[1] Vogel, Cyrille: Introduction aux sources de l'histoire du culte chrétien au moyen âge (Spoleto 1975), p.242 Google Scholar; English version as Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources, revised and translated by Storey, William G. and Rasmussen, Niels Krogh, O.P. (Washington D.C. 1986), p.363 Google Scholar: “At present, given the complexity of the situation, it would be impossible to provide a description of the status quaestionis on the history of the Liturgy of the Hours and its various components in the Middle Ages.”

[2] Hesbert, René-Jean: Corpus Antiphonalium Officii, Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, VII–XII (Rome 1963–1979)Google Scholar:

Vol. I: Manuscripti Cursus romanus

Vol. II: Manuscripti Cursus monasticus

Vol. III: Invitatoria et Antiphonae, Editio critica

Vol. IV: Responsoria, Versus, Hymni et Varia, Editio critica

Vol. V: Fontes earumque prima ordinatio

Vol. VI: Secunda et tertia ordlnationes

[3] Hesbert, René-Jean: ‘Un curieux antiphonaire palimpseste de l'office. Rouen, A.292 (IXe s.)’, Revue Bénédictine 64 (1954), pp.28–45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (see p.39).

[4] Ibid., p.41:

[5] Ibid., p.41, note 1.

[6] Hesbert, Rene'-Jean: ‘Les séries de répons des dimanches de l'avent’, Questions liturgiques et paroissiales 39 (1958), pp.299–326 Google Scholar (see p.318). On the classification of the curial breviary in CAO see Hesbert, 's study ‘L'Antiphonaire de la Curie’, Ephemerides liturgicae 34 (1980), pp.431–459 Google Scholar.

[7] Ibid. p.300.

[8] Excerpts belonging to Prof. Hansjakob Becker, University of Mainz, in A5 size sectional notebook (Karoheft DIN A5) with black-white cover, pp.101–112.

[9] CAO IV, p.XII.

[10] CAO V, p.V.

[11] CAO VI, p.383b: “… the manuscripts best qualified to restore the archetype.”

[12] CAO VI, p.387b.

[13] CAO V, p.384b.

[14] The following reviews of volumes I–VI of CAO are known to me (in alphabetical order): Gy, Pierre-Marie in Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 63 (1979), pp.296–9, 601–2Google Scholar; Huot, François: ‘À la recherche de l'archétype de l'antiphonaire’, Revue Bénédictine 87 (1977), pp.371–6Google Scholar; Huglo, Michel in Revue de Musicologli 63 (1977), pp. 164–8Google Scholar; Poulle, Em. in Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes 136 (1978), pp.95–8Google Scholar; D.M., in Revue Bénédictine 90 (1980), p.159 Google Scholar; Rocha, P.: ‘Pour l'histoire de l'office divin. Le CAO’, Gregorianum 60 (1979), pp.147–155 Google Scholar; Froger, Jacques: ‘La méthode de Dom Hesbert dans le Volume V du CAO’, Études grégoriennes 18 (1979), pp.97–143 Google Scholar; id.: ‘La methode de Dom Hesbert dans le Volume VI du CAO’, Études grégoriennes 19 (1980), pp.185–196; Huglo, Michel: ‘L'Edition critique de l'antiphonaire grégorien’, Scriptorium 39 (1985), pp.130–8Google Scholar.

[15] Botte, Bernard: ‘A propos des repons de l'office’, Questions liturgiques et paroissiales 40 (1959), pp. 139–142 Google Scholar (see p.142). Botte takes issue with a preliminary study for CAO which Hesbert published in 1958 on the basis of 25 manuscripts (article cited in note 6 ‘Les séries de répons …’).

[16] Ibid. p. 142.

[17] D.M. (1980 – see note 14), p.159.

[18] F. Huot (1977), p.374.

[19] J. Froger (1979), p.131.

[20] M. Huglo (1985), pp.5 and 17.

[21] In the first classification the oldest ‘archetypal’ manuscript actually came from the 12th-13th century: no.123 (Bamberg). Cf. Froger (1979), pp.118–120.

[22] On antiphoner C[ompiègne] see Froger, J.: ‘Le lieu de destination et de provenance du Compendiensis’, Ut mens concordet voci, Festschrift E. Cardine zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. Göschl, J.B. (St.Ottilien 1980), pp.338–353 Google Scholar, summarized p.353. C was probably written in Soissons for Saint-Médard de Soissons and came later to Samt-Corneille de Compiègne, some 15 miles away. The exclusion of C from the second classification in CAO prompted Froger, 's fundamental question (1980,p.192)Google Scholar as to how sensible it was to add together the separate results of the three classifications, in that way producing a smoothed-out, ‘average’ fidelity to the text.

