¹ The most successful attempt to isolate the earliest layer of sequences is Crocker, R., The Early Medieval Sequence (Berkeley, California, 1977)Google Scholar. Crocker carefully studied West Frankish counterparts to Notker's sequences in an attempt to uncover the first generation of sequences.

² The most recent extensive bibliography on the genre accompanies Crocker, R. and Caldwell, J., ‘Sequence’, The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Sadie, S., 20 vols. (London, 1980), xvii, pp. 153–6Google Scholar.

³ A measure of the extent to which Italian sequences have been neglected compared with other traditions can be seen in the extensive bibliography accompanying Stäblein, B., ‘Sequenz’, Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Blume, F., 16 vols. (Kassel, 1949–1979), xii, cols. 547–9Google Scholar, where only one entry is a study involving Italian sequences (Pfaff, H., ‘Die Tropen und Sequenzen der Handschrift Rom Naz. Vitt. Em. 1343 [Sessor. 62] aus Nonantola’ (Ph.D. thesis, University of Munich, 1948))Google Scholar. There have been several more recent studies, which are discussed in my dissertation, Brunner, L. W., ‘The Sequences of Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare cvii and the Italian Sequence Tradition’, 2 vols. (Ph.D. thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1977), i, pp. 3–8Google Scholar.

⁴ As a preliminary to the study of the genre in Italy, I am currently preparing a catalogue of sequences in manuscripts of Italian origin up to 1200.

⁵ See Table 2, p. 126.

⁶ Huglo, M., Les tonaires: Inventaire, analyse, comparaison (Paris, 1971), p. 193Google Scholar.

⁷ Huglo, M., ‘L'auteur du “Dialogue sur la Musique” attribué à Odon’, Revue de Musicologie, 55 (1969), p. 123CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸ For a description of the contents of Monte Cassino 318 and additional bibliography, see Fischer, P., ed., The Theory of Music from the Carolingian Era up to 1400, ii: Italy, Répertoire International des Sources Musicales b/iii/2 (Munich and Duisburg, 1968), pp. 64–9Google Scholar. See also the corrections and additions to this description in Huglo's review of the volume in Revue de Musicologie, 55 (1969), pp. 228–30. For further bibliography and a list of facsimiles of Monte Cassino 318, see Le codex VI. 34 de la Bibliothèque Capitulaire de Bénévent (XI^e-XII^e siècle), graduel de Bénévent avec prosaire et tropaire, Paléographie Musicale, ser. i, 15 (Tournai, 1937), pp. 56, 93. There are several recent facsimiles of the Guidonian hand from the manuscript, see van Waesberghe, J. Smits, Musikerziehung: Lehre und Theorie der Musik im Mittelalter, iii/3 (Leipzig, n.d. [1969]), p. 127Google Scholar, Abb. 61, and The New Grove Dictionary, xvii, p. 636Google Scholar.

⁹ See Huglo, , Les tonaires, pp. 193–4Google Scholar, and Huglo, ‘L'auteur’, p. 123.

¹⁰ See, for example, Fischer, , ed., The Theory of Music, p. 64Google Scholar, and van Waesberghe, J. Smits, De musico-pedagogico et theoretico Guidone Aretino (Florence, 1953), p. 117Google Scholar.

¹¹ A subscription left by the scribe Savinus states that he copied a homilarium, now Monte Cassino, Archivio della Badia, MS 305, at Albaneta between 1025 and 1055; see Loew, E. A., The Beneventan Script (Oxford, 1914), pp. 58, 332Google Scholar.

¹² A detailed study of the scriptorium of Monte Cassino in the second half of the eleventh century by Francis Newton of Duke University, North Carolina, is currently in progress. For an impressive preliminary investigation of the abbey's scriptorium, see Newton, F., ‘The Desiderian Scriptorium at Monte Cassino: The Chronicle and Some Surviving Manuscripts’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 30 (1976), pp. 37–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ de Coussemaker, E., Scriptorum de musica medii aevi nova series, 4 vols. (Paris, 1864–1876), ii, pp. 81–109Google Scholar, edited from the manuscript Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale MS fonds lat. 10508; see Huglo, , Les tonaires, p. 197Google Scholar. See also Huglo, M., ‘Un nouveau manuscrit du Dialogue sur la musique du Pseudo-Odon (Troyes, Bibliothèque Municipale 2142)’, Revue d'histoire des textes, ix (Paris, 1979)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ See Huglo, , Les tonaires, pp. 185–224, particularly pp. 213–24Google Scholar. See also Huglo, M. ‘Odo’, §2: ‘Odo of Arezzo’, The New Grove Dictionary of Music, xiii, pp. 503–4Google Scholar. Huglo believes that the tonary was compiled in the late tenth century.

