Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-846f6c7c4f-whwnh Total loading time: 0.475 Render date: 2022-07-06T14:31:43.882Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue

Toledo, Rome and the legacy of Gaul

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Kenneth Levy
Princeton University


Between the late sixth and mid-ninth centuries the lengthy process unfolded that brought substantial unity to the liturgical-musical practice of the Western Church. The Roman-Benedictine liturgy of Gregory the Great was taken to England in 596–7 by the Italianborn Augustine, prior of the Monastery of St Andrew on the Caelian hill. His purpose was to substitute Roman observance for entrenched Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Gallican rites as well as pagan customs. Yet when Augustine questioned Gregory about the variety of Christian usages he found, the pope was unwilling to offend local sensibilities and impede the Anglo-Saxons' conversion. Augustine was told to leave in place whatever of the local rites seemed desirable. During the seventh and early eighth centuries an accelerating missionary activity spread the Roman liturgy through France, Germany and northern Italy. Yet wherever it arrived it became similarly intermixed with local material, and it was not until the mid-eighth century that vigorous measures were taken to impose a purer Roman usage. The change came about not through ecclesiastical initiative but through the practical politics of a pious Frankish monarch. Pepin the Short (714–68) sought to increase unity throughout his domain by imposing the Roman rite. He asked Stephen iii (752–7) for clerics to teach the musical rite, and Stephen's successor Paul i (757–67) sent Roman chant books, an ‘antiphonale et responsale’, presumably without notation.

Research Article
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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.)


1 ‘Sed mihi placet sive in Romana, sive in Galliarum, sive in qualibet ecclesia aliquid invenisti quod plus omnipotenti Deo possit placere, sollicite eligas et in Anglorum ecclesia’; Monumenta germaniae historica [MGH], Epistolarum. Epistolae: Gregorii i Papae Registrum, 1 ed. Ewald, P. and Hartmann, L. M. (Berlin, 18871891), p. 334Google Scholar.

2 Walafrid Strabo (c. 804–49), De rebus ecclesiasticis, xxv: ‘Cantilenae vero perfectiorem scientiam quam pene tota Francia diligit, Stephanus papa, cum ad Pippinum, patrem Caroli Magni (in primis in Franciam) pro justitia Sancti Petri a Longobardis expetenda, venisset, per suos clericos, petente eodem Pippino, invexit, indeque usus ejus longe lateque convaluit’, in Migne, J. P., Patrologiae cursus completus … series latina, 114 (Paris, 1871), col. 957Google Scholar. Paul I: ‘Direximus itaque excellentissimae praecellentiae vestrae et libros quantos reperire potuimus. Id est antiphonale et responsale’, in MGH, Epistolae Merowingici et Karolini aevi, 1, ed. Gundlach, W. (Berlin, 1892), p. 529Google Scholar.

3 ‘gallicanum tulit ob unitatem apostolicae sedis et sanctae Dei ecclesiae pacificam concordiam’; MGH, Legum Sectio iii, Capitularia regum francorum, 1, ed. Boretius, A. (Berlin, 1883), p. 61Google Scholar.

4 ‘Nam et usque ad tempora abavi nostri Pippini Gallicanae et Hispaniae ecclesiae aliter quam Romana vel Mediolanensis ecclesia divina officia celebrabant, sicut vidimus et audivimus ab eis qui ex partibus Toletanae ecclesiae ad nos venientes secundum morem ipsius ecclesiae coram nobis sacra missarum solemnia celebrarunt… Sed nos sequendum ducimus Romanam ecclesiam in missarum celebratione’; Mansi, G. D., Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, 18bis (Venice, 1773), col. 730Google Scholar.