[23] CAO VI, p.386b.

[24] CAO VI, p.387. On the ultimate goal of the restoration Hesbert expressed himself elsewhere in the following revealing terms: “To restore a text which deviates as little as possible from the original: that is the goal we have set ourselves.” (CAO V, p.22)

[25] le Roux, Raymond: ‘Aux origines de l'office festif: les antiennes de Matines et de Laudes pour Noël et le ler Janvier’, Études grégoriennes 4 (1961), pp.65–171 Google Scholar; id.: ‘Répons du Triduo Sacro et de Pâques’, Études grégoriennes 18 (1979), pp.157–176.

[26] van Waesberghe, J. Smits: ‘Einleitung zu einer Kausalitätserklärung der Evolution der Kirchenmusik im Mittelalter, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft 26 (1969), pp.249–275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id.: ‘Gedanken über den inneren Traditionsprozess in der Geschichte der Musik des Mittelalters’, Studlen zur Tradition In der Musik: Kurt von Fischer zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht and Max Lütolf (Munich 1973), pp.7–30. “In the ‘Auctoritas-mentality’ of the Middle Ages, the Proper of Mass was regarded as a rounded, complete whole. … With the office the case was different, however.” (Einleitung, p.261f.) “The Office – because of its evolution – was thought of as absolute, sacrosanct, to a lesser degree than the Proper of Mass; new offices might in consequence be composed.” (Gedanken, p. 19)

[27] Michel Huglo: ‘Archétype ou répertoire originel?’, paper delivered 30.8.1982 to the study-group ‘Ausgaben des gregorianischen Gesangs’; Kurzeja, Adalbert expressed himself in similar terms in his review of CAO I in Archiv für Liturglewissenschaft (1966), pp.450–5, in particular p.451 Google Scholar: “The possibilities of differentiation in the office … are more numerous than in the mass … Firstly because in the office there are at the outset two basic schemata, the cursus romanus and the cursus monasticus, neither one of which can be derived from the other, and which must therefore be treated separately. Besides this, the mass has usually only five chants, which have a closely prescribed function and are not interchangeable. By contrast the office has 19 pieces (26 in the cursus monasticus) for Vigils alone, whose antiphons and responsories can, within each genre, be put in all sorts of different orders. Now the older manuscripts often contain a series of supernumerary pieces. As a consequence, in contrast to the mass-antiphoner, a multitude of different text combinations were possible, which resulted in a multitude of different traditions, quite apart from text variants.”

[28] The 2nd Sunday of Advent was chosen because in the oldest antiphoner, C, the 1st Sunday is missing because of a missing leaf. For greater clarity the responsory numbers (21, 22, etc.) have been synoptically arranged. Insertions (for Hesbert these are all the ones deviating from the ‘liste-type’) and supernumerary responsories (those exceeding the total of nine in the secular office) are highlighted by bold type.

[29] CAO V, p.25.

[30] The only exception is the switching of responsories 28–27 in antiphoner F.

[31] By ‘same relative succession’ I mean that two responsories which stand one after the other in a source are also to be found in another source, irrespective of insertions between them, in the same order. So, although the succession of responsories 21–23 in antiphoners C and G is not identical, for C has responsory 70 inserted between 22 and 23, the relative order of 21, 22 and 23 themselves nevertheless remains the same. In analogous fashion Hansjakob Becker distinguishes between the ‘Stelle’ [‘place’] and ‘Stellung’ [‘placement’] of a responsory in its respective series ( Die Responsorien des Kartauserbreviers, Münchner Theologische Studien 39, Munich 1971, pp.142–5Google Scholar).

[32] The rarely attested responsories sometimes indicate connections between sources. Thus R 70 is found only in C, G and D, that is, in West Frankish antiphoners. R 61 hints at contacts between R and D, RR 60 and 62 at something between M and S. Yet, plausible though an interpretation from an evolutionary point of view may be at first sight, it is nevertheless improbable in the two last cases: should M[onza] have taken the over the two RR 60 and 62 from S[ilos] or the other way round? could they both derive from a common ancestor, or have come independently to the same conclusions? – these remain speculations.

[33] In addition to these 182 different types there remain the manuscripts with complete or partial lacunae. See CAO V, pp.83–4.

[34] Thus, for example, in CAO V, p.351, we read: “… the entire tradition of the antiphoner depends on a unique archetype.”

[35] Responsory pairs, called “couples” by Hesbert, are such as RR 21–22, 22–70, 70–23, that is, any two successive responsories.

[36] CAO V, p.157.

[37] “29-End” means that R 29 is the final responsory at the conclusion of this series.

[38] For, according to Hesbert, “this solution presents a grave inconvenience: the list thus brought to light has only 8 responsories…” But he does not allow himself “to be distracted by a passing difficulty.” (CAO V, p.159)

[39] Ibid.

[40] CAO V, p.184.

[41] Froger, Jacques, ‘La méthode’ (cited note 14), pp.106–111 Google Scholar; summarized p.110.

[42] CAO V, pp.259 and 186.

[43] CAO V, p.186f. On the methodological details see my contribution ‘Quantifizierende Verfahren in der Antiphonarforschung. Methodische Überlegungen zum CAO 5 and 6’ in the Nordisk Kollokvium V i Latinsk Liturgiforskning, ed. Ottosen, Knud (Aarhus 1982), pp.243–4 and 251–2Google Scholar.

[44] “The distance coefficient of the two lists – a quotient of the number of disagreements upon the number of terms of comparison – is therefore [for the given example] 3 over 5, that is 60 out of 100.” (CAO V, p.187A; compare p.287)

[45] See on the other hand the numerous studies of methodological problems in the text criticism of liturgical manuscripts which Jacques Froger carried out in parallel with his work on the ‘Graduel critique’: ‘L'emploi de la machine electronique dans les études mediéales’, Bulletin de la Société Internationale pour l'Étude de la Philosophie Médiévale 3 (1961), pp. 177–188 Google Scholar; ‘La coliation des manuscrits â la machine electronique’, Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes. Bulletin 13 (1964–5), pp. 135–171 Google Scholar; ‘La critique de texte: Une variante de la méthode de Dom Quentin’, Revue des Études Latines (1965), pp.187–192 Google Scholar; ‘La machine électronique au service des sciences humaines’, Diogène 52 (1965), pp.109–144 Google Scholar; La critique des textes et son automatisation, Initiation aux nouveautés de la science 7 (Paris 1968)Google Scholar; ‘La critique des textes et l'ordinateur’, Viglliae Christianae 24 (1970), pp.210–217 Google Scholar; ‘La lecture automatique et l'analyse statistique des textes’, Organisation Internationale pour l'étude des langues anciennes par ordinateur. Revue 1 (1970), pp.37–44 Google Scholar. ‘La critique textuelle et la méthode des groupes fautifs’, Cahiers de lexicologie (Paris, n.d.), pp.207–244 Google Scholar; ‘la méthode de Dom Quentin, la méthode des distances et le problème de contamination’, Colloques Internationaux du CNRS, No.579 (Paris 1979), pp. 13–22 Google Scholar. (I am heartily grateful to the monks of Solesmes, in particular to P. Gerard de Martel, for enabling me to read this somewhat inaccessible literature.) Besides this, see the studies of methodology by Zarri, Gian Piro: ‘Algorithms, stemmata codicum and the theories of Dom H. Quentin’, The Computer and Literary Studies, ed. Aitken, A.J. (Einburgh 1973), pp.225–237 Google Scholar; id.: ‘A computer model for textual criticism?’, The Computer in Literary and Linguistic Studies, ed. Alan Jones and R.R. Churchhouse (Cardiff 1976), pp.133–155.

[46] See my ‘Quantifizierende Verfahren’ (cited in n.43), pp.248–50.

[47] On computer applications in research on the Middle Ages in general historical studies, cf. Herhhy, D.: ‘Quantification in the Middle Ages’, The Dimensions of the Past, ed. Lorwin, V.R. and Price, J.M. (New Haven 1972), pp. 13–51 Google Scholar, with impressive area bibliographies; Gilbert, Penny: ‘Automatic collation: a technique for medieval texts’, Computers and the Humanities 7 (1973), pp.139–147 Google Scholar; id.: ‘Using the computer to collate medieval Latin manuscripts’, The Computer in Literary and Linguistic Studies (Cardiff 1976); Bullough, L., Lusignan, Serge and Ohlgren, Thomas H.: ‘Computers and the Medievalist’, Speculum 49 (1974), pp.392–402 Google Scholar. The bibliography by Ott, Wilhelm: ‘EDV im Editionswesen’, Sprache und Datenverarbeitung 2 (1980), pp. 179–184 Google Scholar gives interdisciplinary coverage of the impact of data-processing on the preparation of critical text editions.

[48] See my ‘Quantifizierende Verfahren’ (cited n.43), pp.248–251.

[49] Hesbert set out his position on this question in the introductory section ‘La critique des traditions à témoins multiples’ (CAO V, pp.19–26): “The notion one sets out with is that of a normal transmission of the tradition: one which supposes an habitual care for fidelity on the part of copyists.” Such “systematic corrections” as, for example, those of the Metz liturgist Amalar will be “eccentric [extra-vagants]: in an operation of critical restoration they should be put resolutely on one side, without any scruple whatsoever. … the normal mode of transmission of a text is a mechanical one” (21a). “… variants are infinitely precious indices which permit elucidation of the affinities between manuscripts …” (24a). Against this see the reflexions of Ottosen, Knud: ‘La problématique de l'édition des textes liturgiques latin’, Classica et medievalia 34 (1973), pp.541–556 Google Scholar; and Treitler, Leo: ‘Transmission and the study of music history’, International Musicological Society, Report of the Twelfth Congress Berkeley 1977, ed. Heartz, D. and Wade, B. (Kassel 1981), pp.202–211 Google Scholar, on the historical viewpoint he calls the ‘medieval paradigm’.

[50] Leroquais, V.: Les bréviaires des bibliothéques publiques de France, I (Paris 1934), pp.LXXVIII–LXXXII Google Scholar.

[51] Beyssac, G.M., in the prefatory remarks to his ‘Note sur le Graduel-Sacramentaire de St.Pierre-St.Denys de Bantz, du XIIe siécle’, Revue Bénédictine 31 (1921), pp.190–200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On p.190 he comments on the method adopted: “If I were not reluctant to recall tragic and notorious, if now distant, quarrels [with Leroquais], I would say that I have employed a ‘Moyen Court’ [‘short way’], and an easy one, … provided one has the elements at one's disposal. These elements I hope before long – when an edition becomes more feasible – to set out for the benefit of the learned public. The method has allowed me to reach conclusions rapidly with the minimum of labour and cerebral effort It was not difficult to devise: it is, so to speak, the Columbus' Egg of the Liturgy.”

[52] His reprocessing of CAO V is published in L'Antipnonaire latin au Moyen-Âge. Réorganisation des séries de répons de l'Avent classés par R.-J. Hesbert (Rome 1986)Google Scholar.

[53] Huot, F.: ‘Le CAO de Dom Hesbert et les recherches liturgiques en Suisse’, Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique Suisse 71 (1977), pp.418–423 Google Scholar (see p.421).

[54] Kohlschein, F.: Der Paderborner Liber Ordinarius von 1324, Studien und Quellen zur Westfälischen Geschichte 2 (Paderborn 1972), pp.154 and 152 Google Scholar.

[55] Gy, P.M.: ‘Les premiers bréviaires de Saint-Gall (deuxième quart du XIe s.)’, Liturgie, Gestalt und Vollzug, ed. Düring, W. (Munich 1963), pp.104–113 Google Scholar.

[56] Lipphardt, W.: Der Karolingische Tonar von Metz, Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen 43 (Münster 1965)Google Scholar.

[57] Plans of the project are available in English (by L. Dobszay) and German (H. Möller). It was presented by L. Dobszay in a study session at the Bologna 1987 congress of the International Musicological Society chaired by Hucke, H.: ‘Problems and Projects of Studying Regional Variants in Chant’. The papers given at this study session will be published in Studia Musicologlca (Budapest) Google Scholar.

[58] Zemsky, R.M.: ‘Numbers and history: the dilemma of measurement’, Computers and the Humanities 3 (1969), pp.31–40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

[59] Cf. Jarausch, K.H., Arminger, G. and Thaller, M.: Quantitative Methoden In der Geschichtswissenschaft. Eine Einführung in die Forschung, Datenverarbeitung und Statistik (Darmstadt 1985)Google Scholar.

[60] Furet, F.: ‘Die quantitative Geschichte und die Konstruktion der historischen Tatsache’, Schrift und Materie der Geschichte, ed. Honegger, C. (Frankfurt 1977), pp.86–107 (see p.98)Google Scholar.

[61] CAO V, p.22.

[62] J. Froger (1980 – cited n.14), p. 193.

[63] See Hesbert, R.J. in vol.XIV of Paléographie Musicale (Solesmes 1936), p.72 Google Scholar: “The only independence which counts is that which consists, for two manuscripts or groups of manuscripts, in having no common ancestor closer than the archetype itself.”