¹⁵ Huglo, , Les tonaires, p. 193Google Scholar.

¹⁶ The second tonary is, for example, larger than any of the fifteen tonaries compared in Russell, C. T., ‘The Southern French Tonary in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries’, (Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University, 1966), pp. 21–2Google Scholar. Some of the comprehensive tonaries from the middle ages are larger than the second tonary; see Lipphardt, W., ‘Tonar’, Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, xiii, col. 523Google Scholar, for estimates of the size of several large tonaries.

¹⁷ Ben 34 contains 156 introits, 56 sequences, 117 offertories and 159 communions.

¹⁸ The pages of Monte Cassino 318 measure 260 × 165 mm. The columns are ruled with dry-point and are approximately 30 mm in width, with ruled margins of approximately 5 mm on the outside of each column. Each column is ruled horizontally to receive seventeen incipits with music or thirty-three without music (the communions of several modes and many of the mode 8 sequences are listed without music).

¹⁹ There are, however, four breviaries from southern Italy that contain indications of mode in the margins; see Huglo, , Les tonaires, pp. 118–20Google Scholar. Several tonaries show influences from the Beneventan repertory but do not directly reflect the repertory; see Huglo's comments on Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, MS Conventi soppressi f.iii.565, and Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Digby 25, in Les tonaires, pp. 190, 197.

²⁰ Huglo, , Les tonaires, p. 194Google Scholar.

²¹ The fifty-four differences used in conjunction with the antiphons in Monte Cassino 318 almost match the number used in the Carolingian tonary, which contains fifty-five in its earliest surviving source, Metz, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 351. Walter Lipphardt believes that large and complex systems of differences are characteristic of ancient practice; see Lipphardt, W., Der karolingische Tonar von Metz, Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen 43 (Münster, Westphalia, 1965), pp. 243–5Google Scholar; see also pp. 222–43 for a detailed discussion of the differences for the Office antiphons in the Carolingian tonary.

²² Frutolfi Breviarium de musica et tonarius, ed. Vivell, C., Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 188, Abhandlung 2 (Vienna, 1919)Google Scholar.

²³ The tonary in Paris is complete only for the first five modes; if the seventh and eighth modes had been included, there would no doubt have been many more sequentiae; see Huglo, , Les tonaires, pp. 140–4Google Scholar.

²⁴ Na 34 is included among the Norman–Sicilian sources, for example, by Hiley, David in Table 1 of his ‘The Norman Chant Traditions – Normandy, Britain, Sicily’, paper presented at the meeting of the Royal Musical Association,6 February 1980Google Scholar, to be published in Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association, 107 (1980–1981). I am grateful to Mr Hiley for providing me with a copy of the text of his paper and for his suggestions concerning the specific origins of West Frankish sequences.

²⁵ The sequences at the end of the manuscript in Vat 5319 break off with Sancti spiritus assit.

²⁶ Bruno Stäblein's estimate of the ratio of surviving medieval sources to the number that once existed as 1:1000 (Das Schriftbild der einstimmigen Musik, Musikgeschichte in Bildern iii/4 (Leipzig, 1975), p. 102Google Scholar) seems to be based on a misinterpretation. Michel Huglo suggests (in a letter to the author, 8 May 1981) that 1:10 is a more realistic estimate. Even so, surviving sources may well not provide representative samplings for repertory and practice in any given region, particularly in such turbulent regions as southern Italy during the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

²⁷ von den Steinen, W., Notker der Dichter und seine geistige Welt, 2 vols. [Darstellungsband (I) and Editionsband (II)], (Berne, 1948)Google Scholar.

