¹ Quotations from the Rule of St Benedict are taken from RB 1980: The Rule of St. Benedict in Latin and English with Notes, ed. Fry, T. (Collegeville, Minnesota, 1980).Google Scholar The Latin text for this edition, and the chapter and verse numberings, are taken from the edition by J. Neufville, with introduction, translation and notes by de Vogüé, A., Règle de saint Benoit, Sources Chrétiennes 181–3 (Paris, 1972).Google Scholar A cantor is mentioned in chapter 9.7 in conjunction with the description of psalmody at the night office.

² The Liber ordinis, a customary which contains rules for the celebration of the offices as well as for governing the abbey, was first edited by Martène, Edmond in De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus, iiiGoogle Scholar, Appendix, published in a variety of editions during the eighteenth century. See the introduction to Martimort, A. G., La documentation liturgique de Dom Edmond Martène: étude codicologique, Studi e Testi 279 (Vatican City, 1978).Google Scholar A modern edition of the Liber ordinis has recently appeared: Liber ordinis Sancti Victoris Parisiensis, ed. Jocqu, L.é and Milis, L., Corpus Christianorum: Continuatio Medievalis 61 (Turnhout, 1984).Google Scholar

³ The articles ‘Cantor’ in both The New Grove Dictionary and The Dictionary of the Middle Ages and ‘Musicus-cantor’ in Handwörterbuch der musikalischen Terminologie, with their short bibliographies, give an accurate indication of the dearth of scholarship on this subject. Foley, E., ‘The Cantor in Historical Perspective’, Worship, 56 (1982), pp. 194–213Google Scholar, treats the period of Christian Antiquity only. Müller, K. F., Der Kantor (Gütersloh, 1964)Google Scholar, is an overview of the subject with a brief chapter on the medieval cantor. The only full-length articles I know on the medieval cantor are Vogel, E. G., ‘Einiges über Amt und Stellung des Armarius in den abendländischen Klostern des Mittelalters’, Serapeum, 4 (1843)Google Scholar and Thomas, P., ‘Le chant et les chantres dans les monastères bénédictins’, Mélanges Bénédictins (St Wandrille, 1947), pp. 405–47.Google Scholar Neither of these studies was able to benefit from the recent modern editions of numerous monastic rules and customaries. Limited bibliography on the office of the cantor appears in the literature concerning the history of monastic libraries and scriptoria.

⁴ Clément, J.-M., Lexique des anciennes Règles monastiques occidentales, 2 vols., Instrumenta Patristica 7 A and B (Steenbrugge, 1978).Google Scholar See also Kasch, E., Das liturgische Vokabular der frühen lateinischen Mönchsregeln (Hildesheim, 1974).Google Scholar

⁵ The Rule of the Master has been edited by de Vogüé, A., La Règle du Maître, Sources Chrétiennes 105–7 (Paris, 1964–1965)Google Scholar, and translated into English by L. Eberle (Kalamazoo, 1977). The liturgical sections of both the Rule of St Benedict and the Rule of the Master are fraught with difficulties and demand further attention from students of chant and early liturgy, but the best work on the subject has been done by Corbinian Gindele. (See recent years of Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktiner-Ordens und seiner Zweige.) An introduction to the bibliography on the rules can be found in the editions cited above and in Kapsner, O., A Benedictine Bibliography, 2 vols. (Collegeville, 1962)Google Scholar, and the first supplement to this work (Collegeville, 1982).

⁶ See RB 1980, chapter 47.2–4, p. 249. The attitude towards singers and readers has points in common with that towards artisans: ‘If there are artisans in the monastery, they are to practice their craft with all humility, but only with the abbot's permission. If one of them becomes puffed up by his skillfulness in his craft, and feels that he is conferring something on the monastery, he is to be removed from practicing his craft and not allowed to resume it unless, after manifesting humility, he is so ordered by the abbot.’ (Chapter 57.1–3, p. 265.)

⁷ The key passage here is in chapter 47.2: ‘Psalmos autem vel antiphonas post abbatem ordine suo quibus iussum fuerit imponant’ (‘Only those so authorised are to lead psalms and refrains, after the abbot according to their rank’). It seems that a number of persons might be appointed by the abbot to sing and that both rank and ability were considerations. The translation of ‘antiphon’ in this passage and elsewhere has been hotly debated by de Vogüé and Gindele. See the summary of this argument in RB 1980, pp. 400–3.

⁸ Isidore, of Seville, Etymologiarum sive originum libri XX, ed. Lindsay, W. M. (Oxford, 1911), VII, xii.Google Scholar For further discussion see Gurlitt, W., ‘Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte von “musicus” und “cantor” bei Isidor von Sevilla’, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur: Abhandlungen der Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, 7 (Mainz, 1950), pp. 543–58.Google Scholar See the related passage in Isidore's, De ecclesiasticis officiis, II, 9, ed. Migne, J.-P., Patrologia latina, Lxxxiii (Paris, 1850), p. 790Google Scholar, and discussion in Reynolds, R., ‘Isidore's Texts on the Clerical Grades in an Early Medieval Roman Manuscript’, Classical Folia, 29 (1975).Google Scholar

⁹ The section is entitled ‘De clericis’; in the comparable section on monks (‘De monachis’) there is no mention of the cantor. Isidore's comments on the cantor introduce another subject related to the one at hand, that is, the office of the cantor in secular churches in the early Middle Ages. Although there is a small body of literature on this subject, much work remains to be done. According to Reynolds, whose work has concentrated on the history of clerical orders and their allegorical interpretations in the Middle Ages, the psalm-singer or cantor was treated in a variety of ways in pre-Carolingian treatises, but from the ninth century on it was usual to omit the cantor from discussions of holy orders. See his ‘“At Sixes and Sevens” – and Eights and Nines: the Sacred Mathematics of Sacred Orders in the Early Middle Ages’, Speculum, 54 (1979), p. 679.Google Scholar For further discussion, including references to rites for the induction of the cantor, see Andrieu, M., ‘Les ordres mineurs dans I'ancien rit romain’, Revue des Sciences Religieuses, 5 (1925), pp. 246–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Galles, D., ‘The Office of Cantor’, Sacred Music, 108 (1981), pp. 17–20.Google Scholar Andrieu believed that the office was of Gallican origin (see ‘Les ordres mineurs’, pp. 246 and 249). Indeed, reference to the psalmist can be found in the late fifth-century Gallican, ‘Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua’, in Concilia Galliae A. 314–A. 506, ed. Munier, C., Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 148 (Turnhout, 1963), pp. 183–4Google Scholar and in numerous later sources. The evolution of the cantor's office in secular churches is discussed briefly in Huglo, M., ‘Le Répons-Graduel de la Messe: évolution de la forme; permanence de la fonction’, Schweizer Jahrbuch für Musikwissenschaft, new ser., 2 (1982), pp. 68–9.Google Scholar

