DYER, 'Tropis Semper Variantibus'

'Tropis semper variantibus': Compositional Strategies in the Offertories of Old Roman
Chant
Author(s): Joseph Dyer
Source: Early Music History, Vol. 17 (1998), pp. 1-60
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/853879
Accessed: 30-10-2017 17:14 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Early Music History
This content downloaded from 193.137.92.159 on Mon, 30 Oct 2017 17:14:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Early Music History (1998) Volume 17. ? 1998 Cambridge University Press
Printed in the United Kingdom
JOSEPH DYER
TR OPIS SEMPER VARIANTIB US:

COMPOSITIONAL STRATEGIES
IN THE OFFERTORIES OF
OLD ROMAN CHANT
In the introduction to the second volume of the series Monumenta

Monodica Medii Aevi, devoted in the main to a transcription of the
Old Roman gradual Vat. lat. 5319, Bruno StTiblein drew up a per-
ceptive assessment of the native Italian chant style, contrasting it
with the melodic style of Gregorian chant, a repertoire considered
by many scholars to be the result of a process of local 'editing' of
the Roman chant introduced north of the Alps in the late eighth
and early ninth centuries.' Staiblein quoted a remark about the
singing of 'alleluia' from Cassiodorus' commentary on Psalm 104:
'The tongues of cantors are adorned with [alleluia], and the Lord's
basilica joyfully responds with it. Innovations are always being
introduced to it with varying tropes' (tropis semper variantibus inno-
vatur).2 Cassiodorus' description of the singing of a particular chant
The indispensable source for chant history and repertoire is D. Hiley, Western Plainchant:
A Handbook (Oxford, 1993), not least for its extensive bibliography. Very different views
have been expressed about the exact nature and result of the transmission of Roman
chant to Gaul: see H. Hucke, 'Die Einfiihrung des Gregorianischen Gesangs im
Frankenreich', Rbmische Quartalschrift fir christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte, 49
(1954), pp. 172-87; Hucke, 'Towards a New Historical View of Gregorian Chant', Journal
of the American Musicological Society, 33 (1980), pp. 437-67; K. Levy, 'Charlemagne's
Archetype of Gregorian Chant', Journal of the American Musicological Society, 40 (1987), pp.
1-30; P. Bernard, 'Sur un aspect controvers6 de la reforme carolingienne: "vieux-romain"
et "gr6gorien" ', Ecclesia Orans, 7 (1990), pp. 163-89, and, more recently, Bernard, 'Bilan
historiographique de la question des rapports entre les chants "vieux romain" et "gr&-
gorien" ', Ecclesia Orans, 12 (1995), pp. 323-53. The broader aspects of the Carolingian
liturgical reforms are surveyed by C. Vogel, 'Les echanges liturgiques entre Rome et les
pays francs jusqu'a l'6poque de Charlemagne', in Le chiese nei regni dell'Europa occidentale
e i loro rapporti con Romafino all'800, Settimane di studi del Centro Italiano di Studi sull'Alto
Medio Evo, 7 (Spoleto, 1960), pp. 185-295.
2 B. Staiblein, Die Gesiinge des altriimischen Graduale, Monumenta Monodica Medii Aevi (here-
after MM), 2, ed. M. Landwehr-Melnicki (Kassel, 1970), p. 32*, quoting Cassiodorus,
Comment. in ps. 104: 'Hoc ecclesiis dei votivum, hoc sanctis festivitatibus decenter acco-
modatum. Hinc ornatur lingua cantorum, istud aula domini laeta respondet et tamquam
Joseph Dyer
around the middle of the sixth century cannot, of course, be applied

without reservation to the music of the surviving Italian chant
repertoires - Beneventan, Ambrosian and Old Roman - whose his-
tories and state of preservation vary so widely. His comment about
the singing of 'alleluia' in an unknown liturgical context does seem,
however, to evoke certain distinctive features of these repertoires,
particularly their intricate, often repetitive melodic motion within
a narrow pitch range and the varied or literal reiteration of
melodic elements of varying lengths. This 'well documented Italian
propensity for melodic repetition' has been noted in studies of the
surviving Beneventan repertoire, and it constitutes a hallmark of
other native Italian repertoires, particularly Old Roman chant.3
Critiques of Old Roman chant have been directed to the alleged
absence of the lucid melodic profile that characterises the
Gregorian repertoire. While the Old Roman offertories do indeed
display the apparently random repetitive motion and convoluted,
stepwise melodic gestures of the Italianate style, they juxtapose
insatiabile bonum tropis semper variantibus innovatur.' Expositio psalmorum, ed. M.

Adriaen, Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina, vol. XCVIII (Turnhout, 1957), p. 942. The
translation is from P. G. Walsh, Cassiodorus: Explanations of the Psalms, Ancient Christian
Writers, 51-3 (New York, 1991), vol. III, p. 49. P. Wagner applied Cassiodorus' remark
to 'die langgezogenen Allelujajubilen', Einfiihrung in die gregorianischen Melodien: Ein
Handbuch der Choralwissenschaft, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1910-21), vol. II, p. 38. (In fairness to the
great chant scholar it should be noted that Staiblein does not always reflect accurately
the context of what he calls 'das ... abwertende Urteil Peter Wagners iiber die archai-
sche Melodik'.)
3 The quotation is fromJ. Boe, 'Hymns and Poems at Mass in Eleventh-Century Southern
Italy', Atti del XIV Congresso della Societa Internazionale di Musicologia: Trasmissione e recezione
delleforme di cultura musicale, Bologna. 27 agosta - 1 settembre 1987, ed. A. Pompilio, D. Restani,
L. Bianconi and F. A. Gallo, 3 vols. (Rome, 1990), vol. I, p. 516. Aurelian made his view
of this practice quite clear: 'absurdum esset si iteraretur duplatio modulationis in duabus
syllabis', Musica Disciplina, 19, ed. L. Gushee, Corpus Scriptorum de Musica, 21 (n.p.:
American Institute of Musicology, 1975), p. 128. John of Afflighem cautioned the com-
poser 'that he not abuse one neume by unduly harping on it' (ne in una neuma nimium eam
inculcando oberret), De musica 18, ed.J. Smits van Waesberghe, De musica cum tonario, Corpus
Scriptorum de Musica, 1 (Rome: American Institute of Musicology, 1950), p. 118; trans.
W. Babb, Hucbald, Guido, and John on Music (New Haven, 1978), pp. 138-9. Two centuries
later, the anonymous author of the Summa Musice (ca. 1300) condemned what Cassiodorus
valued so highly: 'intervallum vel clausula repetitione una cum delectatione auditur, semel
igitur potest repeti, sed raro' (one repetition of an interval or a phrase may be heard
with pleasure; it may therefore be repeated once, but not often), and he goes on to make
an interesting comparison in light of Cassiodorus' statement: 'et considera, quod hoc
vitium simile est nugationi, quam rhetor plurimum detestatur' (and consider this vice to
be like a nugatio, something a rhetorician greatly detests). Summa Musice 23, Summa Musice:
A Thirteenth-Century Manual for Singers, ed. C. Page (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 199 and 123.
The treatise was first edited (with attribution to Johannes de Muris) by M. Gerbert,
Scriptores Ecclesiastici de Musica Sacra Potissimum, 3 vols. (St Blaise, 1784), vol. III, p. 238b.
Compositional Strategies in the Offertories of Old Roman Chant
and integrate these features with purposeful musical organisation.

The subtly varied repetitions - part of the 'Schanheitsideal' of this
music, as StTiblein was wont to emphasise - form part of the
melodic 'genius' of Old Roman chant, and they constitute partic-
ularly salient features of the offertories.
The music of the Old Roman offertories is transmitted in three
graduals written and used in the city of Rome.4 The earliest of
these sources, a handsome manuscript copied in the scriptorium
of S. Cecilia in Trastevere, is dated 1071. The second, an early-
twelfth-century manuscript (Vat. lat. 5319), has sometimes been
linked with the Lateran basilica, but no conclusive evidence con-
firms its association with that important church. The third and
latest of the group is a thirteenth-century gradual from St Peter's
basilica.5 Vat. lat. 5319 transmits virtually the complete repertoire
of offertory refrains with their verses for the temporal and sanc-
toral cycles of the liturgical year. The S. Cecilia gradual has many
lacunae, but it contains the offertory verses and supplements the
Vat. lat. 5319 repertoire in a few particulars.6 None of the verses
are found in the St Peter's manuscript, a not uncommon situation
in Gregorian manuscripts of the same period.
The S. Cecilia gradual includes the music for two verses of the
offertory Erit vobis [nobis] (fols. 86-86v) that were erased in 5319; these
are set to a common offertory formula (FormB) to be discussed below.
Four verses for the offertory Benedictus es ... in labiis that have no
music in 5319 are set in the S. Cecilia gradual (fols. 37-37v) to a sin-
gle melody adapted in successive verses to varying amounts of text.7
4 No separate collections of offertories or their verses comparable to the Gregorian offer-

toria or versicularia are known to have existed in the Old Roman tradition.
5 The S. Cecilia manuscript, Cologny-Geneve, Bibliotheca Bodmeriana C 74, has been
edited in facsimile by M. Liitolf, Das Gradual von Santa Cecilia in Trastevere, 2 vols. (Cologny-
Genbve: Fondation Martin Bodmer, 1987), with extensive commentary on the manu-
script and valuable indices of the Old Roman Mass chants in vol. I; a transcription of
Vat. lat. 5319 has been published in the Monumenta Monodica series (see note 2 above);
the St Peter's gradual is Archivio di San Pietro, F 22.
6 The offertory for the feast of St Agnes, Diemfestum with the prosula 'Mundo presenti',
occurs only in the S. Cecilia gradual (fol. 31 ,) but it is Gregorian, not Old Roman; cf.
the version found in the gradual Benevento 34 (Paleographie Musicale, 15), fol. 50v. Domine
Hiesu Christe from the Gregorian Mass for the Dead appears in Vat. lat. 5319, fol. 140.
At the end of the St Peter's manuscript a votive Mass in honor of the Virgin ('Salve
sancta parens') with the offertory Felix namque (fol. 103) was inserted.
7 M. Huglo has suggested a probable Gallican origin for Erit vobis ('Offertory Antiphon',
The New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. x, p. 651). The erased verses of Erit nobis in Vat. lat.
5319 (fol. 94) were replaced by the Alleluia verse 'Epi si kyrie ilpysa'.
Joseph Dyer
The gradual from St Peter's is the only Old Roman chant book to
contain the offertory Gaudete iusti (fol. 77), a piece that has no par-
allel in the Gregorian sources I was able to consult.
The other small differences between the S. Cecilia and Vat. lat.
5319 manuscripts involve either the omission or the rearrange
ment of verses, both procedures well known from the Gregoria
manuscript tradition of the offertories.8 Until 1987 the S. Cecil
manuscript was generally unavailable to scholars, but with the pub-
lication of a facsimile edition of the manuscript a comprehensiv
survey of the entire corpus of Old Roman chants for the Mass h
been rendered feasible. The present moment seems opportune,
therefore, to reflect on certain aspects of the Old Roman offert
ries, particularly their compositional strategies, in the context o
theories about the oral transmission of chant repertoires that have
been elaborated over the past two decades.
Neither the Old Roman nor the Gregorian offertories hav
received the comprehensive investigation they merit.9 This may be
due at least in part to the size of the repertoire: Ott's edition of
120 Gregorian offertories with their verses (not all of which hav
medieval authority) occupies 190 pages, while the transcription o
the Old Roman offertories by Margareta Landwehr-Melnicki take
8 The first two verses of Benedicite gentes are reversed in the two graduals, as are verses
and 3 ofJustus ut palma; S. Cecilia omits the verses of the offertories Confortamini, Exulta
satis and Tollite portas. It lacks the verse 'Da michi' of the offertory Domine vivifica, th
verse 'Posui adiutorium' of Veritas mea, the verse 'Accedite ad eum' of Immitet angelum
the verse 'Non adorabitis' of In die solempnitatis, and the third verse of Perfice gressus. Sing
verses in 5319 are sometimes divided in the S. Cecilia gradual: 'Potens es' (verse 1 o
Inveni David) and 'Verba mea' (verse 1 of Gloriabuntur).
9 Not included in this number are: (1) the Gregorian offertory for the feast of St Agnes
Diemfestum (with the prosula 'Mundo presenti'), which occurs only in the S. Cecilia grad
ual (fol. 3 l); (2) Domine Hiesu Christe from the Gregorian Mass for the Dead (Vat. la
5319, fol. 140); and (3) the offertory Felix namque from the votive Mass in honor of the
Virgin ('Salve sancta parens'). The Old Roman introits have been studied by T. Connolly,
'Introits and Archetypes: Some Archaisms of the Old Roman Chant', Journal of th
American Musicological Society, 25 (1972), pp. 157-74, and the communions byJ. Murphy
'The Communions of the Old Roman Chant' (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvani
1977). For analyses of other Mass chants see E. Nowacki, 'Text Declamation as a
Determinant of Melodic Form in the Old Roman Eighth-Mode Tracts', Early Music
History, 6 (1986), pp. 193-226; H. Schmidt, 'Untersuchungen zu den Tractus des zweiten
Tones', Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch, 42 (1958), pp. 1-25; H. Hucke, 'Gregorianisch
Gesang in altr6mischer und frankischer Uberlieferung', Archiv fir Musikwissenschafl, 1
(1955), pp. 74-87 [graduals]; P. Bernard, 'Les Alleluia melismatiques dans le chan
romain: Recherches sur la genese de l'Alleluia de la messe romaine', Rivista Internaziona
di Musica Sacra, 12 (1991), pp. 286-362.
up 160 pages."' (Depending on the tempo chosen, the longest offer-