²⁸ See Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi, ed. G. M. Dreves, C. Blume and H. M. Bannister, 55 vols. (Leipzig, 1886–1922), 7, p. 258. See also Crocker, R., ‘The Repertoire of Proses at Saint Martial de Limoges’, 2 vols. (Ph.D. thesis, Yale University, 1957), ii, p. 58Google Scholar. Crocker lists the piece as a unicum in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS fonds lat. 1118 [Paris 1118], where it occurs without music in the series for Sundays after Trinity. It is interesting that there is only a single West Frankish source for Orbis redemptor, and that it occurs without music. The placement in the second tonary suggests that it was used during Advent in southern Italy. Gaudeamus in hac die (no. 55) presents a similar situation, that is, with only a single West Frankish source in Paris 1118 without music and presumed to be a unicum. See Analecta Hymnica 7, p. 38; 53, pp. 44; ‘The Repertoire of Proses’, ii, p. 36.

²⁹ Only one other sequence in Monte Cassino 318 is for St Benedict, that is, Qui benedici cupitis (no. 15). Neither Ben 34 nor Ben 35, the only two Beneventan graduals with the sections between the Purification and Easter intact, has sequences for Benedict or Scholastica. For a new edition of Italian and French sequences devoted to these two saints, see Hiley, D., ed., Morris, A., trans., Eight Sequences for St. Benedict and St. Scholastica (London, 1980)Google Scholar.

³⁰ Analecta Hymnica 7, p. 48; 53, p. 19; and Crocker ‘The Repertoire of Proses’, ii, p. 65. The West Frankish work Prome casta (Analecta Hymnica 7, p. 61; 53, p. 89; and Crocker, ‘The Repertoire of Proses’, ii, p. 64), which is textually similar to Prome grata, has a distinctly different melody.

³¹ The possibility that the unicum Haec dies veneranda (no. 71) is simply a variant of the West Frankish text of Haec est dies veneranda (Analecta Hymnica 7, p. 188; 53, p. 300; and Crocker, ‘The Repertoire of Proses’, ii, p. 39) is ruled out by differences in musical and liturgical position. The West Frankish text is for St Martin (11 November).

³² The Kyrie prosula O theos (Analecta Hymnica 47, p. 94), for example, occurs as a sequence in Ben 39 (fol. 57^v). The introit trope Quem quaeritis was transformed into a sequence in several Italian manuscripts; see Analecta Hymnica 40, p. 15. It is included among the sequences in the second tonary in Monte Cassino 318 as well (no. 76). Another piece found both as introit trope and sequence in Italian sources is Ecce iam Christus (Analecta Hymnica 37, p. 14); see Strehl, R., ‘Zum Zusammenhang von Tropus und Prosa “Ecce iam Christus”’, Die Musikforschung, 17 (1964), pp. 269–71Google Scholar, and Weiss, G., ‘Zum “Ecce iam Christus”’, Die Musikforschung, 18 (1965), pp. 174–7Google Scholar.

³³ See Jonsson, R., Corpus Troporum l, Tropes du propre de la messe, i: Cycle de Noël, Studia Latina Stockholmiensia 21 (Stockholm, 1975), p. 135Google Scholar. See also, Planchart, A. E., The Repertory of Ṫropes at Winchester, 2 vols. (Princeton, 1977), ii, pp. 219–21Google Scholar. Compare the incipit in Monte Cassino 318 with Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale, MS f.iv.18, fol. 16.

³⁴ Compare Ben 34, fol. 223.

³⁵ See Stäblein, B., Hymnen, Monumenta Monodica Medii Aevi 1 (Kassel, 1956), no. 766, p. 450Google Scholar.

³⁶ Planchart, , The Repertory of Tropes, i, pp. 172–234Google Scholar.

³⁷ Bloch, H., ‘Monte Cassino, Byzantium, and the West in the Earlier Middle Ages’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 3 (1946), p. 165CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This study (pp. 163–224) provides the classic account of the artistic achievements of the monastery against political currents operating in southern Italy. Bloch's forthcoming work, Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages, 2 vols., will be the standard work on the monastery. The brief sketch provided by Hoffman, H., ‘Zur Geschichte Montecassinos im 11. und 12. Jahrhundert’, introduction to Dormeier, H., Montecassino und die Laien im 11. und 12. Jahrhundert, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Schriften 27 (Stuttgart, 1979), pp. 1–20Google Scholar, is very useful, as is the brief historical introduction in Loew, , The Beneventan Script, pp. 1–16Google Scholar.

