¹ The indispensable source for chant history and repertoire is Hiley, D., Western Plainchant: A Handbook (Oxford, 1993)Google Scholar, not least for its extensive bibliography. Very different views have been expressed about the exact nature and result of the transmission of Roman chant to Gaul: see Hucke, H., ‘Die Einführung des Gregorianischen Gesangs im Frankenreich’, Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte, 49 (1954), pp. 172–87Google Scholar; Hucke, , ‘Towards a New Historical View of Gregorian Chant’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 33 (1980), pp. 437–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Levy, K., ‘Charlemagne's Archetype of Gregorian Chant’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 40 (1987), pp. 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bernard, P., ‘Sur un aspect controversé de la réforme carolingienne: “vieux-romain” et “grégorien”’, Ecclesia Orans, 7 (1990), pp. 163–89Google Scholar, and, more recently, Bernard, , ‘Bilan historiographique de la question des rapports entre les chants “vieux romain” et “grégorien”’, Ecclesia Orans, 12 (1995), pp. 323–53Google Scholar. The broader aspects of the Carolingian liturgical reforms are surveyed by Vogel, C., ‘Les échanges liturgiques entre Rome et les pays francs jusqu'à l'époque de Charlemagne’, in Le chiese nei regni dell'Europa occidentale e i loro rapporti con Roma fino all'800, Settimane di studi del Centro Italiano di Studi sull'Alto Medio Evo, 7 (Spoleto, 1960), pp. 185–295Google Scholar.

² Stäblein, B., Die Gesänge des altrömischen Graduale, Monumenta Monodica Medii Aevi (hereafter MM), 2, ed. Landwehr-Melnicki, M. (Kassel, 1970), p. 32*Google Scholar, quoting Cassiodorus, Comment, in ps. 104: ‘Hoc ecclesiis dei votivum, hoc sanctis festivitatibus decenter accomodatum. Hinc ornatur lingua cantorum, istud aula domini laeta respondet et tamquam insatiabile bonum tropis semper variantibus innovatur’. Expositio psalmorum, ed. Adriaen, M., Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina, vol. xcviii (Turnhout, 1957), p. 942Google Scholar. The translation is from Walsh, P. G., Cassiodorus: Explanations of the Psalms, Ancient Christian Writers, 51–3 (New York, 1991), vol. iii, p. 49Google Scholar. Wagner, P. applied Cassiodorus' remark to ‘die langgezogenen Allelujajubilen’, Einführung in die gregorianischen Melodien: Ein Handbuch der Choralwissenschaft, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1910–1921), vol. ii, p. 38Google Scholar. (In fairness to the great chant scholar it should be noted that Stäblein does not always reflect accurately the context of what he calls ‘das… abwertende Urteil Peter Wagners über die archaische Melodik’.)

³ The quotation is from Boe, J., ‘Hymns and Poems at Mass in Eleventh-Century Southern Italy’, Atti del XIV Congresso della Società Internazionale di Musicologia: Trasmissione e recezione delle forme di cultura musicale, Bologna 27 agosta – 1 settembre 1987, ed. Pompilio, A., Restani, D., Bianconi, L. and Gallo, F. A., 3 vols. (Rome, 1990), vol. i, p. 516Google Scholar. Aurelian made his view of this practice quite clear: ‘absurdum esset si iteraretur duplatio modulationis in duabus syllabis’, Musica Disciplina, 19, ed. Gushee, L., Corpus Scriptorum de Musica, 21 (n.p.: American Institute of Musicology, 1975), p. 128Google Scholar. John of Afflighem cautioned the composer ‘that he not abuse one neume by unduly harping on it’ (ne in una neuma nimium eam inculcando oberret), De musica 18, ed. Smits van Waesberghe, J., De musica cum tonario, Corpus Scriptorum de Musica, i (Rome: American Institute of Musicology, 1950), p. 118Google Scholar; trans. Babb, W., Hucbald, Guido, and John on Music (New Haven, 1978), pp. 138–9Google Scholar. Two centuries later, the anonymous author of the Summa Musice (ca. 1300) condemned what Cassiodorus valued so highly: ‘intervallum vel clausula repetitione una cum delectatione auditur, semel igitur potest repeti, sed raro’ (one repetition of an interval or a phrase may be heard with pleasure; it may therefore be repeated once, but not often), and he goes on to make an interesting comparison in light of Cassiodorus' statement: ‘et considera, quod hoc vitium simile est nugationi, quam rhetor plurimum detestatur’ (and consider this vice to be like a nugatio, something a rhetorician greatly detests). Summa Musice 23, Summa Musice: A Thirteenth-Century Manual for Singers, ed. Page, C. (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 199 and 123CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The treatise was first edited (with attribution to Johannes de Muris) by Gerbert, M., Scriptores Ecclesiastici de Musica Sacra Potissimum, 3 vols. (St Blaise, 1784), vol. iii, p. 238bGoogle Scholar.

⁴ No separate collections of offertories or their verses comparable to the Gregorian offertoria or versicularia are known to have existed in the Old Roman tradition.

⁵ The S. Cecilia manuscript, Cologny-Genève, Bibliotheca Bodmeriana C 74, has been edited in facsimile by Lütolf, M., Das Gradual von Santa Cecilia in Trastevere, 2 vols. (ColognyGenève: Fondation Martin Bodmer, 1987)Google Scholar, with extensive commentary on the manuscript and valuable indices of the Old Roman Mass chants in vol. i; a transcription of Vat. lat. 5319 has been published in the Monumenta Monodica series (see note 2 above); the St Peter's gradual is Archivio di San Pietro, F 22.