5 On the regional Latin repertories, see Fellerer, K. G., ed., Geschichte der katholischen Kirchenmusik, 2 vols. (Kassel, 19721976), i, pp. 191ffGoogle Scholar, and the articles on Ambrosian, Beneventan, Celtic, Gallican, Mozarabic and Ravenna rites in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Sadie, S., 20 vols. (London, 1980)Google Scholar. The following conventional abbreviations are here used for chant repertories and styles: ben – Beneventan; gall – Gallican; greg – Gregorian-Roman (Carolingian-Roman); med – Ambrosian (Milanese); moz – Mozarabic (Old Spanish, Visigothic); rom – Old Roman (Urban Roman).

6 King, A. A., Liturgies of the Past (London, 1959), pp. 123–30Google Scholar (simplified introduction to the Gallican Sacramentaries).

7 Dold, A., Das älteste Liturgiebuch der lateinischen Kirche, Texte und Arbeiten 26–8 (Beuron, 1936)Google Scholar; Salmon, P., Le lectionnaire de Luxeuil: édition et étude comparative (Rome, 1944)Google Scholar.

8 Griffe, E., ‘Aux origines de la liturgie gallicane’, Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique, 52 (1951), pp. 1743Google Scholar; Gamber, K., Ordo Antiquus Gallicanus: Der gallikanische Messritus des 6. Jahrhunderts (Regensburg, 1965)Google Scholar.

9 Paléographie Musicale, ser. i, 13 (Tournai, 1925), pp. 30ff; Gastoué, A., Le chant gallican (Grenoble, 1939)Google Scholar [=Revue du Chant Grégorien, 41–2 (1937–8)]; Stäblein, B., ‘Gallikanische Liturgie’, Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart [MGG], ed. Blume, F., 16 vols. (Kassel, 19491979), iv, cols. 1299–325Google Scholar; Huglo, M., ‘Gallican rite, music rite, music of the’, The New Grove, vii, pp. 113–25Google Scholar.

10 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 222 (S.C. 21796) fol. 143v.

11 Ott, K., Offertoriale sive versus offertoriorum (Paris, 1935)Google Scholar.

12 Wagner, P., Einführung in die gregorianischen Melodien, i (Fribourg, 3/1911), pp. 107–13; iii, (1921), pp. 418–34Google Scholar.

13 Ferretti, P., Esthétique grégorienne, i (Paris, 1938), pp. 191203Google Scholar; Sidler, H., Studien zu den alten Offertorien mit ihren Versen (Fribourg, 1939)Google Scholar; Johner, D., Wort und Ton im Choral (Leipzig, 1940), pp. 362–84Google Scholar.

14 Apel, W., Gregorian Chant (Bloomington, Ind. 1958), pp. 512fGoogle Scholar.

15 Steiner, R., ‘Some Questions about the Gregorian Offertories and their Verses’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 19 (1966), pp. 162–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Dyer, J., ‘The Offertory Chant of the Roman Liturgy and its Musical Form’, Studi Musicali, 11 (1982), pp. 330, see p. 24Google Scholar.

17 Hucke, H., ‘Die Texte der Offertorien’, Speculum musicae artis: Festgabe für Heinrich Husmann, ed. Becker, H. and Gerlach, R. (Munich, 1970), pp. 193203Google Scholar.

18 Hesbert, R.-J., Antiphonale missarum sextuplex (Brussels, 1935)Google Scholar.

19 Wagner, , Einführung, i, pp. 323–43Google Scholar.

20 Pietschmann, P., ‘Die nicht dem Psalter entnommenen Messgesangsstücke auf ihre Textgestalt untersucht’, Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft, 12 (1932), pp. 114–30Google Scholar.

21 Hucke, ‘Die Texte der Offertorien’, p. 203.

22 On the datings (often hypothetical): Hesbert, , Sextuplex, pp. xxxvffGoogle Scholar; Chavasse, A, ‘Les plus anciens types du lectionnaire et de l'antiphonaire romains de la messe’, Revue Bénédictine, 62 (1952), pp. 394CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Apel, , Gregorian Chant, pp. 5674Google Scholar (based chiefly on Hesbert and Chavasse); Chavasse, A., Le sacramentaire gélasien (Tournai, 1958),Google Scholarpassim; Deshusses, J., Le sacramentaire grégorien, i (Fribourg, 1971), pp. 50ffGoogle Scholar.

