Happy New year...and welcome to the most liturgically wreckovated time of the year!

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....

1953 vs 1963: Monastic breviary comparisons

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.

But anyway, more anon...

So I got a Diurnal for Christmas - where do I start?!

 

If you've just received a Monastic  Diurnal, and want to learn to pray the Office St Benedict as laid out in his Rule written around 530 AD, and used ever since by monks and nuns of his Order, welcome to the club!

First, though, take a deep breathe - learning to say the Office takes a bit of effort, so you need to get familiar with the book first, and learn a little bit about the structure of each of the individual 'hours' that make up the Office before trying to start to use it.

1. Learn the Office notes - get oriented first

The Learn the Office page on this blog has a lot of material on it for you to choose from, but here are some suggested starting points.

• If you are completely new to the traditional (ie 1960 and earlier) forms of the Office, start with this post on Benedictine Office basics.
• To help find your way around the book itself, try this post.

If you already know something about the Office, or are anxious to try to get started as quickly as possible, make sure you take a look at these key posts:

• Diurnal traps and shortcuts - the diurnal assumes you know a few things; this is a guide to some of the key ones;
  
• how the opening and closing prayers of the hours work; and
  
• a quick look at some of the parts common to all the hours, hymns, chapters, versicles and responsories.

2. Start slowly and build up

Once you have oriented yourself, then you can start looking at the notes on each of the individual hours.

You don't need to say all of the hours, and my strong advice is, start with Compline, as it changes the least, and the texts are pretty much all written out in full in the Diurnal.  It also makes a nice prayer for the evening, before bed.

There are also several good videos on youtube of monastic Compline so you can follow along.

The next hour to add in is Prime, a good prayer to say before starting work. It will also help you get used to having a few moving parts (the antiphon and psalms of the day), before you move onto the more complex hours.

When it comes to Lauds and Vespers in particular, I'd suggest focusing on understanding how the hours work on normal days (non-feasts) first, then worry about feasts and seasons once you are confident.

As the Office is meant to be sung, another good way to get started is listen to the podcasts of Le Barroux (or others).

3. Aids to learning

Before you get too far along, I would strongly recommend buying the Ordo I put together in either PDF (ebook) or paperback.

It contains a summary of the page numbers in the Diurnal for the main parts of each of the day hours, as well as detailed instructions on the moving parts for feasts and seasons.  

A short version of the Ordo can also be found on the Saints Will Arise blog, but be warned, it is only a summary version, intended for more expert users.

Secondly, you can use the Divinum Officium monastic option as a cross-check on what you are doing - it doesn't always entirely line up with the 1960 rubrics and calendar, but it can be useful when just starting out.

Thirdly, I would recommend reading through the chapters of St Benedict's Rule (8-19), and trying to match them up to the sections in the Diurnal - it will give you a feel for both the continuity with the Rule and the organic development of it that has occurred over the centuries.

You might also find A Companion to the Monastic Breviary a useful acquisition.

Happy Christmas! Puer natus est.

The Nativity depicted in an English liturgical manuscript, c. 1310–1320
National Library of Wales

Happy Christmas!

Over Advent I've been posting on the responsories.

Chant 'dialects'

For Christmas day though, I thought it might be nice to provide a  Mass proper that serves as a reminder that the versions of the chants that we are used to represent (mostly nineteenth and twentieth century) reconstructions of the style of chant of the high middle ages, namely what we call Gregorian chant.

Musicologists though, tend to prefer the term Franco-Roman chant for the style that came to dominate in the middle ages, to reflect the fact that this particular 'dialect' of chant is most probably the result of the interaction of at least two different chant traditions, that of Rome, and Gallic. 

So today, one of Ensemble Organum's beautiful reconstructions of 'Old Roman' chant, which may be closer to the style of chant sung in Rome in St Benedict's time.

The chant is the Introit for the midnight Mass of Christmas:

St Benedict

Though Benedictines in Rome from the sixth century onwards almost certainly used this style of chant, whether St Benedict's monks at Subiaco and Monte Cassino did in his time is an open question.  

Indeed, one of the dimensions of the Rule rarely emphasised these days is its various non-Roman character - St Benedict's Rule doesn't follow the Roman custom of fasting on Saturdays for example; sets a summer reading pattern for Matins that is certainly at odds with the Roman as we know it; and includes hymns and other elements in his Office that are not in the Roman.

Monte Cassino at least at some later points certainly used Beneventan chant (a term actually embraces all surviving Italian chant outside of Rome or Milan), at least until it was forbidden to do so by a tenth century Frankish pope!  Other styles St Benedict may well have encountered include Ambrosian and Gallican, and perhaps even Syrian and other Eastern rites (given that both Norcia and Rome had populations of Eastern refugee monks in the fifth and sixth centuries). 

And of course, Benedictines down the ages have often adopted the chant traditions of their locale, such as the Mozarabic, Ambrosian and many others.

Responsory for 1 Vespers of the Nativity: Judaea et Jerusalem

As I was preparing for today's Office I decided I couldn't resist posting on one more responsory, with a nice recording of it by the monks of Solesmes, which you can use for  First Vespers of the Nativity (to replace the short responsory).

The text

The mostly non-Scriptural text (the first phrase is from Zachariah 8:15) is identical to two antiphons - the respond text is the same as the first antiphon of Lauds for the Vigil, while the verse is used at the day hours on Friday in the period December 17-23.

 

R. Judaea et Jerusalem; nolite timere: * Cras egrediemini, et Dominus erit vobiscum.	R. Judaea and Jerusalem, fear not: * Tomorrow you shall go forth, and the Lord will be with you.
V. Constantes estote, videbitis auxilium Domini super vos.	V. Be steadfast and you shall see the salvation of the lord upon you.
R. Cras egridiemini, et Dominus erit vobiscum.	R. Tomorrow you shall go forth, and the Lord will be with you.

 Although there are a large number of surviving manuscripts of the responsory version of these texts, most of which place it at Matins for the Vigil of the Nativity, it doesn't actually feature in the modern Office at all in the Benedictine or Roman uses (but does seem to have survived in the Dominican Rite).

It is included, though, in the set of responsories for use at I Vespers of major feasts which can be used on an optional basis, in the 1934 Antiphonale Monasticum:

Source: Gregobase

And here's the recording:

May you have a very happy Christmas!

Advent responsory: Rod of Jesse

Miniature, Jacques de Besançon, Paris, c.1485. 

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 renum ejus.

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). 

Advent responsory: Send forth the lamb

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.