tories in either tradition could last a quarter of an hour in per-
formance.) Hubert Sidler's study of a small portion of the
Gregorian offertory repertoire that appeared before World War II
was never continued: it encompassed less than 15 per cent of the
offertories." The treatments of the offertory in the standard sur-
veys of Gregorian chant tend to stress, moreover, the most strik-
ing formal aspects of the pieces, thus ignoring other notable
aspects of the repertoire. Willi Apel emphasised melodic paral-
lelism and text repetition in defining the special character of the
Gregorian offertories. Peter Wagner began his discussion of the
genre with Letentur celi, an offertory that, despite its formal clar-
ity, is atypical because of its brevity and lack of melodic develop-
ment (a fact of which Wagner was well aware). Pieces that could
not be analysed in terms of fixed structural patterns (a-a or a-b-a)
ran the risk of being devalued because of 'Formlosigkeit', a ver-
dict that fell even upon the spectacular verse melismas of the
Gregorian offertory lubilate deo omnis terra.12
A complete Old Roman offertory, like its Gregorian counter-
part, consists of a neumatic-melismatic refrain and one or two
verses, sometimes three, in the same style. The last portion of the
refrain (repetenda) is repeated as a choral respond following the
soloist's verses. Only once (Gressus meus, MM 390-2) is a (varied)
repetenda written out in full. Occasionally, the music for the close
of the verse will duplicate that of the refrain just before the repe-
tenda. Vat. lat. 5319 does not invariably furnish the incipit of the
repetenda after each verse, nor is it too precise or consistent about
indicating the beginnings of verses. The letter 'V' conventionally
indicates the beginning of a new verse, but in the Old Roman man-
uscripts it might also signify smaller text divisions, as it does in
Benedictus es ... ne tradas (MM 327), where it indicates a text rep-
etition within the refrain.
10 K. Ott, Offertoriale sive Versus Offertoriorum Cantus Gregoriani (Tournai, 1935), reedited by
R. Fischer and inscribed with neumes of Laon 239 and Einsiedeln 121 as Offertoriale
Triplex cum versibus (Solesmes, 1985). On the editorial idiosyncrasies of Ott's edition see
particularly R. Steiner, 'Some Questions about the Gregorian Offertories and Their
Verses',Journal of the American Musicological Society, 19 (1966) pp. 162-81. For the edition
of the Old Roman offertories see note 2 above.
" H. Sidler, Studien zu den alten Offertorien mit ihren Versen, Ver6ffentlichungen der
Gregorianischen Akademie zu Freiburg (Schweiz), 20 (Freiburg, 1939).
12 Wagner, Einfiihrung, vol. I, pp. 422-4; Ott, Offertoriale, p. 23.
Joseph Dyer
While the Gregorian offertory repertoire consists mainly of

pieces that could be described as 'through-composed', the Old
Roman offertories present a more varied array of structural tech-
niques that fall along the borderline between oral improvisation
and fully notated 'composition'. With respect to their formal prin-
ciples, they occupy a middle ground between, on one hand, the type
melodies of antiphons or the formulaic tracts and graduals and, on
the other hand, genres (like the Gregorian offertories) in which
every piece is substantially unique. Many aspects of the Old Roman
offertories suggest that they furnish what Leo Treitler called a
'transparent window' revealing something about the oral tradition
that preceded the earliest notated witnesses.'" Their most charac-
teristic features imply origins in improvisatory techniques that
facilitated oral transmission through the approximately four cen-
turies that separated the presumed origins of the offertory chants
from the earliest notated collection of Old Roman Mass chants.
Improvisation, a form of instantaneous 'composition' (whatever
that might imply under different circumstances), should not be
confused with aimless meandering. Most of the great composers
of instrumental music over the last few centuries have been bril-
liant improvisers who astonished even the professional musicians
among their contemporaries.'4 In our own day the art of improvi-
sation has been cultivated almost exclusively by organists, who
have often been notable composers as well. Those fortunate
enough to have heard the likes of Marcel Dupre, Jean Langlais,
Flor Peeters, Pierre Cochereau, Helmut Walcha, or Anton Heiller
recognised the clear formal planning that was the bedrock of their
apparent spontaneity. In his treatise on improvisation Dupre out-
lined a methodical development of this art from preparatory exer-
cises to the improvisation of organ symphonies. He included a
chapter on 'free forms', but even here he proposed strict schemata
for the guidance of the improviser."5 Whatever the latitude per-
'3 L. Treitler, [untitled] 'Communication', Journal of the American Musicological Society, 41
(1988), p. 575.
14 One need only recall the aged Johann Adam Reincken's amazement at hearingJ. S. Bach
improvise on the chorale 'An Wasserfliissen Babylon', The Bach Reader, ed. H. T. David and
A. Mendel (New York, 1945), p. 219, or the marvellous feats attributed to Mozart.
15 M. Dupre, Cours complet d'improvisation a l'orgue, 2 vols. (Paris, 1925 and 1937). Cf. Leo
Treitler's apposite characterisation of 'oral transmission as a normal practice whose object
and effect is to preserve traditions, not play loose with them': 'Homer and Gregory: The
Transmission of Epic Poetry and Plainchant', The Musical Quarterly, 60 (1974), p. 346.
mitted by musical or ritual circumstances, an accomplished impro-

viser has always at the ready a 'bag of tricks' available for unan-
ticipated situations that might arise during the liturgical service
(or in a modern concert improvisation).6" The notated versions of
the Old Roman offertories - particularly in their use of the
resources mentioned above - hint strongly at their oral, improvi-
sational antecedents.
The compositional techniques of the Old Roman offertorie
range from the mechanical repetition of short motives or phrase
to the melodic elaboration of brief motives and larger phrases, i
addition to entirely 'free' composition. Features particularly dis
tinctive of the offertories include: (1) the extensive use of tw
reciting formulae across the repertoire, (2) the unification o
verses and occasionally of refrain and verses through returns o
melodic material, and (3) the transfer of melodic material - meli
mas or entire verses - from one offertory to another." (The lat
ter procedure is exceptional.) The Gregorian repertoire of
offertory chants employs literal repetition in certain contexts, mos
often in melismas, as Wagner, Ferretti, Johner and Apel have
demonstrated, but the practice seems to be far more pervasive i
the Old Roman repertoire and quite commonly involves texted
sections.'8 The extensive use of two Old Roman offertory formu
lae suggests, moreover, that Roman singer-composers placed a
high value on practices that unified not only single works but also
large portions of the offertory repertoire itself. The offertorie
16 'One had to have a procedural plan, even if one did not have a pre-vision about how
would turn out', according to L. Treitler, 'Medieval Improvisation', The World of Music
33 (1991), p. 68. Concerning the phase during which Old Roman chant was passed down
orally one could conclude with David G. Hughes that 'the inference to be drawn is no
that the melody was composed anew by improvisation at each performance, but rather
that certain kinds of details were somewhat flexible': Hughes, 'Evidence for the
Traditional View of the Transmission of Gregorian Chant', Journal of the American
Musicological Society, 40 (1987), p. 398.
17 This contrasts markedly with the Gregorian offertories which - apart from contrafact
created for new feasts - do not generally share material across the repertoire. Each is,
as described by Hubert Sidler, an 'Eigengewaichs': Studien zu den alten Offertorien mit ihren
Versen, p. 7.
18 P. Wagner, Einfiihrung, vol. I, pp. 428-32; P. Ferretti, Esthitique grigorienne, trans. A
Agaisse (Solesmes, 1938), pp. 198-203; D. Johner, Wort und Ton im Choral. Ein Beitrag zu
Aesthetik des gregorianischen Gesanges, 2nd edn (Leipzig, 1953), pp. 371-4; W. Apel, Gregorian
Chant (Bloomington, Ind., 1959), pp. 363-75; I. Lihmer, 'Die Offertoriums-Oberliefer
ung in Rom Vat. lat. 5319' (Inaugural-Diss., University of Cologne, 197 1);J. Dyer, 'Th
Offertories of Old Roman Chant: A Musico-Liturgical Investigation' (Ph.D. diss., Boston
University, 1971).
Joseph Dyer
form a body of music organised according to consistent principles,

most of which seem particularly well designed for and appropri-
ate to oral transmission.19
About two-thirds (59) of the Old Roman offertories make
greater or lesser use of two standard formulae, all evidence of
which has been eradicated in the 'Frankish' revision of the music.
These formulae (FormA and FormB) almost always occur in con-
junction with other procedures of melodic organisation (repetition
and return) or in combination with 'free' material. An examina-
tion of the formulae can provide a useful background for the dis-
cussion of other compositional techniques and their integration
with the formulae. Appendixes 1 and 2 list all the occurrences of
FormA and FormB with an approximate indication of the extent
to which each is used in a given offertory refrain and verses. The
formulae do not necessarily appear each time with all of their
components; thus the distinction between actual statement and
allusion is occasionally difficult to determine.20 Rarely are the for-
mulae or individual elements thereof subject to melodic variation,
and virtually never do both formulae appear in the same offer-
tory.21 This is due no doubt to their modal orientation: FormA is
found most frequently with E-mode (and to a lesser extent G-
mode) offertories, while FormB serves principally a resource for
F-mode offertories.
FormA, the shorter of the two formulae, has been singled out
in several previous studies of Old Roman Chant.22 Although it
occurs about ten times in offertory refrains, its presence in these
19 For a recent bibliography on the subject of orality and chant transmission see K. Levy,
'On Gregorian Orality',Journal ofthe American Musicological Society, 43 (1990), pp. 185-227.
The concepts on which the 'new historical view of Gregorian chant' are founded (see
note 1 above) have been critically reviewed in P. Jeffery, Re-Envisioning Past Musical
Cultures: Ethnomusicology and the Study of Gregorian Chant (Chicago, 1992), pp. 6-50.
20 This would account for the slight differences between my list and that of P. Bernard,
'Les versets des alleluias et des offertoires, temoins de l'histoire de la culture Ai Rome
entre 560 et 742', Musica e Storia, 3 (1995), pp. 5-40, see p. 24.
21 Only in Expectans expectavi and Lauda anima do they occur in the same offertory; the sec-
ond verse of Lauda anima is the unique case of their combination in a single verse.
22 FormA was cited by B. Stiblein in 'Zur Friihgeschichte des ramischen Chorals', Atti del
Congresso Internazionale di Musica Sacra (Rome, 1950), p. 272. R. Snow emphasised its preva-
lence in the offertories in the chapter 'The Old-Roman Chant' which he contributed to
W. Apel, Gregorian Chant, p. 491. Both formulae figure in the pieces discussed by H.
Hucke, 'Zur Aufzeichnung der altr6mischen Offertorien', Ut mens concordet voci. Festschrift
Eugene Cardine zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. J. B. G6schl (St Ottilien, 1980), pp. 296-313. These
formulae are the equivalent of Kaihmer's two 'Singweisen'; see note 18 above.
contexts is relatively slight - once or twice at most. It occurs much

more frequently in the verses, repeated two, three, or four times
in succession as required by the length of the text (Appendix 1).
This balance suggests that the formula is essentially a soloistic
device, relatively easy to apply in a context of oral improvisation.23
Whether the verse texts in which FormA appears once or twice
were ever sung in their entirety to this formula, only to be replaced
at a later period with 'composed' music, can be no more than a
matter for speculation.
FormA (Example 1) consists of four elements whose principal
tonal focus is b. It is also found, somewhat less frequently, at the
lower fifth.24 Element a does not function solely or even primarily
as an intonation, but as a link between repetitions. I have placed
it first because of its function of introducing successive repetitions
of the formula. When FormA appears in the verse of an offertory,
element b, the torculus recitation, usually comes first. As the prin-
cipal recitational device of the formula, element b can be repeated
several times, though repetition of the formula itself was obviously
preferred to the incessant reiteration of the torculus. Although syl-
labic passages or recitations on a repeated podatus or torculus are
not rare in the Old Roman offertory repertoire, such stylised
embellished recitation takes place primarily within the context of
FormA.
a b c d
-- - - i i- - - - " "
Example 1 Formula A
The recitational element b makes no distinction between

accented and unaccented syllables apart from any distinctions that
23 Not every graduate of the training programme provided by the Roman schola cantorum
could find a permanent place in the prestigious papal choir, nor should we assume that
they were all extraordinary virtuosi. See J. Dyer, 'The Schola Cantorum and Its Roman
Milieu in the Early Middle Ages' in De musica et cantu: Studien zur Geschichte der Kirchenmusik
und der Oper. Helmut Hucke zum 60. Geburtstag, Musikwissenschaftliche Publikationen,
Hochschule fiir Musik und Darstellende Kunst, 2, ed. P. Cahn and A.-K. Heimer
(Hildesheim, 1993), pp. 19-40, which argues for a late-seventh-century origin of the
Roman schola cantorum.
24 The prominence given to b in the recitational element of this formula parallels a simi-
lar situation in Aquitanian and some Beneventan sources.
2.Quo -ni - am quis in nid-bi - bus
e - qua - bi - tur d6-mi - no aut
quis si - mi - lis e - rit dM - o in-
ter fi - li - - - os d
[deus qui glorificatur
Example 2a C
dfecl.Do-mi-ne re - f - gi - um
fac - tus es no - bis
a ge -ne - ra - ti - o - ne et pro - ge-ni -
CJ 2. Pri - us - quam fi - e - rent mon - tes
C)
adtt
a sefor-ma-re - tur or in
-cu - lo us-que - bis ter - -r
s&-cu
Example 2b Repleti sumus: Verses I
1. Di-li- - gain te do-mi - ne vir-tus me - a do -mi- ne fir -ma-mentu

2. Li-ber - ra -tor me -- us de gen- ti -bus i- ra - -
(1) et li- be-
(2) ab in -sur-gen- t
1~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ... q----;-... _-,._--.__-

(2) ex- al- -- ta-bis me a vi - ro in
bc
(2) e- ri- -i-
Example 2c In
might have been made in performance (a very likely possibility).