23 Hesbert, , Sextuplex, pp. lxvlxviiGoogle Scholar; also note 81, below.

24 Baroffio, G., Die Offertorien der ambrosianischen Kirche (Cologne, 1964), pp. 29, 64Google Scholar.

25 ‘die Fassungen … in erstaunlicher Weise entsprechen … mehrfach eine sehr enge melodische Verwandschaft … spürbar’; Baroffio, G., ‘Die mailändische Überlieferung des Offertoriums Sanctificavit’, Festschrift Bruno Stäblein, ed. Ruhnke, M. (Kassel, 1967), p. 1, n. 6Google Scholar.

26 The New Grove, xiii, p. 515; ‘é talora possibile “ricostruire” un offertorio, almeno per quanto riguarda il testo e la struttura generale, risalendo ad una forma più antica di quella tramandata da un'unica tradizione’, in Osservazioni sui versetti degli offertori ambrosiani’, Archivio Ambrosiano, 22 (1972), p. 57Google Scholar; also in ‘Le origini del canto liturgico nella chiesa latina e la formazione dei repertori italici’, Renovatio (1978), no. 1, p. 47Google Scholar: ‘si osservano indubbie e certo non casuali affinità tra la versione gregoriana e ispanica … come nel caso dell'offertorio … Oravi Deum’.

27 Randel, D. M., An Index to the Chant of the Mozarabic Rite (Princeton, 1973)Google Scholar: the indispensable inventory. A handful of moz chants preserved in heighted palimpsest Aquitanian neumes are transcribed in Rojo, C. and Prado, G., El canto mozárabe (Madrid, 1929)Google Scholar.

28 León, , Archivo Capitular, codex 8; Antifonario visigótico mozárabe de la catedral de León, edición facsimíl, Monumenta Hispaniae Sacra, Serie litúrgica 5/ii (Madrid, 1953)Google Scholar, fols. 238v, 178, 305; edition of text by L. Brou and J. Vives, Monumenta Hispaniae Sacra, Serie litúrgica 5/i (Madrid, 1959); Brou, L., ‘Le joyau des antiphonaires latins’, Archivos Leoneses, 7 (1954), pp. 7114Google Scholar.

29 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 222, fols. 152v, 143, 153.

30 Paléographie Musicale, Ser. l, 2 (1892), pp. 6–9: Dom Mocquereau's pathbreaking comparison of greg-rom-med traditions for the Gradual A summo caelo and Introit Resurrexi.

31 Pietschmann, ‘Die nicht dem Psalter entnommenen Messgesangsstücke’; Alfonzo, P., I responsori biblici dell'ufficio romano (Rome, 1936)Google Scholar.

32 Offertory’, The New Grove, xiii, p. 515Google Scholar.

33 Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, MS B.8 (from Norcia), fol. 312v: in the archaic ‘Roman Sections’, an alternative at Domin. Va post Sancti Angeli.

34 See note 25, above.

35 Pietschmann, op. cit., pp. 126 ff; Liber Commicus, editión crítica by J. Perez de Urbel and A. Gonzalez y Ruiz-Zorrilla, i(Madrid, 1950), p. 202Google Scholar; Salmon, P., Le lectionnaire de Luxeuil, p. 82Google Scholar.

36 Antiphonale missarum … mediolanensis (Rome, 1935), p. 256Google Scholar; Magistretti, M., Manuale ambrosianum … saec XI (Milan, 1904), p. 273Google Scholar.

