THE IDENTIFICATION OF QUEM NON PREVALENT IN KLOSTERNEUBURG, AUGUSTINERCHORHERRENSTIFT - BIBLIOTHEK, 1013 DEBRA LACOSTE University of Waterloo (ON), Canada Izvleček: Med šestintridesetimi tropi respon-zorijev iz osmih najstarejših klosterneuburških antifonarjev se trop Quem non prevalentpojavi samo enkrat, v rokopisu A-KN1013. Liturgično rabo speva sta zakrila njegova umestitev ločeno od responzorija, h kateremu spada, ter pomanjkanje rubrik. Analiza njegovih melodičnih in besedilnih značilnosti pa je pojasnila njegovo pravo vlogo. Ključne besede: trop, proza, Klosterneuburg, sekvenca, spev Abstract: Of the thirty-six occurrences of re-sponsory tropes in the eight earliest Klosterneuburg antiphoners, Quem non prevalent is found only once, in A-KN 1013. Its placement apart from its host responsory and the lack of rubrics have masked its usage, but an analysis of its melodic and textual features clarifies its purpose. Keywords: trope, prosa, Klosterneuburg, sequence, chant The Office repertory that survives from the Augustinian double monastery in Klosterneuburg includes numerous chants set to poetic texts which supplemented and decorated the items of the yearly liturgy. These later additions to the main body of ecclesiastical chant include the famous so-called "Klosterneuburg" Easter play,1 rhymed Offices for such feasts as the Conception of Mary, Benedict, and Ursula and her 11,000 virgin martyrs,2 some hymns, and several tropes. Most of these chants occur multiple times within the eight earliest Klosterneuburg Office manuscripts3 owing to the survival of several volumes which contain a similar liturgy.4 However, the poetic chant Quem non prevalent is found in only 1 The Visitatio has been well-researched. See, among other studies, Pfeiffer, "Klosterneuburger Osterfeier"; Young, Drama of the Medieval Church, esp. 317-318, 329-330, 421-432, 633-634, 639-641; Lipphardt, Lateinische Osterfeiern; Norton and Carr, "New Sources"; Norton and Carr, "Liturgical Manuscripts." 2 Dreves, Analecta Hymnica; Hughes, Late Medieval Liturgical Offices. 3 Klosterneuburg, Augustiner-Chorherrenstift - Bibliothek, 589, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1015, 1017 and 1018. 4 See Lacoste, "Earliest Klosterneuburg Antiphoners." See also Klugseder, "Studien zur mittelalterlichen liturgischen Tradition." one of these eight sources, the twelfth-century antiphoner Klosterneuburg, AugustinerChorherrenstift - Bibliothek, 1013 (A-KN 1013; hence CCl. 1013). This chant has a rather unusual position in the manuscript and very few rubrics to identify its genre or usage; thus, it has remained relatively unknown in scholarship. An analysis of both the text of Quem non prevalent and its fully-notated melody in CCl. 1013, in conjunction with comparisons involving other known instances of this trope in manuscripts from across western Europe, reveals that it is a responsory prosa, a trope to the liturgy of Epiphany. Quem non prevalent was copied in CCl. 1013 beginning near the bottom of f. 56v and continuing on f. 57r. The only rubrics provided to identify this chant are the rather generic abbreviations for versus before each of the verses ("vss" before verse 1a, and a lower-case "v" before each of the others). (See Plates 1 and 2.) Inconsistency in rubrication and terminology is a recognized characteristic of medieval manuscripts, and modern scholars are no more consistent than the scribes of the Middle Ages in their uses of labels and categories. There are numerous identifications in medieval manuscripts for different types of chants, both in full and abbreviated forms, and modern ,'f ~*S CUJN Uiifi imUKWHW"'1 ¿V.F V t il AfVI.Ul'VIA, Ljv ,11(1)11"!JVC. O siUuijmt-ror.'"- ¿¡\Tdimuffltjj,,,,, ^ s -"j- _£—7--^---y*-** *—a^" -■ .-_^ 1 " /• * „. ^ iiutrj.tK.^frf'HMrtifit' tnftüe intirtaa öfftrwnsYK-eyftirc bum ¿Vfyba dona add^ccm. fjcinC&.vi. -ilVi «uji tiida?, 11 ~ >* i ^ /* * TrffleUjm obralcruhtrdomtno ¿urum-rhuftfminaiy, | ^Omr^^cm^qaafcunc^Taih-vl^^mvifdiibri1 um wrtmvT* .i.Miiine,iu/ifc'.v1(ri'"'TiT.id-ti,^>.viui.SHfc(» V- .... " ^ * -A - - , . "f» >g ^■Unlierrr i,vfi jJi>i:if'U'tr-tc ! .....- .=r- ^ „ - —— - -- rvr vi p.i y ^itnmuii ujj-'iintl-"Oi»rTiif-ri.i s'P'f' Iii.it yj; * Xu« DiHi'j'fiii'cii ret'. Jr'«h""'1" W»v''i ^ _ •. „. Z " . ..j ■! )iwmiww«muli-m ;>rs>j«*" ■"■"? Plate 1 Klosterneuburg, AugustinerChorherrenstift - Bibliothek, 1013, f. 56v (with permission). Plate 2 Klosterneuburg, Augustiner-Chorherrenstift - Bibliothek, 1013, f. 57r (with permission). ' u ft* - , " ---„ ' ^vCiuttrrr ™«y am pfufqjcrc. vii cun-giii eo ft ■ * A ** * f*. "»anii'irirpi jjunmir mynMpio/ vlfrprpphiueui* * * S s. ^ * " r " r (crmo nuntLo:itimfimul bofdf Jtinuf! v fcflritvH. i ^ " ^ t.." ■ ---- ""frrtla [«acta prcfertut:! Juni i na oliftqui j. ■ iu VII balLim laciiiJaicJ frmipin ti uCwv^ . _ f i K ' 'iiittfcm. v st";-, mtrr>"! mfutnrfnin scholars (including those of us working on the Cantus database) have attempted to make sense of them. Within the larger category of "trope," the Mass sequence5 is paralleled in the Office by the "prosa." The prosa is associated with the elaborate responsoria prolixa (the Great Responsories), those chants that are generally sung between recited lessons in the nocturns of Matins. Although the term "prosa" is used widely in medieval books, it is potentially confusing owing to its translation as "prose," whereas many "prosae" (at least the later-medieval texts) are poetic. Some modern scholars prefer to further categorize as "prosulae" (meaning "little prosae") those Office responsory tropes which are intimately connected