Focusing on the Traditional Benedictine Office in accordance with the 1963 Benedictine calendar and rubrics, including the Farnborough edition of the Monastic Diurnal.
As I mentioned in a previous post, through Advent I used a 1953 breviary, adapting it to the 1960 rubrics - a task made easier I should note by the inclusion in the volume I bought, of a 1960 supplement, coupled with a few pencil deletions done by a previous owner of the books!
I've previously posted on the differences to the sanctoral cycle; so today I thought I'd continue on, and take a look at the differences to Advent itself.
Advent and Christmas
When it comes to Advent, the readings and texts in the Benedictine Office (in contrast to the Roman) have not, as far as I can see, changed over the course of the twentieth century.
There are only two differences that I could see.
The first is to extend the use of the special antiphons for the day hours between December 17 and 23 to Vespers in 1960, a change I quite like - it seems odd to me (no matter how traditional it might be) to use a set of special antiphons at Lauds to None then revert to the throughout the year set at Vespers on Class II days.
The second is that under the previous rubrics, the set of special antiphons not used on December 21 because of the feast of St Thomas were used on Saturday.
In the 1960 office a specific set of antiphons for Saturday are included, so one day's worth of antiphons are not used each year. The Saturday antiphons are not new inventions however, but rather apparently a relic of Solesmes' own in-house practice, the change brought the Benedictine office into line with practice in the Roman Office following the 1911 reforms.
I assume the main argument for these changes was simplicity, and there is something to be said for that - juggling the multiple moving parts during these days is hard enough as it is.
The temporal cycle
In Advent, then, there are a few minor differences of no great consequence (indeed arguably even improvements).
And indeed, for most of the year, there are no differences at all in the temporal cycle between the two editions of the monastic breviary.
Epiphanytide
Even during the former octaves of the temporale cycle, for example, one of the worst of the wreckovations in my view, the key texts (such as for the Gospels for the relevant Sunday within the Octave) have been retained, with many of the Office texts have been transformed into the 'Ordinary' of the season.
In the former Octave of the Epiphany, for example, the canticle antiphons of the octave are retained, except where another feast or a Saturday of Our Lady intervenes.
What a shame, though, that they didn't just make these days Class III, and thus allow us to enjoy a full de facto octave every year. That said, I suspect the provisions of Cum sanctissima arguably would now authorise this approach.
Holy Week
Apart from January, the other contender for worst wreckovation, as a commenter on another post has noted, is Holy Week.
And when it comes to the Mass and other ceremonies outside the Office, that's certainly true (though mitigated for many these days by the permissions to use the earlier version of Holy Week)..
When it comes to the Office there are, it has to be said, the admittedly peculiar instructions to omit certain Offices if one attends some of the main ceremonies.
But there is surely nothing stopping one from saying these hours if one wishes - outside a monastery these are rarely said publicly in any case, and in a monastery they are mostly all said regardless of the rubrics as far as I can gather!
When it comes to the texts of the Office itself, though, there has been much less tinkering - it is perfectly possible to use the 1928 Triduum book for the office for example (I've done it) - the main difference being a few additional repetitions of Psalm 50 and the times at which certain hours are (supposed to be) said.
The structure of the Office
The case for 'restoring the 54', then, as far as I can see - though it may well be that I've missed something - does not rest on the temporal cycle (octaves aside), at least in the case of the Benedictine office, but rather on the sanctoral and perhaps other features of the breviaries.
I plan to look at the extra prayers and other changes to the hours themselves in the next post in this series.
Adoration of the Magi - Roman catacombs c3rd Source: Giovanni Dall'Orto, Wiki commons
For most of the year, I don't have major problems with most of the calendar changes made in 1960 - if it was up to me (which it isn't!) there are some feasts I'd restore, but octaves aside, the changes to the calendar mostly were not too drastic (certainly not by comparison with those made in 1970, when whole seasons were excised).
But the period January 2 to January 13, is, I have to admit, something of a disaster zone liturgically.
Let's take a look at the key issues.
January 2 - 4
For centuries, January 2 - 4 were taken up by the Octave days of St Stephen, St John and the Holy Innocents.
In the Benedictine office, at least in its twentieth century versions, these days were, in my view, very well-designed so as to provide a reminder of the feast without disrupting the Benedictine psalm cursus and reading cycle.
The psalms of the day were used at all hours, with the antiphons of the feast at Prime to None. There were only two Nocturns at Matins, with two readings from Romans, and third Patristic reading for the Octave.
I've posted both versions of matins for these days over at Lectio Divina Notes blog for those interested in seeing the differences between the two versions, but on the face of it, I find it hard to see what the rationale for abolishing these very ancient octaves really was.
Most Holy Name of Jesus (January 2 or the first Sunday of January)
I'm rather less concerned about the abolition, in the Benedictine (but not the Roman) 1960 calendar, of the feast of the Holy Name on January 2.
Its move to that date in the twentieth century is something of an oddity in my view, since the Gospel is identical to that for January 1, and it cuts across the ancient octave days.
A better solution than outright abolition, though, would surely have been to move it to an alternative date, or just use it when there is a second Sunday after the Nativity.
Vigil of the Epiphany (January 5)
The Vigil of the Epiphany used to be one of the four especially privileged Vigils to mark the four major feasts of the year.
Its abolition, I suppose parallels the downgrading of Epiphany itself, but it was actually restored in 2002 (where the feast is not moved to the relevant Sunday!), so there is a strong case for arguing that it is legitimate to restore it also to the 1960 calendars.
You can find a useful discussion of its celebration here.
The feast of the Epiphany and the thirteen days of Christmas?
By far the most bizarre changes, of course, occur in the Novus Ordo calendar in places (such as here in Australia) where Epiphany is celebrated where this year we have not the on January 6, thus marking the end of the twelve days of Christmas, but this year, on January 7, giving us thirteen days of Christmas!
Actually though, it seems some places did have a tradition of thirteen days of Christmas, so maybe this year's outcome is not as odd as some year's!
Less explicable though, is that for reasons I don't understand, the feast of the Baptism of Our Lord is not on the octave day of Epiphany (January 13), but on January 8.
As I've written before, the number of days around these various feasts are not meant to be random, but have a deep symbolic meaning. Why try so hard to remove this?
Octave of the Epiphany
Last, but far from least, the abolition of the octave of the Epiphany is surely one of the most unwise of the 1960 reforms, since this is one of the most ancient of all octaves, already celebrated at least in the East in the fourth century.
Fortunately, at least in the day hours, all of the texts of the Octave are preserved as the 'Ordinary of Epiphanytide'.
Still, if you want to go a step further and revert to the 1953 rubrics, all you have to do is add back the psalms and antiphons of the feast at the day hours. At Matins, there are antiphons for each Nocturn for each day, which are used in conjunction with the psalms of the days of the week, as well as Patristic readings.