37 Pietschmann, op. cit., p. 114; St Ambrose, Epist. XXIII, 19 (Migne, Patrologiae… latina, 16, col. 1077); Pentateuch fragment, fifth to sixth century, Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 6225 (Lowe, E. A., Codices latini antiquiores, ix, 1959, no. 1250Google Scholar), ed. Ziegler, L., Bruchstücke einer vorhieronymianischen Übersetzung des Pentateuch (Munich, 1882)Google Scholar.

38 Randel, , An Index, p. 468Google Scholar.

39 Paléographie Musicale, ser. ii, 2 (1924), pp. 95–115.

40 Antiphonale missarum … mediolanensis, p. 333; Magistretti, , Manuale ambrosianum, p. 365Google Scholar.

41 ‘Die mailändische Überlieferung’, p. 2: Ex. 33: 12–13, 20–3; Ex. 29: 41–2.

42 Pietschmann, op. cit., p. 119.

43 moz:Randel, , An Index, p. 469Google Scholar; León Antiphoner, fol. 194. greg: Hesbert, Sextuplex, nos. 157, 188bis. med:Antiphonale missarum … mediolanensis, p. 420; Magistretti, , Manuale ambrosianum, p. 71Google Scholar.

44 Pietschmann, op. cit., p. 130: ‘Ob dieser Text frei gestaltet ist oder sich auf eine Quelle stützt, ist nicht sicher festzustellen’.

45 moz:Randel, , An Index, p. 463Google Scholar; León antiphoner, fol. 144. med:Antiphonale missarum … mediolanensis, p. 143; Magistretti, , Manuale ambrosianum, p. 161Google Scholar; Paléographie Musicale, ser. i, 5–6, p. 208.

46 moz:Randel, , An Index, p. 249Google Scholar; León Antiphoner, fol. 199v. med:Antiphonale missarum … mediolanensis, p. 246; Magistretti, , Manuale ambrosianum, pp. 244, 271Google Scholar.

47 Huglo, M. and others, Fonti e paleografia del canto ambrosiano (Milan, 1956), p. 125Google Scholar.

48 Huglo, ‘Altgallikanische Liturgie’, p. 226; Baroffio, , Die Offertorien, p. 23Google Scholar.

49 moz:Randel, , An Index, pp. 309, 458Google Scholar; León Antiphoner, fol. 74v. gregOtt, , Offertoriale, pp. 161–3Google Scholar.

50 Paléographie Musicale, ser. i, 15 (1937), p. 165.

51 Huglo, ‘Altgallikanische Liturgie’, p. 228; Cardine, E., ‘Sémiologie grégorienne’, Études Grégoriennes, 11 (1970), p. 131Google Scholar.

52 Hesbert, Sextuplex, no. 148 bis; p. cvi.

53 Madrid, Real Academia de la Historia, MS Aemil. 30, fol. 129.

54 Ott, , Offertoriale, pp. 161fGoogle Scholar; Ott published two other greg verses not found in moz, Videbant faciem and Positis autem genibus.

55 Righetti, M., Storia liturgica, i (Milan, 1950), p. 139Google Scholar.

56 rom in Vatican, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, lat. 5319, transcribed in Stäblein, B. and Landwehr-Melnicki, M., Die Gesänge des altrömischen Graduate, Monumenta Monodica Medii Aevi 2 (Kassel, 1970), pp. 255415Google Scholar; inventory by Cutter, P. F., Musical Sources of the Old-Roman Mass (American Institute of Musicology, 1979)Google Scholar.

57 Baroffio, , Die Offertorien, pp. 22ffGoogle Scholar.

58 Randel, , An Index, pp. 457–76Google Scholar.

59 Additional moz Sacrificia may have been contained on the final folios of the León Antiphoner, which breaks off incomplete (fol. 306) among the Dominical Offertories.

60 Quasten, J., Expositio antiquae liturgiae gallicanae (Münster, 1934)Google Scholar; Gamber, K., Ordo antiquus gallicanus (Regensburg, 1965)Google Scholar; Migne, , Patrologiae … latina, 72, p. 92Google Scholar.