³⁸ See Newton, ‘The Desiderian Scriptorium’, and Bloch, H., ‘Monte Cassino's Teachers and Library in the High Middle Ages’, Scuola nell'occidente latino dell'alto medioevo: settitnane di Studio del Centra Italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo (Spoleto, 1972), pp. 563–605Google Scholar.

³⁹ See Bloch's moving account of this event in ‘Monte Cassino, Byzantium, and the West’, pp. 194–5.

⁴⁰ Hoffmann, H., ed., Die Chronik von Montecassino (Chronica monasterii casinensis) Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores 34 (Hanover, 1980)Google Scholar. The older edition of the Chronica is ed. Wattenbach, W., Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores 7 (Hanover, 1846), pp. 551–884Google Scholar. For a comprehensive listing of the primary sources for southern Italy of the period, including chronicles for other monasteries, see Deér, J., Papsttum und Normannen, Studien und Quellen zur Welt Kaiser Friedrichs ii 1 (Vienna, 1972), pp. 278–88Google Scholar.

⁴¹ See Hoffmann, ‘Zur Geschichte Montecassinos’, pp. 6–8, for a general assessment of the relationship between the German emperors and Monte Cassino, which he describes as a type of Reichskloster.

⁴² See Bloch's account of Henry's visit and his brilliant conclusions concerning the date, unusual nature, transfer to the monastery, and subsequent influence of the Gospel book in ‘Monte Cassino, Byzantium, and the West’, pp. 173–87, 201–7. The book is now Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Ottob. lat. 74.

⁴³ See Bloch, ‘Monte Cassino's Teachers’, pp. 581–2, and Newton, ‘The Desiderian Scriptorium’, p. 44.

⁴⁴ I am grateful to Professor Planchart for calling my attention to the East Frankish layout of Laurenti David in Kil 29.

⁴⁵ The bibliography on the Norman conquest of Sicily and southern Italy is extensive. For a good overview of both primary and secondary sources, see Deér, , Papsttum und Normannen, pp. 278–98Google Scholar; also pp. 1–12.

⁴⁶ See Haskins, C. H., Norman Institutions (Cambridge, Mass., 1925)Google Scholar, and Studies in the History of Mediaeval Science (Cambridge, Mass., 1924), pp. 185–90.

⁴⁷ See Kantorowicz, E. H., Laudes Regiae: A Study in Liturgical Acclamations and Mediaeval Ruler Worship (Berkeley, California, 1958), pp. 157–66Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Haskins, , Studies in the History of Mediaeval Science, p. 186, n. 144Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ White, L. T. Jr, Latin Monasticism in Norman Sicily (Cambridge, Mass., 1938), esp. pp. 47–52Google Scholar. See also Decarreaux, J., Normands, papes et moines en Italic méridionale et en Sicilie, XI–XII^e siècle (Paris, 1974)Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Ibid., pp. 47–8.

⁵¹ Vitalis, Orderic, Ecclesiastical History, ed. and trans. Chibnall, M., 6 vols. (Oxford, 1969–1981), ii, pp. 102–3Google Scholar; see p. xv for suggestions for the likely date of compilation of Book iii, which contains the passage quoted.

⁵² See, for example, Analecta Hymnica 54, p. 60, or 53, p. 223. The editors were so perplexed by the poor latinity of the Beneventan manuscripts that they could not seem to accept a south Italian origin for texts with traces of artistic import. For a discussion of this attitude, see Brunner, ‘The Sequences of Verona … cvii’, i, pp. 178–81.

⁵³ The five pieces are listed and discussed briefly in Levy, K., ‘Lux de luce: The Origin of an Italian Sequence’, Musical Quarterly, 57 (1971), p. 51Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ See Hiley, ‘The Norman Chant Traditions’, Table 6c.

