Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:24:36.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some prosulas for offertory antiphons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2009

Gunilla Björkvall  and
Ruth Steiner
Get access

Extract

This is a study of five offertory antiphons and the prosulas written to fit them (and in some cases to fit their verses as well). The original focus of the investigation was three of the prosulas written on the last folio of the 10th-century manuscript Apt, Basilique Sainte-Anne, 18 (shown on Plates 1 and 2). The study was then enlarged to bring in prosulas for two offertories whose melodies are similar to those first investigated. There is a special point in studying these particular compositions, since the four prosulas central to the discussion are rare examples of prosulas for the antiphon of the offertory, rather than its verse. But they are treated as broadly as possible in this paper, and made the subject of comment on the origin and nature of the base antiphon, its text and music, the function of the prosulas, the technique of their composition and the relationship between their text and their music. A critical edition and translation of each prosula is provided, and the first of these is preceded by a brief discussion of the problems of editing prosula texts. It is hoped that a fully rounded view will thereby be provided of the offertory antiphon and the prosula as a musical, literary and liturgical unit, and that fresh insights into their composition will be gained.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Plainsong & Mediaeval Music Society , Volume 5 , January 1982 , pp. 13 - 35
Copyright
© The Plainsong and Medieval Music Society 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 (p.13) The church was on the Via Salaria, north hhhhhhh of Rome. See Righetti, M.: Manuale di storia liturgica, 2: L'anno liturgico (3rd edn., Milan, 1969), p.438 Google Scholar. In the earliest sources, the terms that designate the feast vary to some extent; see Hesbert, R.-J.: Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex (Brussels, 1935; reprinted Rome, 1967), CVIII Google Scholar.

2 (p.15) The fact that none of the proper chants for this feast contains in its text a specific reference to S.Michael may indicate that they were originally brought together to serve as a mass for angels in general; see Hesbert, ibid.

3 (p.15) Baroffio, G. and Steiner, R.: “Offertory”, The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Sadie, S. (London, 1980), vol.13, p.514 Google Scholar.

4 (p.15) For a detailed analysis of the offertory texts, and of their manner of selection, see Hucke, H.: “Die Texte der Offertorien”, Speculum Musicae Artis: Festgabe für Heinrich Husmann, ed. Becker, H. and Gerlach, R. (Munich, 1970), pp.193–203 Google Scholar.

5 (p.15) Hesbert, ibid, (see note 1).

6 (p.15) If there is evidence that proves clearly that Viri Galilaei was the earlier of these two chants, and the model on which the composer of Stetit angelus consciously drew, it has eluded me. However, assuming that relationship for the two chants seems to make their melodic similarities easier to detect and describe. Hesbert (p.CVIII), noting that all the earliest relevant sources call for Viri Galilaei on Ascension, and one of them fails to mention Stetit angelus on the feast of S.Michael, observes as follows:

“Cette particularité tendrait à prouver que, des deux offertoires Viri Galilaei de l'Ascension et Stetit angelus, adaptés mélodiquement l'un sur 1'autre, c'est le premier qui est le modèle, bien qu'il ne soit pas lui-même primitif … Il reste que le Viri Galilaei date au moins du VIIIe siècle, alors qu'on n'a pas de témoin du Stetit angelus avant la seconde moitié du IXe.”

However, in presenting his analysis of Stetit angelus in Schriftbild der einstimmigen Musik, Musikgeschichte in Bridern, III/4 (Leipzig, 1975), p.142 Google Scholar, Bruno Stäblein referred to it as “ein Musterbeispiel gregorianischer Melodik”. Viri Galilaei, on the other hand, he spoke of as the work of a later editor, and “weniger glücklich”.

7 (p.15) Le Graduel Romain, II: Les Sources (Solesmes, 1957), pp.93–94 Google Scholar. The manuscript includes a number of chants that appear to have had their origin in the Gallican liturgy. (Concerning this see Huglo, M.: “Gallican Rite, Music of the”. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Sadie, S. (London, 1980), vol.7, pp.113–125.)Google Scholar Its repertory of mass chants is compared with those of other Aquitanian graduals by SrHerzo, Anthony Marie: Five Aquitanian Graduals: Their Mass Propers and Alleluia Cycles (Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Southern California, 1967 – University Microfilms Order No. 67–10762)Google Scholar. The processional chants were examined by Roederer, Charlotte in her unpublished Ph.D. dissertation Eleventh-Century Aquitanian Chant: Studies relating to a Local Repertory of Processional Antiphons (Yale Univ., 1971)Google Scholar, and in ‘Can we identify an Aquitanian chant style?’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 27 (1974), pp.75–99 Google Scholar. A fundamental study of the differences in the readings of chants of the classical repertory found in Aquitanian manuscripts is that of Gajard, J.: ‘Les récitations modales des 3e et 4e modes et les manuscrits bénéventains et aquitains’, Études grégoriennes, 1 (1954), pp.9–45 Google Scholar.