61 Gamber, op. cit., p. 19.

62 ‘Et post hoc statim clerus canit offerenda, quod Franci dicit sonum’; Andrieu, M., Les ordines romani du haut moyen âge, iii (Louvain, 1951), p. 123Google Scholar. On the interpretation, see ibid., pp. 74–5, and J. Dyer, ‘The Offertory Chant of the Roman Liturgy’, p. 15, n. 45.

63 Wolfenbüttel, Herzog-August-Bibliothek, Cod. Weissenb. 76; Dold, A., Das älteste Liturgiebuch der lateinischen Kirche (Beuron, 1936)Google Scholar; King, , Liturgies of the Past, p. 123Google Scholar; Lowe, E. A., Codices latini antiquiores, 9 (Oxford, 1959), no. 1392Google Scholar.

64 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS lat. 13246; Wilmart, A. and others, eds., The Bobbio Missal, Henry Bradshaw Society, 53, 58, 61 (London, 19171924)Google Scholar; King, , Liturgies of the Past, pp. 128fGoogle Scholar; Lowe, , Codices latini antiquiores, 5 (1950), no. 653Google Scholar.

65 Duchesne, L., ‘Sur l'origine de la liturgie gallicane’, Revue d'Histoire et de Littérature Religieuses, 5 (1900), p. 37Google Scholar: ‘La composition ample, oratoire, imagée des formules gallicanes …si différentes de la simplicité et de la concision romaine’.

66 Bishop, E., ‘The Genius of the Roman Rite’, Weekly Register (05 1899), repr. in Liturgica historica (Oxford, 1918), pp. 4fGoogle Scholar; Jungmann, J. A., The Early Liturgy to the Time of Gregory the Great (London, 1959), p. 228Google Scholar.

67 ‘Unus igitur ordo orandi atque psallendi nobis per omnen Hispaniam atque Galliam’; Labbe, P. and Cossart, G., Sacrosancta concilia, v (Paris, 1671), col. 1704Google Scholar.

68 Huglo, M., ‘Les “preces” des graduels aquitains empruntées à la liturgie hispanique’, Hispania Sacra, 8 (1955), pp. 361–83Google Scholar; Huglo, , ‘Source hagiopolite d'une antienne hispanique pour le Dimanche des Rameaux’, Hispania Sacra, 10 (1957), pp. 367ffGoogle Scholar.

69 The documents are excerpted by Ferotin, M., Liber mozarabicus sacramentorum (Paris, 1912), pp. xvfGoogle Scholar.

70 Mercati, G., ‘More “Spanish Symptoms” ’, in Bishop, Liturgica historica, p. 206Google Scholar.

71 Vives, J., Oracional visigótico (Barcelona, 1956), pp. xiiiffGoogle Scholar.

72 Brou, L., ‘L'antiphonaire visigothique et l'antiphonaire grégorien du VIIIe siècle’, Anuario Musical, 5 (1950), pp. 3ffGoogle Scholar.

73 Righetti, , Storia liturgica, pp. 144ffGoogle Scholar; Borella, P., Il rito ambrosiano (Brescia, 1964), pp. 35ffGoogle Scholar.

74 Borella, , Il rito ambrosiano, pp. 451ffGoogle Scholar, summarises the positions; exceptions are raised by Huglo, , Fonti e paleografia, pp. 117–37Google Scholar; and by Baroffio, , Die Offertorien, and in ‘Offertory’, The New Grove, xii, p. 515Google Scholar.

75 ‘Offertori romani pregregoriani nella liturgia milanese’, Ambrosius (1939), pp. 83–8Google Scholar; a revision of Heiming's conclusions by Baroffio, ‘Osservazioni sui versetti’, pp. 54–8.

76 Hesbert, Sextuplex, no. 79b and p. lxi, n. 7; early Latin traditions are traced in my Italian Neophytes' Chants’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 23 (1970), pp. 183ffGoogle Scholar.