¹⁰ For a broad view of the idea of ‘Renaissance’ in the Carolingian period, see R. McKitterick, The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987, chapter 6, ‘The Foundations of the Carolingian Renaissance’ (London, 1983), pp. 140–68.Google Scholar

¹¹ Current speculation leans towards the view that Gregorian chant developed in some way from a gradual fusion of the pre-Carolingian Roman and Frankish chant repertories. The exact manner in which this fusion occurred and the extent to which the standardised repertory is the work of Frankish redactors are still very uncertain. A summary of several theories regarding the origins of the chant repertory can be found in Hughes, Andrew, Medieval Music: the Sixth Liberal Art, rev. edn (Toronto, 1980), pp. 90–2.Google Scholar A recent review of the scholarship can be found in Hucke, H., ‘Toward a New Historical View of Gregorian Chant’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 33 (1980), pp. 437–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² The six early collections edited by Hesbert, R.-J., Antiphonale missarum sextuplex (Brussels, 1935)Google Scholar, must be studied in light of more recent scholarship: see Froger, J., ‘The Critical Edition of the Roman Gradual by the Monks of Solesmes’, Journal of the Plainsong and Mediaeval Music Society, 1 (1978), pp. 81–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Jeffery, P., ‘The Oldest Sources of the Graduate: a Preliminary Checklist of MSS Copied before about 900 AD’, Journal of Musicology, 2 (1983), pp. 316–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The importance the Franks placed on the production of liturgical books around the year 800 is demonstrated by a passage in the Admonitio generalis from 789: ‘Psalmos, notas, cantus, compotum, grammaticam, per singula monasteria vel episcopia et libros catholicos bene emendate; quia saepe, dum bene aliqui Deum rogare cupiunt sed per inemendatos libros male rogant. Et pueros vestros non sinite eos vel legendo vel scribendo corrumpere; et si opus est evangelium, psalterium et missale scribere, perfectae aetatis homines scribant cum omni diligentia.’ Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Legum Sectio 2: Capitularia regum Francorum, i (Hanover, 1883), p. 60.Google Scholar

¹³ Carolingian theorists have not been given the treatment they require as individuals, nor is there any survey of their work and its importance. The earliest Carolingian theorist whose name we know, Aurelian of Réôme, wrote in the mid-ninth century. His Musica disciplina is now available in a modern edition, ed. Gushee, L., Corpus Scriptorum de Musica 21 (1975).Google Scholar For a convenient list of the writings of many early theorists, see Atkinson, C., ‘The “Parapteres: Nothi” or Not?’, The Musical Quarterly, 68 (1982), pp. 34–5.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The first complete tonary, the so-called Carolingian tonary, exists in several manuscripts, the earliest of which date from the ninth century. For discussion of these early tonaries, see Huglo, M., Les tonaires: inventaire, analyse, comparaison (Paris, 1971), pp. 25–45.Google Scholar The Carolingian tonary of Metz exists in a modern edition: Der Karolingische Tonar von Metz, ed. Lipphardt, W., Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen 43 (Münster, 1965).Google Scholar

¹⁵ The problem of the origins of notation is directly related to the problem of musical transmission, a subject that has stimulated several recent studies. See especially Corbin, S., Die Neumen, Paläographie der Musik, i/3 (Cologne, 1977)Google Scholar; Treitler, L., ‘The Early History of Music Writing in the West’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 35 (1982), pp. 237–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Huglo, M., ‘On the Origins of Neumatic Notation’, a paper given at Yale University in 10 1984Google Scholar and forthcoming in published form. For a useful survey of nonneumatic forms of early music notation, see Crocker, R., ‘Alphabet Notations for Early Medieval Music’, Saints, Scholars, and Heroes: Studies in Medieval Culture in Honor of Charles W. Jones, ed. King, M. H. and Stevens, W. M. (Collegeville, 1979), pp. 79–104.Google Scholar

¹⁶ A useful overview of the documents relating to this reform can be found in Lambot, C., ‘Les coûtumiers des VIIIe et IXe siècles dans le nouveau “Corpus Consuetudinum Monasticarum”’, Revue Bénédictine, 75 (1965), pp. 151–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The documents themselves are edited by a variety of specialists in Corpus Consuetudinum Monasticarum (abbreviated CCM), general ed. K. Hallinger (Siegburg, 1963–), 1, pp. 176–582.

¹⁷ See Nicolai, P.J., Der heilige Benedict, Gründer von Aniane und Cornelimünster, Reformator des Benedictinerordens (Cologne, 1865)Google Scholar, and Winandy, J., ‘L'oeuvre monastique de saint Benoit d'Aniane’, Melanges Bénédictins (St Wandrille, 1947), pp. 235–58.Google Scholar A general discussion of Carolingian reform is found in McKitterick, R., The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, 789–895 (London, 1977).Google ScholarEllard, G., Master Alcuin, Liturgist: a Partner of our Piety (Chicago, 1956)Google Scholar is now completely out of date. Among other things, Benedict of Aniane is now considered the author of the supplement to the Gelasian sacramentary once attributed to Alcuin. See Deshusses, J., ed., Le sacramentaire grégorien, i: Le supplément d'Aniane (Fribourg, 1971).Google Scholar For a brief, but useful, bibliography of secondary writings on Carolingian liturgical reform see G. Pfaff, , Medieval Latin Liturgy: a Select Bibliography, Toronto Medieval Bibliographies 9 (Toronto, 1982), pp. 87–8.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Translation from The Emperor's Monk: Contemporary Life of Benedict of Aniane, trans. Cabaniss, A. (Newton Abbot, 1979), pp. 64–5.Google Scholar The original Vita Benedicti is edited by Wattenbach, W., Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores 15/i, pp. 200–20.Google Scholar This passage can be found in CCM 1, p. 311.

¹⁹ ‘The emperor therefore set Benedict over all monasteries in his realm, that as he had instructed Aquitaine and Gothia in the standard of salvation, so also might he imbue Frankland with a salutary example’; The Emperor's Monk, cap. 36.1, p. 86.

²⁰ The regulation of monastic life included singing and liturgical practices: ‘All monasteries were returned to a degree of unity as if taught by one teacher in one place. Uniform measure in drink and food, in vigils and singing, was decreed to be observed by all …. [Benedict] instructed his own at Inde so that monks from other regions …. might see the standard and discipline of the Rule portrayed in usage, walk and dress of the monks at Inde.’ The Emperor's Monk, cap. 26.2, p. 87

²¹ The Emperor's Monk, cap. 37.2, p. 87. Benedict of Aniane was certainly not the first to write a commentary expanding on the Rule of St Benedict. A witness to a long-standing tradition of such writings is the late eighth-century exposition on the Rule by Smaragdus, abbot of St Mihiel. See Abbot, Smaragdus, Expositio in Regulam S. Benedicti, ed. Spannagel, A. and Engelbert, P., CCM 7 (1974).Google Scholar

²² See The Emperor's Monk, cap. 38, pp. 88– 91.