It flows directly into element c, which functions as the focal point
of rhythmic emphasis and frequently attracts the text accent.
Example 2a, the second verse of the offertory Confitebuntur (MM
410), represents a typical application of FormA.25 It begins with
element b and illustrates the function of element a as a link
between one statement of the formula and the next. If a par
tone falls on element c, this element receives the accent. If
word is a proparoxytone, however, a single punctum ins
before element c receives the accent. This treatment per
exceptions, a number of which can be seen in Example 2b,
verses of the offertory Repleti sumus (MM 280).26 In vers
Example 2b the accented syllable of the proparoxytone 'ref6i
is set not to a single intercalated punctum but to the final p
tus of the recitation. In verse 2, however, the proparoxytone 's
lum' receives the conventional accent treatment. In the case of
the paroxytones in these verses ('n6bis', and 'generati6ne' in ver
1; 'm6ntes', and 'terre' in verse 2) the accent falls normally on
element c.
Element d occurs least frequently, being reserved for the con-
clusion of multiple repetitions of the formula. Most often, it falls
on a final syllable or on a monosyllable (see 'filios', Example 2a,
and 'tu es', Example 2b). It may be entirely absent from single
statements of the formula. Since it functions also as a transition
to portions of the verse not based on the formula, it undergoes the
greatest variation. Apparently it was not considered a satisfactory
cadence by itself, for additional music - either a simple cadence
or a longer passage - was always supplied to bring the verse to a
close. The order of the elements of FormA was somewhat flexible
within the context of the conventions that governed its use.
Element b could sometimes proceed directly to element d, and this
in turn could regress (though rarely) to element c.
Appearances of FormA usually occur in conjunction with other
'free' material. Both verses of the paschal offertory Intonuit de celo
25 All references (MM) are to page numbers of the transcriptions in Monumenta Monodica
Medii Aevi, 2.
26 A verse of this offertory has been reproduced before: see A. Scharnagl, 'Offertorium',
Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. Ix, col. 1902, and B. Stablein, 'Psalm', ibid., vol.
x, col. 1689 (ex. 12). The refrain of this offertory also makes extensive use of Form A.
11
Joseph Dyer
(Example 2c, MM 411) begin with the same melodic flourish before
moving to FormA, introduced in this case by its element d. Except
for the insertion of two elements of the formula (d and c) early in
verse 1 ('virtus mea'), both verses run in parallel. Since verse 2 of
this offertory has a longer text, the formula is repeated one more
time ('exaltabis me, a viro iniquo eripias me'). In this case, how-
ever, the elements are rearranged, following the model of 'virtus
mea'.
Despite the fact that FormA appears to manifest certain fea-

tures characteristic of psalm tones (intonation, recitation, and
cadential gesture), its treatment of the text differs in significant
ways from these formulae.27 FormA does not invariably respect the
syntactic coherence of the text. No consistent effort is made, for
example, to co-ordinate either of the cadential elements, c or d,
with the end of psalm hemistichs, entire verses, or even sense ele-
ments within a hemistich. For a more methodical use of FormA
the reader may be referred to the verses of the offertories Miserer
Dominefac mecum and Confitebuntur.
FormA also plays a prominent role in eight alleluias sung duri
the solemn paschal vespers celebrated at Rome on Easter day an
throughout the ensuing week.28 The music is transmitted in t
twelfth-century Old Roman sources: Vat. lat. 5319 (fols. 84vv-98; M
524-3, a facsimile of the beginning of the vespers, fols. 84v-85, serv
as frontispiece to this volume) and the Old Roman antiphoner n
in the British Library (Add. MS 29988, fols. 74-84). All of the eigh
alleluias with FormA follow a standard formal plan, clear from th
musical sources and unmistakably implied in the much earlier
rubrics of Ordo Romanus 27, a description of how the vespers wer
27 With the exception of Ave Maria and Oratio mea, all of the offertory texts that use F
A are drawn from the psalms.
28 According to Amalar of Metz, who witnessed the paschal vespers at Rome in the e
ninth century, the pope presided at them, at least on Sunday; Liber de ordine antiphon
52.5, ed. J. M. Hanssens, Amalarii Episcopi Opera Liturgica Omnia, 3 vols., Studi e Tes
138-40 (Vatican City, 1948-50), vol. III, p. 84. The alleluias in question are Deus regnav
(Sunday; MM 198), Domine refugium and In exitu (Monday; MM 205 and 202), Paratum
(Tuesday; MM 192), Te decet (Wednesday; MM 204), Letatus sum and Qui confidunt (Frid
MM 188 and 200), Cantate domino (Saturday; MM 194). The formula occurs in none
the Greek-texted alleluias sung at the paschal vespers; see C. Thodberg, Der byzantini
che Alleluiarionzyklus, Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae Subsidia, 8 (Copenhagen, 196
pp. 168ff. These Greek alleluias make extensive use of recitation formulae and lite
repetitions also characteristic of Old Roman chant; see MM, pp. 128*-129*.
12
celebrated in the late seventh or early eighth century.29 The struc-

ture of the eight alleluias is essentially as follows:
A Alleluia
B Alleluia verse 1 (or incipit)

C Intonation (primicerius)30
D Verse (schola: FormA+ conclusion)
B Alleluia verse 2
C Intonation (primicerius)
D Verse (schola: FormA + conclusion)
A Alleluia
Alleluia verses 1 and 2 (B) are sung to a sp

on C with a torculus reserved for accented
several small variations to this formal pl
sum and Paratum cor have an extra C-D pair,
29 The rubrics of the Old Roman gradual correspond alm

of the alleluias in Ordo Romanus 27: 'Dicitur post hunc
paraphonistae [et] infantibus Alleluia. Et respondent parap
cum infantibus Alleluia. Dominus regnavit et reliqua. Et se
adnuntiant verba infantibus. V[ersus]. Parata sedes tua deu
flumina domine. Post hos versus salutat primus scholae
incipit Alleluia cum melodiis cum infantibus. Qua expleta,
mam.' Ordo Romanus 27.70-1, ed. M. Andrieu, Les Ordines
vols., Spicilegium sacrum lovaniense, 11, 23-4, 28, 29 (L
de Louvain, 1931-61), vol. III, p. 363. This ordo mention
(not the pope) as celebrant, as does the derivative descrip
Ordo 30B.71-82 (Andrieu, vol. III, pp. 475-7). For a fuller
pers see J. Smits van Waesberghe, 'De glorioso offici
Aufbau der GroB-Alleluia in den pipstlichen Ostervespern
Wellesz, ed.J. Westrup (Oxford, 1966), pp. 48-73; S.J. P.
Vespers of the Roman Clergy', Sacris Erudiri, 19 (1969-
MM, pp. 84*"-140"*. On the intonation and FormB in the
in Byzanz, im piipstlichen Rom und im Frankenreich: Der Cho
(Heidelberg, 1962), pp. 232-4.
30 Ordo Romanus 27.70 (Andrieu, vol. III, p. 363) instructs
the choirboys ('infantibus'). By the time the gradual wa
'announcing' the verse had devolved on the primicerius, w
by the singing of the verse by the entire schola. Could th
lier period when the intonation was a practical necessity f
FormA is discussed in the context of the vespers by K.
chen Alleluja-Psalmodie in der altr6mischen Ostervesper',
Geschichte des Benediktiner-Ordens und seiner Zweige, 83 (19
3' The alleluia and offertory verses using this 'Vesperstil
P. Bernard, 'Les versets des all6luias et des offertoires', pp
dates the offertories with FormA about a century earlier
partly on the assumption that the texts and chant formul
and SS. Philip and James) must be contemporaneous with
a view critiqued by Apel, Gregorian Chant, pp. 56-7. See a
13
Joseph Dyer
ofDominus regnavit is expanded by the addition of an extended melo-

dia. Cantate domino has two alleluia verses in succession, and the
second intonation of Pascha nostrum leads not to a verse but to a
grand alleluia.
Our concern in this brief digression is not the entire alleluia com-
plex of the paschal vespers but with the C-D pairs that use FormA.
Example 3 is a transcription of alleluia verse 2 ('Notum fecit') and
the (single) intonation-verse pair from the alleluia Cantate domino
for vespers on Saturday of Easter week. The (pre)intonation of the
primicerius (C) consists of a single pitch concluded by a descend-
ing cadential gesture. This does not foreshadow the music of FormA
but does outline the tonal sphere (G-c) of the formula. Both sources
of the music prescribe that the entire schola cantorum answers the
primicerius, thus indicating not a solo but a choral performance.32
In the alleluia verses of the paschal vespers FormA is invariably
introduced by element a and stated once only, with multiple repe
titions of the torculus figure, not repeated in flexibly varied config-
urations - a practice uncharacteristic of the offertories. The torculus
figure is repeated as often as necessary - in this case more fre-
quently than in any offertory. This group of vesper alleluia verses
also shares a common cadence formula ('suam' in Example 3).
B.-
2. No- tum fe - cit do - mi-nus sa-lu-ta - re su - - - - um.
C. " "_ . An
[Primicerius:] . "_ -
-te con-spe-ctu gen - ti - um
D.[Schola:]
-----W W----
An - te con-spe-ctu - ----"-
gen-ti um re - ve------- . .- ti-am
- la - vit iu - sti
su - am. [Alleluia]
Example 3 Alleluia. Cantate
chants de la messe selon la tradi

dit "chant vieux-romain"', in L'Eu
Serge, XLIe Semaine d'Etudes L
'Ephemerides Liturgicae' Subsidi
pp. 19-97, especially pp. 83-9.
32 According to Ordo Romanus 27
Andrieu, Les Ordines romani, vol. I
14
Does the less flexible use of FormA in the alleluias of the paschal
vespers indicate an earlier stage of development preserved at a
time of particular solemnity in the liturgical year, or does it merely
represent the final stylisation for choral performance of a tradi-
tional Roman recitation formula for offertories? Ordo Romanus
27, as we have seen, describes the venerable paschal vespers as
observed at Rome in the first half of the eighth century. The exis
tence of these vespers with processions to stations outside the
Lateran basilica, if not all the details of its celebration, can in
probability be traced back at least a half-century earlier. Brun
Sthiblein drew attention to a pre-Hadrianic Gregorian palimpse
sacramentary (Monte Cassino 271) datable to the second half o
the seventh century that includes the prayers said at each of th
Roman vesper 'stations' throughout Easter week.33 This means
that the essential structure of the vespers must have been work
out by that time. Staiblein surmised that the existence of the v
pers could be pushed back even further. He noted, for examp
that the Monte Cassino sacramentary closed its cycle of vespe
prayers on Easter Saturday, the original conclusion of paschal week
(hebdomada in albis) until the introduction of 'Low' Sunday as t
octave day, an institution that StTiblein, following Antoin
Chavasse, attributes to the pontificate of Pope Honorius I
(625-38).34 By the mid seventh century, this Sunday had come
be regarded as the close of the octave, as attested in the earlies
Roman gospel list (c. 645) and the old Gelasian sacramentary.3
33 MM 90*-96*. P. Bernard has sought to reverse the relationship between Vat. lat. 53
and Ordo 27 by asserting that the gradual preserves an earlier stage of the wee
long paschal vespers and that Ordo 27 represents a redaction created to avoid placi
the octave of Easter on the following Sunday. One of his arguments seems bas
on interpreting Friday in Easter week (station at the Pantheon) as a 'sorte d'octav
du Vendredi saint' and the attribution of the gradual Letatus sum and the tract Qui con
fidunt to Good Friday, chants sung rather on the fourth Sunday of Lent: 'Les versets'
pp. 10-12.
34 A. Chavasse, Le sacramentaire gdlasien (Vaticanus Reginensis 316): Sacramentaire presbytiral en
usage dans les titres romains au VIIP si&cle. Bibliotheque de Theologie, s6rie 4/1 (Tournai,
1958), p. 238.
35 The evangelary is type HI in the classification of T. Klauser, Das r6imische Capitulare
Evangeliorum, Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 28 (Miinster in
Westfalen, 1935; 2nd edn, 1972), p. 25; see also G. Morin, 'Liturgie et basiliques de
Rome au milieu du VIIe siecle d'apres les listes d'Evangiles de Wurzbourg', Revue
Binedictine, 28 (1911), pp. 296-330, especially p. 305; and W. H. Frere, Studies in Early
Roman Liturgy 2: The Roman Gospel Lectionary, Alcuin Club Collections, 30 (Oxford, 1935),
p. 10 (no. 110). The Gelasian sacramentary, variously dated in the last two-thirds of the
15
Joseph Dyer
Although the Sunday after Easter is the final day of the paschal
vespers in 5319 and the London antiphoner, it is not included in
the detailed descriptions of Ordo 27, though this Sunday was surely
observed as the close of the paschal observance by the time the
ordo was copied in the mid eighth century. While the evidence
might not support an early seventh-century origin for the paschal
vespers, the Monte Cassino sacramentary offers good reason to
push its history back to the second half of the seventh century.
The prominence in the paschal alleluias of a formula otherwise
unique to the offertories permits us to hypothesise that the for-
mula may have originated with the special Vesper alleluias, later
to be transferred to a portion of the offertory repertoire and there-
upon considerably modified and integrated with other melodic
material. That both the alleluias and the offertories were created
in the late seventh century at dates not too remote from each other
would concord well with other evidence. The verses of the alleluias
are strikingly rigid and probably preceded the generally more
allusive treatment of FormA found in the offertories. For some
unknown reason the masters of the schola cantorum extracted a
salient feature of the paschal alleluias in creating the offertor
repertoire.
The evidence of the liturgical kalendar lends support to this
dating. Some of the offertories that depend most heavily on FormA
have assignments to feasts and ferias well established in the old-
est liturgical kalendar (see Appendix 1). The latest addition to
the temporal cycle with an offertory using FormA might be
Sexagesima Sunday, introduced toward the end of the sixth cen-
tury. In fact, the refrain and verses of the offertory for this Sunday,
Perjice gressus, make unusually extensive use of the formula.
Offertories in which FormA plays an important role are assigned
to six feasts and vigils of saints dating presumably from about the
seventh century, carries the rubric 'Octabas paschae die domi<ni>co' (no. 499, ed.
Mohlberg, p. 81). A similar rubric occurs in a Roman capitulare that preserves the same
stage of development as the Wiirzburg list; see T. Klauser, 'Ein vollstdindiges
Evangeliumsverzeichnis der r6mischen Kirche aus dem 7.Jahrhundert, erhalten im Cod.
Vat. Pal. lat. 46', Ri'misches Quartalschriftfiir christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte,
35 (1927), pp. 113-34, reprinted in his Gesammelte Arbeiten zur Liturgiegeschichte,
Kirchengeschichte und christlichen Archiiologie, ed. E. Dassmann, Jahrbuch fiir Antike und
Christentum, Ergdinzungsband, 3 (Miinster in Westfalen, 1974), pp. 5-21.
16
same period or slightly before.36 Both the feast and the vigil of St
Lawrence were ancient Roman observances, mentioned already in
the Wiirzburg epistle and gospel lists, documents that represent
Roman liturgical practice before the end of the seventh century."7
The Wiirzburg epistle list has separate entries for the vigils and
feasts of St Peter and St Paul, while the Wiirzburg gospel list has
a joint vigil and feast for both saints.38 Among all of the occasions
when offertories with FormA are sung, only the feast of the
Annunciation is of slightly more recent institution, but even this
feast falls within the time frame of the period when the offertory
repertoire was probably being created. The feast of the
Annunciation was introduced at Rome in the late seventh century
by Sergius I (687-701), and Dom Hesbert believed that its offer-
tory, Ave Maria, was created at that time especially for this com-
memoration.39 Only Ave Maria and Oratio mea for the vigil of St
Lawrence stand out from the other offertories in Appendix 1 as
ones with non-psalmic texts. In neither of these two pieces does
FormA represent a major structural component: its use is quite
cursory and almost incidental.
36 Confitebuntur is shared by several saints' days, the earliest of which could be Sts Philip
and James (indicated for this feast by incipit along with the complete music for another
offertory, Repleti sumus), whose church was reconstructed after Rome had been retaken
from the Goths in 562. Pope Gregory I (590-604) preached a sermon in honor of Sts
Nereus, Achilleus and Pancratius; the dedication of the titulus Vestina on the Quirinal
to St Vitalis took place before 595. Observance of the feast of the Palestinian martyr St
George in Rome dates from the erection of his basilica in the Velabro during the pon-
tificate of Leo II (682-3). See P. Jounel, 'Le sanctoral romain du 8e au 12e siecles', La
Maison-Dieu, 52 (1957), pp. 59-88.
37 G. Morin, 'Le plus ancien comes ou lectionnaire de l'Cglise romaine', Revue Binidictine, 27
(1910), pp. 41-74 (p. 61, nos. 138-9), and Morin, 'Liturgie et basiliques', p. 313. It occurs
in the Old Gelasian Sacramentary (Vat. Reg. lat. 316), Liber sacramentorum Romanae aecle-
siae ordinis anni circuli, ed. L. C. Mohlberg, Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, Series
maior, Fontes, 4 (Rome, 1960), p. 151. The earlier (c. 600) Verona Sacramentary con-
tains fourteen Mass formularies (group XXI) for St Lawrence. The preface of the first
Mass contains the phrase 'praevenientes natalem diem beati Laurenti', and similar
phrases are found in the twelfth formulary: L. C. Mohlberg, ed., Sacramentarium Veronense,
Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, Series major, Fontes, 1 (Rome, 1956), pp. 94 and
98.
38 Morin, 'Le plus ancien comes', pp. 60-1 (nos. 130-1, 132-3); Morin, 'Liturgie et basiliques',
p. 309. See also W. H. Frere, Studies in Early Roman Liturgy 1: The Kalendar, Alcuin Club
Collections, 28 (Oxford, 1930), pp. 109-12.
39 R.-J. Hesbert, Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex (Brussels, 1935), xxxviII-xxxIx. The feast
is missing in the Wiirzburg gospel list (645) and its Roman counterpart (Vat. Pal. lat.
46); see Klauser, 'Ein vollstdindiges Evangeliumsverzeichnis der r6mischen Kirche',
passim.
17
Joseph Dyer
The offertories that depend most heavily on FormA are: Conjirma