with the pitches of a pre-existing melisma as distinct from the 5 The genre-defining characteristics of the sequence (the texted jubilus-melisma sung on the final syllable of the Mass Alleluia) are syllabic text-settings and couplet structures which consist of pairs of isosyllabic lines sharing the same melody. The texts of early sequences are often in paired lines of unequal prose, whereas those of later sequences (i.e., those of the "second epoch") appear more frequently in regular, rhymed verse. later tropes which display the clearer verse structure of the sequence. Ritva Jacobsson and Leo Treitler comment: What is more, in the medieval sources there is not only a degree of inconsistency in the classes to which individual items are assigned, there is an inconsistency about the criteria for establishing classes altogether: "versus," which simply means "a collection of lines," and may be assigned to various styles and functions; "laudes," which speaks to a kind of function or tone; "prosa" or "prosula," which suggest certain morphological characteristics.6 In a discussion of early medieval tropes, Margot Fassler admits: It is difficult to decide what to call these pieces today [...]. Throughout the Middle Ages the use of these terms was variable, and the modern confusion over the proper use of "prosa" (or "prose") on the one hand, and "sequentia" (or "sequence") on the other merely reflects the medieval state of things.7 David Hiley notes the variations in nomenclature in a discussion of the "versus" in early Aquitanian manuscripts; he writes, "Most of the pieces are called versus in the manuscript, others ritmus, carmen, planctus [...], hymnus [...], and one prosa [.. ,]."8 Gunilla Iversen explains the evolution of these poetic texts, "In glosses and lines of commentary inserted into liturgical chants, the authors provided interpretations of the biblical words of the chants, trying to express the meaning of the base texts by means of metaphors, images or tropes—with the effect that the grammatical term 'trope' came to be the name of the literary and musical genre itself."9 She continues with a listing of terminology similar in scope to Hiley's: Evidently, medieval writers and singers never used the term "poetry," but instead functional terms, such as tropus, laudes, versus, prosa, sequentia, and others, to rubricate the lyrics in the manuscripts, or hymnos interstinctos, laudes, inserta cantica, festivas laudes, figurata ornamenta, or, in a pejorative sense, novitates, fictiones adinventiones.10 Such a variable state of terminology exists in the trope repertory of the Klosterneuburg Office manuscripts. The manner of identifying chants in the eight Klosterneuburg antiphoners copied before 1400 for the same Augustinian house, presumably from the same scriptorium, is remarkable; in some cases, decidedly different rubrics are assigned to similar chants, and in other cases, identical rubrics are given for different types of chants. As demonstrated in Table 1, the Klosterneuburg antiphoners provide seventeen examples of four separate prosulae, eleven examples of three prosae, and eight examples of three 6 Jacobsson and Treitler, "Tropes and the Concept of Genre," 63. 7 Fassler, Gothic Song, 41. 8 Hiley, Western Plainchant, 239. 9 Iversen, "Expressing the Ineffable," 262. 10 Ibid., 263. other chants which are of similar appearance but are not associated with a responsory, at least not where they have been copied. The multiple examples of these chants provide a basis for comparison of the identification given to these chants by the medieval scribes, as well as an opportunity to examine the liturgical function of these tropes within their particular feasts. The seventeen instances of prosulae are identified in the manuscripts in the following ways: one is identified as "versus," another by "vs," for seven there is the single letter "v," and eight are provided with no rubric. For the eleven occurrences of the three prosae, one is labelled "prosa," two are identified as "versus," four are given the letter "v," and four more have no rubric. Table 1: Summary of the tropes11 in the earliest Klosterneuburg antiphoners. Text Incipit IN MSS: H = hiemalis Rubric in A = aestiva SOURCE: Prosulae Ante tempusparenti congenite CCl. 1010 H (no rubric) CCl. 1013 H "vs" CCl. 1015 H "v" CCl. 1017 H "v" Facture plasmator et conditor CCl. 1010 H "v" CCl. 1011 H (no rubric) CCl. 1013 H ? CCl. 1015 H (no rubric) CCl. 1017 H (no rubric) Quem ethera et terra atque CCl. 1010 H "v" CCl. 1011 H "v" CCl. 1013 H "v" CCl. 1015 H (no rubric) CCl. 1017 H "v" Sancte Nicole reatus CCl. 1010 H "versus" CCl. 1015 H (no rubric) CCl. 1017 H (no rubric) Prosae Eterne virgo memorie quem CCl. 589 A (no rubric) CCl. 1011 H "v" CCl. 1015 H (no rubric) O Christe virginum gloria CCl. 589 A "prosa" CCl. 1011 H "v" CCl. 1015 H (no rubric) Stella maris O Maria CCl. 1010 H "versus" CCl. 1011 H (no rubric) CCl. 1012 A "versus" CCl. 1015 H "v" CCl. 1017 H "v" 11 Owing to the poetic nature of these later-medieval tropes, the spellings of the sources have been retained. Text Incipit IN MSS: H = hiemalis Rubric in A = aestiva Source: Other O panis vite veneranda CCl. 589 A "A" CCl. 1011 H "v" CCl. 1015 H "v" Quem non prevalent propria CCl. 1013 H "vss" Virgineifloris nomen CCl. 589 A (no rubric) CCl. 1011 H (no rubric) CCl. 1012 A (no rubric) CCl. 1015 H (no rubric) In its placement at the bottom of f. 56v, the versus Quem non prevalent occurs in the middle of the Office of Second Vespers in the feast of Epiphany (January 6). Its identification as a responsory trope is problematic, for it is the hymn incipit for Hostis rather than a responsory chant that precedes Quem non prevalent on f. 56v. A closer look at the context of Quem non prevalent, in an attempt to identify and categorize it, reveals that the chants that follow this poetic trope are those which are usually found near the close of Vespers: a versicle (Reges Tharsis et insule) and the Magnificat antiphon (Tribus miraculis ornatum). (See Table 2.) Table 2: CCl. 1013 - excerpt from the Cantos index (* indicates that only the textual incipit is included in the manuscript).12 Folio Incipit Office Genre Position 56v Tecum principium* Second Vespers Antiphon 1 56v In columbe* Second Vespers Responsory 56v Hostis* Second Vespers Hymn 56v Quem non prevalent propria Second Vespers ? 57v Reges Tharsis et insule* Second Vespers versicle 57v Tribus miraculis ornatum diem Second Vespers Antiphon Magnificat The chants in this Office, with the exception of the Magnificat antiphon and Quem non prevalent itself, are given only as incipits; of these abbreviated cues, only the hymn is provided with notation. The questions arise, with what chant was Quem non prevalent to be sung (if any), and where does its performance fit in the feast of Epiphany? The answers appear to lie in the responsory incipit copied before the hymn Hostis on the line above Quem non prevalent. (See Plate 1.) The ornate responsoria prolixa are usually associated with Matins, but a single responsory is also sung in the Office of Second Vespers. Although the abbreviated incipit in the feast of Second Vespers does not occur directly before Quem non prevalent, it is reasonable to assume that this responsory, In columbe specie spiritus, was intended by the scribes to be the host responsory for the troped prosa. Scribes, as a matter of course, did not recopy a chant that was given completely on an earlier folio. In columbe is written out on the previous folio (55v) and is 12 Lacoste, "Index for Klosterneuburg, Augustiner-Chorherrenstift - Bibliothek, 1013," in Lacoste and Kolacek, Cantus. included for Epiphany as the third responsory in the third nocturn of Matins. The absence of a directly-neighbouring host chant would have presented no difficulty for the medieval cantors; early tropes were regularly copied (often without cues) in separate sections of antiphoners or in entirely separate volumes. Melodic analysis of the responsory In columbe reveals a second-mode chant with a standard verse-tone followed by the repetendum, a cue for the partial repeat of the Respond. This standard ternary structure may have incorporated the lesser doxology, Gloria patri, as a second verse in performance, and might also have incorporated a troped prosa before the final repetendum. It is interesting to observe that, in cathedral (i.e., secular or non-monastic) practice, the final chant of the last nocturn of Matins (the position of the complete entry of In columbe on f. 55v) is the one most often provided with embellishments. This initial placement of In columbe suggests that the trope Quem non prevalent may have been intended for Matins - an Office much more musically-important than Second Vespers - and that it was simply copied in the wrong place. On the other hand, ff. 56v and 57r do not end any physical section or gathering within the manuscript (that is, where addenda might be placed), and there is no apparent change in hand or format in either the text or music of Quem non prevalent. No repetendum has been copied after the end of the last verse of Quem non prevalent on f. 57r; if there had been a repetendum, it would have provided solid evidence to securely connect this poetic text to the responsory on the previous folio. That said, only sixteen of the thirty-six instances of responsory tropes in the eight early Klosterneuburg antiphoners include repetenda. With scribal (in)consistency at 44%, it must be admitted that the occurrence of repetenda following responsory tropes does not necessarily provide weight to concerns of genre or usage. It must also be noted that the responsory In columbe is found in CCl. 1013 four more times as an abbreviated incipit during the week after Epiphany.13 Quem non prevalent does not occur with any of these citations. It would appear, therefore, that the inclusion of this chant in CCl. 1013 was fully intended for Second Vespers of Epiphany. One is left to wonder why it is the only one of the five Klosterneuburg antiphoners that record the feast of Epiphany to include this trope.14 The confirmation of the genre of this chant involves not only its position relative to other chants, but also its stylistic features. Quem non prevalent comprises thirteen verses, of which the first twelve are paired both textually and melodically in double stanzas to create six couplets and one final verse. Full Text of Quem non prevalent 1 a Quem non prevalent propria magnitudine 1b Celi terre atque maria amphisepere 13 These occurrences are as follows: on f. 58v as the third Matins responsory for the fifth day of Epiphany (January 10), on f. 59r as the third Matins responsory for the seventh day of Epiphany (January 12), in the Octave of Epiphany (January 13) on f. 59r as the responsory in First Vespers, and on f. 59v in the same position as on Epiphany (January 6), namely as the third responsory in the third nocturn of Matins. 14 The other early Klosterneuburg antiphoners to record the pars hiemalis are CCl. 1010, 1011, 1015, and 1017. 2a De virgineo natus utero ponitur in presepio 2b Ut propheticus sermo nuntiat stant simul bos et asinus 3a Ex oritur stella lucida prebitura domino obsequia 3b Quam Balaam ex Judaica orituram dixerat prosapia 4a Hec magorum oculos fulguranti lumine prestrinxit providos 4b Atque ipsos previa Christi ad cunabula perduxit vilia 5a Illum exiguis adorant obsitum pannulis 5b Afferentes regia aurum thus et mirram munera 6a Ista sed tamen mysticis non carent munera figuris 6b Aurum ut regi thus Deo et magno offerunt sacerdoti 7 Atque mirram in sepulturam The text shows clear associations with the Epiphany feast, as verses 2a to 5b provide details concerning the humble birth of Jesus, the journey of the Magi, and the gifts which they brought for the infant King. According to Gunilla Iversen, this content follows a compositional structure typical of Aquitanian sequences of the transitional type, where the central part normally develops the theme of the actual feast.15 Commentary on the Epiphany feast surrounds the details of the story: in verses 2b and 3b, the fulfillment of the prophecy of Christ's birth is announced, and in the last two verses, the foretelling of the events of Good Friday is suggested in a symbolic portrayal of the gifts brought by the Magi. Gold was brought for Jesus the King, frankincense for Jesus as a great priest, and myrrh for his burial. There appears to be no regular pattern of textual accents in Quem non prevalent; this suggests either that the text dates from a relatively early stage in the introduction of poetry to the liturgy (perhaps the tenth or eleventh century), or simply, that textual accent was not of primary concern in the composition of this text. The musical setting for Quem non prevalent is almost completely syllabic; this is a distinguishing feature of sequences and prosae. The only exceptions occur near the end of the chant, with the intrusion of a three-note neume near the beginning of verse 5a and a two-note liquescent neume in the middle of verse 5b over the word "regia." (See Figure 1.) Textual analysis also agrees with the typical sequence or laterprosa form. The first verse (1a) of Quem non prevalent, containing thirteen syllables, and the second (1b) of fourteen syllables have end assonance on the words "magnitudine" and "amphisepere." Assonance is typical of west-Frankish pieces from the so-called "first epoch" of sequence composition. The first two verses of Quem non prevalent can each be divided into two phrases of 8 + 5 and 9 + 5 syllables. Whether or not by design, the first phrases of each of these verses have two-syllable end-rhyme between the words "propria" and "maria." Melodic considerations generally mirror the parallelism observed in the text of Quem non prevalent. In each of the first four paired verses, the text breaks into two phrases 15 Iversen, "Supera agalmata," 101. Figure 1 Transcription of Quem non prevalent, CCl. 1013, ff. 56v-57r. between repeated pitches. This occurs, for example, in verse 1a between the repeated Gs over the last syllable of "propria" and the first of "magnitudine," and in verse 1b between "maria" and "amphisepere." Verse 1b is the only one of the paired verses in Quem non prevalent that does not repeat the pitches of its counterpart. Although the verses do not begin with like pitches, melodic similarity can be seen between 1a and 1b through their last nine syllables. Even though the next two verses do not share any obvious rhyme or assonance, they each have eighteen syllables divided into phrases of 10 + 8. The first verse of this pair (2a) displays so-called "leonine" rhyme from its mid-point to its end, between the words "utero" and "presepio." The exact agreement of pitches observed between verses 2a and 2b is consistent in the remainder of the paired verses in Quem non prevalent. In addition, verses 2a and 2b share with the first two verses the same approach to the cadence; this five-note cadential pattern recurs a third higher at the ends of verses 5a and 5b. Verses 3a and 3b each have twenty syllables divided into phrases of 9 + 11. These lines display both end-rhyme of two syllables between the words "obsequia" and "prosapia" as well as assonance at the ends of the first phrases. The first five pitches of verses 3a and 3b are identical to those at the beginning of verse 1b. Verses 4a and 4b also contain twenty syllables each; these verses are divided into phrases of 7 + 13 syllables. There is no end-rhyme or end-assonance between these, but both display a leonine assonance. Leonine assonance is also a feature of verses 5a and 5b. Verse 5a has fifteen syllables divided into phrases of 6 + 9, with assonance between "exiguis" and "pannulis," and verse 5b has sixteen syllables divided into phrases of 7 + 9, with assonance between "regia" and "munera." With the exception of the liquescent neumes (marked as white noteheads on the transcription), the pitches for these verses are also nearly identical. However, the text-setting does not coincide with the melodic pattern established in the previous four pairs of verses. Here, the division into phrases, which has been determined by textual assonance, does not occur between repeated pitches, yet there are repeated Cs in the melody just three syllables later. Verses 6a and 6b decrease in regularity from those which precede them. A phrase structure of 8 + 9 and 8 + 10 syllables can be imposed on these two verses if the leonine assonance in verse 6a between the words "mysticis" and "figuris" is accepted. Verse 6b offers no features of rhyme or assonance in the text to guide an analysis of phrase structure. Verses 6a and 6b reach a climax with the use of the highest pitches in the piece. Indeed, the melody of Quem non prevalent