⁵⁵ Hiley, ‘The Norman Chant Traditions’, reports that he could not find evidence of Norman practice in the Beneventan manuscripts. (MrHiley's, dissertation, ‘The Liturgical Music of Norman Sicily: A Study Centred on the Manuscripts Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, Vitrina 20–4, 288, 289, and 19421’, (Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1981)Google Scholar, will make an important contribution to our knowledge of Norman chant and its relation to other regional traditions.)

⁵⁶ According to Hiley, ‘The Norman Chant Traditions’, Table 5a, the only other Italian sequence used in Sicily was Hanc diem tribus (no. 63). He also suggests that Summi regis (no. 84), although an East Frankish text, may have been introduced into Sicily through Italian sources.

⁵⁷ Analecta Hymnica 9, p. 55.

⁵⁸ Stäblein, B., ‘Die Sequenzmelodie “Concordia” und ihr geschichtlicher Hintergrund’, Festschrift Hans Engel zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, ed. Heussner, H. (Kassel, 1964), p. 365Google Scholar. Crocker, however, takes issue with Stäblein's dating and conclusions; see Crocker, R. ‘Some Ninth-Century Sequences’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 20 (1967), pp. 390–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and The Early Medieval Sequence, pp. 88–92.

⁵⁹ See for example, the description of the Norman Robert Guiscard's exploits in the south in Chalandon, F., ‘The Conquest of South Italy and Sicily by the Normans’, Contest of Empire and Papacy, ed. Tanner, J. R., Previté-Orton, C. W. and Brooke, Z. N., Cambridge Medieval History 5 (Cambridge, 1926), p. 172Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Col 74, fol. 3^v. Col 74 is from Santa Cecilia in Trastevere, which had close connections with Monte Cassino since Desiderius was the cardinal priest of Santa Cecilia for almost twenty years. See Connolly, T. H., ‘The Graduale of S. Cecilia in Trastevere and the Old Roman Tradition’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 28 (1975), pp. 437–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶¹ Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS fonds lat. 13252, from St Magloire in Paris; in that manuscript Gaude eia, as Stäblein points out, is assigned to the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, not the Assumption as indicated in Analecta Hymnica 9, p. 54.

⁶² Le Graduel Romain 4, Le texte neumatique, i: Le groupment des manuscrits (Solesmes, 1960), pp. 241–3Google Scholar. This family also includes three Carthusian manuscripts.

⁶³ Kenneth Levy considers the interrelationship between the two regions with respect to Lux de luce (no. 73) and Precelsa ammodum (no. 79) in ‘Lux de luce’, passim, esp. pp. 56–7. Aquitanian and Beneventan versions of the sequentia and prose Lux de luce are compared in de Goede, N., The Utrecht Prosarium, Monumenta Musica Neerlandica 6 (Amsterdam, 1965), pp. xxi–xxiiGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁴ See Brunner, ‘The Sequences of Verona … cvii’, i, p. 161, for a comparison of the regional components of eighteen Italian manuscripts or groups of manuscripts.

⁶⁵ Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 222 (from Novalesa), and Pistoia, Biblioteca Capitolare, MS 121, do contain Advent sequences, but these manuscripts in general reflect a strong West Frankish influence.

⁶⁶ Le Graduel Romain 4, i, pp. 283–4.

⁶⁷ Herbert Bloch's forthcoming study Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages may provide specific information that would help to explain the musical connections between the two regions.

⁶⁸ The differences between regional styles in various genres of medieval chant are discussed in Bjork, D., ‘Provenience as an Aspect of Genre in Early Repertories of Medieval Chant’, paper presented at the Forty-fifth Annual Meeting of the American Musicological Society,New York City,2 November 1979Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ I have advanced some preliminary observations about style in Italian sequences in general in ‘The Sequences of Verona … cvii’, i, pp. 169–95. The forthcoming edition of the Beneventan sequences by Maria Fowler in conjunction with the forthcoming edition of the Beneventan tropes and prosulas by John Boe and Alejandro Planchart should facilitate careful study of style in this repertory.

⁷⁰ See Analecta Hymnica 53, pp. 273–4.

⁷¹ Levy, , ‘Lux de luce’, pp. 56–7Google Scholar.

⁷² Planchart, , The Repertory of Tropes, i, p. 198; ii, p. 119Google Scholar.

⁷³ See Hiley, ‘The Norman Chant Traditions’, Table 3.

⁷⁴ See note 13 above.

⁷⁵ Levy, , ‘Lux de luce’, esp. pp. 47–50Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ Candida cantia (no. 9), Laus tibi Deus (no. 45), Sanctum diem (no. 101), and Pretiosa sollemnitas (Analecta Hymnica 53, p. 332) in Italian manuscripts are transmitted primarily in Beneventan and Nonantolan sources, as well as in Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, cvii, from Mantua. See Brunner, ‘The Sequences of Verona … cvii’, i pp. 42–4, and the comments on these sequences in the Notes, vol. ii. The trope Admirans vates is also primarily transmitted in Beneventan and Nonantolan sources, see note 72 above. A southern Italian–Nonantolan connection is also revealed in a manuscript of the letters of St Augustine, Monte Cassino, Archivio della Badia, MS 16, which was copied in Monte Cassino in the eleventh century from a Nonantolan exemplar, see Newton, ‘The Desi-derian Scriptorium’, pp. 49–50.

⁷⁷ This may be true for the trope repertory in Benevento as well, which on the basis of the five graduals, as Planchart remarked, ‘seems to have changed steadily in the course of the 11 th century’, The Repertory of Tropes, i, p. 176Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ The best survey of the concept of mode in the middle ages is found in Powers, H., ‘Mode’, The New Grove Dictionary, xii, pp. 376–450Google Scholar; see esp. pp. 378–97.

⁷⁹ See Bailey, T., The Intonation Formulas of Western Chant, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Studies and Texts 28 (Toronto, 1974)Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ The principal difficulties in establishing relationships among tonaries are enumerated by Russell, ‘Southern French Tonary’, pp. 26–35. Owing to the enormous number of pieces in the second tonary in Monte Cassino 318 it seems to me that the assistance of a computer would be required to establish connections with other tonaries.

⁸¹ An anonymous treatise in the eleventh-century manuscript Prague, Státní Knihovna ČSSR, Universitní Knihovna, MS xix.c.26, fols. 28^v–34^r, refers to sequences in a discussion of chants with a wide ambitus. I am grateful to Calvin Bower for calling this text to my attention. For further information and bibliography, see Huglo, , Les tonaires, pp. 302–10Google Scholar. Hucbald in De harmonica institutione used the sequence Stans a longe as an example of descending motion by step (see Gerbert, , Scriptores i, p. 113)Google Scholar, but such references are rare. Karl-Werner Gümpel has kindly informed me that not a single sequence is cited among the more than 200 examples used in the various manuscript versions of the anonymous Dialogus de musica (Gerbert, , Scriptores, i, pp. 251–64)Google Scholar of which Professor Gümpel is preparing a critical edition. I am very grateful to him for this information and for suggestions concerning the challenging Latin used in the tonary.

⁸² See Bomm, U., Der Wechsel der Modalitätsbestimmung in der Tradition der Messgesänge im IX. bis XIII. Jahrhundert (Einsiedeln, 1929)Google Scholar, and Stuart, N., ‘Melodic “Corrections” in an Eleventh-Century Gradual (Paris, B.N., lat. 903)’, Journal of the Plainsong and Mediaeval Music Society, 2 (1979), pp. 2–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸³ The only Beneventan concordance for the melody is for Rex magne in Ben 34 (fols. 26^v–27^v). Magnus Deus occurs in Na 34 (fols. 91^v –92^v) on D. West Frankish versions are also on D. See the incipits in Crocker, ‘The Repertoire of Proses’, ii, pp. 204, 214. See also Hughes, Anselm, Anglo-French Sequelae, Edited from the Papers of the Late Dr. Henry Marriott Bannister (London, 1934), p. 69Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ See Ben 39, fols. 161^v–162.

⁸⁵ Compare Ben 34, fols. 140^v–141^v, with Crocker, , The Early Medieval Sequence, pp. 96–7Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ Ben 35, fols. 5–5^v. This may explain the contradiction with Summi triumphum, although the southern Italian concordances are on D.

