Focusing on the Traditional Benedictine Office in accordance with the 1963 Benedictine calendar and rubrics, including the Farnborough edition of the Monastic Diurnal.
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;
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.
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.
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:
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 feast of St Thomas, the apostle who evangelized Syria, Persia and India.
The responsories for the day are all of the Common of Apostles, so I thought I would provide a setting of the antiphon used for both the Benedictus and Magnificat for the feast, quia vidisti me Thoma, credidisti, instead:
Quia vidísti me * Thoma, credidísti: beáti qui non vidérunt, et
credidérunt, allelúia.
Because thou hast seen me, *
Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen and have
believed, alleluia.
The Matins reading on his background is fairly short (in all the versions of the breviary that I can find), presumably because the Third Nocturn readings are all on him, albeit mostly dealing with the Gospel account of his post-Resurrection skepticism:
The Apostle Thomas, called Didymus, or the Twin, was a Galilean. After the descent of the Holy Ghost, he went into many provinces to preach Christ's Gospel. He gave knowledge of the rules of Christian faith and life to the Parthians, Medes, Persians, Hyrcanians, and Bactrians. He went last to the East Indies. Here he provoked the anger of one of the idolatrous kings, because the holiness of his life and teaching, and the number of his miracles, drew many after him, and brought them to the love of Christ Jesus. He was therefore condemned, and slain with lances. He crowned the dignity of the Apostleship with the glory of martyrdom, on the Coromandel coast, not far from Madras.
You can read a longer account of him though, in a General Audience given. by Pope Benedict XVI.
Alternatively, if you are game, the Apocryphal (and in places outright heretical) Acts of St Thomas, available over at New Advent, makes an entertaining read.
Five days to go...
And just a quick reminder that when you commemorate the Advent day at Lauds, the antiphon is of the date, Nolite timere, and reminds us that there are only five days to go before Christmas!
You can hear the antiphon chanted with the Benedictus by the nuns of Jouques here.
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!