8 (p.15) For example, the introit Omnes gentes.

9 (p.15) This melisma is also heard in certain responsories; see Journal of the American Musicological Society, 26 (1973), p.120, n.22Google Scholar.

10 (p.15) The prosulas of another Aquitanian manuscript are surveyed in Steiner, R.: ‘The prosulae of the MS Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, f.lat. 1118’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 22 (1969), pp.367–393 Google Scholar; see also Steiner, R.: ‘Prosula’, The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Sadie, S. (London, 1980), vol.15, pp.310–312 Google Scholar. Prosulas for the alleluia were edited by Marcusson, O. in Corpus Troporum, II: Prosules de la messe, l, Tropes de l'alleluia (Stockholm, 1976)Google Scholar. Marcusson's judgements concerning the performance of prosulas are set forth in ‘Comment a-t-on chanté les prosules? Observations sur la technique des tropes de l'alleluia’, Revue de musicologie, 65 (1979), pp.119–159 Google Scholar.

Et ecce angelus is transcribed by Stäblein (op.cit. in note 6, p.226) from the manuscript Benevento, Biblioteca Capitolare, VI.38, which also gives a prosula Splendidus decore for the beginning of this offertory antiphon; the latter should be compared with the prosula Stetit Michael given in Ex.2.

Preliminary observation of the treatment of the offertory in Beneventan sources suggests that further study would be productive: the choice of offertory for a particular day is not always that of manuscripts from other regions, and the prosulas are striking in number and character.

11 (p.18) See R. Jonsson: ‘Le style des prosules de l'alleluia, genre mélogène’, a paper read in Cividale, 1980 at the congress ‘Le polifonie primitive di Cividale’ (in proof). The author discusses different factors influencing the language of the prosulas. See also O. Marcusson (op.cit. in note 10: Tropes de l'alleluia), p.56, commentary.

12 (p.18) The need for different methods in editing different genres of tropes is discussed by Iversen, G.: ‘Problems in the editing of tropes’, a paper read at the Conference on Current Problems in Textual Scholarship,City University of New York,April 1981) Google Scholar (in proof).

13 (p.20) Expressions of direction and of place are mixed after the preposition “in”. See, for example, Marcusson (op.cit. in note 10: Tropes de l'alleluia) p.55, commentary; p.40–41 (2, 13) “in alta caeli sidera = in altis caeli sideribus”; or p.68 (5, 4) “in ima”. See also Hofmann, J.B. and Szantyr, A.: Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik (Munich, 1965 and 1972), p.276fGoogle Scholar.

14 (p.20) For the confusion between the verbs “scandere” and “candere” see for example Jonsson, R.: Corpus Troporum, I: Tropes du propre de la messe, 1, Cycle de Noël, p.88 Google Scholar, the element Et diadema cluens capitis in vertice candet, where the manuscripts Paris 887, 909 and 9449 have the verb “scandere” instead of “candere”.

15 (p.20) Paléographie musicale, 18 (Berne, 1969)Google Scholar, presents the first of these manuscripts in facsimile; its notation is studied, and a bibliography provided in Corbin, S.: Die Neumen, Palaeographie der Musik, 1/3 (Cologne, 1977), pp.155–161 and Tafel 35Google Scholar; see also the comments on this manuscript by Stäblein (op.cit. in note 6), pp.126–7. Clm 14322 dates from the first half of the 11th century (1024–1040?) and comes from St. Emmeram, Regensburg; its contents are outlined by Husmann, H. in Tropen¬ und Sequenzenhandschriften, Répertoire Internationale des Sources Musicales (= RISM), B/V/1 (Munich, 1964), pp.77–8Google Scholar.

16 (p.22) Cf. Ps.7: 12 “Deus iudex iustus et fortis et patiens. Also Revelations 19: 16 “et habet in vestimento et in femore suo scriptum rex regum et Dominus dominantium”. Also I Timothy 6: 15 “quem suis temporibus ostendet beatus et solus potens rex regum et Dominus dominantium”.

17 (p.22) Stäblein, op.cit. (note 6), p.126. Evans, P.: The Early Trope Repertory of Saint Martial de Limoges (Princeton, N.J., 1970), pp.56–8Google Scholar.

18 (p.22) Steiner, R.: ‘Introit’, The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Sadie, S. (London, 1980), vol.9, pp.281–2Google Scholar.

19 (p.22) Apel, W.: Gregorian Chant (Bloomington, Indiana, 1958), pp.371–2Google Scholar.

20 (p.22) It would be interesting to investigate whether recurring passages of elaborated recitative occur in other offertory antiphons and verses, and to study what role such passages play in clarifying the mode of the chant and defining its form.

21 (p.22) The text Factum est silentium was centonized in such a way that it parallels Cumque intuerentur very closely: the words “in caelo” are in the same position as “in caelum” and have the same music; the same is true of “illud” and “illos”.

22 (p.22) This melisma also occurs in the alleluia Adducentur; see Schlager, K.: Alleluia-Melodien, I, Monumenta monodica medii aevi, 7 (Kassel, 1968), pp.6–7 Google Scholar. According to Schlager (p.618), the melisma, unlike other parts of the melody, is “ziemlich einheitlich überliefert” by the many sources.

23 (p.24) The manuscript seems to show the refrain of Tustorum animae returning at its original pitch, that of Erue me in transposition.

24 (p.24) The problem of the refrain is resolved without comment (and without explanation) in Ott's edition, pp.144, 177. See Ott, K.: Offertoriale sive versus offertoriorum (Paris, 1935 – reprinted with neumes of mss. Laon 239 and Einsiedeln 121 as Offertoires neumés (Solesmes, 1978)Google Scholar.

25 (p.24) See Pitman, Grover A.: The Lenten Offertories of the Aquitanian Manuscripts (Ph.D. dissertation, The Catholic University of America, 1972)Google Scholar.

26 (p.28) See Baudot, & Chaussin, : Vies des saints et des bienheureux, vi (Paris, 1948), p.481 Google Scholar, entry for S. Peter (June 29): “Simon se maria et il s'installa dans la ville voisine de Capharnaum. Eut-il des enfants? Nous l'ignorons.” On the Petronilla legend see vol.v (Paris, 1947), p.608.

27 (p.28) S.Peter is very often referred to as the follower of Christ. See for example Analecta hymnica, vol.7, no.185, verse 1:

Pretiosa sollemnitas

adest annuata

Christi secutoris

cui tanta vox audita

or Analecta hymnica, vol.53, no.209, verse 5:

Hie relictis

reti, navi

et omnibus suis

Dominum Iesum

secutus est salvatorem

28 (p. 28) Augustinus, S., Sermones CCXCV–CCXCIX, in Migne, , Patrologia Latina, 38, col.1348–1376Google Scholar.

29 (p. 28) Jülicher, A.: Itala, das neue Testament in altlateinischer Überlieferung (Berlin, 1938), p.115 Google Scholar.

30 (p.28) The Discipline of Music (Musica Disciplina), translated by Ponte, Joseph, Colorado College Music Press Translations, 3 (Colorado Springs, 1968), p.27 Google Scholar. See also Ponte, 's dissertation: Aureliani Reomensis, Musica Disciplina: A Revised Text, Translation, and Commentary (Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis Univ., 1961 – University Microfilms Order No. 62–1207), vol.1, pp.11–14, vol.2, pp. 79–80, vol.3, pp.61–2Google Scholar. The latin text is edited by Gushee, Lawrence in the series Corpus Scriptorum de Musica, 21 (American Institute of Musicology, Rome, 1975), pp.87–88 Google Scholar.

31 (p.28) The chant appears in Montpellier H.159 (Paléographie musicale, 8), pp.276–7; compare Hansen, F.E.: H 159 Montpellier: Tonary of St. Bénigne of Dijon (Copenhagen, 1974), p.423 Google Scholar. This is essentially the melody given in the Liber Usualis, though there are some differences; in the Montpellier manuscript, where the chant is classed as tetrardus, the antiphon ends (at “in conspectu principis”) on c. The verse Everte cor eius of the manuscript is followed fairly closely by Ott (op.cit. in note 24), p.125, except after “eis”, where Ott drops a fifth, continuing at this level to the end. Both Recordare chants are found in Rouen, Bibl.municipale, 250 (A.233), a 14th-century gradual from Jumièges. They appear on ff.163r-v one after the other, each with the rubric “Off.”, on the 23rd Sunday after Pentecost, where the introit is Si iniquitates. A 13th-century gradual from Rouen Cathedral, Paris, B.N., lat. 904, gives on f.182v only the antiphon (ending “in conspectu principum”); the word “dominans” is omitted, and there is a different setting for “ “omnipotentia tui”; but the chant ends on d and in other ways resembles the reading in the Liber Usualis. The readings of this chant vary more than usual from one manuscript to another. Graz, , Universitätsbibl., 807 (Paléographie musicale, 19 Google Scholar) gives a melisma at the end of the verse (on “in aeternum”) that is substantially longer than that in Montpellier H.159.