77 Hesbert, , Sextuplex, p. xciiiGoogle Scholar: ‘en 608 vraisemblablement’; Deshusses, J., Le sacramentaire grégorien, p. 52Google Scholar: ‘entre les années 609 et 638’.

78 Deshusses, J., ‘Le sacramentaire de Gellone dans son contexte historique’, Ephemerides Liturgicae, 75 (1961), p. 207Google Scholar.

79 Brou, L., ‘Le JVe Livre d'Esdras dans la liturgie hispanique et le Graduel romain “Locus iste” de la Messe de la Dédicace’, Sacris Erudiri, 9 (1957), pp. 75109CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80 Hesbert, R. -J.. ‘Un antique offertoire de la Pentecôte’, Organicae voces: Festschrift Joseph Smits van Waesberghe (Amsterdam, 1963), pp. 5969Google Scholar.

81 Huglo, ‘Altgallikanische Liturgie’, p. 229; Baroffio, , ‘Offertory’, The New Grove, xiii, p. 515Google Scholar.

82 Paléographie Musicale, ser. i, 15 (1937), p. 165.

83 Hesbert, R. -J., ‘La Messe “Omnes gentes” du VIIe Dimanche après la Pentecôte’, Revue Grégorienne, 17 (1932), pp. 81–9, 170–9; 18 (1933), pp. 114Google Scholar; Hesbert, Sextuplex, no. 179.

84 In the Sextuplex, it appears only in Senlis (no. 172bis), and not at all in the rom Graduals: Cutter, Musical Sources of the Old-Roman Mass; cf. Baeumer, S., Histoire du Bréviaire (Paris, 1905), i, p. 427Google Scholar; ii, p. 60.

85 A manuscript from Ravenna (Padua, Biblioteca capitolare, MS a. 47) can be added to the five sources (all central or north Italian) listed by Hesbert, , Sextuplex, p. xxxviGoogle Scholar, n.3, and Frere, W. H., The Sarum Gradual (London, 1895), p. lxxxivGoogle Scholar.

86 Paléographie Musicale, ser. I, 5–6 (1896–1900), fol. 18; the chant does not circulate as a Responsory in either greg (Hesbert, , Corpus antiphonalium officii, Rome, 1963–)Google Scholar or rom (Cutter, Musical Sources of the Old Roman Mass, including an inventory of the Office chants).

87 Vogel, C., La Reforme cultuelle sous Pépin le Bref et sous Charlemagne (Graz, 1965), p. 190Google Scholar, n. 41.

88 Deshusses, , Le sacramentaire grégorien, pp. 4775Google Scholar. Vogel, C. and Elze, R., Le pontifical romano-germanique du dixième Siècle, Studi e Testi 226–7Google Scholar (Vatican City, 1963).

89 Berno, ‘De quibusdam rebus ad missae officium spectantibus’, cap. 2; Migne, , Patrologiae …latina, 142, cols. 1060fGoogle Scholar.

90 Handschin, J., ‘Sur quelques tropaires grecs traduits en latin’, Annates Musicologiques, 2 (1954), pp. 2760Google Scholar; Strunk, O., ‘The Latin Antiphons for the Octave of the Epiphany’, in Recueil de Travaux de l'Institut d'Études Byzantines, viii: Mélanges G. Ostrogorsky, 2 (Belgrade, 1964), pp. 417–26Google Scholar; repr. in Strunk, O., Essays on Music in the Byzantine World (New York, 1977), pp. 208ffGoogle Scholar.

91 Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Arch. San Pietro, MS b. 79, fol. 42v; London British Library, Add. MS 29988, fol. 38v

92 Klauser, T., ‘Die liturgischen Austauschbeziehungen zwischen der römischen und der fränkisch-deutschen Kirche vom achten bis zum elften Jahrhundert’, Historisches Jahrbuch, 53 (1933), pp. 186–7Google Scholar, points to comparable Roman liturgical accretions during the 960s.