extends through a large range; the first three verses tend to remain moderately low (within an octave above C), while the fourth to sixth verses do not extend below F, but reach to A a tenth above. Richard Crocker notes that differentiation of phrases through range is one of the important features of the "festal" type of earlier sequences.16 The last verse (7) of Quem non prevalent deviates from the regular parallelism of the previous twelve lines - there is no texted repetition of this nine-syllable phrase. The result is an odd number of verses in this otherwise fairly symmetrical text. Irregularity 16 Crocker, "Sequence," 291. such as this is characteristic of early sequence texts. A melismatic passage which twice repeats the pitches of this short verse occurs after the last word of the chant, "sepulturam." The melisma was presumably sung on the final syllable. As Victoria Goncharova observes in her analysis of the prosa Adest praecelsa cunctis for Mary Magdalene: The degree of freedom with which Adest praecelsa regards the conventions of strict parallelism and syllabic word-setting, and its frequent departures from the presumed model, suggest that this sequence may be a product of an earlier, rather than a later stage in the "first epoch" of sequence composition.17 This observation follows Crocker's analyses of early sequences, as well as those of several other chant scholars. The apparent decrease in structural regularity towards the end of Quem non prevalent affirms the eleventh-century dating of several manuscript sources which contain this chant, as listed in Analecta Hymnica.18 Pitch sources for troped texts, especially those which are set one-note-per-syllable, can sometimes be traced to lengthy melismatic sections near the ends of the Respond portions of the accompanying responsories. Although there are no lengthy melismatic passages which might have served as a source for the pitches of Quem non prevalent, the appropriateness of its poetic text to the feast of Epiphany, the textual and melodic pairing of double stanzas, the clear D-mode (at least in the opening verses), and the proximity to the Vespers responsory incipit, support the conclusion that Quem non prevalent is a prosa to be sung with the responsory In columbe specie spiritus. Since Quem non prevalent was not copied into the later Klosterneuburg sources, one might assume that this early sequence fell out of favour after a relatively short period of time. Its scarcity of appearance in other medieval chant manuscripts supports this conjecture. A search for this trope in the Cantus database, which currently holds complete indices of the chants contained in 138 antiphoners and breviaries comprising a total of over 399,000 individual chants, reveals only two matches by incipit: 1) an unnotated, abbreviated reference to Quem non prevalent after First Vespers for Epiphany in the fourteenth-century antiphoner from Esztergom, now housed in Istanbul (Istanbul, Topkapi Sarayi Muzesi, Deissmann 42, f. 36r), where its usage is indicated as a Compline hymn,19 and 2) a fully--neumed version in the fragments commonly known as "the Gottschalk antiphoner."20 The Gottschalk antiphoner has been dated to the late-twelfth century, and was copied by the prolific scribe Gottschalk of Lambach for Lambach Abbey. The manuscript was 17 Goncharova, "Prose Adest Praecelsa Cunctis," 69. 18 Dreves, Analecta Hymnica, Liturgische Reimofizzien, 10. 19 The index is available on the Cantus website (Lacoste and Kolacek, Cantus). Without notation or full text, it is difficult to draw a relationship between this incipit text and the prosa contained in CCl. 1013. 20 The Cantus index of the "Gottschalk antiphoner" presents as closely as possible the manuscript order of the original source. Rather than folio numbers, each fragment has been assigned a position within the extant quire, if known. HV - J- / r*4 ' f" s r J - .V ' / jf rff ditf prc-d.i r»JfinqiMiàU(4nn-mjinm jpfwrif rpqurm pru f»ierrj # s . ' fi ■ ✓ s ^ > r/: V - - ' pmliiTrum- .wircti jtfcta i/c rmrr rumr imJJÏTI TU «idrnrrf .-i'ta-fl' # / -ÎV - - , f - - trâ tuii ÎJirrr TTinnm f i pfmt le nirrr. ■ ^rimrtmrrfrfomiuii ^^ y.. . . . a s s ^i/iji's" * ' s r # ^éfrf&Zi* y piicrtnii «im a ¿au^MO^m!* ^ridants Jd^ umxifc um.Im. j y .JH .t *. _i r . intlrîrminr "Y - - - -I'll' J ' ' t. F. J nwliimbKiwt r (nprmii fjnrttlf Ulfiu rft fHSTIM IWT rffInortt r!J,,,X.-- ^ /■ - - " J'-' fîuafnunf diïrratf uiijiipTmlTi bcnrcmiprjmi ¡rlnrruiiij! -r _ p. / r ■ . - ' ■ '--//.-' - y'-'- ■ /■-*'-'* " i - . r r s s -a !t / J f -r-- r "J" -'* ' s ' v( <• Il Jiprra fair-faftr c um fitui.(..V|M JilraiiJtinl.' JiîuJ'.tr lijft.l. ■ "J ^ t f ■ / * . ' ^ - . ' ' /1 /If rf /'i Il; \ .1 : JI l.i .■'l'iru ; I'll f.M :i 11 . ' " ■ ■ ^ ■ ' * - ' " d^rvJi'-'jUZ v :l fjirnnrf Tltnj .lifniiTi-rfiifi ^ ;i;y._ ■'!"" '.■■:!,i1?:i. — -1. - /■ A s • - s , . f ' - ¿..f.jtr.Jt vJ nf.r W T^iPim myfiiiïsiitin fJlwr imiiim finun.i- ' 1 - - S ' - ■ ■ ' S ' ' ^ i.'- VJl ! I." ixï^: l't:rri.1'" 1 . 1 . f r ? - r ¿j s | '—H S - '' ■ • V .I ïn: r':r! ' !"i - A ï .. V ■ . ; .:.> :f|i.in"-» fy/ir J - • i / ' / '. t J-./T. . s - S r_- x r.^r :-1n'inj: i rrjif.k .vrn ,1 cnrt».;ij viII.'HT"' 'r 'ny "mir ')ru;i ;. ^ . y ■ ' . / y' . - -/.' '- ' ' ' i II I'';r ni;."n .rr:iI I '.r:':.r^l.'1'. Tili'i.'H'ii 'i.p 7r .*:T.| - Jt f f // . / - / - " ' ' ? - J- r J si truït rtoricf uiliiPfpiTif Ti. vir u I l ,i Apcrrty HMÎ:I;[JI.< -l".f .'■hTi ii i.in tt - sr ' ■ r " - r r s rjv- - ■■ t|> ^ ■ ^ '„ ^ 1 —S- .j.'M-Ttii'l i -I vi'i tin ^| , • ,; M .1 t ;,i!T,:;.i.'.-lu f,. .V ^ . . . ■ -'r - f f rj : . ,\l ^ - '"„'f * .