²³ The importance of customaries was recognised in the studies of Vogel and Thomas (cited above in note 3) as well as in Harrison, F. LI., Music in Medieval Britain, revised edn (London, 1963).Google Scholar A more recent evaluation of their central place in the study of medieval music can be found in Angerer, J. F., ‘Die Consuetudines Monasticae als Quelle fur die Musikwissenschaft’, in Sacerdos et cantus Gregoriani Magister: Festschrift Ferdinand Haberl zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Stein, F. A. (Regensburg, 1977), 23–37.Google Scholar The most important bibliographies for the study of medieval customaries or consuetudines are for the Benedictine order: CCM 1, pp. xiii–cxxiii, the subsequent volumes of CCM and appropriate chapters in the Kapsner bibliography cited above. These works can be updated by reference to ‘Regole e consuetudini monastiche e canonicali’, in the volumes of Medioevo Latino: Bollettino Bibliografico delta Cultura Europea dal Secolo VI al XIII (Spoleto, 1980–).Google Scholar There is a brief discussion of the rules of other orders in CCM 1, pp. lv–lvi. Rules and customaries of the Augustinians have also inspired excellent bibliographies and editions. For bibliographies see Dereine, C., ‘Coûtumiers et ordinaires des chanoines réguliers’, Scriptorium, 5 (1951), pp. 107–13, and 13 (1959), pp. 244–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Becquet, J., ‘Bulletin d'histoire de la spiritualité: chanoines réguliers et érémitisme clérical’, Revue d'Histoire de la Spiritualité, 48 (1972), pp. 361–70.Google Scholar The fullest bibliography will be the forthcoming C. F. Fonseca, Les coûtumiers et statuts de chapitres de chanoines, in Typologie des Sources du Moyen Age Occidental, dir. L. Genicot. There are numerous important new editions of medieval customaries, many of which are described in the bibliographies above and some of which will be cited later in this study. When the new bibliographies of customaries are completed and the new editions in CCM and elsewhere are ready for use, a new understanding of the history of Western monasticism and liturgical music will be possible.

²⁴ These documents are edited in CCM 1, pp. 423–99.

²⁵ ‘Ut in Quadragesima libris de bibliotecha secundum prioris dispositionem acceptis aliis nisi prior decreuerit expedire non accipiant.’ CCM 1, p. 461.Google Scholar Only the source used for the edition reads ‘aliis’; in other versions it has been corrected to ‘alios’. The accusative is also used in the subsequent versions of this passage contained in later legislation and cited below. At the beginning of Lent each monk received a book to read, and the distribution of these books had a particular order and ceremony of its own in the later Middle Ages. Before the books were distributed, each monk had to indicate whether or not he had read his last year's book. If he had not, some act of penance was performed. For an excellent discussion of the book distribution, see Grandsen, A., ‘The Peterborough Customary and Gilbert de Stanford’, Revue Bénédictine, 70 (1960), pp. 625–38.Google Scholar The ways in which the officer in charge of the distribution changed over the centuries is important for this study.

²⁶ See CCM 1, pp. 520, 547 and 558.

²⁷ RB 1980, chapter 48.15. This famous passage is difficult to interpret in the Rule and other early documents. A. Mundo has argued that ‘bibliotheca’ refers to books of the Bible rather than to a collection of books. See his ‘Bibliotheca, Bible et lecture de Carême d'après S. Benoit’, Revue Bénédictine, 60 (1950), pp. 65–92.Google Scholar In centuries to follow, the ceremony of book distribution at Lent clearly involved a great variety of religious works, often handed out according to ability. See note 85 below.

²⁸ See, for example, discussion in Bischoff, B., Paidographie des römischen Altertums und des abendländischen Mittelalters (Berlin, 1979).Google Scholar

²⁹ Adalhard's two works are edited by J. Stemmler in CCM 1, pp. 356–418. Translations of Adalhard's works by Charles Jones may be found in Horn, W. and Born, E., The Plan of St. Gall (Berkeley, 1979), iii, Appendix 2.Google Scholar

³⁰ Chapter xi of the ‘Capitula’ reads: ‘De his qui psalmos non cantant aut modice cantant’. and chapter vii: ‘De cruce decantare et legere qui non potest dimittat et qui potest se non subtrahat et qui negligenter facit corrigatur.’ There are numerous passages in monastic customaries that emphasise the importance of perfection in singing; monks who could not sing were sometimes advised to be quiet or were placed inconspicuously. At Cluny and elsewhere, conversi who could not sing were placed at the head of processions, followed immediately by the schola. See, for example, the following passage from an early eleventhcentury Cluniac customary: ‘Tunc eant primitus conversi, qui nesciunt cantare, postea infantes et magistri, postea etiam cantores omnes ordine suo, duo et duo sicut sunt priores’. In Consuetudines cluniacenses antiquiores, ed. Albers, B., Consuetudines monasticae. ii (Montecassino, 1905), p. 15.Google Scholar (Albers's editions of customaries, published in five volumes. will hereafter be cited as CM.) The most famous example of an inept monastic singer occurs in Notker's Life of Charlemagne. Here a wandering monk comes unawares upon the excellent singers performing in Charlemagne's presence. When the monk realises that all are to sing and that his own poor abilities will be noticed, he fakes singing, twisting his mouth in hilarious grimaces. After the service, Charlemagne takes pity on him and gives him silver coins. See Einhard, and Notker, the Stammerer, Two Lives of Charlemagne, trans. Thorpe, L. (Harmondsworth, 1969), p. 101.Google Scholar

³¹ CCM 1, p. 415: ‘De scriptoribus solarii’.

³² On the scriptorium at Bobbio, see Natale, A. R., lnfluenze merovingiche et studi calligrafici nello scriptorium di Bobbio (secoli VII–IX) (Milan, 1951)Google Scholar and his Studi paleografici: arte e imitazione delta scrittura insulare in codici Bobbiesi (Milan, 1950).Google Scholar More recent bibliography can be found in Vézin, J., ‘Observations sur l';origine des manuscrits légués par Dungal à Bobbio’, Paiäographie 1981: Colloquium des Comité International de Paléographie München, ed. Silagi, G., Münchener Beiträgezur Mediävistik und Renaissance-Forschung 32 (Munich, 1982), pp. 125–44.Google Scholar The scriptorium at Bobbio has been of particular interest to students of the medieval liturgy because of the Bobbio Missal (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS lat. 13246), ed. Lowe, E. A., The Bobbio Missal, a Gallican Mass Book, Henry Bradshaw Society 58 (London, 1920).Google Scholar The facsimile edition is by J. W. Legg, Henry Bradshaw Society 53 (London, 1917). For further bibliography see Gamber, K., Codices liturgici latini antiquiores, Spicilegii Friburgenses, Subsidia 1 (Freiburg, 1968), pp. 167–9.Google Scholar

³³ Edited in CCM 1, pp. 420–2. The document dates from c. 834–6. ‘Bibliothecarius omnium librorum curam habeat, lectionum atque scriptorum.’

³⁴ ‘Cantor ordinet quicquid ad cantum pertinet.’ Another important document from the ninth century also bears on the cantor's office in this period. It is the commentary on the Rule of St Benedict by Hildemar of Corbie which dates from the mid-ninth century. The work is discussed in Horn and Born, The Plan of St. Gall, and the following translation offered (i, p. 339): ‘The cantor is a soloist “who modulates his voice” (vocem modelatur in cantu), the praecentor “opens the song” (vocem praemittit in cantu), the succentor “responds” (subsequenter canendo respondet), and the concentor is the one who “harmonizes” (consonat).’ It is doubtful that ‘harmonize’ is the proper verb here. The passage reads: ‘Concentor autem dicitur, qui consonat; qui autem non consonat, nee concinit, nee concentor erit.’ Of course, this passage draws upon Isidore. For an edition of Hildemar's work, see Expositio Regulae ab Hildemaro tradita et nunc primum typis mandata, ed. Mittermüller, R., in Vita et Regula ss. patris Benedicti (Regensburg, 1880), iii, p. 275.Google Scholar

³⁵ The three major sources for this period date from the late tenth and early eleventh centuries, and thus reflect tenth-century developments. The Regularis concordia, written around 970 in Winchester for Benedictines of the English nation, was influenced by customaries from Ghent and Fleury which do not survive (but see note 37). The edition and translation cited here is Regularis concordia anglicae nationis monachorum sanctimonialiumque, trans. Symons, T. (New York, 1953)Google Scholar (abbreviated Reg. conc). The introduction is to be supplemented by idem, ‘Sources of the Regularis Concordia’, Downside Review, 59 (1941), pp. 14–37 and 264–89.Google Scholar A new edition is forthcoming in CCM. The second source under consideration here, an early recension of a lost Cluniac customary, dates from around 1015 and is in Albers's edition of early customaries from Cluny: CM, ii, pp. 1–28. For brief discussion, see CCM 1, pp. xlv–xlvi. The third source to be discussed in this part of our study dates from the late tenth century and is edited by Albers, in CM, v (Montecassino, 1912), pp. 73–133.Google Scholar Hallinger says this customary is witness to the reforms carried out under the famous Sandradus (died after 984/5) and which had Gorze as their most important centre. See CCM 1, pp. xlvi and lxiii. The customary, Einsiedeln, Stiftsbibliothek, MS 235, fols. 1–19, will soon appear in a new edition of related Lotharingian customaries.

³⁶ See Reg. conc., pp. 21, 35, 49 and 51. Symons suggests that the cantor and the magister are one and the same, but there is no firm evidence for that. In Aelfric's ‘abridgement’ of the Regularis concordia, the ‘Accendite’ of Easter Vigil can be sung either by the magister of the schola or by the cantor; in the Regularis, it was to be sung by the magister scholae. See ‘Excerpta ex Institutionibus Monasticis Aethelwoldi’, ed. Bateson, M., in Compotus Rolls of the Obedientiaries of St. Swithun 's Priory, Winchester, Hampshire Record Society (1892), p. 189Google Scholar, and Reg. conc, p. 48.

³⁷ An early eleventh-century customary from Fleury (edition forthcoming in CCM) should further understanding of the Regularis concordia. This early Fleury customary, found in Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, MS 2701, is discussed in Davril, A., ‘Un coûtumier de Fleury du début du Xle siècle’, Revue Bénédictine, 76 (1966), pp. 351–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and idem, ‘Un moine de Fleury aux environs de 1'an mil: Thierry dit d'Amorbach’, Études Ligé;riennes d'Hisloire et d'Archéologie Médiévales (Auxerre, 1975), pp. 97–104. The customary contains the following in its list of monastic officials: the cantor, the librarian, and the master of the children. See Davril, , ‘Un coûtumier‘, p. 353Google Scholar: ‘une première partie (ff. 235v– 243v) décrit les divers offices du monastére: abbe et prieur appelé doyen, prevot, préchantre, sacristain, bibliothécaire, circateur, cellerier, camérier, hôteliers, réfectorier, boulanger, infirmier, maître des enfants, jardinier, vigneron, serviteur de l'abbé.’ A thirteenth-century customary from Fleury has already appeared in CCM 9 (1976).

³⁸ In twelfth-century sources, as will be shown later, the official who distributed the books was usually the person in charge of the library.

³⁹ The long line of customaries from Cluny itself or from establishments directly dependent upon Cluny are now being edited in CCM. Giles Constable offers the following brief description of these works: ‘The principal Cluniac customaries are (1) the so-called Consuetudines antiquiores (Clun. ant.) of the early eleventh century [ed. Albers, CM, ii], (2) the Liber tramitis (Lib. tram.), representing the usage at Cluny under St. Odilo in the 1040's, edited by B. Albers under the title of Consuetudines Farfenses [now ed. P. Dinter, CCM 10 (1980)], and (3) above all the great customaries compiled by Bernard and Ulrich in the second half of the eleventh centurv.’ Consuetudines benedictinae variae (Saec. Xl-saec. XIV), CCM 6 (1975), p. 29.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ There is a vast bibliography on the liturgy at Cluny. For an introduction to Cluniac studies in general, see Rosenwein, B. H., Rhinoceros Bound: Cluny in the Tenth Century (Philadelphia, 1982), chapter ICrossRefGoogle Scholar, ‘The Lineage of Cluniac Studies’, pp. 3–29. The best introduction to bibliography on the liturgy at Cluny is Hallinger, K., ‘Das Phänomen der liturgischen Steigerungen Klunys (10./11. Jh.)’, Studia historico-ecclesiastica: Festgabe für Prof. Luchesius G. Spätling, ed. Vazquez, I., Bibliotheca Pontificii Athenaei Antoniani 19 (Rome, 1977)Google Scholar, and Leclercq, J., ‘Prayer at Cluny’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 51 (1983), pp. 651–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For an introduction to scholarship on chant at Cluny, see Steiner, R., ‘The Music for a Cluny Office of Saint Benedict’, in Monasticism and the Arts, ed. Verdon, T. (Syracuse, N.Y., 1984), pp. 81–114.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See Albers, , CM, ii, pp. 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23 and 28.Google Scholar The cantor intones antiphons which heighten the dramatic effect of the ceremony. At the Purification, for example, the cantor intones the ‘Lumen ad revelationem’, at the point when the candles begin to burn and ‘Cum inducerent’ when the procession reaches the door of the church. See Albers, , CM, ii, p. 10.Google Scholar