93 Amalarii episcopi opera liturgica omnia, ii, ed. Hanssens, I. M., Studi e Testi 139 (Vatican City, 1948), p. 373Google Scholar.

94 Johner, , Wort und Ton im Choral, pp. 381–4Google Scholar: ‘Das Oflertorium und die anderen respon-sorialien Gesänge’.

95 Hucke, H., ‘Die Einführung des Gregorianische Gesanges im Frankenreich’, Römische Quartalschrift, 49 (1954), pp. 172ffGoogle Scholar; Hucke, , ‘Gregorianischer Gesang in altrömischer und fränkischer Uberlieferung’, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 12 (1955), pp. 74ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hucke, , ‘Gregorian and Old Roman Chant’, The New Grove, vii, pp. 693ffGoogle Scholar; Huglo, M., ‘Römisch-fränkische Liturgie’, in Fellerer, , Geschichte, i (1972), pp. 233ffGoogle Scholar.

96 Processional antiphons of Gallican origin are discussed by Huglo, ‘Altgallikanische Liturgie’, p. 228, and Antiphon’, The New Grove, i, p. 480Google Scholar.

97 In ‘A Gregorian Processional Antiphon’, forthcoming in Report of the Thirteenth International Congress [of the International Musicological Society, Strasbourg, 1982], I argue that the processional antiphon Deprecamur te Domine, as found in Frankish-derived sources of the tenth to twelfth centuries, may faithfully represent an Italian (Roman-Benedictine or Beneventan) melodic state of the seventh to eighth century.

98 The question of ‘melodic archetypes’ is discussed in an important article by Connolly, Thomas H., ‘Introits and Archetypes: Some Archaisms of the Old Roman Chant’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 25 (1972), pp. 157–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

99 Lowe, E. A., ‘Two New Latin Liturgical Fragments on Mount Sinai’, and B. Fischer, ‘Zur Liturgie der lateinischen Hss. von Sinai’, Revue Bénédictine, 74 (1964), pp. 252–83 and 284–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

100 Byzantine and Slavic rites since the ninth century use just four chants for the Offertory or Cherubic Hymn’; versions and discussion in my ‘A Hymn for Thursday in Holy Week’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 16 (1963), pp. 127ff, 158–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A larger selection of Proper Offertory chants is found in the early usage of Jerusalem; Leeb, H., Die Gesänge im Gemeindegottesdienst von Jerusalem (vom 5. bis 8. Jahrhundert) (Vienna, 1970), pp. 113–24Google Scholar; Taft, R., ‘A Proper Offertory Chant for Easter in Some Slavonic Manuscripts’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 36 (1970), pp. 437–43Google Scholar.

101 Brou, L.: ‘Le “Psallendum” de la Messe et les chants connexes’, Ephemerides Liturgicae, 61 (1947), pp. 1354Google Scholar; L'Alleluia dans la liturgie mozarabe’, Anuario Musical, 6 (1951), pp. 390Google Scholar; ‘Notes de paléographie musical mozarabe [i]’, Anuario Musical, 7 (1952), pp. 5176Google Scholar. Randel, D. M.: The Responsorial Psalm Tones for the Mozarabic Office (Princeton, 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Responsorial Psalmody in the Mozarabic Rite’, Études Grégoriennes, 10 (1969), pp. 87116Google Scholar; Antiphonal Psalmody in the Mozarabic Rite’, Report of the Twelfth Congress of the International Musicologkal Society: Berkeley, 1977 (1982), i, pp. 414–22Google Scholar. Also, Brockett, C. W., Antiphons, Responsories and Other Chants of the Mozarabic Rite (Brooklyn, 1968)Google Scholar.

Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Toledo, Rome and the legacy of Gaul
Available formats

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Toledo, Rome and the legacy of Gaul
Available formats

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Toledo, Rome and the legacy of Gaul
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *