No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Antoine Chavasse and the dating of early chant
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 October 2009
Extract
Chant scholars who attempt to deal with their subject in the pre-Carolingian period will sooner or later come up against the formidable oeuvre of Antoine Chavasse, the eminent Strasbourg scholar who dominates the field of Roman liturgical history from the sixth to the eighth centuries. A knowledge of the development of the church year is crucial to speculation on the chronology of early chant, and Chavasse has written extensively on every phase of the subject – on Lent especially, but also on Paschaltide, Advent, and the Sundays after Christmas and Pentecost. While he has not neglected the sanctorale, his emphasis has always been on the more demanding area of the temporale. There are other scholars who have contributed much to the field, but none could be considered even a close second in either the scope of their contribution or its influence: frequently one finds other liturgical scholars accepting without question some of Chavasse's most far-reaching conclusions as premises to their own work.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992
References
1 A bibliography of his works appeared in the Revue des sciences religieuses, 5 (1984), pp. 226–9Google Scholar; to seventy-one books and articles. Chavasse, who was born in 1908, continued to publish voluminously throughout the remainder of the 1980s, particularly in Ecclesia orans and the Revue bénédictine. There is virtually no volume of these periodicals during the period in question without at least one contribution of his.
2 See, for example, Le Roux, Raymond, ‘Les graduels des dimanches après la Pentecôte’, Etudes grégoriennes, 5 (1962), p. 126Google Scholar; and Maertens, Thierry, ‘L'Avent’, Méxslanges de science religieuse, 18 pp. 57–67.Google Scholar
3 It was the subject of a fellowship at the Institute for Arts and Humanities, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in the autumn of 1990.
4 See ‘Les plus anciens types du lectionnaire et de l'antiphonaire romains de la messe’, Revue bénédictine, 62 (1952), p. 54.Google Scholar
5 Das römische Capitulare Evangeliorum, Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen und Forschungen 28 (Münster in Westphalia: Aschendorf, 1935).
6 It is first fully described in ‘Les plus anciens types’.
7 See ‘La messe “Omnes gentes” du VIIe dimanche après la Pentecôte et “l'Antiphonale Misssarum” remain’, Revue grégorienne. 17 (1932), pp. 81–9, 170–79; 18 (1933), pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
8 ‘Les plus anciens types’, p. 17.
9 Ibid., p. 94.
10 That is, Padua, Biblioteca capitolare, Codex D. 47: edition, Deshusses, Jean, Le sacramentaire grégorien, Spicilegium Friburgense 16 (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1971).Google Scholar
11 ‘Temps de préparation à la Pâque d'après quelques livres liturgiques romains’, Recherches de science religieuse, 37 (1950), pp. 125–45.Google Scholar In the summary of this article that follows, page citations will be given only when particular circumstances warrant; the summary maintains the order of Chavasse's argument.
12 See Crampton, L. J., ‘St Gregory's Homily XIX and the Institution of Septuagesima Sunday’, Downside Review, 86 (1968), pp. 162–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 This is the case in the so-called Old Gelasian sacramentary, with its set of sixteen ordinary Sunday formularies. For an edition of the Old Gelasian (Rome, Codex Vaticanus Reginensis latinus 316) see Mohlberg, L. C. and others, Liber sacramentorum romanae aedesiae ordinis anni circuli, Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, Series major IV (3rd edn, Rome, 1981). The question of the sixteen Sunday formularies will be discussed below.Google Scholar
14 This is the same in the evangeliaries; see Klauser, , Das römische Capitulare, pp. 64 and 106.Google Scholar sacramentaries 25 March was placed after Lent; see Table 1 of the present article.
15 See ‘Les plus anciens types’, notes 19 and 21.
16 Ibid., note 22.
17 ‘Etant donné que la portion antérieure du sacramentaire a été certainement organisée en 595, on adoptera sans hésiter, pour cette ultime partie, l'année 596’, ibid., p. 140.
18 See ibid., p. 132, where he refers to the fusion of temporale and sanctorale in liturgical books as ‘l'une des caractéristiques les mieux assurées de la réforme accomplie par Grégoire le Grand’.
19 Ibid., pp. 138–9.
20 Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources, revised and translated by William G. Storey and Niels K. Rasmussen (Washington, DC: The Pastoral Press, 1985), p. 130. This authoritative manual will be cited frequently in the present study because it is the only reference work from which the musicologist can reasonably hope to find an assessment of Chavasse. The difficulty that its authors had in keeping abreast of Chavasse's output is as good an illustration as can be found of the need for help in this respect on the part of musicologists.
21 Le sacramentaire gélasien (Tournai: Desclée, 1958), p. 684.Google Scholar
22 Ibid., pp. 683 and 682.
23 Ibid., pp. 683–4.
24 ‘L'organisation générale des sacramentaires dits grégoriens’, Revue des sciences religieuses, 56 (1982), pp. 179–200, 253–73Google Scholar; 57 (1983), pp. 50–56. ‘Le sanctoral et le temporal grégoriens, vers 680: Distribution et origine des pièces utilisées’, Ecclesia orans, 3 (1986), pp. 263–88.Google Scholar‘Le sacramentaire grégorien: les additions et remaniements introduits dans le témoin P.’, in Traditio et Progressio: In onore A. Nocent (Rome, 1988), pp. 125–48.Google Scholar
25 ‘Evangéliaire, épistolier, antiphonaire et sacramentaire: les livres romains de la messe au VIIe et au VIIIe siècle’, Ecclesia wans, 6 (1989), p. 197.Google Scholar
26 ‘Les plus anciens types’.
27 The Gregorian evangeliary is dealt with on pp. 28–49.Google Scholar
28 Das römische Capitulare (see n. 5), pp. 1–46.Google Scholar
29 ‘Les plus anciens types’, pp. 33–5.Google Scholar
30 Ibid., p. 35.
31 ‘On est frappé de constater qu'en dehors des déplacements signalés jusqu'ici, les formulaires se correspondent tous rigoureusement de part et d'autre’, p. 45.Google Scholar
32 Ibid., pp. 48–9.
33 Medieval Liturgy (see n. 20), p. 352.Google Scholar
34 Ibid., pp. 351–4.
35 Ibid., pp. 292, 320 and 396.
36 ‘L'Evangéliaire romain de 645: un recueil’, Revue benedictine, 82 (1982), pp. 33–75.Google Scholar
37 Medieval Liturgy, p. xvi.Google Scholar
38 ‘On nous permettra de dire souvent “l'Evangéliaire de 645”, expression commode, sinon techniquement exacte’, ‘L'Evangéliaire romain de 645’, p. 33.
39 Ibid., pp. 36–42, and 74–5.
40 Ibid., pp. 40–41.
41 Ibid., pp. 54–8.
42 Ibid., pp. 72–3.
43 See ‘Aménagements liturgiques, à Rome, au VIIe e au VIIe siècle’, Revue bénédictine, 99 (1989), pp. 75–102.Google Scholar The conclusions on the temporale are summarized in ‘Evangéliaire, épistolier, antiphonaire et sacramentaire’ (see n. 25), p. 181.Google Scholar
44 See ‘Les plus anciens types’, pp. 58–64.Google Scholar
45 Ibid., p. 58.
46 The ‘Blandin gradual’ of the present text refers to the early ninth-century unnotated gradual of Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, MS 10127–44, and the ‘Rheinau gradual’ to the contemporary unnotated gradual of Zurich, Zentral-bibliothek, MS Rheinau 30; both are edited in Hesbert, René-Jean, Antiphonale missarum sextuplex (Brussels: Vromant, 1935).Google Scholar The ‘Old Roman Vat. lat. 5319’ refers to the later eleventh- or earlier twelfth-century gradual of Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS latin 5319; edited by Stäblein, Bruno, Die Gesänge des altrömischen Graduale Vat. lat. 5319, Monumenta Monodica Medii Aevi II (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1970).Google Scholar
47 Antiphonale missarum sextuplex, pp. lxxiv–lxxvii.Google Scholar
48 It must be emphasized that throughout the present study the absence of the formularies for the seventh Sunday after Pentecost – Omnes gentes, Venite filii, Sicut in holocausto, Inclina – is taken for granted. This is, of course, a Frankish addition to the Roman gradual, and as such irrelevant to the time and place under consideration. Hence we speak here of ‘four Sundays where the manuscript gives only one gradual’, excluding Venite filii, which would bring the number to five. (This gradual is also omitted from Table 2.)
49 This unaccountable lapse of Chavasse was observed already by Le Roux, , ‘Les graduels des dimanches après la Pentecôte’ (see n. 2), p. 126.Google Scholar
50 ‘L'antiphonaire, comme le sacramentaire et l'évangéliaire, porte la signature même de Grégoire inscrite dans sa propre structure’, ‘Les plus anciens types’, p. 61.Google Scholar
51 See Antiphonale missarum sextuplex, pp. 10–11, 62–3 and 128–9.Google Scholar In the case of Pentecost week the Sunday is simply omitted in the Frankish graduals, but the rubric appears in Vat. lat. 5319; see Stäblein, , Die Gesänge des altrömischen Graduate, p. 659.Google Scholar
52 See Mohlberg, , Liber sacramentorum romanae aedesiae (see n. 13), p. 176.Google Scholar
53 ‘Les plus anciens types’, p. 62.Google Scholar
54 Ibid., pp. 63–4.
55 ‘Cantatorium et antiphonale missarum: quelques procédés de confection: dimanches après la Pentecôte: graduels du sanctoral’, Ecclesia orans, 1 (1984), pp. 15–55.Google Scholar
56 Ibid., p. 20.
57 See ‘Le calendrier dominical romainau sixième siècle’, Recherches de science religieuse, 41 (1953), p. 97Google Scholar, where Chavasse fails to make this distinction.
58 ‘Cantatorium el antiphonale missarum’, p. 20.Google Scholar
59 ‘Les plus anciens types’, p. 62.Google Scholar
60 ‘Cantatorium et antiphonale missarum’, p. 20.Google Scholar
61 Frere, Walter H., The Sarum Gradual and the Gregorian Antiphonale Misssarum (London: Quaritch, 1895), p. x.Google Scholar
62 See Antiphonale missarum sextuplex, p. lxxviGoogle Scholar, for the Frankish graduals and Table 2 of the present study for Vat. lat. 5319.
63 See ‘Cantatorium et antiphonale missarum’, pp. 21–4MGoogle Scholar, where he has a long digression on the subject of which chants are unique and which shared. It is not clear whether he assumes unique chants to be more ancient and shared ones later, or the reverse.
64 Ibid., pp. 21 and 24–5.
65 His work was the starting point for my own analysis of the communion texts, in ‘The Roman post-Pentecostal Communion Series’, Cantus Planus: International Musicological Society Study Group: Papers Read at the Fourth Meeting, Pècs, Hungary, 3–8 September 1990 (Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Institute for Musicology, 1992), 175–86.Google Scholar
66 ‘Evangéliaire, épistolier, antiphonaire et sacramentaire’, pp. 230–37.Google Scholar
67 ‘Les 16 premieres pièces de la liste dominicale sont psalmiaues; c'est vrai pour les introïts et les graduels; c'est vrai pour les offertoires, sauf deux; c'est moins vrai, pour les communions, qui renferment 5 pièces non psalmiques’, ibid., p. 234.