hoc, Confitebuntur, Custodi me, Domine fac mecum, Expectans expectavi,
Intonuit, Lauda anima, Michi autem, Miserere michi, Perfice gressus, Repleti
sumus, and verse 2 of Scapulis suis. All of these are assigned to very
ancient observances. This cannot be accidental, nor can one
assume a wholesale 'reediting' of the offertories merely to intro-
duce it. Except for Confitebuntur, Perfice gressus and Repleti sumus, the
presence of the formula in these offertories is confined to the
verses. The two sanctoral offertories in this group (Confitebuntur
and Repleti sumus) apply the formula to the text in a particularly
rigid manner. The other liturgical occasions on which these offer-
tories are sung, many of them during Lent, do not point to a single
explanation.
The presence in Appendix 1 of the offertory Confirma hoc attracts
our attention because of Dom Hesbert's observation that in the
eight- or ninth-century Mont-Blandin gradual this offertory
Pentecost is followed by another offertory, Factus est repente, mar
'Item OFF'.40 A number of Beneventan sources preserve the l
ter chant, usually with an assignment to the Thursday aft
Pentecost. (The offertory at Rome for Pentecost Thursday w
Populum humilem.) Hesbert concluded that Factus est repente was
original (and at one time only) offertory for Pentecost, as it prov
to be in a noted missale plenum from Canosa near Monte Garga
now in the Walters Art Gallery (MS. W.6, mid eleventh centur
Kenneth Levy drew attention to its presence in this source as w
as in a neumed gradual-troper from Priim (Paris, Bibliothequ
Nationale, ms. lat. 9449, c. 1000), evidence he used to support h
contention that a neumed exemplar of the Gregorian reperto
existed before the year 800.41 He disagreed with Hesbert's clai
that Factus est repente could be Roman in origin, given the absenc
of the offertory in the Old Roman tradition. The extensive use
FormA in Confirma hoc certainly points to this piece as a genuine
Roman product, thus adding confirmation of the non-Roman o
gin of Factus est repente.
There is another formula (FormB) that pervades considerab
more of the offertory repertoire than does FormA. Though it inc
40 R.-J. Hesbert, 'Un antique offertoire de la Pentec6te', in Organicae voces: FestschriftJosep

Smits van Waesberghe (Amsterdam, 1963), pp. 59-69.
41 Levy, 'Charlemagne's Archetype of Gregorian Chant', pp. 11-25.
18
porates a podatus (part of element b) that can be repeated to

accommodate extra syllables, FormB, possibly because of its richer
variety of elements, does not possess the unmistakably 'recita-
tional' character of FormA. Appendix 2, which lists the 33 offer-
tories in which this formula is found, reveals that the number of
repetitions in a given offertory ranges widely. The long offertory
Domine deus in simplicitate depends entirely on repetitions of the for-
mula, whereas Bonum est has no more than a single statement.42
There seems to be a tendency, as was the case with FormA, to con-
centrate its presence in the verses.
Although F-mode offertories predominate in this group, there
is a generous sampling of offertories with finals on D and G. The
only E-mode offertories with FormB are In die sollempnitatis, Lauda
anima (verses only) and the complete version of the offertory Erit
nobis [vobis] in the S. Cecilia gradual. The latter includes the music
for verses that were not notated over the text in Vat. lat. 5319.
Only three offertories with F finals make no use of the formula
whatsoever.43 One of these, De profundis (MM 360), has no verses
in the manuscripts of the Old Roman tradition. (Every other F-
mode offertory except Felix namque, a Gregorian borrowing in the
5319 gradual, has at least one verse.)
Only Inveni David (MM 343, text from Ps. 88:21-2) offers no
ready explanation for the absence of FormB, but there are prob-
lems with its components that may have some bearing on the sit-
uation. As notated in Vat. lat. 5319 (fol. 19v) the offertory has
apparently two verses ('Potens es' and 'Veritas mea'), but in the
S. Cecilia gradual (fol. 24) the first of these verses is divided in
two: 'Potens es' and 'Posui adiutorium'.44 Vat. lat. 5319 inserts the
(unnotated) words 'tu dixisti' (found nowhere else in the offertory)
before the words 'posui adiutorium' in verse 1. 'Posui adiutorium'
serves also as the first verse of the D-mode offertory Veritas mea in
Vat. lat. 5319 (fol. 26v).45 The tessitura of the 'Veritas mea' verse
42 Only the offertories Expectans expectavi and Lauda anima appear in both Appendixes 1 and
2.
43 Most of Sanctificavit Moyses (MM 350), a non-psalmic text, is based on an entirely dif-
ferent pattern of repeated material. See Example 12 below.
44 A third verse, 'Et ponam in seculum seculi', has not been provided with notation in the
5319 gradual.
45 The S. Cecilia manuscript (fol. 25) has only the verse 'Misericordia' [= vs. 2 in 5319]
for this offertory.
19
Joseph Dyer
in 5319 is much lower than the rest of Inveni David: the interval
between the end of the verse and the beginning of the respond is
a seventh, as is the interval between the end of the Veritas refrain
and its 'Posui' verse. In fact, the offertory Veritas mea (MM 270,
same music as the 'verse') has been converted into a verse, retain-
ing its original F cleffing rather than adopting the C cleffing of its
new context. The offertory Veritas mea ends on D, while its verse
'Posui adiutorium', the same verse found with Inveni, begins a sev-
enth higher on c with a change to C cleffing. At the end of the
verse the repetenda ('et in nomine') is twice given without a
change of clef, thus implying that the repetenda is sung a fifth
higher than originally, thus bringing the offertory to a close on a.
The S. Cecilia gradual has none of these inconsistencies: Veritas
mea is notated with an F clef throughout.
FormB consists of seven elements (Example 4). It also appears
transposed down a fifth with b-flat understood, though not
expressly notated. Though there can be no doubt that these seven
elements were conceived as a unit, the cantor-composers enjoyed
generous options for rearranging or omitting those of subsidiary
importance. In addition, single notes and two-note neumes were
inserted between the standard elements, and the whole could be
enriched by combination with other compositional techniques. The
intonational element a of FormB (not invariably present) ascends
to an accented torculus (or podatus) on c (F in the lower trans-
position), a pitch that represents the tonal focus of the formula.
This pitch is further embellished by the four-note figure of ele-
ment b. The podatus that follows this figure may be repeated to
accommodate several syllables, usually no more than a few.46
Despite the prominence of the culminating note of element c, it
very rarely receives the accent. Element d, whose distinctive
melodic outline in a sense 'defines' the formula, can never be omit-
ted. (Cf. element d in FormA.) There is a clear preference for
6 For exceptions to this general rule see verse 3 of the offertory Factus est dominus (MM
359), and verse 3 of Emitte spiritum tuum (MM 385). John of Afflighem quoted a similar
podatus recitation from the tract Qui habitat as a bad example of excessive 'harping' on
a single neume (see note 3 above). Bruno Staiblein discovered in a gradual from Pistoia
(Biblioteca Capitolare C 119; eleventh or twelfth century) a setting of the tract (can-
ticum) Vineafacta est for Holy Saturday that makes use of a repeated formula vaguely
reminiscent of FormB. See Schrifibild der einstimmigen Musik, Musikgeschichte in Bildern,
3/4: Musik des Mittelalters und der Renaissance (Leipzig, 1975), pp. 138-9.
20
placing it on the final syllable of a word, and the sense of the text
usually requires that elements d and e succeed each other directly.
Am a b c d.--- e f - g
Example 4 Formula B
Elements e andf, on the other hand, seem to be alternatives or

variants of each other, since they virtually never occur in direct suc-
cession. Indeed, their respective melodic outlines are redundant,
and they serve similar functions in attracting the verbal accent. In
the case of a paroxytone, element e falls on the accent. In the case
of a proparoxytone, the preceding clivis receives the accented syl-
lable, a procedure familiar from the treatment of the accent that
follows the torculus recitation (b) of FormA. The revolving nature
of FormB is evident from the fact that the articulative force of ele-
ment g is typically weak. It usually coincides with a logical division
of the text, but it can be used to conclude a verse. Elements b, d
and g gravitate towards final syllables or monosyllables. There are,
however, numerous exceptions (Immitet, vs. 3; Benedic, vs. 2; Domine
in auxilium, vs. 1, to mention just a few). The podatus recitation is
distributed without regard to accent or syllable position, and ele-
ment e likewise adapts to different accentual circumstances.47
FormB seems to have served the Old Roman cantor-composer not
as a fixed template but as a pool of resources whose consistently
applied accentual rules favoured clarity of text declamation. It
bears even less similarity to a psalm tone than FormA. The pres-
ence of the formula in both refrains and verses also strongly under-
scores the essential unity of the musical conceptions that governed
the choral and the solo components of the offertories.
All three verses of the offertory Laudate dominum for the fourth
Sunday in Lent (Example 5a) draw almost exclusively on FormB.
The only major interruption occurs in verse 1, where the last half of
the verse (omitted in the example) is set to a passage focused on F
and moving within the third D-F with upper and lower neighbours.
47 Neither FormA nor FormB is as consistent in accent treatment as the mode-8 tracts
analysed in detail by E. Nowacki, 'Text Declamation as a Determinant of Melodic Form
in Old Roman Eighth-Mode Tracts', Early Music History, 6 (1986), pp. 193-226, especially
Tables 1 and 2.
21
Joseph Dyer
This gesture, very familiar from other Old Roman offertories and
indeed expressive of the Old Roman chant style itself, recurs in an
abbreviated version at the end of verse 2. The elements of FormB
are generally employed in accordance with the principles and order
outlined above, but there are a few variants. The words 'seculorum'
and 'suum' in verse 2 extend the cadential element g. Though the
usual place of element d is on a final syllable, that principle is twice
set aside in verse 2 ('eternum' and 'seculorum'); it is observed else-
where in the verses of this offertory (vs. 1: 'domo', 'dei'; vs. 2: 'pop-
ulum'; vs. 3: 'deum' and 'dominus'). The verses of Laudate dominum
thus document the flexibility with which FormB could be used.
Many other examples could be cited in which FormB is employed
in a 'revolving' fashion that does not respect the syntactical struc-
ture of the psalmic text. The text of the second verse of the offer-
tory Portas celi (Example 5b) is comparatively brief; thus element
g could easily have been placed at the sense articulation point of
the text ('meum'). Instead, it falls on the first word of the suc-
ceeding hemistich, 'loquar'. Very frequently, successive repetitions
of the formula return not to its beginning but to element d. This
happens, for example, in the verses of the offertory In die sollemp-
nitatis (Example 5c). The first verse begins with free material
before slipping into FormB with element d; it then proceeds with
two consecutive statements of elements a and b. The remainder
of the verse follows the order d-e-g-b-d. The second verse begins
directly with the conventional FormB intonational group that
places the first text accent ('adoribitis') on the torculus of ele-
ment a, and it adheres to the formula throughout.
In addition to the free material inserted before, between and
after statements of FormB, there is a melisma (Example 6) asso-
ciated with this formula in a number of offertory verses.48 Its pres-
48 Beatus es (MM 374; not FormB), Desiderium anime (MM 359 = vs. of In virtute), Domine con-
vertere (MM 349), Domine deus in simplicitate (MM 341), Domine in auxilium (five times; MM
347), Factus est dominus (MM 357), Gloria et honore (MM 293), In conspectu angelorum (MM
356), In virtute (MM 355), lustitie domini (MM 361), and Sperent in te (MM 345). The
melisma is repeated three times in the single verse 'Vitam petiit' of the offertory In vir-
tute. Vat. lat. 5319 omits the a-c-G-a-G figure at the second appearance of the melisma,
but the S. Cecilia gradual (fols. 14v-15) contains the missing passage. Very likely, the
5319 scribe was working from a written model and jumped from the first F-G-F torcu-
lus to the next. A different melisma occurs in two offertories with FormB, Domine con-
vertere and Gloria et honore, as well as in the offertories Benedictus es ... in labiis (MM 329)
and Letamini in domino (MM 292).
22
U) II I
d i
4
cli
' @ I2
0
S
cli
!)I U I2 ~
10
ce
, (
o.
0)
LO t0
LO
i ' i
SN
I 0 I
?IF~'ii~III1 ?It- PINI II1 2.~ t I 1~

.~0
U)
ii
('j I
<L
U)111
U)
23
Joseph Dyer
I I I
.
I 0 I I
I I I
I I
I I
I
I I
cr)
0 0
Z4
"-
0t
I 4, ,
Co
0l n 0a '0
ca'0 '
0l
Q)
0 011 011 11 111 IFI h

1-4
cd
Sl
'o o
0
I 0 ~ 0e?r Ir c
0i
0~E '0
I 0 4
0 0II1 '011 in c in ? I~
tt
z.
0 a IFI d
I~nl '5;0
a 'z
24
ence and location are indicated by asterisks in Appendix 2. The

melisma epitomises in a splendid way the familiar Italianate reit-
eration of short melodic figures in stepwise motion. The torculus
descent in the middle of the melisma is particularly characteris-
tic of peninsular musical language. When present at the begin-
ning of a verse, the close of the melisma (identical with element
g of FormB) dovetails neatly with the continuation of the verse.
The same melisma can be used to close a verse, in which case ele-
ment g, incorporated at its end, introduces the repetenda. It serves
such a function in two offertories (Desiderium anime and Domine in
auxilium), where it appears in the middle of the refrain just pre-
ceding the repetenda. Since both of these offertory refrains repeat
the text and music of the opening phrase at the end, the melisma
effectively introduces a return (see Table 5, below).
Vi-tam pe- - - - - - - ti- it...