An alternative solution for the 1960 reformers, if the concern was to preserve the psalm and reading cycles, might have been to use the psalms of the day in conjunction with the antiphons and other texts of the feast, and make the Patristic reading the third of the day....
There is increasing interest, these days, in the use of older breviaries, at least amongst liturgical nerds and in some parts of traddy world.
Accordingly, this Advent I decided to use a 1953 (Latin only) monastic breviary as my main office book, adapting it to the 1963 calendar and rubrics, but reading the texts that differ outside the Office, so I could get a better feel for features of the older rubrics and calendar.
So herewith some reflections on the differences between the books and their respective merits, in the hope that it might spark some debate!
I plan to divide up my comments into a couple of posts, covering:
the physical books;
the calendar differences for the sanctoral and temporal cycles;
differences the structure and content of the hours themselves (things like preces, hymn doxologies, etc).
The books
So first something about the physical books.
None of the monastic breviaries are currently in print, and they are all fairly scarce and expensive to buy secondhand (although the 1930 breviary is available online).
Four volumes vs two
The 1963 breviary (and the 1930) comes in two volumes, but the 1953 edition follows the Roman by being spread over four volumes, thus increasing the cost.
The need for four volumes is presumably because of the slightly smaller size - 1953 book is two centimeters in length shorter - but I don't personally find that any more convenient than the slightly bigger book.
The type size and fonts seem to be the same.
Psalter placement
Secondly, the 1963 breviary places the psalter at the middle of the book. Personally I prefer that - it helps to prolong the book's life a bit, but also makes it easier to see where the temporale vs sanctorale are. By contrast, the 1953 follows the older structure of putting the psalter at the beginning.
Repeated texts
Perhaps the most annoying feature of the 1953 book is that, like the Diurnale, it doesn't bother repeating key fixed part of the hours such as the Prime hymn and the Benedictus and Magnificat each day - with four volumes to spread it over, it seems to me that more concession to convenience could have been made.
I guess part of the rationale is that monks will tend to know these parts by heart - and yes I do know them too, but I like having them in front of me all the same!
More importantly perhaps, breviaries were presumably mostly only used when a monk was out of the monastery, for the Matins readings (with a psalter or the Antiphonale for the psalms), and as a reference document for rubrics and planning purposes. But it is still annoying.
Sanctoral calendar
When it comes to the sanctoral calendar, the changes are in my view, a bit of a mixed bag. The changes were that:
the feast of St Peter Chrysologus on December 2 (a fifth century bishop of Ravenna) was reduced to a commemoration in 1963 (previously the equivalent of Class III);
the feasts of St Ambrose and St Lucy are reduced from being a Class II equivalent, with three Nocturns, to Class III;
the Octave of the Immaculate Conception was abolished;
the second and third class equivalent feasts (St Lucy and St Thomas in December) no longer have a first Vespers;
the commemorations of St Melchiadus (Pope 311-313, December 10) and St Thomas (Beckett, December 20) were abolished; and
commemorations were generally previously made at both Vespers and Lauds; under the 1960 rubrics they occur at Lauds only.
The Octave of the Immaculate Conception
The biggest change is clearly the abolition of the Octave of the Immaculate Conception, and in my view that was a positive step.
The effect of the Octave (introduced to the Roman office in the eighteenth century) was to displace the ancient texts of Advent, including the antiphons set for the day hours each week, and replace them with the same repeated texts each day in the day hours; and to replace the reading of Isaiah, a tradition dating back to St Benedict's time, with readings from the Papal Bull of Pius IX.
In a year when the feast of the Immaculate Conception falls on a Sunday, the antiphons wouldn't be said at all.
I really can't see a strong case for the suppression of the seasonal texts, particularly as the season already has a strong Marian flavour in its readings and the responsories.
It has been pointed out to me though, that the monks of Norcia have come up with a sensible compromise approach to this problem for those keen on octaves, namely commemorating the Octave at Lauds and Vespers but privileging the Advent days.
Class III vs Class II?
Similarly, I don't mind the reduction of St Ambrose and St Lucy to Class III feasts - Class II feasts in the Benedictine Office are not very different when it comes to the day hours, but festal Matins is very very long indeed compared to both the Class III structure (3 vs 12 readings and responsories, plus extra three canticles, Te Deum and Gospel) and the Roman Office version.
It is not obvious though, why St Peter Chrysologus was demoted, or the two commemorations abolished - they all represent quite important saints on the face of it.
First Vespers
One of the most important rubrical changes between the 1953 Office and the 1963 was the abolition of First Vespers for most feasts.
It was a mistake I think, as it means that Class III feasts regularly don't have any Vespers at all, such as when they fall on a Saturday.
Most monasteries have restored them for class II feasts, but I think there is scope to go further.
If the concern is the displacement of the ferial psalm cursus in favour of the festal, a concern I agree with in principle, the simple solution would surely be to specify the use of the ferial psalms in conjunction with the antiphons of the feast at either First and/or Second Vespers.
Today, for the last in this series on the Advent responsories, one of two responsories for the day that draw on the image of the 'Jesse tree' (one of the many versions of which is depicted above), inspired by Isaiah 11:1, named for the father of King David, and depicts the genealogy of Christ.
Isaiah 11 and the rod of Jesse
The text for the other responsory on this theme set for today, Radix Jesse is only loosely based on Scripture, and largely takes its cue from St Paul's allusion to Isaiah in Romans 15:12.
The text for this responsory, though, is taken straight from Scripture, from Isaiah 11:1-5 (the verses used in the responsory are bolded):
1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root.
Et egredietur virga de radice Jesse, et flos de radice ejus ascendet.
2 And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom, and of understanding, the spirit of counsel, and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge, and of godliness.
Et requiescet super eum spiritus Domini : spiritus sapientiae et intellectus, spiritus consilii et fortitudinis, spiritus scientiae et pietatis;
3 And he shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge according to the sight of the eyes, nor reprove according to the hearing of the ears.
et replebit eum spiritus timoris Domini. Non secundum visionem oculorum judicabit, neque secundum auditum aurium arguet;
4 But he shall judge the poor with justice, and shall reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.
sed judicabit in justitia pauperes, et arguet in aequitate pro mansuetis terrae; et percutiet terram virga oris sui, et spiritu labiorum suorum interficiet impium.
5 And justice shall be the girdle of his loins: and faith the girdle of his reins.
Et erit justitia cingulum lumborum ejus, et fides cinctorium renumejus.
R. Egrediétur / virga de radíce Iesse, et flos de radíce eius ascendet: * Et erit iustítia cíngulum lumbórum eius, † et fides cinctórium renum eius.
V. Et requiéscet super eum spíritus Dómini: † spíritus sapiéntiæ, et intelléctus: spíritus consílii, et fortitúdinis.
R. Et erit iustítia cíngulum lumbórum eius, † et fides cinctórium renum eius.
R. There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse and a branch shall grow out of his roots. * And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
V. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding.
R. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
LR 395/NR 145
Source: Nocturnale Romanum Project (D Crochu)
Origins of the responsories
I noted at the beginning of this (somewhat meandering) series that there are basically two modern theories around the origin of the responsories as we know them, namely a Roman origin in the fifth century, or an external origin, so that they were imported into the Roman Office perhaps through St Benedict's influence.
The Roman origin theory hangs largely on the use of the same term, responsorium, to describe both the singing of the psalms with a refrain, in earlier Roman use, and the great responsories of Matins.
But the use of the same term in itself is a pretty thin basis on which to construct a theory since many Office terms seem to have had completely different meanings in different places in late antiquity. An antiphon, for instance can mean variously a psalm sung antiphonally (Roman); a block of psalms (Jerusalem Office); or a refrain used in the modern sense (St Benedict); while the term missa means the ending of an hour with the Our Father in St Benedict, but a block of psalms, readings and prayers in Caesarius of Arles' Rules.
More importantly perhaps, if psalm based responsories were the prototype, one would surely expect there to be psalm based responsories in the sets used in association with the various books of the Bible as the repertoire expanded, rather than using texts taken from those books. In the Mass after all, most of the propers are clearly psalm based, and there are, after all, many psalm verses that directly relate to the various Scriptural books.
In fact though, psalm based responsories represent a very small part of the overall repertoire, and are mostly confined to use for particular seasons or feasts rather than in the 'histories' that likely formed the early core of the repertoire.
There is more to it than that, of course, and I hope to come back to this with a look at the de psalmiis responsories now used after Epiphany in the new year.
In the meantime though, I thought a good way to wind up this series on the Advent responsories, would be to take a quick look at some of the early claims around the origin of the responsories.
Gennadius and Isidore
I've already discussed Gennadius' witness to a mid-fifth century search for suitable psalm based texts for responsories for both the Mass and Office.
Another key reference point is Isidore of Seville's De Ecclesiis Officiis, which claims an Italian (but not specifically Roman) origin for them. The difficulty with this theory though, is just how widespread the several distinctive 'dialects' of responsories seem to be - indeed the early Coptic office also apparently used from form of responsory.
Accordingly, an eighth century text's claims on their origins, the Ratio de cursus, which claims Gallic origins for them, is of particular interest.
The Ratio de Cursus
Written by an Irish monk, the Ratio de Cursus is largely a defense of the validity of the Irish and Gallican forms of the divine office in the face of Carolingian efforts to impose the Roman and Benedictine forms universally.
Its main argument is that although Rome's Office may derive from St Peter's authority, the distinctive liturgies of other places too, had their roots in the teaching of the other apostles who evangelised them, as well as their successor bishops who developed and safeguarded those forms of the Office.
While some of its claims for the Gallican and Irish liturgy in particular are surely overstated, it is an intriguing document for several reasons.
First, it provides a useful witness to the existence of and awareness of several different of local Office traditions in use at that time in both the Easter and West, such as those of Alexandria, Antioch and Milan.
Secondly and more controversially, he argues that these different traditions reflect the patterns taught by different apostles, transmitted and developed through their successor bishops (for which he provides lists for several places).
The idea of the Office as either a divine or apostolic tradition, safeguarded and developed by the bishops, is not one you will find teased out in most standard books on the history of the Office, which are mostly more concerned with either the search for Jewish origins for it; or alternatively argue that the Office did not exist at all before the fourth century.
But in fact there are a number of earlier references to the Office as an ecclesial or apostolic tradition, and the topic deserves more exploration.
Thirdly, it is clear that the author has actually had very little contact with either the Roman or Benedictine Offices, and knew little or nothing about their history.
Ratio de cursus on the origin of the responsories
The key section of the document for our purposes, though, is this statement:
John the Evangelist chanted the first liturgy in Gaul, then later blessed Polycarp, disciple of saint John, then Iraneus, who was third bishop of Lyons of Gaul, sang this liturgy among the Gauls. From there, they composed reciprocal antiphons and responsories or chants [sonus] and Alleluias as a flow in modulations of the writings of the New and Old Testament,not from their own writings, but from the sacred scriptures. And the order of he Church, namely the liturgy of the Gauls, travelled the whole world and was diffused through the entire globe, which Jerome the priest ordained...(Trans Constant Mews, in Lynette Olson (ed), St Samson of dol and the earliest History of Brittany, Cornwall and Wales).
Whether we accept the claim that the responsories were Gallic in origin or not, it is clear that by the eighth century at least, the responsories were certainly not viewed as a Roman creation by those outside its sphere of influence.
Meanwhile, I hope you have found this series of interest (and any comments on it, on or offline will be welcome). I plan to go back and fill in footnotes for these posts, and may try and pull together a distillation of it over at Psallam Domino in due course).
Today's Advent responsory, Send forth the lamb, is the third for Friday in the third week, and also the last for the fourth Sunday of Advent.
Send forth the lamb
The text of the respond is taken directly from Isaiah 16:1; the verse is from Psalm 84:8:
R.Emítte / Agnum, Dómine, Dominatórem terræ, * De Petra desérti ad montem fíliæ Sion. V.Osténde nobis, Dómine, misericórdiam tuam, et salutáre tuum da nobis. R.De Petra desérti ad montem fíliæ Sion. V. Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto R.De Petra desérti ad montem fíliæ Sion.
R.Send forth the Lamb, O Lord, the Ruler of the land; * From the rock in the wilderness unto the mount of the daughter of Zion. V.Show us thy mercy, O Lord, and grant us thy salvation. R. From the rock in the wilderness unto the mount of the daughter of Zion. V.Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. R. From the rock in the wilderness unto the mount of the daughter of Zion.
The chant
The chant itself is a very short chant in mode 2, drawing on standard melodic patterns, making it look, at least to my admittedly inexpert eye, as if it belongs to the older layers of responsories.
But although it appears in multiple sources, surprisingly it isn't contained in either of the two main 'Old Roman' manuscripts.
That in itself is not of course decisive, since some responsories that appear in earlier 'Ordines' aren't in the Old Roman manuscripts, so either moved in and out of the repertoire, were perhaps used in particular basilicas or churches not captured by the old Roman manuscripts, or perhaps have a non-Roman (but older) origin.
The lamb, the rock and the daughters of Sion
This responsory is one of those (relatively few) that it are entirely Scriptural and make no changes at all to the text. The psalm verse is identical in both the Romanum and Gallican versions, so there are no clues as to its origin or age there either.
The text of the respond is one of those highly symbolic texts from Isaiah, actually part of two chapters taking the form of an oracle directed against the ancient kingdom of Moab, condemned as a race of idolaters.