32 (p.28) Of the sources surveyed by Hesbert, R.-J. in Corpus Antiphonalium Officii, where this text is edited (vol.4, Rome, 1970, p.376, no.7511)Google Scholar, it appears in those of Bamberg, St.Gall, Rheinau, Ivrea, Verona, and Compiègne, but not in the others: for example, not in those from Benevento or Saint-Maur-des-Fossés. Two sources in staff notation that include it are Bamberg, Staatsbibl., lit.25 (ff.134r-v) and Ivrea, Bibl.Capitolare, LXIV (ff.225r-v).

33 (p.30) It is assigned to the 21st Sunday after Pentecost; the introit is Si iniquitatem (f.133r). The same chant, without any verse, is treated as an offertory in Benevento, Bibl. Capitolare, VI.34 (ff.263v–264r – Paléographie musicale, 15), where the liturgical assignment is the same. The prosula there is In excelsa voce. It is found again without a verse in Montpellier H.159 (Paléographie musicale, 8, p.286; ed. Hansen, see note 31, pp.437–8). In Paris, B.N., lat.903 it has the same verse as in Paris 776, but no prosula; the day is the 23rd Sunday after Pentecost, but the introit is still Si iniquitatem (see Paléographie musicale, 13, p.259).

34 (p.30) See Wagner, P.: Einführung in die gregorianischen Melodien, I (3rd edn., Leipzig, 1911; reprinted Hildesheim, 1962), pp.323–343 Google Scholar.

35 (p.30) See Pothier, J.: ‘Exemples d'offertoires empruntés à d'anciens versets’. Revue du chant grégorien, 4 (1896), pp.161–5Google Scholar; and Villetard, H.: ‘Notes sur l'offertoire Recordare ’, Revue grégorienne, 1 (1911), pp.62–4Google Scholar.

36 (p.30) Recent additions to the large bibliography concerning these include Anderson, G.: ‘A troped offertorium-conductus of the 13th century’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 24 (1971), pp.96–100 Google Scholar, and communications from Robert Falck and Fred Flindell in the same Journal, 25 (1972), pp.120–122 Google Scholar.

37 (p.30) The final text, in the last three lines on that page, is In conspectu dei. This appears to be a prosula for the melisma of the second verse of the offertory Veritas mea (see Paris 776, f.38r), though corrupt to an unusual degree.

38 (p.30) Righetti (see note 1), vol.2, pp.323–7.

39 (p.30) Hesbert (see note 1), pp.XCII–XCIII.

40 (p.30) Pascher, J.: Das liturgische Jahr (Munich, 1963), pp.445–6Google Scholar.

41 (p.30) Righetti (see note 1), vol.2, p.347.

42 (p.31) For formulas of prayers, see Deshusses, J.: Le Sacramentaire Grégorien, 1, Spicilegium Friburgense, 16 (Fribourg, 1971)Google Scholar, e.g. no.1342 Protege domine famulos tuos subsidiis pads et corporis, no.254* Accepta tibi sit domine nostrae devotionis oblatio, no.681 Famulis tuis domine caelestis gratiae munus inpertire, no.766 Sacrificium tibi domine celebrandum placatus intende, no.19 Libera nos quaesumus domine ab omnibus malis praeteritis …

43 (p.31) Examples of incongruity of expression do occur sometimes in the tropes and prosulas. But then it is rather a matter of ‘constructio ad sensum’, or attraction of relative pronouns to nouns. Cases like “protege … famulis … plebem” do not seem to be found. Possibly, one text passage among the alleluia prosulas might be quoted (Corpus Troporum, II, p.143 – 80, 1: 1–2): “Iesus enim pro peccatis venit in mundum, pro scelera nostra factus est carne humana”, where the preposition “pro” commands both an ablative and an accusative.

44 (p.33) Examples of the opposite occur, namely, that the word “salus” is used instead of the expected “salvator”. For an example see Corpus Troporum, III, p.147: “Notus est dominus in Iudaea, salus aeterna, gratias agamus illi”.

45 (p.33) For the word “acceptus”, see for example Mohlberg, L.C., Eisenhöfer, L. and Siffrin, P.: Sacramentarium Veronense, Rerum ecclesiasticarum documenta Series Maior, Fontes I (Rome, 1978), p.62 Google Scholar (line 15): Sit nomini tuo, domine, hoc sacrificium cum exhibetur acceptum, p.93 (line 20) Accepta tibi sit, domine, sacratae plebis oblatio pro tuorum honore sanctorum, p.122 (line 15) Acceptum a te deus secundi meriti munus obtineant.