⁸⁷ For Eia turma see Hughes, , Anglo-French Sequelae, pp. 24–5Google Scholar (edited under the West Frankish title Adorabo minor); for Mater, see pp. 55–6. Crocker (The Early Medieval Sequence) has edited two sequences that use the melody Mater: Congaudent angelorum (pp. 162–3), and Christi hodiema (pp. 184–5).

⁸⁸ Hucbald, Guido, and John on Music: Three Medieval Treatises, ed. Palisca, C., trans. Babb, W., Music Theory Translation Series 3 (New Haven, Conn., 1978), p. 39Google Scholar. The translation is from an emended version of Gerbert, , Scriptores, i, p. 119bGoogle Scholar: ‘quinta semper loca his singulis quatuor [finalibus] superiora quadam sibi connexionis unione iunguntur, adeo, ut pleraque etiam in eis quasi regulariter mela inveniantur desinere, nec rationi ob hoc vel sensui quid contraire, et sub eodem modo vel tropo recte decurrere’. The one change to Gerbert's text is the addition of the word ‘singulis’.

⁸⁹ Indeed, d as a secondary final did not sit well even with Hucbald. His qualification about d as an affinity to G is obscured in Babb's translation. See Powers, ‘Mode’, p. 381, for a more accurate translation and interpretation.

⁹⁰ Frutolfi Breviarium, ed. Vivell, , pp. 181–3Google Scholar. Frutolf was essentially a compiler who relied heavily on the works of others, particularly Berno of Reichenau in the compilation of the tonary. Frutolf, however, expanded considerably on Berno's work, and as far as I can determine the discussion of the mode 8 sequences was his own editorial contribution. See Huglo, , Les tonaires, pp. 283–6Google Scholar, and Huglo, M., ‘Frutolfus of Michelsberg’, The New Grove Dictionary, vi, pp. 875–6Google Scholar.

⁹¹ Concerning the large-scale plans of early sequence melodies, see Crocker, , The Early Medieval Sequence, pp. 382–91Google Scholar.

⁹² The melody Mater sequentiarum, used for the text ‘Ad celebres’ (no. 26), usually involves a shift from G to the secondary final d, as in Eia turma and Mater. In the only southern Italian concordance of Ad celebres with clefs, Ben 39 (fols. 78–9), the shift to d occurs as usual in phrase 7, but from phrase 8 on the final is a. The incipit in the second tonary opens on D, a fourth lower than the normal G opening. Assuming the normal shift of finals, the piece would end on the affinity a. Thus, the classification in mode 2 would seem to be correct.

⁹³ See Crocker, , The Early Medieval Sequence, pp. 332, 339Google Scholar. An extensive collation of East Frankish and Italian sources for Adducentur is presented in Hughes, , Anglo-French Sequelae, pp. 113–27Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ The final of Hac clara die changes from E to G at phrase 6. See Hughes, , Anglo-French Sequelae, p. 64Google Scholar, which is confirmed by Na 34, fols. 98–9. Laetetur celum (no. 46) seems to be securely a tetrardus chant. In Ben 39 (fols. 133–133^v), however, the final ‘amen’ ends (through an error?) on E.

⁹⁵ See Powers, ‘Mode’, pp. 384–5, especially Example 5, which summarises the classic doctrine of ambitus in the modes.

⁹⁶ The ambitus of Gloriosa dies (no. 48) seems to be the same as that for the two texts to Hodie Maria virgo (nos. 61 and 100), but Gloriosa dies is assigned to mode 7, the other two to mode 8.

⁹⁷ Frutolf also assigned Clare sanctorum to mode 8. Of the twenty-one sequences common to both the second tonary and Frutolf's tonary, six assignments differ. Four of these involve disagreement in maneria: Frutolf assigned Summi triumphum (no. 87) and Omnes sancti cherubin (no. 106) to mode 1; Stirpe Maria (no. 102) to mode 3; and Ad celebres (no. 26) to mode 8. The two other sequences involve differences in authentic-plagal assignments within the first maneria: Frutolf assigned Qui benedici (no. 15) to mode 2 and Psallat aecclesia (no. 27) to mode 1:

⁹⁸ All three sequences are found in Ben 34: Candida cantia, fols. 243–243^v; Johannes Ihesu, fols.24^v–25; and Clara gaudia, fols. 135^v–136^v. The incipits vary somewhat. Johannes Ihesu begins on C in Monte Cassino 318, not Γ.