⁴² The vesting of the cantor in a cope is mentioned by Albers, in CM, ii, pp. 6, 7, 17, 18, 25 and 26.Google Scholar Edmund Bishop believed that the liturgical cope, used by many functionaries in the modern liturgy, was originally the cantor's vestment. See his article in Dublin Review, 1897, pp. 17–38.Google Scholar Amalarius does not mention the cappa in his discussion of liturgical vestments or in his chapter on the vestments of the cantor. See his Liber officialis, ii, c. 16–26, and iii, c. 4, Amalarii episcopi opera liturgica omnia, ed. Hanssens, J. M. II, Studi eTesti 139 (Vatican City, 1948), pp. 237–54 and 270–1.Google Scholar

⁴³ The vesting of other singers is mentioned by Albers, , CM, ii, pp. 6, 7, 17 and 27.Google Scholar The boys' choir, or schola as it is called in this customary, also had a musical role in the liturgy at Cluny during the tenth century, occasionally intoning antiphons.

⁴⁴ The armarius, as we have said, has his title from the book press, the armarium. These storage chests for books were usually kept in the cloister, where reading and copying took place. An armarium is described both in the Liber ordinis of St Victor, cited above, and in the thirteenth-century customary from Barnwell Priory, which derives, in part, from the Victorine customary. The relevant passages from these two works are compared in The Observances in Use at the Augustinian Priory of S. Giles and S. Andrew at Barnwell, Cambridgeshire, ed. and trans. Clark, J. W. (Cambridge, 1897), pp. xlii–xlvi.Google Scholar Clark translates the description of the book press as follows: ‘The press in which the books are kept ought to be lined inside with wood, that the damp of the walls may not moisten or stain the books. This press should be divided vertically as well as horizontally by sundry shelves on which the books may be ranged so as to be separated from one another; for fear they be packed so close as to injure each other or delay those who want them’ (p. 65). For a modern edition of the related passage in the Liber ordinis, see Liber ordinis, ed. Jocqué, and Milis, , pp. 78–9.Google Scholar There is further discussion of the armarium and a sketch of the book chest found in a twelfthcentury Cistercian cloister in Clark, J. W., The Care of Books: an Essay on the Development of Libraries and their Fittings (Cambridge, 1909), pp. 70–4.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See Albers, , CM, v, pp. 77–8.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ This title may be a synonym for ‘armarius’, because the armarius is often depicted as the person in charge of correcting texts. The investigation of musical and liturgical vocabularies in the customaries is a fruitful area for future research.

⁴⁷ The passage reads, ‘Si tres fuerint agendae lectiones, in capitulo fratribus innuat, quis legat vel cantet sine scripto; quod apud nos infantibus commissum est.’ Albers, , CM, v, p. 78.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ The armarius held the lantern for the abbot because he was the only official who had the right to show the abbot the place in the text. See Albers, , CM, v, p. 79.Google Scholar The liturgical connection between the armarius and the abbot became stronger in centuries to follow.

⁴⁹ ‘Perspiciendum est interea distancia in hoc opere inter cantorem et ebdomadarium cantus.’ Albers, , CM, v, p. 78.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ ‘primam in prima Nocturna et secunda et Matutina inchoet antiphonam et ad cantica’; Albers, , CM, v, p. 78.Google Scholar The discussion following this passage includes a list of who was to sing and read at other office hours. The abbot had an important role in the singing, but the final responsory of Matins was sung, throughout the year, by the cantor, that is, by the official of this title, not by the hebdomadarius melodiae. Albers, , CM, v, p. 79.Google Scholar

⁵¹ I have not seen this phrase, ‘clarificet responsorium’, in any other customary. Perhaps it means that the hebdomadarius melodiae held the lantern at the first responsory.

⁵² The passage reads: ‘Officium hoc prosequatur ordine: primum choro praeficiatur ebdomadarius armoniae’, and probably means ‘By this order the ceremony proceeds: first the weekly cantor is ruled [by it] in choir’; Albers, , CM, v, p. 80.Google Scholar

⁵³ It was traditional for a brief plan of the liturgy to be drawn up each week, stating the openings of texts to be sung and read, and indicating who was responsible for the singing and reading of the items listed. These lists were temporary, sometimes written on erasable tablets, and do not survive for study. The customaries often discuss them, and thereby demonstrate the roles that various officials played in the planning of the liturgy. See Albers, , CM, v, pp. 77–8 and 80.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ This principle is not to be interpreted as a hard and fast rule, but it does seem to apply to the texts and music in some of the office hours, to the readings at Mass, and to the order of persons in processions. The specific order of persons responsible for singing and reading varied greatly in the Middle Ages.

⁵⁵ See Albers, , CM, v, p. 79.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ ‘cantor [scribat] nomina inchoancium et cantancium in die, etiam responsorium. quis vel Alleluia canat’; Albers, , CM, v, p. 80.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ ‘Nullus in ecclesia, in refectorio, in Capitulo vel quolibet conventu, audeat quicquam legere inprovise, quod ante non habuerit ab armario vel ab alio aliquo abscultatum. Similiter cantare non praesumat, quod a cantore prius non audiatur.’ Albers, , CM, v, p. 81.Google Scholar But it must be noted that on high feast days the abbot was asked by the cantor what or what sort of Kyrie, Gloria, Laudes regiae, sequence, Sanctus and Agnus Dei must be sung: ‘Diebus sollempnitatum in Capitulo interrogetur abbas a cantore quod vel quale cantandum sit Kyrieleison, Gloria in excelsis, Laudes, Sequentia, Sanctus, Agnus dei; neque enim horum quicquam debet incipere iuxta propriam voluntatem.’ Albers, , CM, v, p. 83.Google Scholar This text strongly suggests that by the tenth century the melodies for these texts were associated with particular classes of feasts, at least on a local level.

⁵⁸ ‘lectiones ab armario pridie ante sint terminate vel correcte’; Albers, , CM, v, p. 78.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ ‘Post haec in medio choro stans sine cappa cantor faciat septenas aut quinas vel trinas letanias, ut priori placuerit. His finitis pulsentur signa ad missam et clamante cantore “Accendite, ….”’; Albers, , CM, v, p. 96.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ ‘Sint autem ante signum tercia horae a custode deferendae in choro iuxta abbatem in subsellio diligenter involute, ut cum Benedicamus domino dicetur, primum cantoribus, deinde aliis in ordine suo stantibus distribuit abbas.’ Albers, , CM, v, p. 83.Google Scholar The distribution of the copes was an elegant and elaborate ceremony in some places, and was usually conducted by the cantor in the later Middle Ages.