⁶ The offertory for the feast of St Agnes, Diem festum with the prosula ‘Mundo presenti’, occurs only in the S. Cecilia gradual (fol. 31^v,) but it is Gregorian, not Old Roman; cf. the version found in the gradual Benevento 34 (Paléographie Musicale, 15), fol. 50^v. Domine Hiesu Christe from the Gregorian Mass for the Dead appears in Vat. lat. 5319, fol. 140. At the end of the St Peter's manuscript a votive Mass in honor of the Virgin (‘Salve sancta parens’) with the offertory Felix namque (fol. 103) was inserted.

⁷ Huglo, M. has suggested a probable Gallican origin for Erit vobis (‘Offertory Antiphon’, The New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. x, p. 651)Google Scholar. The erased verses of Erit nobis in Vat. lat. 5319 (fol. 94) were replaced by the Alleluia verse ‘Epi si kyrie ilpysa’.

⁸ The first two verses of Benedicite gentes are reversed in the two graduals, as are verses 2 and 3 of Justus ut palma; S. Cecilia omits the verses of the offertories Confortamini, Exulta satis and Tollite portas. It lacks the verse ‘Da michi’ of the offertory Domine vivifica, the verse ‘Posui adiutorium’ of Veritas mea, the verse ‘Accedite ad eum’ of Immitet angelum, the verse ‘Non adorabitis’ of In die solempnitatis, and the third verse of Perfice gressus. Single verses in 5319 are sometimes divided in the S. Cecilia gradual: ‘Potens es’ (verse 1 of Inveni David) and ‘Verba mea’ (verse 1 of Gloriabuntur).

⁹ Not included in this number are: (1) the Gregorian offertory for the feast of St Agnes, Diem festum (with the prosula ‘Mundo presenti’), which occurs only in the S. Cecilia gradual (fol. 31^v); (2) Domine Hiesu Christe from the Gregorian Mass for the Dead (Vat. lat. 5319, fol. 140); and (3) the offertory Felix namque from the votive Mass in honor of the Virgin (‘Salve sancta parens’). The Old Roman introits have been studied by Connolly, T., ‘Introits and Archetypes: Some Archaisms of the Old Roman Chant’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 25 (1972), pp. 157–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the communions by Murphy, J., ‘The Communions of the Old Roman Chant’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1977)Google Scholar. For analyses of other Mass chants see Nowacki, E., ‘Text Declamation as a Determinant of Melodic Form in the Old Roman Eighth-Mode Tracts’, Early Music History, 6 (1986), pp. 193–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schmidt, H., ‘Untersuchungen zu den Tractus des zweiten Tones’, Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch, 42 (1958), pp. 1–25Google Scholar; Hucke, H., ‘Gregorianischer Gesang in altrömischer und fränkischer Überlieferung’, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 12 (1955), pp. 74–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar [graduals]; Bernard, P., ‘Les Alleluia mélismatiques dans le chant romain: Recherches sur la genèse de l'Alleluia de la messe romaine’, Rivista Internazionale di Musica Sacra, 12 (1991), pp. 286–362Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Ott, K., Offertoriale sive Versus Offertoriorum Cantus Gregoriani (Tournai, 1935)Google Scholar, reedited by Fischer, R. and inscribed with neumes of Laon 239 and Einsiedeln 121 as Offertoriale Triplex cum versibus (Solesmes, 1985)Google Scholar. On the editorial idiosyncrasies of Ott's edition see particularly Steiner, R., ‘Some Questions about the Gregorian Offertories and Their Verses’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 19 (1966) pp. 162–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the edition of the Old Roman offertories see note 2 above.

¹¹ Sidler, H., Studien zu den alten Offertorien mit ihren Versen, Veröffentlichungen der Gregorianischen Akademie zu Freiburg (Schweiz), 20 (Freiburg, 1939)Google Scholar.

¹² Wagner, , Einführung, vol. i, pp. 422–4Google Scholar; Ott, , Offertoriale, p. 23Google Scholar.

¹³ Treitler, L., [untitled] ‘Communication’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 41 (1988), p. 575Google Scholar.

¹⁴ One need only recall the aged Johann Adam Reincken's amazement at hearing J. S. Bach improvise on the chorale ‘An Wasserflüssen Babylon’, The Bach Reader, ed. David, H. T. and Mendel, A. (New York, 1945), p. 219Google Scholar, or the marvellous feats attributed to Mozart.

¹⁵ Dupré, M., Cours complet d'improvisation à l'orgue, 2 vols. (Paris, 1925 and 1937)Google Scholar. Cf. Leo Treitler's apposite characterisation of ‘oral transmission as a normal practice whose object and effect is to preserve traditions, not play loose with them’: ‘Homer and Gregory: The Transmission of Epic Poetry and Plainchant’, The Musical Quarterly, 60 (1974), p. 346Google Scholar.

¹⁶ ‘One had to have a procedural plan, even if one did not have a pre-vision about how it would turn out’, according to Treitler, L., ‘Medieval Improvisation’, The World of Music, 33 (1991), p. 68Google Scholar. Concerning the phase during which Old Roman chant was passed down orally one could conclude with David G. Hughes that ‘the inference to be drawn is not that the melody was composed anew by improvisation at each performance, but rather that certain kinds of details were somewhat flexible’: Hughes, , ‘Evidence for the Traditional View of the Transmission of Gregorian Chant’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 40 (1987), p. 398CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ This contrasts markedly with the Gregorian offertories which – apart from contrafacts created for new feasts – do not generally share material across the repertoire. Each is, as described by Sidler, Hubert, an ‘Eigengewächs’: Studien zu den alten Offertorien mit ihren Versen, p. 7Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Wagner, P., Einführung, vol. i, pp. 428–32Google Scholar; Ferretti, P., Esthétique grégorienne, trans. Agaësse, A. (Solesmes, 1938), pp. 198–203Google Scholar; Johner, D., Wort und Ton im Choral. Ein Beitrag zur Aesthetik desgregorianischen Gesanges, 2nd edn (Leipzig, 1953), pp. 371–4Google Scholar; Apel, W., Gregorian Chant (Bloomington, Ind., 1959), pp. 363–75Google Scholar; Kähmer, I., ‘Die Offertoriums-Überlieferung in Rom Vat. lat. 5319’ (Inaugural-Diss., University of Cologne, 1971)Google Scholar; Dyer, J., ‘The Offertories of Old Roman Chant: A Musico-Liturgical Investigation’ (Ph.D. diss., Boston University, 1971)Google Scholar.

¹⁹ For a recent bibliography on the subject of orality and chant transmission see Levy, K., ‘On Gregorian Orality’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 43 (1990), pp. 185–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The concepts on which the ‘new historical view of Gregorian chant’ are founded (see note 1 above) have been critically reviewed in Jeffery, P., Re-Envisioning Past Musical Cultures: Ethnomusicology and the Study of Gregorian Chant (Chicago, 1992), pp. 6–50Google Scholar.

²⁰ This would account for the slight differences between my list and that of Bernard, P., ‘Les versets des alléluias et des offertoires, témoins de l'histoire de la culture à Rome entre 560 et 742’, Musica e Storia, 3 (1995), pp. 5–40, see p. 24Google Scholar.

²¹ Only in Expectans expectavi and Lauda anima do they occur in the same offertory; the second verse of Lauda anima is the unique case of their combination in a single verse.

²² FormA was cited by Stäblein, B. in ‘Zur Frühgeschichte des römischen Chorals’, Atti del Congresso Internationale di Musica Sacra (Rome, 1950), p. 272Google Scholar. R. Snow emphasised its prevalence in the offertories in the chapter ‘The Old-Roman Chant’ which he contributed to Apel, W., Gregorian Chant, p. 491Google Scholar. Both formulae figure in the pieces discussed by Hucke, H., ‘Zur Aufzeichnung der altrömischen Offertorien’, Ut mens concordet voci. Festschrift Eugène Cardine zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. Göschl, J. B. (St Ottilien, 1980), pp. 296–313Google Scholar. These formulae are the equivalent of Kähmer's two ‘Singweisen’; see note 18 above.

²³ Not every graduate of the training programme provided by the Roman schola cantorum could find a permanent place in the prestigious papal choir, nor should we assume that they were all extraordinary virtuosi. See Dyer, J., ‘The Schola Cantorum and Its Roman Milieu in the Early Middle Ages’ in De musica et cantu: Studien zur Geschichte der Kirchenmusik und der Oper. Helmut Hucke zum 60. Geburtstag, Musikwissenschaftliche Publikationen, Hochschule für Musik und Darstellende Kunst, 2, ed. Cahn, P. and Heimer, A.-K. (Hildesheim, 1993), pp. 19–40Google Scholar, which argues for a late-seventh-century origin of the Roman schola cantorum.

²⁴ The prominence given to b in the recitational element of this formula parallels a similar situation in Aquitanian and some Beneventan sources.

²⁵ All references (MM) are to page numbers of the transcriptions in Monumenta Monodica Medii Aevi, 2.

²⁶ A verse of this offertory has been reproduced before: see Scharnagl, A., ‘Offertorium’, Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. IX, col. 1902Google Scholar, and B. Stäblein, ‘Psalm’, ibid., vol. X, col. 1689 (ex. 12). The refrain of this offertory also makes extensive use of Form.

²⁷ With the exception of Ave Maria and Oratio mea, all of the offertory texts that use Form A are drawn from the psalms.

²⁸ According to Amalar of Metz, who witnessed the paschal vespers at Rome in the early ninth century, the pope presided at them, at least on Sunday; Liber de ordine antiphonarii 52.5, ed. Hanssens, J. M., Amalarii Episcopi Opera Liturgica Omnia, 3 vols., Studi e Testi, 138–40 (Vatican City, 1948–1950), vol. iii, p. 84Google Scholar. The alleluias in question are Deus regnavit (Sunday; MM 198), Domine refugium and In exitu (Monday; MM 205 and 202), Paratum cor (Tuesday; MM 192), Te decet (Wednesday; MM 204), Letatus sum and Qui confidunt (Friday; MM 188 and 200), Cantate domino (Saturday; MM 194). The formula occurs in none of the Greek-texted alleluias sung at the paschal vespers; see Thodberg, C., Der byzantinische Alleluiarionzyklus, Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae Subsidia, 8 (Copenhagen, 1966), pp. 168ffGoogle Scholar. These Greek alleluias make extensive use of recitation formulae and literal repetitions also characteristic of Old Roman chant; see MM, pp. 128*–129*.

