¹ Hughes, Anselm, Anglo-French Sequelae edited from the papers of the late Dr. Henry Marriott Bannister (Nashdom Abbey 1934) 1.Google Scholar

² For current accounts see Stablein, Bruno, ‘Zur Friihgeschichte der Sequenz,’ Archiv[iir Musikioissenschajt 18 (1961) 1–33 and Evans, Paul, ‘Some Reflections on the Origins of the Trope,’ Journal of the American Musicological Society 14 (1961) 119-130.Google Scholar

³ For survey accounts which will direct the reader to more specialized literature see, in addition to the works cited above in notes 1 and 2, Raby, F. J. E., A History of Christian- Latin Poetry (2nd ed. Oxford 1953) 210-219, 223-229, 345-375; Handschin, Jacques, ‘Trope, Sequence, and Conductus’ in Early Medieval Music up to 1300, ed. Hughes, A. (New Oxford History of Music 2; Oxford 1954) 128-174; Willi Apel, Gregorian Chant (Bloomington, Ind. 1958) 442-464.Google Scholar

⁴ There is no up-to-date summary on Nicolas. Much has come to light since Steiner, Augustin wrote ‘Nicolaus, Mönch in Ciairvaux,’ in Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktiner-Ordens 38 (1917) 41-50. The two most important additions are by Dom Jean Leclercq, ‘Études sur S. Bernard et le texte de ses écrits,’ Analecta S. Ordinis Cister- ciensis 9 (1953) 62-67, and ‘Les collections de sermons de Nicolas de Clairvaux,’ Revue bénédictine 66 (1956) 269-302. For Nicolas’ relationship with the count of Champagne see the section on him in Benton, ‘The Court of Champagne as a Literary Center,’ Speculum 36 (1961) 555-557. Nicolas’ return to Montiéramey by 1158 is established by MS Aube 6 H 705.Google Scholar

⁵ The introductory letter to Count Henry is in Migne, PL 196.1651–52; it announces, among others, a letter to Chancellor Roland before he became Alexander III. This unedited letter is in Berlin MS Phillipps 1719, fols. 117^v-118^r, along with a collection of letters which for the most part are in the letter-book made while Nicolas was at Clairvaux (printed in PL 196).Google Scholar

⁶ Dom Bertrand Tissier edited Nicolas’ sermons and his introductory letter in Bibliotheca palrum Cisterciensium (Bonnefont 1660) III 193-236. Dom Leclercq has described and analyzed this manuscript, re-edited the introductory letter to Count Henry, and provided a note on the unedited offices in Rev. bén. 66.270-279, 300-302. Throughout this article Dom Leclercq shows how frequently Nicolas plagiarized the work of others. He points out (p. 279) that in presenting Hugh of St. Victor's commentaries as his own, Nicolas was content to change the address from fraler carissime to comes dulcissime. Google Scholar

⁷ I have worked from a microfilm provided by the courtesy of the British Museum and wish to thank the Trustees for their permission to publish the text.Google Scholar

⁸ On St. Victor see AS 6.670-672. St. Bernard's office is printed there (673-674) and in PL 182.609-612. Nicolas’ sermon is in PL 144.732-736. It may be noted that the abbey of St. Victor in Paris was dedicated, not to this saint, but to St. Victor of Marseilles.Google Scholar

⁹ Roserot, Alphonse, Dictionnaire historique de la Champagne méridionale (Aube) des origines à 1790 (Langres 1942–48) I 59. This list shows the number of other churches in the department of Aube dedicated to Sts. Peter and Paul and St. Stephen for which Nicolas might have written these proses. The probability that he wrote for churches of the city in which he and the count lived is, of course, great.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Molinier, Auguste (ed.) Obituaires de la province de Sens 4 (Paris 1923) 529 B. For the charter of foundation in 1157 see Elizabeth Chapin, Les villes de foire de Champagne (Paris 1937) 279-282.Google Scholar