⁶¹ The Liber tramitis, originally prepared at Cluny during the lifetime of Abbot Odilo (994– 1049), survives in three manuscripts, the most important of which contains a recension of the work transmitted to Farfa during the first half of the eleventh century. This manuscript, in Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 6808, fols. 9^r–l 12^v, has been used as the basis for a new edition of the work: Liber tramitis aevi Odilonis abbatis, ed. Dinter, P., CCM 10 (1980).Google Scholar Other important customaries from the eleventh century are all substantially later than the Liber tramitis: the Cluniac customary prepared by the monk Bernard in 1067 contains a discussion of all the important monastic officials, including the cantor and the weekly cantor. The work has been edited by Herrgott, M., Vetus disciplina monastica (Paris, 1726), pp. 134–364Google Scholar, and a new edition is forthcoming in CCM. The Monastic Constitutions of Lanfranc (1074/5–7) are closely related to the customary composed by Bernard of Cluny and have been edited by Knowles, D., The Monastic Constitutions of Lanfranc (London, 1951)Google Scholar (with an English translation) and in CCM 3 (1967). The customary of Ulrich was also composed at Cluny (c. 1080–3) and can be found in Migne, , Patrologia latina, cxlix, Paris, 1882), cols. 635–778.Google Scholar The customary of William of Hirsau is exactly contemporary with the work of Ulrich and provides a valuable point of comparison. The edition of William of Hirsau's customary cited here (Patrologia latina, cl, Paris, 1880, cols. 927–1146Google Scholar) is based on that of Herrgott, , Vetus disciplina monastica, pp. 375–570.Google Scholar The customs of Fruttuaria date from the late eleventh century and draw upon the works of Bernard and Ulrich. The edition cited here is that of Albers, , CM, iv (Montecassino, 1911), pp. 1–191.Google Scholar The following abbreviations will be used: Lib. tram.; Bernard; Lanfranc; Ulrich; William; and Frut.

⁶² Giles Constable offers the following brief discussion of these late eleventh-century customaries: ‘The exact relation between these two works [Bernard and Ulrich] is still a matter of dispute, but the most recent authorities are agreed that there were two recensions of Bernard's customary, the first composed between 1063 and ca. 1083 and the second about 1085/90. The earlier version served as the basis for Ulrich's customary, which was written in 1074/80 and in turn influenced the second recension of Bernard, which shows many differences both in content and in arrangement from the first version published by Herrgott and may also have been influenced by the customs of St. Bénigne at Dijon. A final solution of these problems will have to await the appearance of the new edition of Bernard which is now in preparation for the CCM …. Cluniac usage is also reflected in three late eleventh-century customaries, each of which is associated with the name of a prominent monastic reformer: (1) the Decreta of Lanfranc, … (2) the collection of William of Hirsau, …. and (3) the customs of Fruttuaria, which were based on the traditions established there by William of Volpiano and date from the late eleyenth century.’ For this discussion and relevant bibliography, see CCM 6, pp. 29–30. For a progress report on the editions forthcoming in CCM, see Elvert, C., ‘Aus der Wertstatt des Corpus Consuetudinum Monasticarum’, Consuetudines monasticae: eine Festgabe für Kassius Hallinger aus Anlass seines 70. Geburtstages (Rome, 1982), pp. 423–35.Google Scholar

⁶³ Lib. tram., pp. 238–9.

⁶⁴ As in the Einsiedeln customary and other early customaries, the cantor in the Liber tramitis keeps the tradition of intoning antiphons at particularly dramatic points in the ceremony. Here, for example, he intones the Lumen ad revelationem at the Purification and the antiphon Traditor autem. sung when the last, sole candle is extinguished at Tenebrae on Holy Thursday. See Lib. tram., pp. 41 and 72.

⁶⁵ The cantor wore a cope during Mass of solemn feasts. See Lib. tram., p. 75. By this date he was not the only singer to wear this vestment. At Mass for the Vigil of Pentecost, eight singers were to vest in copes, six to sing the Alleluia, Confitemini Domino and two to sing the Tract Laudate Dominum omnes genles. See Lib. tram., p. 112. At the feast of Peter and Paul, and at the Assumption, two singers in copes sang the Gradual. See Lib. tram., pp. 129 and 148.

⁶⁶ See Lib. tram., pp. 68, 108, 132, 201, 236, 242 and 275.

⁶⁷ The armarius is the person who listens to the boys read and sing their parts before the actual liturgical celebration. See Lib. tram., p. 221.

⁶⁸ The distribution of the copes has become a ceremony, allowing the armarius to choose in a dramatic way those who will accompany him to the choir and have the major parts. At the major Mass for the Assumption, the armarius had assembled twelve copes in the choir and indicated to the brothers he chose to vest in them and to begin the ceremony with him, intoning the introit Gaudeamus omnes. See Lib. tram., p. 151.

⁶⁹ See especially Lib. tram., pp. 23 and 150.

⁷⁰ For example, the armarius prepared the Gospel for the abbot to read at the close of Matins. See Lib. tram., p. 221.

⁷¹ Although, as we shall see, other officials also have a role in the preparation of the tabulae. or tablets, the armarius is responsible for preparing the tabulae for funeral services and is apparently the official in charge of the care of the tablets. See Lib. tram., pp. 274 and 53.

⁷² The best discussion to date of the transformation of the cantor's office can be found in de Valous, G., ‘Le monachisme clunisien des origines au XVe siècle’, Vie intérieure des monastères et organisation de l'ordre, Archives de la France Monastique 39 and 40 (Paris, 1970), i, pp. 156– 61.Google Scholar The forthcoming edition of early Cluniac customaries (CCM 7) may provide further discussion of this matter. See Dinter's notes to the Lib. tram., cap. 11, p. 14. The brief discussions of this matter now in print have not attempted to explain the reasons for the changes that took place in the course of the tenth and eleventh centuries. Although it is completely out of date, Vogel's ‘Einiges über Amt und Stellung des Armarius’, cited in note 3 above, comes the closest to suggesting why the functions of the cantor and armarius may have merged at this time.

⁷³ ‘Qualiter agantur armarius uel cantor die sabbatorum uel festis aut quid exerceri oporteat ipse.’ Lib. tram., p. 238.

⁷⁴ See Albers, , CM, v, pp. 80–1.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ The newcomer here is the infans. Members of the ‘schola infantium’ played active musical and liturgical roles in eleventh-century Cluny. Under the supervision of their master, they had special vestments for high feast days, and were prominent in the reading and singing of Matins. Certain of their number performed clerical duties, as does the infans in this passage.

⁷⁶ ‘cantor ebdomadarium de officio [designet] et talis cum talis canat responsorium, talis et talis Alleluia personet’; Lib. tram., p. 238. The assigning of two persons for the solo parts of the Gradual and Alleluia has been customary since the tenth century.