Example 6 Formula B melisma: In virtute: Verse
The Old Roman offertory Factus est domi

that makes heavy use of FormB, has been
previous discussions, on the basis of which wi
have been drawn about the oral transmissio
and the influence of the Gregorian musical
When the piece is placed against its formul
of these conclusions seem warranted, altho
tual and musical features do warrant closer examination. The text
of the Old Roman refrain reads: 'Factus est dominus firmamentum
meum et salvum me fecit ab inimicis meis potentibus et ab his qui
49 Helmut Hucke alluded to the large number of offertory refrains and verses whose music
(i.e., FormB) corresponds with that ofFactus est dominus ('Zur Aufzeichnung der altr6mis-
chen Offertorien', pp. 298-9). L. Treitler, 'Oral, Written and Literate Process in the
Transmission of Medieval Music', Speculum, 56 (1981), pp. 476-80, discussed the same
offertory, again outside its larger formulaic context, as did Jeffery, Re-Envisioning Past
Musical Cultures, pp. 25-31. Ten years later, Treitler returned to the same chant in
'Medieval Improvisation' (see note 16 above) and in his essay 'Miindliche und schriftliche
Uberlieferung: Anfdinge der musikalischen Notation' in Die Musik des Mittelalters, ed. H.
Maller and R. Stephan, Neues Handbuch der Musikwissenschaft, 2 (Laaber, 1991), pp.
58-60.
25
Joseph Dyer
hoderunt me.' Both Vat. lat. 5319 (fol. 65v) and the S. Cecilia
gradual (fol. 62v) insert a 'V' at the end of this passage, followed
by what is presumably the first verse.50 This verse begins in an iden-
tical fashion, 'Factus est dominus firmamentum meum', but con-
tinues 'et refugium meum et liberator meus, sperabo in eum'.51
Identical words have identical music based on FormB.
This Old Roman offertory has a Gregorian counterpart, but the
text of the Gregorian refrain corresponds not to the Old Roman
refrain but to its first verse.52 Helmut Hucke drew attention to
this curious situation and believed that it could be explained by
supposing that the Old Roman notator had recourse to the
Frankish (i.e., Gregorian) tradition for the first verse, which he
then conflated with the traditional Old Roman offertory refrain.53
Following Hucke's analysis, Leo Treitler also assumed that the Old
Roman verse 1 derived from a Frankish 'responsory text' (i.e.,
offertory refrain) and, furthermore, that 'the adaptation also
involved the provision of a new text for the Roman responsory'.54
This hypothetical adaptation must have antedated the earliest
notation of the offertory in the S. Cecilia gradual (1071) by many
years, though neither Hucke nor Treitler suggested a precise date
or provided any evidence for the reworking, except insofar as both
attributed it to Frankish influence.
The Latin Psalter traditions of the two 'factus est' passages (not
heretofore taken into account) promise to clarify the question.
Table 1 compares the psalter versions with the chant texts in
parallel columns. The Old Roman verse 1 (= the Gregorian
refrain), apart from the introductory words ('Factus est'), derives
from the Roman Psalter text of Psalm 17:3, which in this instance
does not differ from the reading of the so-called 'Gallican'
50 As noted earlier, the 'V' indication is used quite loosely in the Vat. lat. 5319 manuscript.
The St Peter's gradual contains no verses.
51 This offertory is included in Table 2 below as an offertory with text repetition.
52 Among the Sextuplex sources only Rheinau, Compiegne and Corbie give enough of the
text to ascertain which 'factus est' is intended; Corbie is the only one of these sources
to include the final words 'et sperabo in eum'. See Hesbert,Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex,
no. 66. The Old Roman order of the verses keeps to the sequence of Psalm 17 (vss.
19-20, 38 and 40), but the verses are transposed in Compiegne.
53 Hucke characterised this refrain accurately as 'r6misches Eigengut'; see 'Die
Aufzeichnung', p. 298.
54 Treitler, 'Oral, Written, and Literate Process', p. 477 (emphasis added).
26
Table 1 Factus est dominus
Roman Psalter Old Latin Old Roman offertory Gregorian offertory

Psalter of Verona
17:19b. Factus est 17:19b. Factus est Refrain: Factus est

dominus dominus dominus
protector firmamentum firmamentum
meus meum, meum
17:20. et eduxit 17:20. et eduxit
me in me in
latitudinem, latitudinem,
salvum me fecit salvum me fecit et salvum me fecit
quoniam voluit me. quoniam voluit me;
eruet me
ab inimicis meis ab inimicis meis
potentissimis et ab potentibus et ab his
his
qui oderunt me. qui hoderunt me.
17:3a. Domine, 17:3a. Domine, Vs. 1: Factus est Refrain: Factus est
firmamentum firmamentum dominus dominus
meum et meum et firmamentum firmamentum
refugium meum et refugium meum et meum et refugi
liberator meus; liberator meus; meum et meum et
deus deus liberator liberator
meus, adiutor meus, adiutor meus, meus,
meus, meus, et
sperabo in eum. sperabo in eum. sperab
Psalter.55 The refrain of the Old Ro

hand, corresponds with none of t
Weber in his edition of the Roman Psa
('factus est dominus firmamentum m
psalm according to a reading found
the Psalter of Verona (fifth or sixth
reads 'protector meus' instead of
refrain then continues with the last
55 On the terminology of the psalters see C. Estin
latin et la Bible, Bible de tous les temps, 2, ed.
pp. 67-88. On the Psalter traditions and their re
Psalters, Old Roman and Gregorian Chants', Kirch
11-30, as well as the recent survey by P. Bernar
dans les ripertoires "gr6gorien" et romain ancien
textuelles', Ephemerides Liturgicae, 110 (1996), pp
56 R. Weber, Le Psautier romain et les autres anciens
10 (Rome, 1953), pp. 29-32. The Verona Psalte
a manuscript with the Greek and Latin text of th
seventh century, probably in North Italy.
27
Joseph Dyer
reading similar to that found in the Verona Psalter and several

other Old Latin witnesses: 'eruet me de inimicis meis potentis-
simis et ab his qui oderunt me'57 This half verse (20b), absent from
the Roman Psalter tradition, is not found in all of the Old Latin
Psalters, since only certain manuscripts of the Septuagint (among
them the Codex Sinaiticus, 4-5 c.), on which all of the Latin trans-
lations of the psalms are based, contain the passage in question.
The Greek text of verse 20b 5o~atai ge iE 0Xp6v xgo" 6)vazi6v
Kcai KE xt6v lgtaovcov gE duplicates the Greek wording of verse
18 of the Psalm, but the Latin translations render each passage
differently.
Both Hucke and Treitler proposed that an Old Roman scribe
had recourse to the Gregorian tradition in order to craft a new
verse (the first), but that he stripped it of its Gregorian music and
fitted the text to a traditional Old Roman verse formula, com-
mitting an 'error' by ending the verse with a final cadence instead
of the expected verse ending (our element g). The reverse situa-
tion seems far more likely: that the Gregorian reviser, faced with
an archaic and unfamiliar psalm translation, elected to discard
the venerable Old Roman refrain and convert its first verse - so
similar in wording - into a refrain.58 This is a perfectly straight-
forward explanation, one that supposes neither a selective recourse
to the Gregorian tradition by a scribe preparing an Old Roman
chant gradual nor recourse to an archaic psalter translation for
the creation of a 'new' offertory refrain.
None of the previous discussions of Factus est dominus has taken
the textual traditions into account, but even a closer examination
of the Old Roman offertory practices might have revealed that the
offertory in question could not bear the weight of inference place
upon it. In the Vat. lat. 5319 manuscript verse 2 ('Persequar') is
followed by a cue that consists of a single word: 'et'.59 This cue
57 With variants this is the reading of the Old Latin 'psautier gaulois' tradition, one of
whose principal witnesses, the Psalter of St Germain (Paris, BN lat. 11947), probably
originated in Northern Italy in the sixth century.
58 By this time the Roman Psalter was in general use throughout most of Italy, and the
'Gallican' Psalter was probably gaining ground there as well. The Old Roman chant text
has 'potentibus' instead of 'potentissimis'.
59 It is not unusual for this manuscript to omit repetenda cues after the verses: there is
no cue at the end of verse 3 of this offertory, though the repetenda must have been
sung at that point.
28
would normally be taken as a reference to the concluding phrase

of the refrain: 'et ab his qui oderunt me'. Hucke noted that this
made little verbal sense if attached to the ends of the verses of
this offertory, though that alone might not have disqualified i
use in the twelfth century. The S. Cecilia manuscript, not gene
ally available to scholars until the publication of the facsimile
edition in 1987, amplifies the cue to 'et li-', thus indicating tha
the repetenda should be sought not at the end of the refrain ('
ab his qui hoderunt me'), but at the end of the first verse ('et li
erator'), a verse that ends on F, the same final as the refrain.
Hucke had assumed that this must be the case, and this assum
tion formed one of the bases for his argument that the Old Roman
scribe incorporated the 'Frankish' refrain into this piece as its firs
verse. Was this same highly unconventional solution also intend
by the scribe of Vat. lat. 5319, who merely indicated 'et'? Even
one insists on positing two stages in the evolution of this offertor
(or the existence of two separate offertories, as PeterJeffery does)
there is no compelling reason to have recourse to Frankish infl
ence or to suggest that this offertory reveals 'a generative system
for offertories in F in the Roman tradition.'61 The conclusion seems
clear, then, that the Old Roman offertory refrain, set to an Old
Latin text version, represents a first stage, not a later redaction.
The Gregorian adapter, faced with the archaic text of the Roman
refrain, discarded it and 'promoted' the (in some respect redun-
dant) verse 1 to the status of the refrain. The inevitable conclu-
sion must be that this much-discussed offertory represents nothing
out of the ordinary with respect to either its text or its musical
structure.
60 Cologny-Geneve, Bibliotheca Bodmeriana C 74, fols. 62v-63. The cue is in

end of verse 2 with notation and at the end of verse 3 without. Both 'et ab
repetenda) and 'et liberator' (end of vs. 1) begin similarly: a punctum and a
tus. The S. Cecilia gradual was generally inaccessible at the time Treitle
he does not refer to its treatment of the repetenda, a dimension introduce
cussion in Jeffery, Re-Envisioning Past Musical Cultures, pp. 25-31. A verse
tonic is unusual in Old Roman chant, but not unique to this offertory. See
in which refrain and verses have a common ending, Ave Maria etc. Anothe
with an anomaly in the repetenda cues is Benedictus es ... in labiis (MM
expected cue, 'in la<biis>', is found after verse 2 ('Aufer a plebe'). After
4 the cue is 'Aufer', a reference to the second verse. In Vat. lat. 5319 verses
unnotated. In the S. Cecilia gradual they are notated, and the cue is alwa
61 Treitler, 'Oral, Written, and Literate Process', p. 480, where the existe
offertory genres in F that do not involve exactly the same set of rules' is a
29
Joseph Dyer
In addition to the offertories with one of the formulae just

described, about half the repertoire contains patterns of repeti-
tion and return that unify entire pieces or sections thereof.62 These
are listed by category and analysed in Appendix 3. To these 44
offertories must be added the 15 pieces cited in Table 2 (Old
Roman Offertories with Text Repetition), which by definition have
large-scale musical repetitions (a-a) or returns (a-b-a). This pat-
tern of repetitions constitutes a distinctive and pervasive formal
aspect of the Old Roman offertories.63 Even though parallel pro-
cedures have been observed in the Beneventan chant repertoire,
none of the few preserved Beneventan offertories matches the
complexity of the Old Roman ones in this respect.64 Unlike the
system of standard phrases used for singing tracts and graduals,
the procedures favoured in the offertories generate unique com-
positions by the repetition, variation and restatement of passages
proper to each offertory.
Appendix 3 divides the various repetitions and returns into three
categories: (A) offertories in which part of the music of the refrain
recurs in a verse, (B) offertories in which both verses are based
substantially on the same music, and (C) large-scale repetition
and return structures. A few offertories are listed more than once.
Many of the repetition complexes are quite extensive, often
accounting for a significant part of a given offertory; thus no more
than a few representative examples can be presented here. Though
many of the examples come from verses, there seems to be no dis-
tinction made between the choral refrain and the soloistic verses
with respect to these formal procedures.
The few offertories in which part of the refrain serves as a source
of music for a verse are nevertheless significant for the light they
62 Wagner observed the importance of melodic repetitions in the Gregorian offertories