■'■il'Cil."-—'Il '."■'MI.'M Hi.nr .1 nil j. I' 'irl!n:i ' . -.v J' - 'S* jp. 116 u. Plate 3 Leaf from the "Gottschalk" Antiphoner -New Haven (Connecticut), Yale University - Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, MS 481.51, f. 3v* (with permission). w For more information concerning the physical properties of these fragments, see the website Yale University Library: Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, http://brbl-dl.library.yale.edu/ vufind/Record/3432952?image_id=1016169. dismantled in the late-fifteenth century and the folio fragments were dispersed for various uses, including binding materials such as flyleaves and pastedowns. At present, there are only thirty-one known surviving folios which are housed in six different locations around the world.21 Quem non prevalent occurs on the verso side of the second folio in the third quire. 21 New Haven (Connecticut), Yale University - Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library [US-NHub], 481.51.1 to 481.51.17; St. Paul-im-Lavanttal, Stiftsbibliothek, Frag. 54/8, 1-2; Lambach, Benediktiner-Stift Lambach - Bibliothek [A-LA], Ink. II/1/i, 1-4; Lambach, Benediktiner-Stift Lambach - Bibliothek, Ink. I/95, 1-4 (flyleaves); Lambach, Benediktiner-Stift Lambach -Bibliothek, Ink. II/36, 1-2 (pastedowns); Cambridge, Massachusetts, Houghton Library (Graphic In contrast to the version of this trope found in CCl. 1013, the placement of Quem non prevalent follows the verse of the responsory In columbe specie spiritus, as expected for a troped prosa. The Gottschalk version also differs in its inclusion of melismatic repetitions of the pitches for each of the texted verses. Regarding the performance of such melismatic counterparts, it is generally thought that the choir might have responded to a soloist who first sang the text. Although the melodies in the Gottschalk fragments are recorded only in neumes (i.e., they do not provide specific pitch information), there appear to be enough differences between the texted and untexted melodies that the verse and melisma could not have been sung simultaneously. Table 3: The "Gottschalk" antiphoner - excerpt from the Cantos index.22 Folio Incipit Office Genre Position 32v In columbe specie spiritus Matins Responsory 3.4 32v Celi aperti sunt super eum Matins Verse 01 32v Quem non prevalent propria Matins Prosa 32v Ante luciferum genitus et Lauds Antiphon 1 In her study of this trope in southern German regions of medieval Europe in her book, The Gottschalk Antiphonary23 Lisa Fagin Davis did not include Quem non prevalent from CCl. 1013.24 The Klosterneuburg source was also omitted from Helma Hofmann-Brandt's dissertation on responsory tropes,25 where the text Quem non prevalent (# 539) appears with only one manuscript source (which is not CCl. 1013). The single source given by Hofmann-Brandt is from a German-speaking area of Europe, the manuscript now known as Prague, The Metropolitan Chapter of St. Vitus, Archives of Prague Castle (Archiv Prazskeho hradu, Knihovna metropolitni kapituly, Hudebni sbirka katedraly svateho Vita - Hudebni sbirka Kaple sv. Krize katedraly), P. VI. 1.26 Hofmann-Brandt identifies the trope as "Indeed, a 'borrowed' sequence."27 Perhaps the uncommon placement of Quem non prevalent in CCl. 1013 was the cause of these oversights, since Klosterneuburg manuscripts are frequently studied and generally well-known. "Diese Sequenz" is also the terminology used in Volume 5 of Analecta Hymnica in Arts), Pf MS Typ 704, 5-6; Bagdastein, private collection (no siglum); St. Louis, Public Library, Rare Books and Special Collections, Grolier #44. 22 The folio indications of the Gottschalk antiphoner are based on the Cantos index. 23 Davis, Gottschalk Antiphonary; Chapter Five is devoted to " 'Quem non Praevalent' and the Importance of Epiphany at Lambach." 24 My indexing of CCl. 1013 for the Cantos database coincided with or perhaps post-dated Davis' research, and the information was therefore unavailable prior to her publication. For Cantos, see Lacoste and Kolacek, Cantus. 25 Hofmann-Brandt, "Tropen zu den Responsorien," 108. 26 This antiphoner from Prague has been dated to 1363, and contains chants from Advent to Easter. The text Quem non prevalent occurs on ff. 226r to 228v, and is associated, again, with the responsory In columbe specie spiritus. Hofmann-Brandt, "Tropen zu den Responsorien," 108. 27 "[...] wohl eine ausgeliehene Sequenz." Also, in addition to citations of Coussemaker and Chevalier, Hofmann-Brandt lists this chant as incipit #577 in Radö, Repertoire. Hofmann-Brandt, "Tropen zu den Responsorien," 108. describing the text Quem non prevalent.28 Six manuscript sources are listed along with a standardized spelling and a description of the textual variants between sources. These include an eleventh-century proser from the Benedictine monastery at Tegernsee, just south of Munich, now London, British Library, Cod. Add. 19768 (Pars II);29 an eleventh-century passionale, also from Tegernsee, now Munich, Bavarian State Library (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek), Clm. 18955; an early twelfth-century troper from the Benedictine monastery of St. Emmeram in Regensburg, now Munich, Bavarian State Library, Clm. 14845;30 an eleventh-century manuscript written in German notation, now Leiden, University Library (Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden), Gronov. Cod. 70; and a fifteenth-century hymnbook from the cathedral of Zagreb, Cod. LXIII 1 from the National and University Library (Nacionalna i sveučilišna knjižnica) in