^77. ‘Item armarius indicet: Talis habeat missam et ille infans epistolas et ille euangelium atque talis ad mensam lectionem legat.’ Lib. tram., p. 238.

⁷⁸ ‘In duodecim lectiones sint tres: armarius, cantor, infans’; the ‘cantor’ in this passage, as the following note makes clear, is the weekly cantor.

⁷⁹ ‘Nam ipse armarius debet prouidere illis festiuitatibus quibus in cappis celebrant, si ille qui ebdomadarius est de officio abtus non est, ut iubeat aliis ex fratribus, ut cantent inuitatorium, et postmodum cum ipso [cantent], qui officium procurent ad missam.’ Lib. tram., p. 239.

⁸⁰ See above, note 33.

⁸¹ ‘Ad mensam atque collationem qualem librum ipse posuerit talem legatur a lectore. Nullus ex fratribus praesumat alium librum imponere. Nam et omnium fratrum abscultet lectiones, responsoria et quicquid intus uel foris cantauerint uel legerint. Omnes uero libros ligare atque inuestire seu emendare debet per se uel per alios fratres eruditos, et quos libros generales debent scribere fratres, omnia studeant ipse radere atque producere. Et cuicumque ex fratribus iusserit, ut eum adiubent, obediant eum …. De missa atque officio necnon ex euangelio et cetera alia quae ad ecclesiam pertinent studeat ipse emendare, si neglecta fuerint.’ ‘Libri generales’ are no doubt the same as the ‘libri communales’ described in several twelfth-century customaries as the standard complement of liturgical books. See, for example, Constitutiones canonicorum regularium Ordinis arroasiensis, ed. Milis, L., Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 20 (Turnhout, 1970), p. 165.Google Scholar

⁸² Like those of the cantor in the Liber tramitis, the duties of the paraphonista consisted mainly of singing. When the procession on Christmas has entered the church, however, the paraphonista gives the sign to the twelve singers to begin the Mass. See Lib. tram., p. 23.

⁸³ So far as we can tell, the cantors in the tenth century must have had a fair amount of control over the choice and ordering of liturgical music.

⁸⁴ See Guido, of Arezzo, Prologus in Antiphonarium, ed. van Waesberghe, J. Smits, Divitiae Musicae Artis 3 (Buren, 1975), pp. 59–65.Google Scholar His opening cry is famous: ‘Temporibus nostris super omnes homines fatui sunt cantores’ (p. 59). The well-known controversy between musici and cantores, best explained in Handwörterbuch der musikalischen Terminologie (cited in note 3), might be illuminated by information found in the customaries.

⁸⁵ The late eleventh- or early twelfth-century customary from Fruttuaria, briefly described above in note 61, stands somewhat apart from the rest of the late eleventh-century customaries in its treatment of the office of the cantor. The description of the Lenten book distribution is symptomatic. Here, the armarius collects the books on the carpet. After the reading and the usual sermon, however, the abbot commands the cantor to distribute the books. Frut., cap. 35, p. 36. For discussion of the Cluniac influence on this work, see Penco, G., ‘Le “Consuetudines Fructuarienses”’, in Monasteri in alta Italia: relazioni e communicazioni presentate al XXXII Congresso storico subalpino (Turin, 1966), p. 150.Google Scholar It is rare to find confusion between the offices of cantor and librarian at this period in a customary derived from the Cluniac tradition. In earlier centuries, it became traditional for the librarian to both collect and distribute the books. After the fusion of the offices of cantor and librarian, the official who both collects and distributes is the cantor/armarius. This is the only example I know of where apparently both the cantor and the librarian have a role. See also note 25 above.

⁸⁶ The customary of Ulrich (see notes 61 and 62) begins ‘Precentor et armarius armarii nomen obtinuit eo quod in ejus manu solet esse bibliotheca, quae et in alio nomine armarium appellatur.’ See Ulrich, cap. X, col. 748. The customary of William of Hirsau (see notes 61 and 62) is even more explicit in its opening: ‘Praecentor, qui et armarius, armarii nomen abtinuit, eo quod in ejus manu solet esse bibliotheca, quae et alio nomine armarium appellatur.’ See William, cap. xxiii, col. 1072.

⁸⁷ For the fullest discussion of Bernard's customary to date, see Hallinger, K., ‘Klunys Brauche zur Zeit Hugos des Grossen (1049–1109)’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, kanonistische Abteilung, 45 (1959), pp. 99–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bernard's discussion of the armarius is three times as long as that in the Liber tramitis.

⁸⁸ ‘Armarius est si domnus Abbas desuerit, responsorium ejus cantare, atque ejus lectionem per consuetudinem legere; Vicarius enim ejus est.’ Bernard, p. 161.

⁸⁹ ‘si enim quilibet inscius, aut oblitus non inceperit responsorium suum, aut antiphonam suam ad Matutinas, seu quemvis alium cantum ad omnes Horas, ipse debet esse provisus, atque paratus, utcontinuo incipiat, sive eum qui fallitur reducat in viam’; Bernard, p. 161.

⁹⁰ ‘ipse est quoddam temperamentum totius cantus, qui in Monasterio cantatur: ad ipsius namque autem incipitur, elevatur, humiliatur: nullus enim praesumere umquam debet quemlibet cantum altius incipere, aut inceptum elevare, seu quovis modo variare, nisi Armarius prius incipiat’; Bernard, p. 161.

⁹¹ ‘Ipsius est ponere omnes Fratres ecclesiae in tabula ad omnia Officia, non secundum ordinem, aut voluntatem eorum, sed tantum secundum quod videbitur et libitum ei merit.’ Bernard, p. 161. An exception is made in this in regard to the ‘lectiones etc’ at Matins. Perhaps the weekly cantor had some control here. See Bernard, p. 181.

⁹² ‘Quod si in aliquo errat, nullius scientia praejudicat illi, ut non eum potissimum omnes attendant, et sequantur; solus ille non reprehenditur si quam antiphonam aut respon sorium nominaverit absque libro, indicens alicui Fratri, ut cantet.’ Bernard, p. 163.

⁹³ Bernard, p. 162.

⁹⁴ There are three persons in Bernard's customary who can rule the choir: the armarius/ cantor, the weekly cantor and the ‘archichorus’. See also William, cap. xxiv, cols. 1071–2. The subject of ruling or leading the choir requires a study of its own. The best study on the subject is based on late sources of the Sarum use. See Harrison, , Music in Medieval Britain, pp. 51–3Google Scholar and passim. Harrison relies heavily on the detailed descriptions found in the Sarum customary, The Use of Sarum, i: The Sarum Customs as Set Forth in the Consuetudinary and Customary, ed. Frere, W. H. (Cambridge, 1898).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Bernard, p. 162.