⁹⁹ The intonation formulae in Monte Cassino 318 are edited in Bailey, The Intonation Formulas. For an example of the Latin formulae, see Figure 3 (the formula continues on the next page of the manuscript). For an example of the echemata see Figure l; this formula is transcribed in Example 1.

¹⁰⁰ For the theoretical foundation of the Cistercian chant reforms, see Gümpel, K.-W., ‘Zur Interpretation der Tonus-Definition des Tonale Sancti Bernardi’, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse (Wiesbaden, 1959), pp. 29–51Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ Despite the similarities observed in Examples 1 and 2 between Qui purgat and the intonation formulae for modes 1 and 2, the direct and disciplined melodic line traced by the sequence, combined with its emphatic cadences, forms a marked contrast to the less directed lines of the formulae. See Bailey, , The Intonation of Formulas, p. 34Google Scholar. See also Crocker's brief discussion about the lack of correspondence between sequence melodies and the modal system, in The Early Medieval Sequence, pp. 25–6.

¹⁰² See Powers, ‘Mode’, p. 382.

¹⁰³ See Huglo, M., ‘Un tonaire du graduel de la fin du viii^e siècle (Paris, B.N. lat. 13.159)’, Revue Grégorienne, 31 (1952), pp. 176–86, 224–33Google Scholar; see also Huglo, , Les tonaires, pp. 25–9Google Scholar. Huglo's dating of the tonary has been challenged in Planer, J., ‘The Ecclesiastical Modes in the Late Eighth Century’ (Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan, 1970)Google Scholar, who argues for a later date, perhaps as late as the tenth century. Whether or not Huglo's dating stands, the tonary is still an early example of the impulse – that would grow stronger during the course of the middle ages – to include responsorial chants in the system of the modes.

¹⁰⁴ See Aureliani Reomensis Musica disciplina, ed. Gushee, L., Corpus Scriptorum de Musica 21 (n.p., 1975), p. 85Google Scholar. An English translation is found in Aurelian of Réome, The Discipline of Music, trans. Ponte, J., Colorado College Music Press Translations 3 (Colorado Springs, 1968), p. 25Google Scholar. The order of Aurelian's second and third varieties is reversed in the tonary.

¹⁰⁵ ‘Ad cuius initium directe finis versiculi redundat et aequatur ei.’ Aureliani Reomensis Musica disciplina, ed. Gushee, , p. 85Google Scholar; also Monte Cassino 318, p. 252^c, see Figure 2.

¹⁰⁶ The Latin of the commentary is faulty and problematic, but the sense of the conclusion is clear. My reading and reconstruction of it is as follows: ‘See how in the introits the verses are confirmed through their individual beginnings [of the introits] and in the ends [of the differences].’ (‘Ecce quomodo in introitibus versus firmantur per singula incipientia eorum et in finibus.’ Monte Cassino 318, p. 253^c, Figure 3. Emendations: ‘versus’ for ‘versos’; ‘singula’ for ‘singulos’.)

¹⁰⁷ From this organisation of chants within mode 1, we can determine that the second entry of Nativitas precursoris (no. 18) was the mistake. Since it opens on D its proper place should be in the first subdivision, where it is also listed (no. 4). The mistake was probably made because the two chants that precede the second entry (i.e., nos. 16 and 17) are also for the Nativity of John the Baptist. Since all three were probably copied from the same manu-script, the scribe just added the third chant, which was in the right mode, but with the wrong opening note for the second subdivision.

¹⁰⁸ Two offertories are listed after difference iv in mode 5 (p. 270^a), while one gradual, two alleluias, one sequence, and nine offertories are grouped separately in mode 8 on the basis of initial notes a fourth or fifth below the final. The division of mode 8 does not follow a new difference for the introit. Oddly enough, the first difference is written out again and the incipit of the introit Ad te levavi listed for a second time as well (p. 285^a).