Einfzihrung, vol. III, pp. 421-8, as did Apel, Gregorian Chant, pp. 368-75, who argued that
their presence in responsories, offertories and alleluias gave evidence of 'a relatively late
period'. See also T. F. Kelly, 'Melodic Elaboration in Responsory Melismas', Journal of
the American Musicological Society, 27 (1974), pp. 461-74.
63 Bruno Stdiblein characterised the musical setting of an antiphon (Adorna thalamum) with
the kind of repetition one encounters in the Old Roman offertories as displaying an
'ungregorianische Haltung'; see 'Antiphon', Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. I,
cols. 542-3.
64 These procedures in old Beneventan chant are analysed by T. F. Kelly, The Beneventan
Chant (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 77-8 and 124-6; especially instructive are exx. 4.3D1-3,
4.8, and 4.9, 4.10 (Ingressae).
30
can shed on formal and historical questions. The refrain of the

first offertory in Appendix 3A, Ave Maria (MM 404), is constructed
from familiar G-mode motifs assembled into short phrases in
paired repetition. Its first verse draws almost exclusively on the
refrain, supplemented by a brief appearance of FormA. (This offer-
tory and its place in the history of the genre have already been
discussed.)
The offertory In te speravi (Example 7; MM 286) demonstrates
well the combination of one of the offertory formulae with repe-
tition and the varied reuse of melodic material on a larger scale.
Near the beginning of the refrain there is a pair of brief literal
repetitions ('dixi tu es deus'). The beginning of verse 1 takes up
the music of the repetenda (from 'in manibus') and repeats it to
conclude both verses. It is interesting to note how part of the music
set to the word 'tempora' in the refrain is reshaped into a repeti-
tion (a-a) in the verses. Part of the central portion of verse 1 is
free material, part FormB. Most of verse 2 is set to this formula.
The offertories in this category confirm the musical unity of refrain
and verses, a fact indicated as well by the presence of FormA and
FormB in both refrain and verses of many offertories. The essen-
tial unity of conception between refrain and verses seems to pre-
clude a priori the existence of Old Roman offertory verse 'tones',
such as have been hypothesised by Willi Apel and EwaldJammers
for the Gregorian offertories.65 In fact, except for a cryptic remark
by Aurelian of R68me towards the middle of the ninth century,
there exists no evidence whatsoever of offertory verse tones in
Gregorian chant. The 'editing' of Old Roman offertories in Gaul
seems to have taken precisely the opposite course.
The refrain and verses of Levabo oculos, the offertory for Monday
in the first week of Lent (MM 372; Appendix 3B and 3C), provide
instructive examples of Old Roman compositional techniques, par-
ticularly the derivation of subsequent phrases from what has
already been sung. Virtually the entire refrain (Example 8) is
based on the series of melodic gestures heard in the music for the
65 Apel, Gregorian Chant, 512 ('We must conclude that at the time of the Musica disciplina
[by Aurelian of Re6me], that is about 850, the verses of the Offertories were still sung
to a set of eight standard offertory tones'); see also Jammers, Musik in Byzanz, p. 115.
For a critique of this view see J. Dyer, 'The Offertory Chant of the Roman Liturgy and
Its Musical Form', Studi Musicali, 19 (1982), pp. 3-30.
31
. -xi tu es de-us meus in mani-bus tuis tem - - -
1. T-lu- mi- - -na fa - -ci-em tu- - am su - -pe
[FormB]in-v
2.[FormB]fi- l
Example 7 In te speravi: portions of
th~
Leva- bo o-cu4osme - os etcon-si-de - ra- bo mi-ra-bi- - li-
[ut doceas] me iu-
da mi- - chi in-tel -lec- tum ut di- scam man-
Example 8 Levabo oculos: R
first psalm hemistich (the first line of the example).66 The refrain
(a-a'-a") opens with a podatus recitation figure, relatively uncom-
mon in the Old Roman offertories but frequent in Beneventan
chant. The musical articulation divides the text into three seg-
ments - 'Levabo ..., ut doceas ..., da michi' - thus eschewing a
musical realisation of the textual rhyme that might have been
prompted by the threefold presence of 'tua'. The three occurrences
of this word are nevertheless melodically related. In this cen-
tonised text from Psalm 118 two kindred concepts, 'iustitia tua'
and 'mandata tua', have close melodic parallels, differing only in
slight details. The motifs introduced in the first phrase, many of
them typical of G-mode offertories, recur with slight variants in
the second and third phrases: first the close of the model melody
(at 'iustitia tua') and then its entire extent ('da michi . . .'). Only
the short phrase 'ut doceas' cannot be related to previous music.
The verses of the same offertory (Example 9) also depend on
the technique of progressive variation but with melodic materials
different from those of the refrain.67 The essential structure of
these two verses is revealed most clearly in the second verse (Ps.
118:77). The first hemistich ('Veniant ... et vivam') states the
complete melodic material. This consists of three units: (a) the
opening phrase that descends from G to C, (b) 'domine' and its
melisma centred entirely on G, and (c) a phrase that shifts to a
higher tessitura and closes with part of the 'domine' melisma con-
verted to a cadence ('et vivam'), as suggested by the alignment of
Example 9. Since the second hemistich of verse 2 ('quia lex tua
meditatio mea est') is shorter than the corresponding part of verse
1, phrase c is reduced, and the second verse closes with an adap-
tation of the ending of the first verse (cf. 'me exercebor' and 'medi-
tatio mea est'). The first verse follows a similar course, disturbed
somewhat by a possible confusion as to the division of the psalm
verse itself. The hemistich division of the first verse (Ps. 118:33)
should occur after 'exquiram'. The melody seems unsure, however,
perhaps because of the 'et' added to the psalter text before 'viam'.
66 The melodic materials of the refrain do not recur in the verses, which are tightly linked
by their own system of repeated motives. Compare, however, the cadences on '[iustitia]
tua' (refrain), and 'viam', 'exquiram', 'exercebor', 'est' (verses).
67 Similar examples may be found in the verses of the offertories Confitebor domino (MM
370), Deus, deus meus (MM 306), and Improperium (MM 377).
33
Joseph Dyer
I I
I I
o I
o i
I I
Ce'
?111 1111 o 1 C?4
I-~
u
0)
W
-0
8 a)
I ti
J)
SIII ll tl I 1V I
S)
441
' i
CI
(..,
& I1 ii III )I?
..Ib I111u,,
111111 ll~
34
(It would not be clear which 'et' was intended to introduce the
second half of the verse.) The words 'et viam' repeat the end of
the 'domine' melisma before going on to phrase c. The musical
treatment of the second hemistich of verse 1 ('et in preceptis')
corresponds to what has already been observed in the second verse.
There are many other melodic relationships that bind the verses
together. Note the similarity among the final syllables of 'viam',
'exquiram' (vs. 1), 'tue' (vs. 2), and the verse endings, which must
prepare for the refrain.68 The culmination point of each half verse
is concentrated on c - the highest note consistently reached in this
offertory, apart from a few appearances of the upper neighbour.
Coincidentally or not, this emphasises three synonyms for the law
of the Lord ('viam iustificationum', 'preceptis tuis', 'lex tua'), thus
giving heightened expression to the principal theme of the psalm
from which this offertory draws its text. The second verse makes
a subtle point by setting 'miserationes tue' (thy mercies) to the
very same music.
Another example of the subtle growth of a chant by means of
successive repetition and the varied recombination of motives can
be found in the refrain of the offertory Benedictus qui venit (Example
10), for the Saturday and Sunday of Easter week69 The music for
the refrain and verses will be cited from the S. Cecilia gradual
(fol. 87), since only this manuscript and the St Peter's gradual (fol.
58) contain the complete refrain. Vat. lat. 5319 (fol. 95v = MM
385) omits the words 'benediximus vos de domo domini' and con-
tinues with 'deus dominus'. The refrain opens with a typical Old
Roman structural feature: the threefold repetition of a single into-
national formula centred on c ('Benedictus qui venit in nomine'),
followed by a conventional G-mode cadence on 'domini'. The sec-
ond phrase elaborates this opening in diverse ways: 'benediximus
vos' amplifies the opening motive and adds a melisma that had
earlier been subdivided to accommodate the text syllables of
'domini'. The following passage ('de domo domini') duplicates 'in
nomine domini' (line 1), while 'deus dominus' adapts the music of
68 Note the curious musical 'rhyme' between 'et viam' in verse 1 and 'et vivam' in verse
2.
69 This omission seems to indicate that the scribe of 5319 had a written exemplar before
him. Since the two phrases begin with the same succession of neumes, it would have
been comparatively easy for him to jump from one to the other inadvertently. Cf. lines
2 and 4 of Example 10.
35
Joseph Dyer
'benediximus vos'. Its cadential gesture (b-a-c-b-a) would seem to

suggest FormA, but this formula is represented only by a torculus
recitation ('illuxit').70 The web of musical interrelationships cre-
ated in the refrain of Benedictus qui venit produces a strong sense
of unity contrasted with an independent close that functions as
the repetenda of the offertory.
The interest of Benedictus qui venit is not exhausted with the
refrain. Its two verses (Example 11) can be analysed similarly
within the context of melodic repetition, in this case joined to one
of the standard offertory formulae (FormB). These verses possess
a strong musical and stylistic relationship to the refrain, a remi-
niscence of whose opening phrase, 'Benedictus qui venit', reap-
pears in verse 1 at the words 'exultemus et letemur' and also,
slightly varied, at 'quem reprobaverunt' in the second verse. As we
have already seen, the refrain itself is tightly organised around a
system of repetitions of this opening phrase. Since the text of verse
1 is relatively brief, additional music had to be supplied for the
much longer second verse. This is done not by additional repeti-
tions of phrases derived from the first verse, but by the insertion
of FormB after 'hic factus'. FormB is repeated three times before
a brief cadence that bears a resemblance to the cadence of the
first verse.
The most extensive repetition of material in an Old Roman
offertory occurs in the verses of Sanctificavit Moyses (MM 350-4;
Example 12, verses 2, 5, 6) for the seventeenth Sunday after
Pentecost.71 The text is exactly that of the corresponding
Gregorian offertory, but the two verses of the Gregorian offertory
are subdivided into eight shorter verses in the Old Roman ver-
sion.72 In this offertory the principles applied with such flexibility
70 The alleluias which close this refrain also close the offertory Erit nobis (MM 415), and
very similar alleluias can be found in other G-mode offertories, among them Confitebor
(MM 371), Confitebuntur (MM 409) and Intonuit (MM 411).
71 'Dom. II post sancti angeli' in the Vat. lat. 5319 gradual (fol. 130v). This offertory has
not been preserved in the S. Cecilia gradual. Three of the four verses of the Old Roman
offertory Superflumina (MM 295) are also rather rigidly stretched on a model melody,
which bears a passing resemblance to FormB. For a monastic piece found in central and
South Italian manuscripts see M. Huglo, 'Les diverses melodies du "Te decet laus": A
propos du Vieux-Romain', Jahrbuch fir Liturgik und Hymnologie, 12 (1967), pp. 111-16.
72 Offertoriale, pp. 114-17. As noted earlier, the verse indications in Vat. lat. 5319 cannot
always be taken at face value, nor are variant verse text divisions between the Old
Roman and Gregorian offertory verses unusual. This long offertory with all of its verses,
but without recurrence of the repetenda after every Old Roman 'verse', has been
36
Cu111
-~ iK1 Ifi?:~ ii .5=
i IIII ICII'Nf Cu
co
.e 1III IffCu
00
cz
x
P4
o II IM
37
Joseph Dyer
1.Haec di- - es quam fe - - cit
2. La-. . pi- - -dem quem re-pr
(1) domi- - nus ex-ul-te- - mus et le - te--mur
(2) can - - tes hic factus
(2) est inca- put an-gu - li
(2) a domi -no fa - ctum est

(2) et est mi- - - ra- bi- - - le in o - -cu - lis
(1) in e-a.
(2) no-stris.
Example 11 Benedictus qui venit (C 74, fol. 87):
and ingenuity in the three previous offer

rather rigid and somewhat unimaginat
phrases (a and b in Example 12), recombin
ply all the music for verses 2 through 8.
of phrase a.) The first phrase of the mod
style, while the second emphasises syllab
unusual among the Old Roman offertorie
can be used to close a verse. Interestingl
combinations of these two phrases (a-b-a
repeated over the course of the verses. B
with phrase a. In verse 2 this is followed by
but in verse 5 the a phrase is immediately
over to the b phrase. Verse 6 begins with
phrase a. These varied recombinations go
recorded by the Schola Hungarica, Old Roman Litur

12741-2. The appearance of the text in other chant repert
'Die mailindische Uberlieferung des Offertoriums Sanc
Stablein zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. M. Ruhnke (Kassel, 1967
38
I I I
I I
I I I
I I
I 0
-? . o :
LO
co
a!
C4
I
-0 0 I0
!0
Cd
,111 0(,1 1,to

'99
C14
1( ,
, I
o ,
! !
39
Joseph Dyer
sense of monotony, though such an inflexible application of repe-

tition is not typical of the Old Roman offertories.
It has been suggested that Sanctificavit Moyses belongs a group
of non-psalmic offertories whose textual, and in some cases musi-
cal, roots might be traceable either to Spain or to Gaul previous
to the introduction of Roman chant in the late eighth century.73
As the piece now stands in Old Roman chant, however, it mani-
fests no musical relationship with any other chant repertoire. The
melodic substance and the formal procedures used to shape the
offertory are quite consistent with what we have discovered in
other Old Roman chants of this genre. The unusually rigid
schematic layout of the piece, on the other hand, may lead one to
hypothesise that, if it indeed arrived at Rome from the North, it
did so at a time when the creative spark of native Roman music
had begun to weaken. It might have filled a gap in the liturgical
kalendar: one of the later Sundays after Pentecost.74 Perhaps one
could argue for the late origin of the piece by observing that
if earlier Old Roman cantors had chosen to use techniques of
varied repetition, they would have applied them more resource-
fully than has been done in Sanctificavit Moyses.
The two verses of the offertory Letamini (MM 292) are treated
in a manner very similar to that of Super flumina. The Easter
Monday offertory Angelus domini (MM 388) displays, on the other
hand, a more creative realisation of the repetition principle. The
music of the refrain is derived from the progressive variation of
the music set to the first three words of the refrain ('Angelus
domini descendit') and from the long melisma on 'celo' that recurs
for the final 'alleluia'.75 All of the verses begin exactly as the refrain
73 Levy, 'Toledo, Rome and the Legacy of Gaul', Early Music History, 4 (1984), especially
pp. 55-67, 72-4 and 87-92.
74 Dom. 18 post Pent. in the Sextuplex graduals and Dom. 17 post Pent. in 5319 and F 22.
The previous Sunday has another non-psalmic text of allegedly non-Roman origin, Oravi
deum meum. The following two Sundays have psalmic offertories, one of which (Si
ambulavero) is cued from a Lenten feria. Pentecost 20 has the unique offertory Vir erat.
Two other non-psalmic offertories, Domine deus in simplicitate and Felix namque, depend
almost entirely on FormB.
75 The same alleluia is used also at the end of the refrain of Emitte spiritum, the offertory
for the vigil of Pentecost, an ancient observance at the close of the paschal cycle. The
vigil is found in the seventh-century Wiirzburg epistle and gospel lists. The slightly ear-
lier sacramentary of Verona has 'orationes pridie pentecostes' (nos. 187-99; ed.
Mohlberg, 24-5); the Gelasian sacramentary includes three formularies, one for the ser-
vice of readings and two Mass formularies (I.LXXVII-LXXVIIII; ed. Mohlberg, 97-100).
40
does, and the second verse quotes (at 'stetit') part of the 'celo'
melisma.
A few offertories listed in Appendix 3B (Benedicam dominum,