²⁹ The rubrics of the Old Roman gradual correspond almost exactly with the description of the alleluias in Ordo Romanus 27: ‘Dicitur post hunc [ps. 110] primus scholae cum paraphonistae [et] infantibus Alleluia. Et respondent paraphoniste. Sequitur subdiaconus cum infantibus Alleluia. Dominus regnavit et reliqua. Et semper respondent parafoniste et adnuntiant verba infantibus. V[ersus]. Parata sedes tua deus. Iterum v[ersus]. Elevaverunt flumina domine. Post hos versus salutat primus scholae archidiaconum et illo annuente incipit Alleluia cum melodiis cum infantibus. Qua expleta, respondent parafonistae primam.’ Ordo Romanus 27.70–1, ed. Andrieu, M., Les Ordines romani du haut moyen-âge, 5 vols., Spicilegium sacrum lovaniense, 11, 23–4, 28, 29 (Louvain: Université Catholique de Louvain, 1931–1961), vol. iii, p. 363Google Scholar. This ordo mentions only the Roman archdeacon (not the pope) as celebrant, as does the derivative description of the Sunday vespers in Ordo 30B.71–82 (Andrieu, vol. iii, pp. 475–7). For a fuller discussion of the paschal vespers see Smits van Waesberghe, J., ‘De glorioso officio … dignitate apostolica: Zum Aufbau der Groß-Alleluia in den päpstlichen Ostervespern’, in Essays Presented to Egon Wellesz, ed. Westrup, J. (Oxford, 1966), pp. 48–73Google Scholar; van Dijk, S. J. P., ‘The Medieval Easter Vespers of the Roman Clergy’, Sacris Erudiri, 19 (1969–1970), pp. 261–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Stäblein, , MM, pp. 84*–140*Google Scholar. On the intonation and FormB in the vespers see Jammers, E., Musik in Byzanz, im päpstlichen Rom und im Frankenreich: Der Choral als Musik der Textaussprache (Heidelberg, 1962), pp. 232–4Google Scholar.

³⁰ Ordo Romanus 27.70 (Andrieu, vol. III, p. 363) instructs the paraphoniste (plural) to cue the choirboys (‘infantibus’). By the time the gradual was copied, the responsibility of ‘announcing’ the verse had devolved on the primicerius, whose intonation was followed by the singing of the verse by the entire schola. Could this later practice reflect an earlier period when the intonation was a practical necessity for less experienced boy singers? FormA is discussed in the context of the vespers by Gindele, K., ‘Spuren altmonastischen Alleluja-Psalmodie in der altrömischen Ostervesper’, Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktiner-Ordens und seiner Zweige, 83 (1972), pp. 156–61Google Scholar.

³¹ The alleluia and offertory verses using this ‘Vesperstil’ (Thodberg) have been listed in P. Bernard, ‘Les versets des alléluias et des offertoires’, pp. 9, 22, and tables 1–4. Bernard dates the offertories with Form about a century earlier than I would be inclined to do, partly on the assumption that the texts and chant formularies of a feast (e.g., Sexagesima and SS. Philip and James) must be contemporaneous with the institution of that feast, a view critiqued by Apel, , Gregorian Chant, pp. 56–7Google Scholar. See also Bernard, P., ‘L'origine des chants de la messe selon la tradition musicale du chant romain ancien, improprement dit “chant vieux-romain”’, in L'Eucharistie: Célébrations, rites, piétés, Conférences Saint Serge, XLI^e Semaine d'études Liturgiques (Paris, 28 juin-1 juillet 1994)Google Scholar, Biblioteca ‘Ephemerides Liturgicae’ Subsidia, 79, ed. Triacca, A. M. and Pistoia, A. (Rome, 1995), pp. 19–97, especially pp. 83–9Google Scholar.

³² According to Ordo Romanus 27.70, the parafoniste intone the phrase to the ‘infantibus’, Andrieu, , Les Ordines romani, vol. iii, p. 363Google Scholar.

³³ MM 90*–96*. P. Bernard has sought to reverse the relationship between Vat. lat. 5319 and Ordo 27 by asserting that the gradual preserves an earlier stage of the weeklong paschal vespers and that Ordo 27 represents a redaction created to avoid placing the octave of Easter on the following Sunday. One of his arguments seems based on interpreting Friday in Easter week (station at the Pantheon) as a ‘sorte d'octave du Vendredi saint’ and the attribution of the gradual Letatus sum and the tract Qui confidunt to Good Friday, chants sung rather on the fourth Sunday of Lent: ‘Les versets’, pp. 10–12.

³⁴ Chavasse, A., Le sacramentaire gélasien (Vaticanus Reginensis 316): Sacramentaire presbytéral en usage dans les titres romains au VII^e siècle. Bibliothèque de Théologie, série 4/1 (Tournai, 1958), p. 238Google Scholar.

³⁵ The evangelary is type П in the classification of Klauser, T., Das römische Capitulare Evangeliorum, Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 28 (Münster in Westfalen, 1935; 2nd edn, 1972), p. 25Google Scholar; see also Morin, G., ‘Liturgie et basiliques de Rome au milieu du VII^e siècle d'après les listes d'Evangiles de Wurzbourg’, Revue Bénédictine, 28 (1911), pp. 296–330, especially p. 305CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Frere, W. H., Studies in Early Roman Liturgy 2: The Roman Gospel Lectionary, Alcuin Club Collections, 30 (Oxford, 1935), p. 10 (no. 110)Google Scholar. The Gelasian sacramentary, variously dated in the last two-thirds of the seventh century, carries the rubric ‘Octabas paschae die domi<ni>co’ (no. 499, ed. Mohlberg, p. 81). A similar rubric occurs in a Roman capitulate that preserves the same stage of development as the Würzburg list; see Klauser, T., ‘Ein vollständiges Evangeliumsverzeichnis der römischen Kirche aus dem 7. Jahrhundert, erhalten im Cod. Vat. Pal. lat. 46’, Römisches Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte, 35 (1927), pp. 113–34Google Scholar, reprinted in his Gesammelte Arbeiten zur Liturgiegeschichte, Kirchengeschichte und christlichen Archäologie, ed. E. Dassmann, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, Ergänzungsband, 3 (Münster in Westfalen, 1974), pp. 5–21.