¹¹ The nineteen sermons of the Harley MS were printed, among the sermons of St. Peter Damiani in PL 144. For a careful discussion of this confusing situation and a table showing the various places where these sermons have been printed see Ryan, J. J., ‘Saint Peter Damiani and the Sermons of Nicholas of Clairvaux: a Clarification,’ Mediaeval Studies 9 (1947) 151–161. Leclercq also gives a table of references to PL in Rev. bén. 66.273-276. Nicolas worked a bit of verse into his sermon for St. Stephen, PL 144.853: ‘Scintillât sidus, magus adorat, exsultat polus, tellus résultat.’Google Scholar

¹² The sermon on St. Victor was composed for delivery at Montiéramey, and another one applies more to Benedictines than to Cistercians (see Leclercq, , Rev. bén. 66.276 η. 1). On dating the sermons after Nicolas’ expulsion from Clairvaux, see ibid. 291-292.Google Scholar

¹³ So I am informed by Fr. M. Chrysogonus Waddell, O.C.S.O., Master of Chant at the Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemani, Trappist, Ky., who is preparing a study of Nicolas’ offices. Fr. Chrysogonus has aided me greatly in the preparation of this article, particularly in the notes to the proses.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Wagner, Peter, Die Gesänge der Jakobus-Liturgie zu Santiago de Compostela (Fribourg en Suisse 1931) 48 and 112; Liber Sancti Jacobi, Codex Calixtinus, II: Musica, ed. G. Prado (Santiago de Compostela 1944) plate 29 and pp. 68-69.Google Scholar

¹⁵ For a reference in a sermon to an early love of classics (presumably applying to study at Montiéramey) see PL 144.852. Many of Nicolas’ classical quotations are mere tags which he could easily cull from florilegia. For instance, when he quotes Plato on philosopher- kings in order to praise Count Henry (PL 196.1651), this quotation can not be based on any direct knowledge of the Republic. Google Scholar

¹⁶ See 3.7.1 and note.Google Scholar

¹⁷ These sources are discussed in the notes to the proses.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The intricate passage of themes from one prose in honor of St. Peter to another is discussed by J. Szôvérffy, ‘ Gaude Roma… (Marginal notes on some St. Peter sequences attributed to Adam of St. Victor),’ Proc. Royal Irish Acad. 57 C (1955) 1-27.Google Scholar

¹⁹ For the evidence on Adam's career which can be gleaned from the records of St. Victor's, see Fourier Bonnard, Histoire de l'abbaye royale et de l'ordre des chanoines reguliers de St. Victor (Paris 1904–08) I 128-132. The earliest printed edition of Adam's sequences by Glichtoveus, Elucidarium ecclesiasticum (Basel 1517), is reprinted in PL 196.1423-1534. Léon Gautier included many spurious proses in his two-volume edition, Œuvres poétiques d'Adam de Saint-Victor (Paris 1858–59); following the criticism of Misset he eliminated many of these from his 3rd ed. (1 vol. Paris 1894). Eugène Misset and Pierre Aubry, Les proses d'Adam de Saint-Victor: texte et musique (Paris 1900) contains the critical essay by Misset first published in 1881. Clemens Blume and H. M. Bannister re-edited Adam's proses along with many others in AH 54 and 55 (1915–22). Franz Wellner (ed. and trans.), Adam von Sankt Viktor, Sämtliche Sequenzen (2nd ed. Munich 1955) is the most recent edition, but the best critical edition is still that in the Analecta hymnica, which will be cited throughout this article.Google Scholar

²⁰ AH 54 No. 204. On the attribution of this prose, see below, n. 36Google Scholar

²¹ PL 196.1534-35 and AH 55 No. 328.Google Scholar

²² These principles of composition are discussed in AH 54.vi-vii, and Raby, Christian- Latin Poetry 347-348.Google Scholar

²³ There are over twenty lines in which the end of a word does not coincide with the end of the second trochee. Prose 9 contains six of these ‘faults,’ but 2 is perfect in this respect. Metrical ‘faults,’ some of them intentional, are discussed in n. 32.Google Scholar

