, PBA 72 (1986), 57–90 His estimate of the possible influence of William of Dijon at Glastonbury at the time of the Conquest is well argued and convincing. In preparing the background to the infamous massacre at Glastonbury in 1081, he discusses many of the manuscripts I have been using. A few observations on that discussion are in order.Google Scholar

(1) [pp. 61–2] Monks from Corbie did not ‘[come] in the tenth century to help improve the performance of the liturgy in England’, they came specifically to Abingdon to instruct the monks there in psalmody and the ‘proper’ manner of reciting lessons. (2) [p. 65] The ‘Corbie musical family’ is a misleading collective obscuring the precision intricate arguments require. (5) [p. 65, n. 5] The manuscript used to represent Corbie is, surprisingly, not Paris, BN, lat. 18010, as we would expect, but the manuscript of Mont-Renaud. No evidence is presented substantiating this choice. (4) [p. 67, n. 1] The collation of Amiens, Bibliotheque municipale, 115 (Paléographie musicale 12, 105, n. 2) was completed and the results reported in a note to p. no printed in that volume on p. [181]. (5) [p. 81 and the accompanying explanatory note] It is only here, when we see Corbie paraded next to Dijon, Bee, and Cluny, and read the note, that we realize that Saint-Denis has been dropped from the argument because, although it ‘had an almost identical practice, [it] is not known to have had strong English links’.

¹ text by Hand B; see above, pp. 48–9

² Multifariam] orig. Multifarie

³ KATAVIFOS] orig. KATAVIEOS corr. by main scribe

⁴ maris] naris Den4 | nostrum] add. iustitia Bo Eli (iustitiam) | brachi] brachii Bo Den1 Den4 Dur Eli I exaltetur dextera] add. dei cum patre sempitema sine tempore. terris hac die apparens ex semper virgine semper sanctae hanc serva plebem. benedicens sancta dextera Bo | iustiti <am> ] iustitia Bo | iustiti <am> (final time)] dom <inaris> is written above and to the right–

⁵ nosque] add. per haec Jum LeofA

⁶ infulsit] effulsit O | hunc in] omit in Jum (first Mass) LeofA O SG (many wit.)

⁷ qua] orig. in quo Va Ge | quo SG, qua Den4 (first Mass) Jum LeofA | In primis] omit Jum LeofA O SG, In primis gloriose Den4 | genitricis eiusdem dei Den4

⁸ dei nostri] dei. nostri (sic)

⁹ not in A (of SG); also lacking in Jum LeofA O

¹⁰ nostris] omit Jum LeofA O

¹¹ Sg 29 Va 9; not in Jum LeofA O | mysterium] this completion is justified by the space left for the two letters

¹² spei et caritatis] orig. et securitatis (corr. due to main scribe (?)) | et securitatis O

¹³ qui de] qui per LeofA | de] omit Jum O | concupiscentia] a first attempt at this word has been partially erased | venientes] orig. venientis | three lines have been left blank after this prayer

¹⁴ paraphonista] orig. paraphonistae (?) | apex] a. pex (sic) | plenum] I cannot decipher what the manuscript reads; it is possibly plentem

¹⁵ the first phrase of this prayer is in capitals | quesumus domine] domine quesumus LeofA | celebramus] caelebramus O

¹⁶ eruditione] eruditionem Jum

¹⁷ not in Jum

¹⁸ latentium] orig. lactentium (?), lactantium Cor Den1 Eli Iri, lactentium Den4 Dur Von

¹⁹ dei] orig. dn (sic)

²⁰ erepta] erecta Cor | laqueos] laqueus all other sources | sumus] su. mus (sic)

²¹ domine]do. mine(sic) | Opposite Allelua in the far right margin a later hand has added Mirabilis (no notation)

²² Angelus] orig. Ecce angelus | est per ieremiam pro] orig. per prophetam Correction due to main scribe (?)

²³ erepta] erecta Cor | intolerabilem] intollerabilem Bo

²⁴ tibi] omit Jum LeofA O Den4 | indulgentiam…per] rewritten by original scribe (?)

²⁵ in pretiosis] impreciosus LeofA | magis] maois Roy | magis sola] sola magis Jum LeofA O Den4 | prius] passio O | ineffabilis] ccrr.from inestabilis | que pro] qui pro Jum

²⁶ quaesumus vite] vitae quesumus LeofA

²⁷ the texts and rubrics to this mass are by Hand C; see above p. 57 | Tc 1853 (MS. R): Missa in honore sanctae Mariae | Deus qui salutis for DMC I post N.D. Jum LeofA O | prestitisti] praetulisti Jum | per quam] ex quam LeofA

²⁸ Tc 1854; not in Jum LeofA O

²⁹ Tc 1855; not in Jum LeofA O

³⁰ IN OCTAVAS DOMINI. Puer natus. Oratio.] Hand C | celebrare] caelebrare Jum | quesumus nos] nos quaesumus Jum LeofA | qui tecum vi] another contemporary hand or perhaps the main scribe

³¹ deo] orig. dei | habeam…carne] erased and written over in scrawl

³² Presta omnipotens deus] Praesta quaesumus domine Jum LeofA O Den4 | mentis] orig mentibus | intelligentiam] intelligentia Jum

³³ virgo et mater] Den4 there are construing marks in Roy, so it would appear, indicating the words should have their order reversed, mater et virgo Jum LeofA O

³⁴ Presta quesumus omnipotens deus] Praesta quaesumus domine Jum LeofA O Den4

³⁵ nox] nos Den4 | haberet] haberent Den4 Iri

³⁶ the text of this prayer is by Hand C | Per…christum] the work of the later corrector