³⁶ Confitebuntur is shared by several saints' days, the earliest of which could be Sts Philip and James (indicated for this feast by incipit along with the complete music for another offertory, Repleti sumus), whose church was reconstructed after Rome had been retaken from the Goths in 562. Pope Gregory I (590–604) preached a sermon in honor of Sts Nereus, Achilleus and Pancratius; the dedication of the titulus Vestina on the Quirinal to St Vitalis took place before 595. Observance of the feast of the Palestinian martyr St George in Rome dates from the erection of his basilica in the Velabro during the pontificate of Leo II (682–3). See Jounel, P., ‘Le sanctoral romain du 8^e au 12^e siècles’, La Maison-Dieu, 52 (1957), pp. 59–88Google Scholar.

³⁷ Morin, G., ‘Le plus ancien comes ou lectionnaire de l'église romaine’, Revue Bénédictine, 27 (1910), pp. 41–74 (p. 61, nos. 138–9)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Morin, ‘Liturgie et basiliques’, p. 313. It occurs in the Old Gelasian Sacramentary (Vat. Reg. lat. 316), Liber sacramentorum Romanae aeclesiae ordinis anni circuli, ed. Mohlberg, L. C., Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, Series maior, Fontes, 4 (Rome, 1960), p. 151Google Scholar. The earlier (c. 600) Verona Sacramentary contains fourteen Mass formularies (group XXI) for St Lawrence. The preface of the first Mass contains the phrase ‘praevenientes natalem diem beati Laurenti’, and similar phrases are found in the twelfth formulary: Mohlberg, L. C., ed., Sacramentarium Veronense, Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, Series major, Fontes, 1 (Rome, 1956), pp. 94 and 98Google Scholar.

³⁸ Morin, ‘Le plus ancien comes’, pp. 60–1 (nos. 130–1, 132–3); Morin, ‘Liturgie et basiliques’, p. 309. See also Frere, W. H., Studies in Early Roman Liturgy 1: The Kalendar, Alcuin Club Collections, 28 (Oxford, 1930), pp. 109–12Google Scholar.

³⁹ Hesbert, R.-J., Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex (Brussels, 1935), XXXVIII–XXXIXGoogle Scholar. The feast is missing in the Würzburg gospel list (645) and its Roman counterpart (Vat. Pal. lat. 46); see Klauser, ‘Ein vollständiges Evangeliumsverzeichnis der römischen Kirche’, passim.

⁴⁰ Hesbert, R.-J., ‘Un antique offertoire de la Pentecôte’, in Organicae voces: Festschrift Joseph Smits van Waesberghe (Amsterdam, 1963), pp. 59–69Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Levy, ‘Charlemagne's Archetype of Gregorian Chant’, pp. 11–25.

⁴² Only the offertories Expectans expectavi and Lauda anima appear in both Appendixes 1 and 2.

⁴³ Most of Sanctificavit Moyses (MM 350), a non-psalmic text, is based on an entirely different pattern of repeated material. See Example 12 below.

⁴⁴ A third verse, ‘Et ponam in seculum seculi’, has not been provided with notation in the 5319 gradual.

⁴⁵ The S. Cecilia manuscript (fol. 25) has only the verse ‘Misericordia’ [= vs. 2 in 5319] for this offertory.

⁴⁶ For exceptions to this general rule see verse 3 of the offertory Factus est dominus (MM 359), and verse 3 of Emitte spiritum tuum (MM 385). John of Afflighem quoted a similar podatus recitation from the tract Qui habitat as a bad example of excessive ‘harping’ on a single neume (see note 3 above). Bruno Stäblein discovered in a gradual from Pistoia (Biblioteca Capitolare C 119; eleventh or twelfth century) a setting of the tract (canticum) Vinea facta est for Holy Saturday that makes use of a repeated formula vaguely reminiscent of FormB. See Schriftbild der einstimmigen Musik, Musikgeschichte in Bildern, 3/4: Musik des Mittelalters und der Renaissance (Leipzig, 1975), pp. 138–9Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Neither FormA nor FormB is as consistent in accent treatment as the mode-8 tracts analysed in detail by Nowacki, E., ‘Text Declamation as a Determinant of Melodic Form in Old Roman Eighth-Mode Tracts’, Early Music History, 6 (1986), pp. 193–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially Tables 1 and 2.

⁴⁸ Beatus es (MM 374; not FormB), Desiderium anime (MM 359 = vs. of In virtute), Domine convertere (MM 349), Domine deus in simplicitate (MM 341), Domine in auxilium (five times; MM 347), Factus est dominus (MM 357), Gloria et honore (MM 293), In conspectu angelorum (MM 356), In virtute (MM 355), Iustitie domini (MM 361), and Sperent in te (MM 345). The melisma is repeated three times in the single verse ‘Vitam petiit’ of the offertory In virtute. Vat. lat. 5319 omits the a–c–G–a–G figure at the second appearance of the melisma, but the S. Cecilia gradual (fols. 14^v–15) contains the missing passage. Very likely, the 5319 scribe was working from a written model and jumped from the first F–G–F torculus to the next. A different melisma occurs in two offertories with FormB, Domine convertere and Gloria et honore, as well as in the offertories Benedictus es…in labiis (MM 329) and Letamini in domino (MM 292).