Zagreb. Owing to the provenance of the manuscript sources, many of which originated in German-speaking areas of Europe, G.M. Dreves speculates that this text was composed in the area of southern Germany. The basically-interchangeable term "prosa" is used by Ulysse Chevalier in his Repertorium hymnologicum (1892-1921) to describe Quem non prevalent?1 Chevalier lists five other sources for this text, all of which are printed anthologies of verse dating from the mid-sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries.32 A single manuscript source, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, lat. 11383, was added in the Addenda et corrigenda volume.33 The association of this text with Epiphany reaches beyond its use as a sequence or as an adapted sequence for use as a responsory trope. Quem non prevalent is also found in a dramatic context within Magi plays. William Smoldon wrote that the text of this ancient sequence appears in the scene in Herod's court "in a balanced, apparently rhythmic setting which has plainly nothing to do with the original one and may represent a version unique to this drama."34 The incorporation of at least portions of this sequence text into the Magi drama is found in sources such as the eleventh-century manuscript Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, lat. 16819, ff. 49r-49v from Compiègne,35 Montpellier, Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Médecine, H. 304,36 Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, 289 (olim C. 153),37 as well as in new musical settings like the Officium Stellae found in the so-called "Fleury Playbook," a twelfth-century manuscript from the abbey of Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire now in Orléans, Bibliothèque de la Ville, Cod. 201 (olim 178), pp. 205-214 - a portion of this source, including the trope Quem non prevalent was transcribed in Edmond de Coussemaker's Drames liturgiques.38 28 Dreves, Analecta Hymnica, Liturgische Reimoffizien, incipit #22271, 10. 29 This source is included in RISM Series B, vol. V/1, 152-154. The sequence occurs in unheight-ened neumes on ff. 70-71. 30 This source is included in RISM Series B, vol. V/1, 79-81. 31 Chevalier, Repertorium hymnologicum, vol. 5, incipit #16303, 401. 32 Clichtoveus, Elucidatorium ecclesiasticum (1558), 22h; Hymni Ecclesiae e breviariis Romano (1838), 30; Neale, Sequentiae ex Missalibus (1852), 262; Daniel, Thesaurus hymnologicus, vol. 5 (1841-1856), 180; Kehrein, Lateinische Sequenzen (1873), 41. 33 Chevalier, Repertorium hymnologicum, vol. 5, 328. 34 Smoldon, Music of the Medieval Church Dramas, 7. 35 Ibid., 130. 36 Young, Drama of the Medieval Church, vol. 2, 71. 37 Ibid., 61. 38 Coussemaker, Drames Liturgiques, 153-154 and 163-164. The reference of Quem non in this Like other items of liturgical poetry in Office manuscripts, Quem non prevalent displays a striking contrast in style to that of the surrounding Frankish-Roman prose chants. These later additions to the liturgy, which became common by the eleventh century, were new musical forms with poetic texts. Many of these tropes are musically unrelated to the chants they accompany - they were a new liturgical art form which functioned within the focused celebrations of a special feast day. This practice of melodic troping extended and enhanced the existing chants of the liturgy without jeopardizing the integrity of the original melodies. As Margot Fassler observes, "These later chants were changes begotten by change, yet they changed the original texts and music not by removing them or altering them, but rather by surrounding them."39 Many scholars have commented on the independent viability of "original and free" composition in these melodic and textual tropes, and it is in this respect that these works approach "spiritual songs." Concerning the "new" works of eleventh-century Frankish composers, Richard Crocker writes, "[...] their works seem to reveal a strength of individual conception, a sense of purpose equal to the task of giving new impetus to Western music."40 It has often been observed that this repertory of "new" music was, for the most part, a product of artistic impulses rather than liturgical ones. The apparent disassociation from host chants of monophonic chants with poetic texts supports the suggestions, made by several scholars, that texts and music initially conceived as tropes to existing chants may have been recognized as independent entities, or "spiritual songs." The separation in the manuscript of Quem non prevalent from its host responsory causes it to appear much more as an independent song than the other responsory tropes in the Klosterneuburg antiphoners. It is not unreasonable to suppose that Quem non prevalent might have been sung alone. The scribal emphasis on the poetic nature of these chants points to the "song-like" features. Indeed, the inscription in a late tenth-century manuscript containing mostly tropes from the monastery church of Prüm (now Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, lat. 9448) reads "codicem cantus modulamine plenum" - full of beautiful song.41 Sources Klosterneuburg, Augustiner-Chorherrenstift - Bibliothek [A-KN], Mss. 589, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1015, 1017, 1018. New Haven (Connecticut), Yale University - Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library [US-NHub], 481.51(.1.-17.) Accesed May 10, 2013. http://brbl-zoom.library.yale.edu/ viewer/1016169. manuscript is included by Dreves, Analecta Hymnica, incipit #22271, 10, and Smoldon, Music of the Medieval Church Dramas, 210. See also, Young, Drama of the Medieval Church, vol. 2, 446. 