²⁴ Adam's proses are widely diffused in existing manuscripts, while Nicolas’ are unknown except for the Harley manuscript. They are not indexed in the massive catalogues of Ulysse Chevalier, Repertorium hymnologicum (Louvain 1892–1912), and Hans Walther, Initia Carminum (Göttingen 1959). Perhaps they were not even sung regularly in the churches for which they were written; M^Ue F. Bibolet, librarian of the municipal library of Troyes, has examined a number of the graduais from Montiéramey and Troyes in her care without finding any of Nicolas’ proses.Google Scholar

²⁵ Misset and Aubry, Proses 56-110; Raby, Christian-Latin Poetry 363-375.Google Scholar

²⁶ For examples of St. Bernard's use of the same images see PL 183.432-433.Google Scholar

²⁷ For the music see C. A. Moberg, Über die schwedischen Sequenzen (Uppsala 1927) II No. 4. The text is in AH 54 No. 2. Since other derivatives of this famous sequence used this melody and the same opening words, Nicolas may have used another version as a model.Google Scholar

²⁸ The music is in Moberg, op. cit., II No. 22, the text in AH 54 No. 65. Blume attributes to Adam of St. Victor a prose which follows the strophic scheme of Congaudentes, AH 55 Nc. 178. Nicolas’ model was probably neither of these but Clara chorus dulce panget, (AH 54 Ne. 94), which omits the concluding strophes found in the other two sequences. In addition, a few words and constructions of Clara chorus appear in Nicolas’ text. The prose attributed to Adam is by far the most developed and ‘regular’ of the group.Google Scholar

²⁹ The music is in Moberg, op. cit. II No. 1, the text in AH 54 No. 120. For details of correspondence see below, n. 32. Note that Nicolas has one more pair of three-line strophes than the printed text, but has an unpaired four-line strophe where the original has a pair. The three-line strophes suggest that a pair of verses printed in AH 54.191 as variants were part of the sequence known to Nicolas in the mid-twelfth century. The note on p. 192 discusses the early date of Laudes crucis as established by an early and wide diffusion of its manuscripts, and rules against Adam's authorship. This opinion is accepted by Raby, Christian-Latin Poetry 347. Nicolas Weisbein re-edits the prose and attributes it to Hugh Primas of Orléans in Revue du moyen-âge latin 3 (1947) 5-26. Franz Wellner includes Laudes crucis in Sämtliche Sequenzen 357 and 376, basing his argument largely on the music, but on this see Hans Spanke, ‘Die Kompositionskunst der Sequenzen Adams von St. Victor,’ Studi medievali n.s. 14 (1941) 26.Google Scholar

^29a Potestate non natura (AH 54 No. 96), which appears in twelfth-century manuscripts from many countries, was sung to more than one melody. Prof. Bruno Stäblein has very kindly identified and transcribed for me the melody which Nicolas followed from Assisi Com. MS 695, fols. 170^v-171^v. As Fr. Rembert Weakland informed me, variations of this melody were used for the proses Ave virgo singularis and Virgo mater salvatoris in Le Pro- saire de la Sainte-Chapelle, ed. Hesbert, R. J. (Monumenta Musicae Sacrae 1; Mâcon 1952), plates 187-190 and 19-23. None of these proses contains twelve-syllable lines, and Nicolas’ melody differs from all of them for the final two pairs. The melody of Nicolas’ sequence is transcribed at the end of this article in order to make clear the extent of his musical contribution. It should be noted that the melodies of Ave virgo singularis and Virgo mater salvatoris recorded in the graduais of St. Victor's were variations of another sequence, Verbum bonum et suave, and they are therefore not an indication of a link between Nicolas and Adam. On this see Misset and Aubry, Proses 243-246, 294-297 and Spanke, Studi med. n.s. 14.11.Google Scholar

³⁰ Spanke, Studi med. n.s. 14.26.Google Scholar

³¹ Dreves and Blume, Ein Jahrtausend lateinischer Hymnendichtung (Leipzig 1909) II 17–18. For the spread of the melody beyond the limits of liturgy and into vernacular tongues see Gennrich, Friedrich, ‘Internationale mittelalterliche Melodien,’ Zeitschrift für Musikwissenschaft 11 (1929) 274-278.Google Scholar

³² In 6.4.4-5 Nicolas matches two ten-syllable lines against a pair of seven-syllable lines; this is exactly the form of the corresponding verses of Laudes crucis. In verse 13 Nicolas follows the model with a pair of seven-syllable lines and even rhymes with the same words. The musical model does not justify a six-syllable line paired with one of five syllables in 8.11.2 and 8.12.2. Probably the missing syllable in 7.14.3 (for which there is no music) is the result of an author's slip, though possibly the scribe omitted a ‘hac’ before ‘presentia.’Google Scholar

³³ Spanke, Studi med. n.s. 14.22-23. For Blume's suggestion that Adam, too, modeled a sequence on Congaudentes see above, n. 28.Google Scholar

³⁴ The form of all his regular sequences is very similar. Over four-fifths of the verses are composed of two, three, or four eight-syllable lines followed by one of seven syllables. Prose 9 has no variation of strophes; 2 and 4 close with two strophes of seven-syllable lines, followed by one of alternating eight and seven-syllable lines; and 5 has almost the same form. As stated in the text, 1, 3, and 7 close with twelve-syllable lines.Google Scholar

³⁵ AH 55 No. 337.7 and 8. Cf. Misset and Aubry, Proses 34.Google Scholar

³⁶ Two other factors which show either that Adam did not write the prose or that he changed his style as he matured are that there is no variety in the form of the strophes and that, as the editors point out (AH 54.324), the meter is awkward in 13.3 and 17.3.Google Scholar

³⁷ For examples of Nicolas’ use of sources and repetition, see Leclercq's notes in Rev. bén. 66.271-273. Nicolas repeats the essence of one of his own verses in 5.1 and 6.3.Google Scholar

³⁸ Gautier (in his 1st ed.) and Misset attributed to Adam such sequences as Laudes crucis and Hodiernae lux diei (AH 54 No. 219). The early manuscripts noted in AH for these and other regular sequences show that the form was established before Adam's time.Google Scholar

³⁹ The variations with which Adam adapted earlier melodies are shown by Spanke, Studi med. n.s. 14.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ These editions are listed above, n. 19. Each edition contains a criticism of the previous attributions.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See the statements in AH 54.viii-xvi and 55.vii-ix. These views are supported by Raby, Christian-Latin Poetry 351. While in general Nicolas is not the equal of Adam, prose 2 fits all the stylistic criteria used to determine Adam's work.Google Scholar

⁴² This point supports Blume's arguments for the attribution to Adam of AH 55 No. 178. The attribution was accepted by Wellner, Sämtliche Sequenzen 357 and 360-361.Google Scholar

⁴³ Any uncertainty about whether Adam wrote some of the proses attributed to him should not weaken the central arguments of this article, since the generalizations about style are based on a large number of proses.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ The correctness of the text, the attractiveness of the manuscript, and the exact correspondence of its contents to that announced in the introductory letter suggest that the Harley MS may be the actual presentation copy. The introductory letter as edited by Leclercq (Reu. bén. 66.271-272) raises some questions which cannot at present be answered. The manuscript omits the author's name from this letter, while the seventeenth-century editor Tissier (n. 6 supra) includes it. Was this because the name was not needed in a personal presentation copy? Did Tissier have a better copy in front of him? Or did Tissier add the name as an unannounced emendation? The answers to these questions might tell us if the Harley MS was the one presented to Count Henry.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ In one instance an initial Ο was corrected by inscribing an S (8.6.1), another initial was erased and left blank (3.11.1), and a third was never entered, presumably because the rubricator could not decide whether to make the word lam or Nam (4.2.1).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ So many specialists in medieval literature or music have aided me with this article that I cannot thank them all here, but I must give special recognition to Prof. Berthe Marti, who aided me with her criticism and started me on this project by telling me that every young medievalist should edit a text as a lesson in humility. I am grateful for the financial aid of the University of Pennsylvania Commitee on the Advancement of ResearchGoogle Scholar