⁹⁶ The weekly cantor has a chapter of his own in Bernard's customary (see p. 182) which was adopted by Ulrich (see Ulrich, cols. 714–15). The archichorus may well be the ancestor of the succentor in the monastic tradition of Cluny. Investigation of the succentor's office would require study of customaries for secular churches. For bibliography on this subject, see Huglo, , ‘Le Répons-Graduel de la Messe’, pp. 74–5Google Scholar; Birkner, G., ‘Notre Dame Cantoren und Succentoren vom Ende des 10. bis zum Beginn des 14. Jahrhunderts’, in In Memoriam Jacques Handschin, ed. Anglés, H. and others (Strasbourg, 1962), pp. 107–26Google Scholar; and Oury, G., ‘Les matines solennelles aux grandes fêtes dans les anciennes églises françaises’, Études Grégoriennes, 12 (1971), pp. 155–62Google Scholar, and idem, ‘La structure cérémonielle des vêpres solennelles dans quelques anciennes liturgies françaises’, Études Grégoriennes, 13 (1972), pp. 225–36. In spite of his title, Oury's sources are from the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Rembert Weakland studies a twelfth-century customary from cathedral, Milan in ‘The Performance of Ambrosian Chant in the 12th Century’, in Aspects of Medieval and Renaissance Music: a Birthday Offering to Gustave Reese, ed. LaRue, J. (New York, 1966), pp. 856–66.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Bernard, Ulrich and William of Hirsau all uphold the authority of the armarius/cantor over monastic books. As the following passage from Bernard shows, however, his authority over liturgical books was particularly emphasised: ‘Totius scripturae quae in ecclesia sit, et omnium scriptorum Magister, atque provisor est; quibus praecipit, et quod praecipit scribunt, verumtamen de generali Missa, seu de regulari Officio, nullum remanere facit, nisi Abbatis, aut Prioris licentia. Omnes ecclesiae libros habet in potestate, atque custodia sua.’ Bernard, p. 161.

⁹⁸ In his edition of Lanfranc's decretals (see note 61 above), Knowles stated that the armarius/cantor was the annalist or chronicler of the monastery. See Lanfranc, p. 68. (The discussion of the armarius in Lanfranc is taken from Bernard.) Samples of the notices the armarius would have filled out for the monastic necrology are given at the end of the Liber tramitis (see Lib. tram., p. 286).

⁹⁹ See Bernard, p. 163: ‘Brevium, qui mittuntur per cellas nostras, vel per alia loca pro defunctis fratribus, et eorum qui de foris veniunt, et numerandi tricenaria, vel septenaria, vel notandi anniversaria, ad eum pertinet.’ Samples of these notices are given at the close of the Liber tramitis (Lib. tram., p. 287).

¹⁰⁰ ‘Et si forte Episcopus aderit, vel nostri Ordinis, vel talis opinionis, de quo vel domno Abbati, vel Priori videatur, ut det benedictionem in ecclesia, ipse stolam, librum, et baculum ministrat, et imponit hunc versum: “Humiliate vos ad benedictionem”.’ See Bernard, p. 163.

¹⁰¹ Virtually every customary one can find from either Benedictine or Augustinian orders in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries contains a description of the armarius/cantor; even though this official is usually called either ‘cantor’ or ‘precentor’, he is still described as the person in charge of the monastic library and, less frequently, of the scriptorium. Even the twelfth-century Cistercian customary, the Ecclesiastica officia, an important source for the study of early Cistercian liturgical practices and an influential document in its own right, contains a description of the cantor that resembles those found in late eleventh-century Cluniac customaries. There is, however, a mention of the succentor in this description: he is the cantor's assistant and rules the left side of the choir. The cantor himself rules the right side, as he did in the customary of Bernard. See the edition of the Ecclesiastica officia in Griesser, B., ‘Die Ecclesiastica officia Cisterciensis Ordinis des Cod. 1711 von Trient’, Analecta Sacri Ordinis Cisterciensis, 12 (1956), pp. 274–6.Google Scholar A synoptic table comparing the descriptions of the cantor from twelfth-century customaries of four orders – Benedictine, Premonstratensian, Cistercian and Augustinian – reveals striking similarities. See Le coûtumier de I'abbaye d'Oigny en Bourgogne au Xlle siècle, ed. Lefevre, P. and Thomas, A. H., Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense: Etudes et Documents 39 (Louvain, 1976), pp. 1–liii.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Information about the actual workings of monastic scriptoria is difficult to come by. What information there is, however, is preserved, for the most part, in the descriptions of the cantor's office in rules and customaries. The fullest description of the workings of a monastic scriptorium is found in the discussion of the armarius/cantor in the customary from the Abbey of St Victor, cited in note 1. The passage demonstrates, among other things, that absolute silence was maintained in the famous scriptorium at St Victor. A system of signs allowed for limited communication. See Liber ordinis, cap. 19, p. 81. It is clear that liturgical manuscripts, at least by this time, were prepared from written exempla and not by oral dictation. For further discussion of silence in medieval scriptoria see Saenger, P., ‘Silent Reading: its Impact on Late Medieval Script and Society’, Viator, 13 (1982), pp. 367–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar There is further discussion of the scriptorium at St Victor in Samaran, C. and Marichal, R., Catalogue des manuscrits en écriture latine portant des indications de date, de lieu ou de copiste, 6 vols. (Paris, 1959–1974), iii, pp. xi–xii.Google Scholar The description of the armarius/cantor in the Liber ordinis, heavily influenced by the customary of Bernard of Cluny, was influential in its own right, especially on English customaries. See the customary from Barnwell, cited above (note 44), and The Customary of the Benedictine Abbey of Eynsham in Oxfordshire, ed. Gransden, A., CCM 2 (1963), pp. 161–8.Google Scholar At Eynsham, the cantor was an elected official.

¹⁰³ The cantor's decisions regarding major changes in the liturgy and its music were clearly shared with the abbot and the prior in most monasteries. See, for example, Bernard, p. 162, cited above in note 97 and, in addition, notes 57 and 59. Still it is always the case that the major responsibility for these matters belonged to the cantor. The cantor's responsibility for the production of liturgical books will inform our understanding of the composition and ordering of liturgical music in medieval monasteries. See, for example, the argument by Alejandro Planchart concerning Wulfstan's role in the production of one famous manuscript: The Repertory of Tropes at Winchester (Princeton, 1977), I, pp. 30–3.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ The extent to which the armarius/cantor retained his control over the scribes in the scriptorium in the late Middle Ages is a matter for further study. The decline of the monastic scriptorium is discussed briefly in Shonk, T. A., ‘A Study of the Auchinleck Manuscript: Bookmen and Bookmaking in the Early Fourteenth Century’, Speculum, 60 (1985), pp. 71–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar By the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, many large monastic scriptoria sent their work out to paid professionals. The customary from St Victor (and other later customaries as well) emphasises that the armarius/cantor retained control over their work.