[64] J. Froger (1980 – cited n.14), p.195.

[65] Mocquereau, A. in Paléographie Musicale, ser. I, vol.2, p.13 Google Scholar. Cf. Hesbert, R.J. in Paléographie Musicale XIV, p.78 Google Scholar, on “musical [text] criticism”: “… at root it has many aspects in common with … literary text criticism …” On the origins of the ‘Graduel critique’ little information is to be gleaned beyond that work began in 1948; see Froger, J.: ‘The critical edition of the Roman Gradual by the monks of Solesmes’, Journal of the Plainsong & Mediaeval Music Society 1 (1978), pp.81–97 (see p.82)Google Scholar. Combe, Pierre devotes only a couple of sides of a general nature to this editorial undertaking in the ‘Conclusion’ of his Histoire de la Restauration du Chant Grégorien d'après des Documents inédits (Solesmes 1969), p.246 Google Scholar.

[66] At first, during the 8th–9th centuries, only liturgical editorial activity was ascribed to Gregory (thus in the Graduale Blandiniensis: “antefonanus ordinatus a sancto Gregorio”). The change of emphasis to musical activity was celebrated shortly afterward in the prologue ‘Gregonus praesul’ of the Monza cantatorium: “Composuit hunc libellum musicae artis”. This change in the image of Gregory at the time of the Carolingian renaissance was consummated at the same time in both legend and iconography; cf. Treitler, Leo: ‘Homer and Gregory: the transmission of epic poetry and plainchant’, Musical Quarterly 60 (1974), pp.333–372 (see pp.334–344)Google Scholar, with illustrations; see also from another point of view Schmidt, H.: ‘Gregonanik – Legende oder Wahrheit?’, Ars musica, musica scientia. Festschrift Heinrich Hüschen zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Altenburg, D., Beiträge zur rheinischen Musikgeschichte 126 (Kassel 1980), pp.400–411 Google Scholar.

[67] Numerous passages in Johannes B. Göschl's investigation of the Epiphonus praepunctis may be taken as symptomatic. In the author's opinion, his research strengthens the assumption “that the whole manuscript tradition goes back in the last resort to a single original source, and that this was perpetuated by copying.” In his selection of sources Göschl also relies on the argument that certain “more valuable manuscripts … primary sources … appear to stand nearest the original rhythmic and melodic tradition” ( Göschl, J.B.: Semiologische Untersuchungen zum Phänomen der Gregorianischen Liqueszenz, Forschungen zur älteren Musikgeschichte 3, 2 vols., Vienna 1980, pp.387 and 95)Google Scholar.

[68] Cf. Ottosen, K.: ‘La problématique de l'éition des textes liturgiques latins’, Classica et medievalia 34 (1973), pp.541–556 Google Scholar.

[69] Andrieu, M.: Le pontifical romain I, Studi e testi 86 (Rome 1938), p. 115 Google Scholar.

[70] Ibid.

[71] Vogel, C. and Elze, R.: Le Pontifical romano-germanique du Xe siècle, Studi e Testi 226, 227, 269 (Rome 1963, 1972) (see vol.I, p.XI)Google Scholar.

[72] Deshusses, J.: Le Sacramentaire Grégorien. Ses principales formes d'après les plus anciens manuscrits, Spicilegium friburgense 16, 24 (3 vols., Fribourg, 1971–1979) (see vol.I, p.75)Google Scholar.

[73] Hanssens, J.M., ed.: Amalari episcopi opera liturqica omnia (Rome 1948), vol.I, p.361 Google Scholar.

[74] These editors have in common, as M. Huglo puts it, the desire “to justify publicly important modifications visited upon the official text”. See Huglo, M.: ‘Les remaniments de l'antiphonaire grégonen au IXe siècle’, Culto cristiano, politica imperiale carolingia. 9–12 ott. 1977, Convegni del Centro di studi sulla spiritualità medievale, Univ. degli studi di Perugia, 18 (Todi 1979), pp.89–120 (see p.92)Google Scholar.

[75] It seems likely that the antiphoner grew out of the bringing together of several different precursors. These had probably existed previously as separate libelli: repertories of antiphons for ferial services, Nocturns, Lauds and Vespers; a relatively unstructured responsoriale, an invitatoriale and a libellus for the short responsories. See Stephan, R.: Antiphonarstudien I. Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des Gesanges im Stundengebet vor der Jahrtausendwende. 1. Tell: Die Gesänge des Sanctorale, Habilitationschrift (typescript) Göttingen 1962 (see pp.107–115)Google Scholar.