⁴⁹ Helmut Hucke alluded to the large number of offertory refrains and verses whose music (i.e., FormB) corresponds with that of Factus est dominus (‘Zur Aufzeichnung der altrömischen Offertorien’, pp. 298–9). Treitler, L., ‘Oral, Written and Literate Process in the Transmission of Medieval Music’, Speculum, 56 (1981), pp. 476–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar, discussed the same offertory, again outside its larger formulaic context, as did Jeffery, , Re-Envisioning Past Musical Cultures, pp. 25–31Google Scholar. Ten years later, Treitler returned to the same chant in ‘Medieval Improvisation’ (see note 16 above) and in his essay ‘Mündliche und schriftliche Überlieferung: Anfänge der musikalischen Notation’ in Die Musik des Mittelalters, ed. Moller, H. and Stephan, R., Neues Handbuch der Musikwissenschaft, 2 (Laaber, 1991), pp. 58–60Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ As noted earlier, the ‘V’ indication is used quite loosely in the Vat. lat. 5319 manuscript. The St Peter's gradual contains no verses.

⁵¹ This offertory is included in Table 2 below as an offertory with text repetition.

⁵² Among the Sextuplex sources only Rheinau, Compiègne and Corbie give enough of the text to ascertain which ‘factus est’ is intended; Corbie is the only one of these sources to include the final words ‘et sperabo in eum’. See Hesbert, Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex, no. 66. The Old Roman order of the verses keeps to the sequence of Psalm 17 (vss.19–20, 38 and 40), but the verses are transposed in Compiègne.

⁵³ Hucke characterised this refrain accurately as ‘römisches Eigengut’; see ‘Die Aufzeichnung’, p. 298.

⁵⁴ Treitler, ‘Oral, Written, and Literate Process’, p. 477 (emphasis added).

⁵⁵ On the terminology of the psalters see Estin, C.: ‘Les traductions du Psautier’, Le monde latin et la Bible, Bible de tous les temps, 2, ed. Fontaine, J. and Pietri, C. (Paris, 1985), pp. 67–88Google Scholar. On the Psalter traditions and their relationship to chant see Dyer, J., ‘Latin Psalters, Old Roman and Gregorian Chants’, Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch, 68 (1984), pp. 11–30Google Scholar, as well as the recent survey by Bernard, P., ‘Les chants de la propre de la messe dans les répertoires “grégorien” et romain ancien: Essai d'édition pratique des variantes textuelles’, Ephemerides Liturgicae, 110 (1996), pp. 210–51 and 445–50Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Weber, R., Le Psautier romain et les autres anciens psautiers latins, Collectanea Biblica Latina, 10 (Rome, 1953), pp. 29–32Google Scholar. The Verona Psalter [Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare I (I)], a manuscript with the Greek and Latin text of the psalms, was written in the sixth or seventh century, probably in North Italy.

⁵⁷ With variants this is the reading of the Old Latin ‘psautier gaulois’ tradition, one of whose principal witnesses, the Psalter of St Germain (Paris, BN lat. 11947), probably originated in Northern Italy in the sixth century.

⁵⁸ By this time the Roman Psalter was in general use throughout most of Italy, and the ‘Gallican’ Psalter was probably gaining ground there as well. The Old Roman chant text has ‘potentibus’ instead of ‘potentissimis’.

⁵⁹ It is not unusual for this manuscript to omit repetenda cues after the verses: there is no cue at the end of verse 3 of this offertory, though the repetenda must have been sung at that point.

⁶⁰ Cologny-Genève, Bibliotheca Bodmeriana C 74, fols. 62^v-63. The cue is indicated at the end of verse 2 with notation and at the end of verse 3 without. Both ‘et ab his’ (refrain repetenda) and ‘et liberator’ (end of vs. 1) begin similarly: a punctum and a clivis+podatus. The S. Cecilia gradual was generally inaccessible at the time Treitler wrote, and he does not refer to its treatment of the repetenda, a dimension introduced to the discussion in Jeffery, , Re-Envisioning Past Musical Cultures, pp. 25–31Google Scholar. A verse ending on the tonic is unusual in Old Roman chant, but not unique to this offertory. See In te speravi in which refrain and verses have a common ending, Ave Maria etc. Another offertory with an anomaly in the repetenda cues is Benedictus es… in labiis (MM 329–32). The expected cue, ‘in la<biis>’, is found after verse 2 (‘Aufer a plebe’). After verses 3 and 4 the cue is ‘Aufer’, a reference to the second verse. In Vat. lat. 5319 verses 3 and 4 are unnotated. In the S. Cecilia gradual they are notated, and the cue is always ‘in la-’.

⁶¹ Treitler, ‘Oral, Written, and Literate Process’, p. 480, where the existence of ‘other offertory genres in F that do not involve exactly the same set of rules’ is acknowledged.

⁶² Wagner observed the importance of melodic repetitions in the Gregorian offertories, Einführung, vol. iii, pp. 421–8Google Scholar, as did Apel, , Gregorian Chant, pp. 368–75Google Scholar, who argued that their presence in responsories, offertories and alleluias gave evidence of ‘a relatively late period’. See also Kelly, T. F., ‘Melodic Elaboration in Responsory Melismas’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 27 (1974), pp. 461–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶³ Bruno Stäblein characterised the musical setting of an antiphon (Adorna thalamum) with the kind of repetition one encounters in the Old Roman offertories as displaying an ‘ungregorianische Haltung’; see ‘Antiphon’, Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. i, cols. 542–3Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ These procedures in old Beneventan chant are analysed by Kelly, T. F., The Beneventan Chant (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 77–8 and 124–6Google Scholar; especially instructive are exx. 4.3D1–3, 4.8, and 4.9, 4.10 (Ingressae).