39 Fassler, Gothic Song, 29. 40 Crocker, "Sequence," 269. 41 Jonsson, "Liturgical Function of the Tropes," 99. Bibliography Chevalier, Ulysse. Repertorium hymnologicum: Catalogue des chants, hymnes, proses, séquences, tropes en usage dans l'eglise latine. Vol. II, Louvain: Polleunis & Ceuterick, 1897; Vol. V, Brussels: Societé des Bollandistes, 1921. Coussemaker, Edmond de. Drames liturgiques du Moyen Age. Rennes: H. Vatar, 1860. Facsimile Reprint. New York: Broude Brothers, 1964. Crocker, Richard. "The Sequence." In Gattungen der Musik in Einzeldarstellungen: Gedenkschrift Leo Schrade, edited by Wulf Arlt, Ernst Lichtenhahn, and Hans Oesch, 269-322. Bern: Francke, 1973. Davis, Lisa Fagin. The Gottschalk Antiphonary: Music and Liturgy in Twelfth-Century Lambach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Dreves, Guido Maria, ed. AnalectaHymnicaMedii Aevi. 55 vols. Leipzig, 1886-. Reprint. Frankfurt am Main: Minerva, 1961. Fassler, Margot. Gothic Song: Victorine Sequences and Augustinian Reform in Twelfth-Century Paris. Cambridge: University Press, 1993. Goncharova, Victoria. "The Prose Adest Praecelsa Cunctis for St. Mary Magdalene in Manuscript Lat. Q.V.I.51 of the Saltykov-Shchedrin Library, St. Petersburg." In Laborare fratres in unum: Festschrift Lâszlô Dobszay zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Janka Szendrei and David Hiley, 63-77. Hildesheim: Weidmann, 1995. Hiley, David. Western Plainchant: A Handbook. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Hofmann-Brandt, Helma. "Die Tropen zu den Responsorien des Officiums." 2 parts. Inaugural-Dissertation, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität, Erlangen-Nürnberg, 1971. Hughes, Andrew. Late Medieval Liturgical Offices: Resources for Electronic Research; Texts. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1994. Iversen, Gunilla. "Supera agalmata: Angels and the Celestial Hierarchy in Sequences and Tropes; Examples from Moissac." In Liturgy and the Arts in the Middle Ages, edited by Eva Louise Lillie and Nils Holger Petersen, 95-133. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1996. --. "Expressing the Ineffable: Music in the Texts of Medieval Latin Liturgical Poetry." In Cantus Planus Study Group of the International Musicological Society: Papers Read at the Fifteenth Meeting, Dobogokö, Hungary, 2009, edited by Barbara Haggh-Huglo and Debra Lacoste, vol. 1, 261-282. Lions Bay, BC: The Institute of Mediaeval Music, 2013. Jacobsson, Ritva, and Leo Treitler. "Tropes and the Concept of Genre." In Pax et Sapientia: Studies in Text and Music of Liturgical Tropes and Sequences In Memory of Gordon Anderson, edited by Ritva Jacobsson, 59-89. Corpus Troporum. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1986. Jonsson, Ritva. "The Liturgical Function of the Tropes." In Research on Tropes: Proceedings of a Symposium Organized by the Royal Academy of Literature, History and Antiquities and the Corpus Troporum, Stockholm, June 1-3, 1981, edited by Gunilla Iversen, 99-121. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1983. Klugseder, Robert. " Studien zur mittelalterlichen liturgischen Tradition der Klosterneuburger Augustinerklöster St. Maria und St. Magdalena." Musicologica Austriaca 27 (2008): 11-43. Lacoste, Debra, and Jan Kolacek. Cantus: A Database for Latin Ecclesiastical Chant. Accessed continually, including May 5, 2013. http://cantusdatabase.org. Lacoste, Debra. "The Earliest Klosterneuburg Antiphoners." Ph.D. diss., The University of Western Ontario, 1999. Lipphardt, Walther, ed. Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele. 9 vols. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1975-1990. Norton, Michael L., and Amelia J. Carr. "Liturgical Manuscripts, Liturgical Practice, and the Women of Klosterneuburg." Traditio 66 (2011): 67-169. --. "New Sources for the Visitatio Sepulchri at Klosterneuburg." The Early Drama, Art, and Music Review 15 (1992): 83-90. Pfeiffer, Hermann. "Klosterneuburger Osterfeier und Osterspiel." Jahrbuch des Stiftes Klosterneuburg 1 (1908): 1-56. Smoldon, William L. The Music of the Medieval Church Dramas. Edited by Cynthia Bourgeault. London: Oxford University Press, 1980. Young, Karl. The Drama of the Medieval Church. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933. IDENTIFIKACIJA SPEVA QUEM NON PREVALENT V ROKOPISU KLOSTERNEUBURG, AUGUSTINER CHORHERRENSTIFT - BIBLIOTHEK, 1013 Povzetek Oficijska liturgija opatije Klosterneuburg, kakor je zapisana v osmih najstarejših antifo-narjih (Klosterneuburg, Augustiner-Chorherrenstift - Bibliothek oz. Knjižnica avguštin-skih kornih kanonikov (A-KN) 1010, 1012 in 1013 iz 12. ter A-KN 589, 1011, 1015, 1017, in 1018 iz 14. stoletja), je v srednjem veku med drugimi pesniškimi dodatki vsebovala tudi deset responzorijskih tropov. Od šestintridesetih posameznih zapisov teh tropov v navedenih rokopisih (v katerih se podvajajo zapisi istih spevov za pars aestiva in pars hiemalis), najdemo pesniški spev Quem non prevalent le enkrat, v rokopisu A-KN 1013. Liturgično rabo speva sta zakrila njegova umestitev ločeno od responzorija, h kateremu spada, ter pomanjkanje rubrik, zato v dosedanji znanstveni literaturi o responzorijskih tropih in prozah ni bil upoštevan. Analiza besedila speva Quem non prevalent ter njegove v celoti notirane melodije iz rokopisa A-KN 1013 je skupaj s primerjavami, ki vključujejo druge zapise tega tropa v rokopisih širom Evrope, razkrila, da gre za responzorijsko prozo, trop responzorija In columbe specie v okviru liturgije epifanije.