And there is certainly a long exegetical tradition around it. St Jerome, for example, explained that the lamb is of course Christ; the rock refers to Ruth, who, although of the race of Moab, forms part of the genealogy of Christ; and the daughter of Jerusalem refers to Sion or the Church.
Although there are a number of variant verses, none of them really give much aid to Scriptural interpretation: they assume this is one that everyone is familiar with, despite its complexity.
Since the versicle is also used at Matins of Fridays as the first Nocturn versicle though, as well as the second antiphon for the day hours on Tuesdays in the period December 17 - 23, it was clearly well-known as an Advent text.
Canonical texts and otherwise
Given the strictly Scriptural nature of today's text, a relative rarity amongst the Advent responsories, this seems like a good point to talk a little about the use of non-Scriptural texts in the Office responsory repertoire.
As we've seen, many responsories adapt the Scriptural texts somewhat, either to make the link with its usage clearer, to provide an interpretative gloss (sometimes quoting directly from Patristic commentaries), or make it more suitable to be sung as a short extract.
The merits of adapting Scriptural texts, or using non-Scriptural texts in the Office have long been hotly contested at times, with early prohibitions on the use of hymns in some places; indeed the debate still raged in the high middle ages, where the Carthusians, for example, 're-scripturalised' their responsories and other texts.
The responsory repertoire
The sixth century Italian Rule of St Stephen and Paul for example, seems to reflect Roman attitudes in admonishing its monks to stick strictly to the text of Scripture:
May no one in this community presume to sing, learn, or say the responses and antiphons, as some are wont to sing on an ornate tone, doing so as they wish, and not taking them from the canonical Scriptures.."
Only sing what you read is to be sung," as blessed Augustine has written; "do not sing what you read is not to be sung." What the Lord desired to reveal to us through his prophets and apostles is not to be rendered in praise so that it differs from what he himself has prescribed.
The comment rather implies that two competing repertoires of responsories, one Scriptural based, one with a more broader set of source texts, were already available in the mid to later sixth century, and indeed one of the earliest preserved Gallic psalm responds, for example, is actually non-Scriptural.
The instruction goes on to insist that what is supposed to be sung should not sound like the recitation of a reading, and vice versa.
Benedictine vs Roman attitudes
It is difficult, with the limited sources we have for the early Office, to know how this really played out in the acceptance into the repertoire and development of responsories, but it does seem likely that the wider debate about the use of non-Scriptural texts, which extended far beyond responsories, did have an impact.
In many of the early Eastern Rites, the use of non-Scriptural texts in the office, in the form of psalm refrains, hymns and other texts, flowered early on. This tradition was apparently imported to the West by St Ambrose and others.
But in Rome and some other places in the West, there was active resistance to this.
And on this, it is worth noting that the Benedictine Rule is, in this respect (and many others), quite different in its attitude to that reflected in the early Roman Office.
We are used, today, to seeing the Roman and Benedictine Offices as very closely linked, sharing a common rubrics and core texts.
But in reality this reflects a long history of mutual influence between the two forms of the Office.
Hymns, for example, though certainly part of the Ambrosian and Arles monastic Offices, seem not to have been used in the Roman secular office (and possibly the Roman monastic office as well, as the rule of the Master likewise did not include them) until very late indeed.
By contrast, St Benedict prescribes at least one hymn (and three for festal/Sunday Matins) for all of the hours of the Office.
Similarly, when it came to readings, where St Benedict famously prescribed Patristic (and possibly saints lives) readings for Matins, these may not have been part of the Roman secular Office until perhaps the eighth century.
These connections may well have played a role in the particular texts selected for responsories, and their allocation over the course of the year, as I hope to show in due course.
And by way of something to listen to for today, I couldn't locate a recording of today's responsory, but one of the other responsories of the day is Rorate Caeli, so herewith Byrd's setting of the text.
Today is the first of the Advent Ember Days, long designated as fast days, an ancient practice indeed in the Roman liturgy.
As a result, today's responsory, the first for Ember Wednesday, Clama in fortitudine, is one of the lucky few to have made into the 1895 Liber Responsorialis, and so is actually (occasionally at least) still sung in Benedictine monasteries.
O thou that tellest good tidings to Sion
Here is the text of the responsory, and a translation of it:
R.Clama / in fortitúdine, qui annúntias pacem in Ierúsalem: * Dic civitátibus Iudæ, et habitatóribus Sion: † Ecce Deus noster, quem exspectábimus, advéniet.
V.Supra montem excélsum ascénde tu, qui evangelízas Sion, † exálta in fortitúdine vocem tuam.
R.Dic civitátibus Iudæ, et habitatóribus Sion: Ecce Deus noster, quem exspectábimus, advéniet.
R. Cry out with strength, you who announce peace to Jerusalem:* Say to the cities of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem: Behold, our God will come, for whom we waited.
V.Get thee up upon a high mountain, thou that bringest good tidings to Sion: lift up thy voice with strength.
R. Say unto the cities of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem: Behold, our God will come, for whom we waited.
The text is based on Isaiah, which has been the book of the Bible read in Advent as far back as the evidence for Matins in Rome. The particular text for today's responsory comes from chapter 40 and was also used by Handel in the Messiah for several arias and recitatives, including one based on the this text, O though that tellest good tidings to Sion. Here are the relevant verses from Isaiah in their broader context:
Isaiah 40: 5-10 - The voice of one, saying: Cry. And I said: What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the glory thereof as the flower of the field. The grass is withered, and the flower is fallen, because the spirit of the Lord hath blown upon it. Indeed the people is grass: The grass is withered, and the flower is fallen: but the word of our Lord endureth for ever. thou that bringest good tidings to Jerusalem: lift it up, fear not. Say to the cities of Juda: Behold your God: Behold the Lord God shall come with strength, and his arm shall rule: Behold his reward is with him and his work is before him.
Vox dicentis : Clama. Et dixi : Quid clamabo? Omnis caro foenum, et omnis gloria ejus quasi flos agri. Exsiccatum est foenum, et cecidit flos, quia spiritus Domini sufflavit in eo. Vere foenum est populus; exsiccatum est foenum, et cecidit flos; verbum autem Domini nostri manet in aeternum. Super montem excelsum ascende, tu qui evangelizas Sion; exalta in fortitudine vocem tuam, qui evangelizas Jerusalem; exalta, noli timere. Dic civitatibus Juda : Ecce Deus vester: ecce Dominus Deus in fortitudine veniet, et brachium ejus dominabitur, ecce merces ejus cum eo, et opus illius coram illo.
Singing of the psalms in the Office and the responsories
Continuing on, now on the history and context of the responsories, in my last post on the history of the responsories, I pointed to some evidence for mid-fifth century Gallican responsory production, which arguably involved both the Mass and the Office. I want to say a little more on that today.
As I noted earlier in the series, one of the theories for the origins of responsories relates to the move from responsorial singing to antiphonal.