⁶⁵ Apel, Gregorian Chant, 512 (‘We must conclude that at the time of the Musica disciplina [by Aurelian of Réôme], that is about 850, the verses of the Offertories were still sung to a set of eight standard offertory tones’); see also Jammers, , Musik in Byzanz, p. 115Google Scholar. For a critique of this view see Dyer, J., ‘The Offertory Chant of the Roman Liturgy and Its Musical Form’, Studi Musicali, 19 (1982), pp. 3–30Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ The melodic materials of the refrain do not recur in the verses, which are tightly linked by their own system of repeated motives. Compare, however, the cadences on ‘[iustitia] tua’ (refrain), and ‘viam’, ‘exquiram’, ‘exercebor’, ‘est’ (verses).

⁶⁷ Similar examples may be found in the verses of the offertories Confitebor domino (MM 370), Deus, deus meus (MM 306), and Improperium (MM 377).

⁶⁸ Note the curious musical ‘rhyme’ between ‘et viam’ in verse 1 and ‘et vivam’ in verse 2.

⁶⁹ This omission seems to indicate that the scribe of 5319 had a written exemplar before him. Since the two phrases begin with the same succession of neumes, it would have been comparatively easy for him to jump from one to the other inadvertently. Cf. lines 2 and 4 of Example 10.

⁷⁰ The alleluias which close this refrain also close the offertory Erit nobis (MM 415), and very similar alleluias can be found in other G-mode offertories, among them Confitebor (MM 371), Confitebuntur (MM 409) and Intonuit (MM 411).

⁷¹ ‘Dom. II post sancti angeli’ in the Vat. lat. 5319 gradual (fol. 130^v). This offertory has not been preserved in the S. Cecilia gradual. Three of the four verses of the Old Roman offertory Super flumina (MM 295) are also rather rigidly stretched on a model melody, which bears a passing resemblance to FormB. For a monastic piece found in central and South Italian manuscripts see Huglo, M., ‘Les diverses melodies du “Te decet laus”: À propos du Vieux-Romain’, Jahrbuch für Liturgik und Hymnologie, 12 (1967), pp. 111–16Google Scholar.

⁷² Offertoriale, pp. 114–17. As noted earlier, the verse indications in Vat. lat. 5319 cannot always be taken at face value, nor are variant verse text divisions between the Old Roman and Gregorian offertory verses unusual. This long offertory with all of its verses, but without recurrence of the repetenda after every Old Roman ‘verse’, has been recorded by the Schola Hungarica, Old Roman Liturgical Chants, Hungaroton HCD 12741–2. The appearance of the text in other chant repertoires is surveyed by Baroffio, G., ‘Die mailändische Überlieferung des Offertoriums Sanctificavit’, in Festschrift Bruno Stäblein zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Ruhnke, M. (Kassel, 1967), pp. 1–8Google Scholar.

⁷³ Levy, , ‘Toledo, Rome and the Legacy of Gaul’, Early Music History, 4 (1984), especially pp. 55–67, 72–4 and 87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁴ Dom. 18 post Pent, in the Sextuplex graduals and Dom. 17 post Pent, in 5319 and F 22. The previous Sunday has another non-psalmic text of allegedly non-Roman origin, Oravi deum meum. The following two Sundays have psalmic offertories, one of which (Si ambulavero) is cued from a Lenten feria. Pentecost 20 has the unique offertory Vir erat. Two other non-psalmic offertories, Domine deus in simplicitate and Felix namque, depend almost entirely on FormB.

⁷⁵ The same alleluia is used also at the end of the refrain of Emitte spiritum, the offertory for the vigil of Pentecost, an ancient observance at the close of the paschal cycle. The vigil is found in the seventh-century Würzburg epistle and gospel lists. The slightly earlier sacramentary of Verona has ‘orationes pridie pentecostes’ (nos. 187–99; ed. Mohlberg, 24–5); the Gelasian sacramentary includes three formularies, one for the service of readings and two Mass formularies (I.lxxvii-lxxviiii; ed. Mohlberg, 97–100). The Gregorian sacramentary also has prayers for the vigil of readings and Mass ‘in sabbato pentecosten’ (nos. 110–11), Le sacramentaire grégorien: Ses principales formes d'apres les plus anciens manuscrits, ed. Deshusses, J., Spicilegium Friburgense, 16, rev. edn (Fribourg/Suisse, 1992), pp. 222–7Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ See the discussions in Wagner, Ferretti, and Johner, , and in Apel, Gregorian Chant, pp. 368–70Google Scholar. On repetition in general, see Johner, , Wort und Ton im Choral, pp. 91–104Google Scholar. On its use in the Alleluia melismas see Treitler, L., ‘On the Structure of the Alleluia Melisma: A Western Tendency in Western Chant’, in Studies in Music History. Essays for Oliver Strunk, ed. Powers, H. (Princeton, 1968), pp. 59–72Google Scholar; Jammers, E., Das Alleluia in der gregorianischen Messe, Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 55 (Münster in Westfalen, 1973)Google Scholar; Apel, , Gregorian Chant, pp. 387–8Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ For example, the beginning of Ave Maria (MM 404), Iubilate Deo universa (‘vobis omnes’, MM 298), Michi autem (‘est principatus eorum’, MM 325), Domine vivifica (vs. 2 ‘[manda]ta tua et voluntaria oris tui’, MM 337).