The claim is that when psalm refrains were no longer needed due to the shift to antiphonal performance of the psalms, they were repurposed as mass propers, and Office responsories.
Leaving aside the issue of how well fits (or rather does not fit) with our understanding of the evolution of the Mass propers, I want to suggest that there is no evidence at all for the proposition that there was some huge repertoire of refrains that were suddenly made redundant and looking for a home in the fifth century.
Antiphons
First, if there had been a switch from congregational singing to antiphonal, the most obvious 'repurposing' would surely have been to use the refrains as antiphons in the modern sense of a short musical composition used at the beginning and/or end of a psalms.
The early history of antiphons (including whether they existed at all) is (naturally) highly contested, but the Rule of St Benedict makes pretty clear references to them in way that is entirely consistent with their use in the way we know them.
Moreover some have, for example proposed (albeit without much evidence to support the idea) that antiphons were originally repeated at regular intervals throughout a psalm, much in the way that the refrain was used in responsorial psalmody.
Solo psalm performance in the early Office
More fundamentally though, most responsorial singing of the psalms almost certainly originally happened in the context of the Mass, not the Office - or at least not in the monastic Office.
The earliest evidence we have on how the psalms were performed in the monastic Office comes from Cassian and Rufinus for Egypt, both of whom suggest that the psalms were generally sung by one person, with the rest listening in silence except to join in a doxology or other form of response at the end of the psalm (such as a prayer).
That approach (or variants on it) continued to be used in many places including Gaul and Celtic influenced monasteries well into the eighth century.
The Benedictine Office
In Rome though, or at least in the Rule of St Benedict, it is pretty clear that the use of two alternating choirs was the norm. While the Rule itself is arguably ambiguous on this subject, the slightly later Italian Rule of Stephen and Paul (which was clearly influenced by the Rule of St Benedict) makes it quite clear that one singer intones the psalms, then others join in.
The two verse doxology we still use for the psalms was almost certainly introduced in Rome by at least the early sixth century precisely to reflect this style of singing (the older version had only one verse).
And one of the distinctive features of Roman psalmody following its introduction to Anglo-Saxon England was seen as precisely this choral style of performance.
The shift to antiphony
Moreover, in the context of the Mass, the Liber Pontificalis attributes the shift to antiphonal psalmody to Pope Celestine (422- 432). But it also states that he decreed that the psalms should be performed antiphonally by everyone, in explicit contrast to the Epistle and Gospel.
The shift to a more elaborate style of melody suitable for performance by a specialist singer then, was a later development, likely not a direct consequence of the shift away from responsorial psalmody.
Where then, did the responsories come from? I will come back to this question in due course!
Today's responsory is the third for Tuesday in week three of Advent (also the seventh of Sunday), and contains some rich imagery of the Incarnation. The text is largely taken from Psalm 71:
R. Descéndet / Dóminus sicut plúvia in vellus: * Oriétur in diébus eius iustítia, et abundántia pacis.
V. Et adorábunt eum omnes reges, omnes gentes sérvient ei.
R. Oriétur in diébus eius iustítia, et abundántia pacis.
V. Glória Patri, et Fílio, et Spirítui Sancto.
R. Oriétur in diébus eius iustítia, et abundántia pacis.
R. The Lord shall come down like rain upon a fleece. * In His days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace.
V. All the kings of the earth shall fall down before Him, all nations shall serve Him.
R. In His days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace.
V. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.
R. In His days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace.
St Augustine's commentary on this psalm links it to the story of Gideon and the fleece in Judges 6:
He has called to our minds and admonished us, that what was done by Gedeon the Judge, in Christ has its end. For he asked a sign of the Lord, that a fleece laid on the floor should alone be rained upon, and the floor should be dry; and again, the fleece alone should be dry, and the floor should be rained upon; and so it came to pass.
Which thing signified, that, being as it were on a floor in the midst of the whole round world, the dry fleece was the former people Israel.
The same Christ therefore Himself came down like rain upon a fleece, when yet the floor was dry: whence also He said, I am not sent but to the sheep which were lost of the house of Israel. There He chose out a Mother by whom to receive the form of a servant, wherein He was to appear to men...
The earliest responsories?
Most of the responsories we've looked at so far this Advent have been either non-psalm based, so this is an interesting example of a distinct set of psalm responsories clearly chosen for their appropriateness to the season or feast.
And indeed, one of the oldest possible references to the responsory repertoire relates to exactly this type of responsory. Gennadius of Marseilles wrote about some work commissioned by his predecessor Venerius (428-52), saying:
Musaeus, presbyter of the church at Marseilles, a man learned in Divine Scriptures and most accurate in their interpretation, as well as master of an excellent scholastic style, on the request of Saint Venerius the bishop, selected from Holy Scriptures passages suited to the various feast days of the year, also passages from the Psalms for responses suited to the season, and the passages for reading.
The readers in the church found this work of the greatest value, in that it saved them trouble and anxiety in the selection of passages, and was useful for the instruction of the people as well as for the dignity of the service.
He also addressed to Saint Eustathius the bishop, successor to the above mentioned man of God, an excellent and sizable volume, a Sacramentary, divided into various sections, according to the various offices and seasons, readings and psalms, both for reading and chanting, but also filled throughout with petitions to the Lord, and thanksgiving for his benefits.
By this work we know him to have been a man of strong intelligence and chaste eloquence. He is said to have also delivered homilies, which are, as I know, valued by pious men, but which I have not read. He died in the reign of Leo and Majorianus.
It is unclear in this, of course, whether he is talking about the Office was well as the Mass, particularly as the Gallic equivalent of the Roman Gradual was called a responsory. Still, the comment seems broad enough to encompass both uses of psalms.
First, a reminder that we are coming into the last week of Advent, when things become particularly complicated in the Office, so make sure you set up your ribbons and prayer cards in advance!
Advent between December 17 and 23
In particular, keep in mind that the days between December 17 and 23 are Class II days, and at Lauds to Vespers a set of antiphons for the psalms for each day of the weekin the period December 17-23 are used, set out at MD 37*/AM 212 ff.
At Lauds the Benedictus antiphons are normally of the day of the week in the third week of Advent, but there are specific antiphons said on December 21 and 23.
At Vespers, the 'O Antiphons' for the Magnificat are of the date (MD 35-6*/AM 208 ff), displacing the Magnificat antiphon of the Advent day. you can listen to ta recording of the first of the set above.
At Matins there is a proper Invitatory antiphon for the season (Prope est, NM 14).
Advent responsory: Festina ne tardaveris
Today's Advent responsory is the second responsory for Saturday in the second week of Advent, also said as the tenth of the Second Sunday.
R. Festína, / ne tardáveris, Dómine: * Et líbera pópulum tuum.
V. Veni, Dómine, et noli tardáre: † reláxa facinóra plebi tuæ.
R. Et líbera pópulum tuum.
R. Make haste, O Lord, make no tarrying. * And deliver thy people.
V. O Lord, come and make no tarrying loose the bonds of thy people.
R. And deliver thy people.
The text
The text is non-Scriptural, but perhaps loosely based on Habakukk 2 which says:
Write down thy vision, the Lord said, on a tablet, so plain that it may be read with a glance a vision of things far distant, yet one day befall they must, no room for doubting it. Wait thou long, yet wait patiently; what must be must, and at the time appointed for it.
[Quia adhuc visus procul; et apparebit in finem, et non mentietur: si moram fecerit, exspecta illum, quia veniens veniet, et non tardabit]
The wording also, though, has echoes of the final verse of Psalm 39, a psalm which prophesizes the Incarnation, as these couple of extracts illustrate:
2 Patiently I waited for the Lord’s help, and at last he turned his look towards me... 8 See then, I said, I am coming to fulfil what is written of me, where the book lies unrolled; 9 to do thy will, O my God, is all my desire, to carry out that law of thine which is written in my heart... 17 Rejoicing and triumph for all the souls that look to thee; Praise to the Lord, will ever be their song, who now long for thy aid. 18 I, so helpless, so destitute, and the Lord is concerned for me! Thou art my champion and my refuge; do not linger, my God, do not linger on the way. [Adjutor meus et protector meus tu es; Deus meus, ne tardaveris.]
Which are the oldest responsories?
I have included it in part firstly because although the liturgists would argue that its non-Scriptural text makes it more likely a later composition, it seems on the face of it to be very old indeed.
It appears, for example, in the surviving Old Roman manuscripts (possibly capturing at least part of the seventh century repertoire of responsories in Rome), as well as multiple other sources.
But the other key point of note is that it has a very short respond, and is musically very straightforward indeed - at least as short and straightforward to sing, if not more so, as many of the psalm based responsories that the liturgists argue represent the oldest layer of responsories.
Today's Advent responsory is used on Sunday and Friday in the second week of Advent.
You can listen to it in a setting by Lassus below, but it focuses on the imagery of Jerusalem, and above all the vineyard which the Lord plants and calls his labourers to tend. The text is actually from Jeremiah 31: 5-7:
R. Ierúsalem, / plantábis víneam in móntibus tuis: † exsultábis, quóniam dies Dómini véniet: † surge, Sion, convértere ad Dóminum Deum tuum: gaude et lætáre, Iacob: * Quia de médio géntium Salvátor tuus véniet.
V. Exsúlta satis, fília Sion: iúbila, fília Ierúsalem.
R. Quia de médio géntium Salvátor tuus véniet.
V. Glória Patri, et Fílio, * et Spirítui Sancto.
R. Quia de médio géntium Salvátor tuus véniet.
R. Thou shalt yet plant vines upon thy mountains, O Jerusalem thou shalt sing for joy, for the day of the Lord cometh; arise, O Zion, and turn unto the Lord thy God; rejoice and be glad, O Jacob. * For thy Saviour cometh from the midst of the nations.
V. Sing aloud for joy, O daughter of Zion; shout with gladness, O daughter of Jerusalem.
R. For thy Saviour cometh from the midst of the nations.
V. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.
R. For thy Saviour cometh from the midst of the nations.
The original text of the respond though reads as follows:
5 Once more thou shalt plant vineyards over the hill-country of Samaria; planted they shall be, and the men who planted them await the appointed time before they gather the vintage. Watchmen there shall be, when that day comes, in the hill-country of Ephraim that will cry aloud, Up, to Sion go we, and there worship the Lord our God! Rejoice, the Lord says, at Jacob’s triumph, the proudest of nations greet with a glad cry; loud echo your songs of praise, Deliverance, Lord, for thy people, for the remnant of Israel! (Knox translation)
The verse is from Zachariah 9:9, which then continues 'See where thy king comes to greet thee, a trusty deliverer; see how lowly he rides, mounted on an ass, patient colt of patient dam'.
For today's Advent responsory I have selected Ecce Dominus veniet, which is used both on Thursday in the second week of Advent, and on the Second Sunday of Advent.
It's a nice example of Advent texts with something of an eschatological dimension to them. Here is the text, which is based on Zachariah 14, and Isaiah 40:
R. Ecce / Dóminus véniet, et omnes Sancti eius cum eo, † et erit in die illa lux magna: † et exíbunt de Ierúsalem sicut aqua munda: et regnábit Dóminus in ætérnum * Super omnes gentes.
V. Ecce Dóminus cum virtúte véniet: † et regnum in manu eius, et potéstas, et impérium.
R. Super omnes gentes.
R. Behold, the Lord shall come, and all His saints with Him, and it shall come to pass in that day that the light shall be great; and they shall go out from Jerusalem like clean water; and the Lord shall be King for ever, * Over all the earth.
V. Behold, the Lord cometh with a host, and in His hand are the kingdom, and power, and dominion.
R. Over all the earth.
One of the intriguing aspects of this particular responsory is that a recent study has identified it as one of a group of responsories that may have entered into the Roman repertoire from Gaul and/or Spain, since the adaptations to the text are mirrored in a responsory in the Old Hispanic repertoire, and although the melody is different too the Gregorian chant version, the number of notes allocated to each syllable is essentially the same in the Gregorian and Old Hispanic versions (1).
And that brings us nicely to the topic I want to start exploring today, namely, when and where did responsories originate, and how did the repertoire develop to the form that we know know it in?
Pretty much everything about these questions, it has to be said upfront, is highly contested, with no clear answers on many points.
Different chant traditions for responsories?
The repertoire of responsories used today in the Office (to the very limited extent that they are actually used) are examples of Gregorian chant, or as musicologists prefer to call it, Franco-Roman chant, to reflect the fact that what emerged as Gregorian chant somewhere around the twelfth century probably represents (largely) the interaction of two different styles and repertoires of chant, Old Roman and Gallican.
The best known and arguably earliest unambiguous reference to the great responsories of Matins is in the Rule of St Benedict (circa 510-28).
Roman origins?
For this reason, most liturgiologists have long assumed that responsories originated in Rome sometime in the fifth century with a set of psalm based responsories derived repertoire of refrains used with psalms displaced by the shift from responsorial (soloist sings the verses, people sing the refrain) to antiphonal (two choirs singing alternating verses) singing of the psalms (2).
They also argue that a particular set of psalm based responsories, used since the eighth century reform of the Matins reading cycle in the period after Epiphany, represent a set of proto-responsories that attest to a shift to a fixed weekly psalm cursus before St Benedict, some time in the late fifth century (3).
The alternative theory is that responsories - as for several other elements such as hymns - were introduced into the Roman Office at some point, perhaps through the influence of the Benedictine Office.
I'll go into the arguments for and against these theories in due course, but suffice to note now that many musicologists have long been skeptical of the Roman origin theory, and there is a growing body of evidence to support those doubts.
Non-Roman responsory repertoire
Those doubts have rather been amplified by the discovery, in recent decades, that responsories seem to have been a part of all of the major Western chant traditions that we know about from late antiquity and through the early middle ages.
In some cases, such as Ambrosian and old Hispanic chant, the distinct responsories of these traditions survived long enough to be recorded in some form, and continued to evolve along side the Gregorian tradition.
Similarly, although Beneventan and Old Roman chant were eventually suppressed in favour of Gregorian, musicologists have been able to identify a number of manuscripts that preserve at least some of the distinctive repertoire or versions of responsories of these traditions.
The Gallican repertoire dissapeared rather earlier (from the late eighth century onwards, under Pepin the Short, compared to the tenth century for Beneventan for example) and was more thoroughly suppressed, though some work aimed at identifying the traces it has left on the repertoire has been done.
How far back do these various responsory sets go though, and do they all originate from one common source?
More on that anon.
In the meantime, here is a polyphonic setting of the respond to today's responsory by Praetorius to listen to.
Notes
(1) Rebecca Maloy, Mason Brown, Benjamin Pongtep Cefkin, Ruth Opara, Megan Quilliam And Melanie Shaffer, Revisiting ‘Toledo, Rome, and the Legacy of Gaul’: new evidence from the
Divine Office, Plainsong and Medieval Music, 31, 1, 1–35, 2022.
(2) The most developed version of the theory is set out in R. Le Roux: ‘Etude de l’office dominical et férial: les répons “de psalmis” pour les matines de l’Epiphanie à la Septuagésime selon les cursus romain et monastique’, EG, vi (1963), 39–148.
(3) For the most recent articulation and summary of this theory, see Lazlo Dobsay, The Divine Office in History, in Alcuin Reid (ed), T&T Clark Companion to the Liturgy, London, 2016, pp 207-238.
Today I want to continue my series on the history and function of the responsories of the Night Office, with a focus on the Advent set.
In each post I plan to highlight one of the responsories, but also discuss some of the context around their development, which, I should note, is a subject on which there is no consensus among musicologists and/or liturgiologists!
Rejoice ye heavens
So for our Advent focus, today's responsory is actually the second responsory for Monday in weeks 1& 2 of Advent, also used as the eighth responsory in the Benedictine Office on the First Sunday of Advent.
The text of this responsory received several polyphonic settings, including by Orlando di Lasso, and Byrd, the latter of which I've chosen for today, as it gives a wonderful sense of the joy of the season that is one of its sub-themes, along with the focus on Our Lady, and preparation for Christmas - and the Second Coming - through repentance for sins.
The text of the respond section has been adapted from Isaiah 49:13; the verse comes from Psalm 71:7, although there are two alternative verses associated with this respond preserved in various sources.
Here is a translation of the text showing the structure of the responsory when it is used as the last responsory of a set (as it is on the First Sunday of Advent) - in its other uses it ends after the first repetition of the second half of the respond.
R. Læténtur / cæli, et exsúltet terra, iubiláte, montes, laudem: † quia Dóminus noster véniet, * Et páuperum suórum miserébitur.
V. Oriétur in diébus eius iustítia, et abundántia pacis.
R. Et páuperum suórum miserébitur.
V. Glória Patri, et Fílio, et Spirítui Sancto.
R. Et páuperum suórum miserébitur.
R. Sing, O heavens; and be joyful, O earth; and break forth into singing, O mountains, for our Lord will come; * And will have mercy on his afflicted.
V. In his days shall righteousness flourish and abundance of peace.
R. And will have mercy upon his afflicted.
V. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.
R. And will have mercy upon his afflicted.
This text also nicely illustrates the adaptation process that is typical of responsories - while the first half of the respond follows the biblical text closely (the variants probably just reflecting different versions of the Biblical text, the second part is heavily adapted, in order to help us apply the text to its liturgical context:
Isaiah 49:13 actually reads (I've bolded the words where alternatives have been substituted into the respond):
Laudate, cæli, et exsulta, terra; jubilate, montes, laudem, quia consolatus est Dominus populum suum, et pauperum suorum miserebitur.
Stock responsories (2)
I noted in an earlier post that this repertoire of chant seems to have been preserved largely through oral transmission. Some eighth century (and a few other, mostly non-Roman earlier) sources give incipits or even full texts for some of them, but it wasn't until the development of neumes around the mid-ninth century, that the melodies were notated. I also noted that there is evidence the number of responsories expanded substantially over time, particularly once musical notation made the transmission process easier.
Most of the expansion in the repertoire, after the eighth century at least, though, relates to specific feasts, displacing the use of the Commons, rather than those relating to the annual bible reading cycle or the seasons.
Even now, for most of the year, for example, rather than new responsories, the Sunday responsories are said again during the week, as was the case for the responsory discussed above.
But there do also seem to have been other key sources of 'stock' responsories that could be drawn on to fill out the necessary number on Sundays and major feasts.
Individual semi-fixed responsories
One source was individual responsories that had some broader appropriateness, such as that relating to the patron saint of a church. St Peter's in Rome, for example, seems to have used the responsory Petro amas me (Peter do you love me) throughout the year.
Similarly, Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) composed the responsory Duo seraphim clamabant, (two seraphim called out, each to the other) and mandated its use as the last responsory of Sunday Matins for much of the year.
De Psalmiis responsories
A second source of 'stock' responsories seems to have been those based on the psalms, as one of the Roman 'ordines', XVI, which (probably) dates from circa 680, mentions a set of of psalm based responsories used throughout the year and for feasts.
Unfortunately Ordo Romani XVI (and the other Ordines and other early sources), don't actually tell us which particular responsories were used this way.
In the forms of the Office that have come down to us, there are actually several groups of psalm based responsories: some are used for particular feasts (in some cases parts of sets used at other times of the year as well), but the main ones are three sets now used in conjunction with Biblical 'letters', namely Jeremiah in Holy Week; the Catholic Epistles in Eastertide; and the letters of St Paul, in Epiphanytide.
It is the last set, those used in Epiphanytide since the reorganisation of the Matins reading cycle in the eighth century, that are of especial interest, since the liturgists have long claimed them as evidence that Rome had a fixed weekly psalm cycle before St Benedict's Office.
My own view is that the particular organisation of them in the Office as we know it is more likely to be a product of the eighth century reforms than witness to the earlier organisation of the psalter.
But to understand the debate, we need first, I think, to look at the history of the Matins readings cycle in Rome, and some of the possible sources for the responsories, on which more anon.
Late antique mosaic in St.Ambrogio church in Milan Source: Wiki commons
St Ambrose
Today is the feast of St Ambrose, a wonderful saint, who Pope Benedict XVI, in a General Audience you can read here credited with the introduction of lectio divina to the West.
One of his key works to this end is his commentary on Psalm 118, which has as its base a translation and adaption of Origen's (now lost except in the form of catena extracts) commentary on the longest of the psalms, which had also been translated into Latin (with some amendments) independently by St Hilary of Poitiers a few decades earlier.
St Ambrose's commentary though, is some four times larger than St Hilary's version, expanded by instruction on lectio divina; its links to contemplation through an embedded commentary on the Song of Songs; as well as an extended discussion of humility that may have influenced the ordering of the twelve steps of humility in the Rule as well as the organisation of Psalm 118 in the Benedictine Office (1).
The responsories and memory
I hope to come back to St Ambrose's influence on St Benedict in due course, but today I want to continue my discussion of the responsory repertoire of Matins, picking up from the point I made yesterday about it being a largely oral repertoire for several centuries.
One of the key questions for the responsories is, what strategies did monks use to maintain the repertoire?
Memorising
Most people's memories in late antiquity were, of course, much better trained than ours. Monks for example, were expected to memorise the entire psalter and be able to sing it from memory.
But then as now, some found it much easier to do than others. There are two nice saint's stories that draw out just how major an undertaking this could be. Many monks could learn the psalter in a year or so. St Alexander the Sleepless, however, a Syrian monk who eventually ended up in Constantinople, and famous for the perpetual liturgy he established there, which involved shifts of monks, apparently took seven years to learn the psalter, because, his biographer tells us, he insisted on knowing their meanings as he learnt them (2).
Similarly, when the seventh century Northumbrian monk (later bishop) St Wilfrid decided to make a pilgrimage to Rome, he first headed for Kent, where he spent a year relearning the psalter according to the version in use in Rome, as he had previously learnt St Jerome's other translation (3).
Collective memory
Even with this effort though, it is unlikely that all monks learnt all of the responsories.
Monks generally learned large chunks of Scripture by heart for example, but some early sources suggest that different monks in a community would learn different sections of Scripture, and then would be responsible for those particular readings in the Office. Over time of course, greater availability of books, certainly implied by St Benedict's Rule, probably reduced the need for this. But something similar could well have occurred with responsories, with different monks responsible for maintaining different parts of the repertoire.
The other key factor in their maintenance though, was the repurposing of responsories for different feasts and occasions.
'Stock' responsories (1) The saints
For feasts like today's of St Ambrose, for example, there are actually no responsories specific to the saint in the Roman or Benedictine Offices even today. Instead, the responsories linked to the feast are those of the 'Common of a confessor bishop and doctor'.
Similarly, two of today's 'Advent' responsories actually are actually also used on the feast of the Annunciation, possibly remnants of the original placement of this feast before Christmas rather than in March.
This practice of reusing responsories for different feasts is nicely attested to by a ninth century antiphoner from Prüm dating from the 860s which represents the earliest surviving Benedictine antiphoner, and which Todd Mattingly has argued is derived from a now lost exemplar that was intended to serve as a kind of how to say the Benedictine (rather than Roman) Office starter-kit, including where to source the additional responsories needed, such as from the various Commons (4).
Properization?
And unlike the Mass, where 'properization' (fixing of texts to particular feasts) seems to have largely finalised by at least the eighth century (and probably a lot earlier for many days), there seems to have been a great deal more flexibility around which responsories were used and when until quite late, probably reflecting that earlier reliance on memory and perhaps dependence on the availability of particular singers for particular chants.
The late tenth century Hartker MSS, for example, gives a choice of fourteen different responsories for the common of a confessor, for example, two more than could ever be needed. By contrast, it only lists three responsories for the feast of All Saints. That doesn't mean that only three responsories were said however - even in the 1960 version, the feast has only two unique responsories; the rest are drawn from the feasts of various saints and from the commons.
All of this has important implications for the history of the Office, not least because several historians have pointed to the lack of a sufficient number of responsories in early antiphoners as a key plank for their claims that the Benedictine Office was not said in Gaul or Anglo-Saxon England until the tenth century, and that the Carolingian reforms aimed at imposing the Rule and Office on all monks were probably never fully implemented in practice (5).
But more on this anon.
Missus est angelus
In the meantime, enjoy this version of one of today's responsories, also used for the feast of the Annunciation:
R. Missus est / Gábriel Angelus ad Maríam Vírginem desponsátam Ioseph, † núntians ei verbum; et expavéscit Virgo de lúmine: † ne tímeas, María, invenísti grátiam apud Dóminum: * Ecce concípies, et páries, † et vocábitur Altíssimi Fílius.
V. Dabit ei Dóminus Deus sedem David, patris eius, et regnábit in domo Iacob in ætérnum.
R. Ecce concípies, et páries, † et vocábitur Altíssimi Fílius.
R. The Angel Gabriel was sent to Mary, a Virgin espoused to Joseph, to bring unto her the word of the Lord, and when the Virgin saw the light, she was afraid. Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace from the Lord. * Behold, thou shalt conceive and bring forth a son, and He shall be called the Son of the Highest.
V. The Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David, and He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever.
R. Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bring forth a son, and He shall be called the Son of the Highest.
1. For a discussion of the differences between Hilary and Ambrose's translations, with comparisons to the Palestinian catena, see Isabella Image, The Human Condition in Hilary of Poitiers The Will and Original Sin between Origen and Augustine, Oxford, 2017.
2. Translations of the Life of St Alexander the Sleepless can be found in Daniel Caner, Wandering, Begging Monks Spiritual Authority and the Promotion of Monasticism in Late Antiquity, University of California Press, 2002, pp 250 - 280 and Jean-marie Baguendard (trans), Les Moines acémètes, Vies des Saints Alexandre, Marcel et Jean Calybite, Bellefintaine, 1988.
3. Eddius Stephanus, Life of Wilfrid. A translation by J F Webb is available in Penguin under the title the Age of Bede. It is not clear that Wilfrid needed the entire year to relearn the psalter - his hagiographer claims he was held up in Kent in part by the need to find a satisfactory escort and obtain royal permission for his departure. But as Susan Rankin pointed out in 'Singing the Psalter in the Early Middle Ages' (in Daniel J Di Censo and Rebecca Maloy eds, Chant, Liturgy and the Inheritance of Rome Essays in Honour of Joseph Dyer, London 2017), it was not simply a matter of learning the variant texts, but also absorbing differences in how the psalms were divided into verses and sub-divided for pause places.
4. Todd Matthew Mattingly, "Trier Stadtbibliothek 1245/597:A Ninth-Century Antiphoner and the Conciliar Origins of the Monastic Office", paper given at the Leeds Medieval Congress, July 2014.
5. Anne Walters Robertson, The Service-Books of the Royal Abbey of Saint-Denis Images of Ritual and Music in the Middle Ages, Oxford, 1991; Jesse Billett, The Divine Office in Anglo-Saxon England, 597-c.1000. London: Henry Bradshaw Society, 2014.
.jpg)