⁷⁸ The same melisma concludes all three verses of Custodi me (MM 303) and (with a shorter b section cadencing on E) appears at the end of the refrain of Domine exaudi (MM 335). Another a-a-b melisma occurs at the beginning of the first verses of the offertories Domine convertere (MM 349), Gloria et honore (MM 294), and Benedictus es…in labiis (MM 330). For another example see Inmittet angelum (end of verse 3; MM 383). Apel noted similar phenomena in the melismas of the Gregorian offertories and concluded that ‘there can be hardly any doubt that such formations are the product of a relatively late period’ (Gregorian Chant, pp. 369–70; emphasis added), and Robert Snow regarded such repetitions in the offertory verses as indications of later date and possibly of Gregorian influence: ‘The Old-Roman Chant’, p. 504.

⁷⁹ For a similar case see the long melisma that closes the second verse of the offertory Iustus ut palma (MM 324).

⁸⁰ The stylistically very different melisma in the parallel Gregorian offertory (Offertoriale, p. 18) shares formal characteristics with its Old Roman counterpart.

⁸¹ Gregorian Chant, p. 262.

⁸² See the refrains of the offertories Ad te domine levevi, Angelus domini, Benedicite gentes, Deus enim firmavit and Laudate dominum.

⁸³ Wagner, , Einführung, vol. III, pp. 428–32Google Scholar; Ferretti, , Esthétique grégorienne, pp. 198–203Google Scholar; Johner, , Wort und Ton im Choral, pp. 377–81Google Scholar; Apel, , Gregorian Chant, pp. 364–7Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ Not included in this calculation, however, is the first verse of the offertory Anima nostra (MM 26), whose text repetition (‘Nisi quod dominus erat in nobis; dicat nunc Israel, nisi quia dominus erat in nobis’) is part of the psalm text itself. The two phrases are set to different music.

⁸⁵ Gregorian chant embellishes such repetitions more elaborately. See the offertories Iubilate Deo universa, Iubilate Deo omnis, Afferentur (maior), In virtute and Exultabunt. Even if a repetition is unaltered, it ‘is never experienced as being literal, because each new recurrence has a different history from the previous ones; nevertheless the experience is one of metamorphosis in place’: Burrows, D., ‘Singing and Saying’, The Journal of Musicology, 7 (1989), p. 397CrossRefGoogle Scholar. One could say the same of a Baroque instrumental movement or aria that makes use of the ritornello principle.

⁸⁶ One Gregorian offertory with text repetition, Exultabunt, has no Old Roman equivalent. For a list of text repetitions in the Gregorian tradition see Apel, , Gregorian Chant, pp. 364–7Google Scholar. To his group A should be added the second verses of the Gregorian offertories In virtute, Gloriabuntur and Domine deus in simplicitate.

⁸⁷ The complete Gregorian version with its verses is available not only in Ott's Offertoriale (p. 122) but also in Ferretti, , Esthétique grégorienne, 200–2Google Scholar. Only the verses are given in Wagner, , Einführung, vol. III, pp. 430–3Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ Amalar of Metz explained the unusual repetitions in the verses by noting that the offertory (sc. refrain) contained the words of the narrator, while the verses reported the lament of the ailing Job: ‘Aegrotus cuius anhelitus non est sanus neque fortis, solet verba inperfecta saepius repetere…job repetivit saepius verba more aegrotantium’. Liber officialis 3.39, in Amalarii Episcopi Opera Liturgica Omnia, ed. Hanssens, , vol. ii, p. 373Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ With approximately the same text the Gregorian offertory usually has four verses: (1) ‘Utinam’, (2) ‘Quae est’, (3) ‘Numquid’, (4) ‘Quoniam’. This offertory is not present in the S. Cecilia gradual.

⁹⁰ See J. Dyer, ‘The Offertories of Old Roman Chant’, pp. 289–90.

⁹¹ K. Levy, ‘Toledo, Rome and the Legacy of Gaul’, p. 97. Vir erat has no Mozarabic or Milanese counterparts.

⁹² Kelly, T., The Beneventan Chant, 6–40Google Scholar; see also Levy, K., ‘Charlemagne's Archetype of Gregorian Chant’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 40 (1987), pp. 1–30, especially 11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹³ Ordo 22.21; Andrieu, , Les Ordines Romani, vol. iii, p. 262Google Scholar. Only two sources contain this section of Ordo 22: St Gall 140 and St Gall 614. The latter abbreviates ‘dom’, which I have construed as a genitive in the translation, but the interpretation of the passage does not hinge on this point.

⁹⁴ The two later graduals, Vat. lat. 5319 and Archivio di S. Pietro F 22, transmit virtually the same melodies for the offertories. On the the music of the Old Roman Office see Cutter, P., ‘The Old Roman Chant Tradition: Oral or Written?’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 20 (1967), pp. 167–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Nowacki, E., ‘The Gregorian Office Antiphons and the Comparative Method’, Journal of Musicology, 4 (1985), pp. 243–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁵ Hesbert, Dom, speaking of this aspect of Beneventan chant style, criticised ‘la monotie engendrée par la repétition constante des mê;mes formules non seulement dans une mê;me pièce, mais encore à travers tout le répertoire’: Paléographie Musicale, 14, p. 451Google Scholar, as quoted in Stäblein, MM 33^*.

⁹⁶ See Treitler, , ‘Homer and Gregory’, passim, and the same author's ‘From Ritual through Language to Music’, Schwcizer Jahrbuch für Musikwissenschaft, N.F. 2 (1982[1984]), 109–23Google Scholar.