Bonum est, Improperium expectavit and Reges Tharsis) generate a sec-
ond verse from the music of the first by repeating relatively small
melodic elements. The most complex rearrangement among this
group of pieces is found in the three verses of Bonum est (MM 267;
for the form of the refrain see Appendix 3B). All three verses are
set mostly to an embellished recitation on F. Within the very
restricted pitch range covered by the verses (C-G) and the reit-
erative style of the melodic line, certain larger patterns of repeti-
tion emerge. Only the beginning of verse 2 ('Ecce inimici tui') and
the close of verse 3 ('et insurgentes . . .') stand outside the frame-
work. The intonation of verse 1 returns several times in verses 2
and 3, and the melody set to the words 'domine peribunt' (verse
2) recurs three times in verse 3. All verses have the same cadence.
Both verses of the offertory Benedicam dominum (MM 284;
Example 13) are of approximately equal length, thus permitting
the modelling of the second verse closely on the second. Instead
of adopting this obvious course, the Old Roman cantors chose to
construct the second verse mainly through the selective reitera-
tion of motifs derived from the first phrase of verse 1. Verse 2
begins like verse 1, a common procedure in Old Roman offertory
verses, even when the continuation differs. Most of verse 2 is devel-
oped through the varied repetition of music found originally in
verse 1 to the words 'in te speravi'. The musical repetitions seem
to take little notice of the syntax or sense of the verse text.
Melodic repetition on a smaller scale, one of the most distinc-
tive musical characteristics of the Italianate style, pervades both
the refrains and the verses of Old Roman offertories. Besides
immediate repetition or variation of single motives of two to five
pitches (a-a) there are also structures that involve contrast (a-a-b,
or less frequently, a-b-a). The same repetition patterns are found
in texted portions as well as in melismas. This situation differs
from that found in the Gregorian offertories, where the repeat
The Gregorian sacramentary also has prayers for the vigil of readings and Mass 'in
sabbato pentecosten' (nos. 110-11), Le sacramentaire gregorien: Ses principalesformes d'apris
les plus anciens manuscrits, ed. J. Deshusses, Spicilegium Friburgense, 16, rev. edn
(Fribourg/ Suisse, 1992), pp. 222-7.
41
Joseph Dyer
II
? Ilr I I
o'
) If I
LL
I I I
co
cl
t!
8 l~l sIl
C
e ll II I I II I Ir I cl
0=
."5
0
'0 a,
o Io ''0
a)a
I -
z '0
42
structures are concentrated in the melismas.76 There are, more-

over, fewer long melismas in the Old Roman offertories than there
are in their Gregorian counterparts; most are relatively modest in
length. The repetitions usually occur at the same pitch level, as
they do in the refrain of Difusa est (MM 401; example 14a) and
the first verse of Inveni David (MM 344; Example 14b). Although
the tripartite a-b-a a design is uncommon, there a few examples
in the offertory repertoire.77 A particularly elegant example of the
Italianate style, which demonstrates both phrase repetition and
the reiteration of small melodic figures, occurs at the end of both
verses of the offertory Exulta satis (MM 338; example 15). The a
and b phrases of the melisma repeatedly fill in the interval of a
fourth (G-c) with a series of melodic gestures similar to those in
the preceding example. Both are encountered fairly often in G-
mode offertories. The b phrase trails off into an embellished
approach to the cadential pitch.78
la i la lb
... gra- -ti- - a in la- - -bi-is tu - -is
Example 14a Diffusa es: Verse 1 (MM
76 See the discussions in Wagner, Ferretti and Johner

368-70. On repetition in general, see Johner, Wort u
use in the Alleluia melismas see L. Treitler, 'On the
A Western Tendency in Western Chant', in Studies in M
ed. H. Powers (Princeton, 1968), pp. 59-72; E. Jammer
Messe, Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forsc
1973); Apel, Gregorian Chant, pp. 387-8.
77 For example, the beginning of Ave Maria (MM 404)
MM 298), Michi autem ('est principatus eorum', MM 3
tua et voluntaria oris tui', MM 337).
78 The same melisma concludes all three verses of Cus
b section cadencing on E) appears at the end of the r
Another a-a-b melisma occurs at the beginning of
Domine convertere (MM 349), Gloria et honore (MM 29
330). For another example see Inmittet angelum (e
similar phenomena in the melismas of the Gregor
'there can be hardly any doubt that such formation
period' (Gregorian Chant, pp. 369-70; emphasis adde
repetitions in the offertory verses as indications of
influence: 'The Old-Roman Chant', p. 504.
43
Joseph Dyer
Ia IIa I Ib lb a
... et ex- al-ta- vi e-lec- -

Example 14b Inveni David: Verse
la Ila' Ilb
.ter - - - - - - - - - - - re.
2.ple - - - - --------be.
Example 15 Exulta satis: Final m
The melisma that conclud

Recordare mei (MM 265; Ex
tion and continues with a v
figure at the end of a' is
melisma.79 The two most
offertory repertoire, Iubilat
and Deus enimfirmavit (M
internal repetitions. The fi
phrase itself the product o
indicated in Example 17.80
closes the second verse of
articulated by means of ex
by variation (a--a-b-a-a'-
found at the beginning of
... domine (MM 308). Anoth
of the offertory Eripe m
structed from a descendin
figure.
While compositional techniques making use of varied repetition
and return are thus paradigmatic of the Old Roman melodic style,
there is another technique, for which Apel's term 'reiterative style'
seems most appropriate. After reviewing the repeat patterns in
Gregorian chant, Apel observed that:
Much more significant and, in fact, decidedly typical of numerous chants
79 For a similar case see the long melisma that closes the second verse of the offertory
lustus ut palma (MM 324).
80 The stylistically very different melisma in the parallel Gregorian offertory (Offertoriale,
p. 18) shares formal characteristics with its Old Roman counterpart.
44
ca
II
Ln
Q0
Ia I
U 4
uz Co
?
>)
?l
.,.
1? I I
.,.
-- rip
.
S,
f'&
o
00
I I
[I
toi
L I I
I I
[I
45
Joseph Dyer
is a repetition technique of a more subtle and evasive nature, a certain

type of melodic design which may be described by the term 'reiterative
style' ... It is far removed from the concepts of the Western mind, as
appears from the fact that our vocabulary has only more or less deroga-
tory terms to indicate it: pleonasm, prolixity, diffuseness, etc., all indica-
tive or suggestive of a lack of conciseness. It is not easy to describe this
style in definite terms or to illustrate it by specific examples, because it
involves subtle allusions rather than demonstrable data.8"
Leaving aside the question whether or not the technique describe

by Apel is fundamentally foreign to the 'Western mind', this state-
ment applies rather well to the Old Roman offertories. Even allow-
ing for the differences between the Gregorian melos and th
Italianate style of the Old Roman melodies, the term 'reiterative
style' evokes the manner in which the Old Roman offertories hover
around a single pitch centre, vaguely suggesting repetition with
out exactly reiterating previous melodic gestures - in essence 'tro
pis semper variantibus'. Many examples may be found scattered
in the previous musical examples, the 'alleluia' that closes th
refrain of the offertory Deus, deus meus (MM 307; Example 19) may
serve to represent the practice. The reiterative style usually
implies, as here, a restricted range and gives the impression of
fluid, continuous variation.82
...al- - le - - lu-ia.
Example 19 Deus: Deus m
Our investigation of th
to melodic design in th
mention of another ph
repetition of segments
music. This exceptiona
without, however, lead
about either its origin o
the repetitions implied
81 Gregorian Chant, p. 262.

82 See the refrains of the offertor
enimfirmavit and Laudate dominu
83 Wagner, Einjiihrung, vol. III,
Johner, Wort und Ton im Chora
46
While this might seem reasonable, it is supported neither by the

manuscripts nor by other documentary evidence. The need to
extend the chant while offerings were being made cannot well
explain repetitions at the beginning of the refrain, and hence at a
point early in the offering ceremony. The rank of the feast cannot
have had much to do with it either, since the offertories with text
repetition in both the Gregorian and the Old Roman traditions
were not those assigned to the most important days of the kalendar.
Thirteen Old Roman offertories have some form of text repeti-
tion. Since a few offertories have more than one such passage, the
total number of examples amounts to fifteen. In addition to this
number, eight phrases are repeated two or more times in the offer-
tory Vir erat (MM 255).84 (The special case of the offertory Factus
est dominus has been discussed above.) Table 2 lists all Old Roman
offertories with text repetition, divided according to the two for-
mal patterns :.represented (a-a and a-b-a). The title of the offer-
tory is given first, then (in italics) the text which is repeated. A
few pieces involve melodic variation upon repetition of the text
phrase, and these are marked with an asterisk.85 The ternary
model (a-b-a) is found only in the refrains, the repetition of the
first phrase serving also as the repetenda of the offertory. Three
offertories have a text repetition in the Old Roman but not in the
Gregorian tradition: Benedictus es . . . ne tradas, Domine convertere (F
22 only) and Super flumina. There are, on the other hand, three
Gregorian offertories with text repetition whose Old Roman coun-
terparts have no such repetition: Iubilate Deo omnis, De profundis and
Domine deus in simplicitate.86 Whatever the raison d'etre behind this
84 Not included in this calculation, however, is the first verse of the offertory Anima nostra
(MM 26), whose text repetition ('Nisi quod dominus erat in nobis; dicat nunc Israel, nisi
quia dominus erat in nobis') is part of the psalm text itself. The two phrases are set to
different music.
85 Gregorian chant embellishes such repetitions more elaborately. See the offertories
lubilate Deo universa, lubilate Deo omnis, Afferentur (maior), In virtute and Exultabunt. Even
if a repetition is unaltered, it 'is never experienced as being literal, because each new
recurrence has a different history from the previous ones; nevertheless the experience
is one of metamorphosis in place': D. Burrows, 'Singing and Saying', The Journal of
Musicology, 7 (1989), p. 397. One could say the same of a Baroque instrumental move-
ment or aria that makes use of the ritornello principle.
86 One Gregorian offertory with text repetition, Exultabunt, has no Old Roman equivalent.
For a list of text repetitions in the Gregorian tradition see Apel, Gregorian Chant, pp.
364-7. To his group A should be added the second verses of the Gregorian offertories
In virtute, Gloriabuntur and Domine deus in simplicitate.
47
Joseph Dyer
Table 2 Old Roman Offertories with text repetition

(text in italics is sung twice)
A-A
*Anima nostra: Vs. 1: Nisi quod dominus erat in nobis dicat nunc Israel
nisi quia dominus erat in nobisa
*Benedictus es ... in labiis: Benedictus es Domine, doce me iustificationes tuas ...
Vs. 4: Viam iniquitatis domine amove a me.b
*Benedictus es ... ne tradas: Benedictus es Domine, doce me iustificationes tuas ..
Domine exaudi: ... ne avertasfaciem tuam a me.c
Gloriabuntur: Vs. 2: Quoniam ad te orabo Domine ...d
*Iubilate Deo universa: lubilate Deo universa terra ...
*Vs. 1: Reddam tibi vota mea ...
*Vs. 2: Locutuslm est os meum in tribulatione mea ...
*Precatus est: Precatus est Moyses in conspectu Domini Dei sui et dixit ...
*Vs. 1: Dixit Moyses et Aaron ...
Super flumina: Vs. 2: ... si non meminero tui, si tui non meminero ..."
Vir erat: multiple repetitions
A-B-A
Bonum est: Bonum est confiteri Domino ...
*Desiderium: Desiderium anime eius tribuisti ei ...
Domine convertere: Domine convertere et eripe animam meam ... Domine
convertere et eripe/
Domine in auxilium: Domine in auxilium meum respice ...
Factus est dominus: Factus est dominusfirmamentum meum ...g
Offerentur regi: Offerentur regi virgines ...h
An asterisk indicates that the repetition is slightly embellished melodically.

a. This almost exact repetition occurs in the biblical text of Psalm 123:1-2a
b. Vat. lat. 5319 (MM 331) indicates a repetition of the 'viam' phrase but
provides no music; the repetition is not present in the verse of this offertory in
the S. Cecilia gradual (fol. 37),
c. In the St Peter's gradual (fol. 49) this offertory ends with the first statement
of the phrase.
d. This repetition occurs only in the S. Cecilia manuscript (fol. 112v), as also in
the Gregorian tradition. The text in Vat. lat. 5319 forms the last part of a
single verse.
e. Although the text of the second statement differs slightly from the first,
both have a virtually identical melody (MM 297). Both the length of the
refrain and the intended repetenda are not entirely clear; I have followed the
verse indications of the S. Cecilia manuscript (fol. 67v); this is vs. 4 in the 5319
gradual.
f This return occurs in the St Peter's gradual (fol. 40), but not in Vat. lat
5319, fols. 68 and 140, or in Archivio di S. Pietro F 11A, fol. 55v.
g. See the previous discussion of this offertory.
h. This text repetition occurs with a slightly varied melody in S. Pietro, F 22,
fol. 99v.
48
unusual practice, the many curious text repetitions common to

both chant traditions testify in a peculiar way to the unity of the
textual tradition of Old Roman and Gregorian chant. In most cases
the repetition differs little from the first musical statement. In the
case of Precatus est Moyses (MM 397) the second statement closes
with a slightly expanded melisma on 'dixit'. The remainder of the
refrain is also notable for its formal parallelism: a-a'-b'-c-c-d (see
Appendix 3C).
One of the most remarkable chants to be found in any of the
medieval liturgical repertoires is the offertory Vir erat (MM 255)
on a text from the book of Job.87 In the Old Roman version eight
separate phrases, some consisting of only a few words, are repeated
two or more times. One phrase, 'ut videat/videam bona', is sung
no fewer than nine times.88 The Gregorian version follows the same
general procedure, but different manuscripts do not agree on how
many repetitions this phrase should have. Calculating the num-
ber of 'verses' in the Old Roman version would be pointless, since
here as elsewhere in the Lateran manuscript 'V' indications do not
have their literal meaning.89 The extraordinary length of this offer-
tory precludes a full transcription here, but the outline in Table
3 indicates the arrangement of the verses. Most of the repetitions
are paired, except for the 'ut videat/videam bona' segment. Other
subtle interconnections could be revealed by a thorough analysis
of the entire piece.90 The sequence of phrases in Example 20 ('I'
in Table 3), exemplifies several types of variation procedure char-
acteristic of Old Roman 'innovations with ever varying tropes'. The
last of the nine 'verses' rises to the highest pitch level reached in
the piece (g'), while extending and varying the melody (x) that
introduces this repetition sequence and closes each group of three.
Kenneth Levy has argued that this offertory, like Sanctificavit
87 The complete Gregorian version with its verses is available not only in Ott's Offertoriale
(p. 122) but also in Ferretti, Esthitique gregorienne, 200-2. Only the verses are given in
Wagner, Einfrihrung, vol. III, pp. 430-3.
88 Amalar of Metz explained the unusual repetitions in the verses by noting that the offer-
tory (sc. refrain) contained the words of the narrator, while the verses reported the
lament of the ailingJob: 'Aegrotus cuius anhelitus non est sanus neque fortis, solet verba
inperfecta saepius repetere . . .job repetivit saepius verba more aegrotantium.' Liber offi-
cialis 3.39, in Amalarii Episcopi Opera Liturgica Omnia, ed. Hanssens, vol. II, p. 373.
89 With approximately the same text the Gregorian offertory usually has four verses: (1)
'Utinam', (2) 'Quae est', (3) 'Numquid', (4) 'Quoniam'. This offertory is not present in
the S. Cecilia gradual.
90 See J. Dyer, 'The Offertories of Old Roman Chant', pp. 289-90.
49
Joseph Dyer
Table 3 Verses of Vir erat
Text Music
A-A. Utinam a a
B-B. Quibus iram b b
C-C-C. Et calamitas c d c'
D-D. Que est enim e d
D. Que estfortitudo f
E-E. Aut quid finis g-g
F. Numquid f
G-G. Aut caro mea a' a
H-H-H. Quoniam h-h'-h'
I_ .9 Ut videam/t xy x'y y x'yy x"
1.Ut vi- - de- - - - - at bo- - na.
3.Ut vi- de- a bo- - nam.
6.Ut vi- de- am bo- - na.
9. Ut vi- de- am bo- - -na.
Example 20 Vir erat: Ve
Moyses, represents a Ga
of Vir erat 'presumab
haps Ottonian import
reviser showed his fla
The Gregorian offerto
'ut videat/videam bon
Old Roman version of
ning expressive effect
up a fifth to the midd
fifth (I,_9) for Job's cl
Does the analysis of th
Roman graduals revea
91 K. Levy, 'Toledo, Rome and

Milanese counterparts.
50
repertoire? The stylistic resemblances between Old Roman and

Beneventan chant suggest the possibility of additional insights.
According to Thomas Kelly, the Beneventan chant existed by at
least by the mid seventh century and flourished through much of
the following century. After Charlemagne's defeat of the
Lombards, the Beneventan rite and its music faced extinction as
Romano-Frankish liturgy and music (Gregorian chant) were intro-
duced from the North. Probably as early as the first third of the
ninth century, in fact, the introduction of Gregorian chant at
Benevento rendered further creative activity in the Beneventan
musical sphere unlikely.92 Kelly listed the distinctive features of
the Beneventan style as: prevailingly stepwise motion, richness
of surface detail, use of small melodic formulae, infrequency of
simple recitations, and phrase and section repetition. Given the
striking similarity between Benevantan and Old Roman musical
style, it would seem reasonable to argue that Old Roman chant
carried forward and preserved an Italianate musical style 'frozen'
in the Beneventan sphere by the vicissitudes of history. Thus the
Old Roman offertories could be no more recent than the late
seventh or early eighth centuries.
An observation by a Frankish visitor to Rome about 79
recorded in Ordo Romanus 22, a collection of random notes o
the liturgical ceremonies of Lent as observed at Rome shortly
before 800, seems to indicate that no new offertory verses we
being created. The last entry in the ordo reads: 'De offertorio s
et versu ipsius duobus vicibus ad unam missam domno pape ca
tatur' (concerning the offertory and its verse: it is sung twice at a
single mass of the lord pope).93 Though the passage is far fro
clear, it appears to say that if the gathering of offerings by t
pope lasts longer than anticipated, the offertory and its verse
will simply be repeated, thus implying that the composition
improvisation of new offertory verses had ceased.
92 T. Kelly, The Beneventan Chant, 6-40; see also K. Levy, 'Charlemagne's Archetyp
Gregorian Chant',Journal of the American Musicological Society, 40 (1987), pp. 1-30, es
cially 11-20.
93 Ordo 22.21; Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani, vol. III, p. 262. Only two sources contain this
section of Ordo 22: St Gall 140 and St Gall 614. The latter abbreviates 'dom', which I
have construed as a genitive in the translation, but the interpretation of the passage
does not hinge on this point.
51
Joseph Dyer
The compositional strategies of the Old Roman offertories have

been represented in this essay by a restricted number of examples
that cannot begin to exhaust the prolific ingenuity that the Roman
cantor-composers applied to the musical treatment of the pre-
scribed texts. They sustained the Old Roman offertory repertoire
for generations before its first notation in the late eleventh cen-
tury by constantly fashioning 'innovations ... with varying
tropes'.94 I have concentrated on relatively large-scale procedures
- important formulae and patterns of varied repetition - neces-
sarily passing over smaller types of embellishment, melodic repe-
tition and variation that exemplify the Italianate style in general
and Old Roman chant in particular. This usage could never be
thoroughly catalogued, but these briefer reiterations, sometimes
not judged too kindly vis-a-vis the melodic style of Gregorian chant,
constitute a powerful unifying force on smaller formal levels.95
They also exemplify the principle of Old Roman chant composi-
tion for which Cassiodorus' words about 'innovations' being con-
stantly introduced seem particularly appropriate.
By calling into question the traditional wisdom about the ram-
bling incoherence of Old Roman chant, the present study has
demonstrated that the Old Roman cantors, attentive to melodic
organisation on the minute as well as on the grand scale, were at
least as systematic as their 'Gregorian' brethren. The distinctive
techniques applied to the offertories range from conventional for-
mulae applicable to varying modal situations, through patterns of
repetition that encompass every level from the single neume to
the large phrase. Whether the offertories were even more formu-
laic and pervaded with patterns of varied repetition during the
period when they were transmitted orally, only later to become
more individualised, is a question that cannot be definitively
answered. The music contained in the three surviving graduals
94 The two later graduals, Vat. lat. 5319 and Archivio di S. Pietro F 22, transmit virtually
the same melodies for the offertories. On the the music of the Old Roman Office see
P. Cutter, 'The Old Roman Chant Tradition: Oral or Written?',Journal of the American
Musicological Society, 20 (1967), pp. 167-81, and E. Nowacki, 'The Gregorian Office
Antiphons and the Comparative Method',Journal of Musicology, 4 (1985), pp. 243-75.
95 Dom Hesbert, speaking of this aspect of Beneventan chant style, criticised 'la monotie
engendree par la repetition constante des memes formules non seulement dans une
mAme piece, mais encore a travers tout le repertoire': Paliographie Musicale, 14, p. 451,
as quoted in Stablein, MM 33*.
52
does seem, however, to preserve substantial evidence of techniques

aptly suited to the singing and preservation of a large repertoire
of lengthy chants across centuries of oral transmission. The
considerable dependence of the offertories on formulae and
other types of repetition recalls, moreover, Leo Treitler's remarks
about 'thrift' as one of the benchmarks characteristic of oral
repertoires.96
It would be premature and indeed rash to declare that all th
compositional strategies of Old Roman chant have been laid bar
by a study of the offertories. Standard formulae and repetition pa
terns were surely important - they abound in the genre - but the
are considerable stretches of 'free' music created according to t
conventions of the Old Roman style. Indeed, the two formulae tha
play a significant role in the Old Roman offertory system we
cleverly integrated with such passages. The reliance of the Ol
Roman offertory repertoire on this ensemble of procedures surely
delayed innovations that would have substantially altered the pr
file of the chants. Surface detail underwent change, but the co
positional strategy of 'tropis semper variantibus' employed in
many of the Old Roman offertories fostered a conserving and con
servative tendency that carefully preserved the repertoire until it
first neumation in the late eleventh century.
University of Massachusetts, Boston
96 See Treitler, 'Homer and Gregory', passim, and the same author's 'From Ritual throu
Language to Music', SchweizerJahrbuchfiir Musikwissenschafl, N.F. 2 (1982 [1984]), 109-
53
Joseph Dyer
APPENDIX 1
Old Roman Offertories with Formula A
Offertory Location Liturgical assignment
Angelus domini (G) Vs. 1: 1 time Fer. ii post Dom.

Resurr.
Ave Maria (G) Vs. 1: 2 times Annunciation
Benedictus es ... ne Vs. 1: 2 times Fer. vi post Dom. V
tradas (E) Vs. 2: 2 times Quadr.
Confessio (E) Refrain: 2 times St Lawrence
Confirma hoc (E) Refrain: 1 time Pentecost
Vs. 1: 3 times
Vs. 2: 2 times
Vs. 3: 3 times
Confitebuntur (G) Refrain: 2 times St George, St Vitalis, Sts
Vs. 1: 4 times Philip and James, Sts
Nereus,
Vs. 2: 4 times Achilles and Pancratius
Custodi me (E) Vs. 2: 3 times Fer. iii post Dom. in
Vs. 3: 3 times palmis
Domine deus salutis (G) Vss. 1 and 2: Sabb. in QT Quadr.
I time each
Domine exaudi (E) Vs. 1: 4 times Fer. iv post Dom. in
palmis
Dominefac mecum (b/E) Vs. 1: 3 times Fer. iv post Dom III
Vs. 2: 2 times Quadr.
Vs. 3: 2 times
Eripe me ... domine (E) Vs. 1: 2 times Fer. ii post Dom. in
Vs. 2: 1 time palmis
Exaltabo te (a/D) Refrain: 1 time Ash Wednesday
Exaudi deus (G) Vs. 1: 2 times Fer. ii post Dom. III
Quadr.
Expectans expectavi (b/E) Vs. 1: 4 times Fer. iii post Dom. IV
Quadr.
Vs. 2: 1 time
Vs. 3: 2 times
Improperium (G) Refrain: 1 time Dom. in ramis pal-
marum
Intonuit de celo (G) Vs. 1: 2 times Fer. iii post Pascha

Vs. 2: 3 times
54
lustus ut palma (E) Vs. 1: 1 time St John the Evangelist

Vs. 3: 2 times (in die)
Lauda anima (b/E) Vs. 1: 4 times Dom. II post Pascha
Vs. 2: 1 time
Letentur celi (E) Refrain (allusions Nat. domini ad pullorum
to torculus) cantum
Vs. 1: 1 time
Vs. 2: 2 times
Michi autem (E) Vs. 1: 3 times Vigil of Sts Peter and
Vs. 2: 2 times Paul
Miserere michi (E) Refrain: 1 time Fer. iii post Dom. III
Vs. 2: 5 times
Oratio mea (G) Refrain, Vs.: Vigil of St Lawrence
1 time each
Perfice gressus (E) Refrain: 4 times Sexagesima
Vs. 1: 4/5 times
Vs. 2: 3 times
Vs. 3: 2 times
Repleti sumus (D) Refrain: 3 times Sts Philip and James
Vs. 1: 2 times
Vs. 3: 2 times
Scapulis suis (E) Vs. 2: 4 times Dom. I Quadr.
Terra tremuit (E) Vs. 2: 1 time Easter
Vs. 3: 1 time
Tui sunt celi (D) Refrain: 3 times Nat. domini ad maj.

missam
APPENDIX 2
Old Roman Offertories with Formula B
Offertory Location Liturgical assignment
Benedic anima (D) Vs. 1: 3 times Fer. vi post Dom. I

Benedicite gentes (D) Vs. 2: 3 times Fer. iv post Dom. IV
Benedictus qui venit (G) Vs. 2: 3 times Sabb. post Pascha
Bonum est (D) Vs. 3: 1 time Septuagesima
Constitues eos (F) Vs. 3: 3 times Sts Peter and Paul
55
Joseph Dyer
Desiderium anime (c/F) Refrain: 3 times St Eusebius

(*mid-refrain)
Domine convertere (F) Refrain: 3 times Fer. ii post Dom. V
Vs. 1 2 times Quadr.
*Vs. 2: 4 times
Domine deus in Refrain: 5 times Dedication of a church
simplicitate (c/F) Vs. 1: 4 times
*Vs. 2: 5 times
Domine in auxilium (F) Refrain: 5 times Fer. v post Dom. IV
(*mid-refrain) Quadr.
*Vs. 1 4 times*
*Vs. 2: 2 times*
Emitte spiritum (G) Vs. 2: 2 times Vigil of Pentecost
Vs. 3: 3 times
Erit nobis (G) Refrain: 4 times Fer. vi post Pascha
Erit vobis (S. Cecilia, Vs. 1: 4 times
fol. 86) (E); Vs. 2: 5 times
vss. only in S.
Cecilia gradual
Expectans expectavi (a/D) Refrain: 3 times Fer. iii po
Quadr.
Factus est (F) Refrain: 4 times Sabb. post Dom. IV
*Vs. 2: 4 times
*Vs. 3: 4 times
Felix namque (F) Refrain: 4 times Votive Mass of the BVM
Archivio di S. Pietro ('Salve sancta parens')
F 22, fol. 103
Filie regum (a/D) Refrain: 2 times St Prisca
Gloria et honore (D) *Vs. 2: 2 times St John Evang.(mane
prima)
Gloriabuntur (F) Refrain: 5 times Sts John and Paul
Vs.: 5 times
Immittet (G) Vs. 3: 4 times Fer. v post Dom. I

Quadr.
In conspectu angelorum (F) Refrain: 2 times Apparition of St Michael
*Vs. 1: 3 times (Sept. 29)
*Vs. 2: 3 times
In die sollempnitatis (E) Vs. 1: 3 times Fer. v post Pascha
Vs. 2: 3 times
56
In te speravi (D) Vs. 1: 1 time Fer. iii post Dom. I

In virtute (F) Refrain: 2 times St Stephen
*Vs.: 1 time*
(*mid-verse)
Intende voci (F) Vs. 2: 3 times Fer. vi post Dom. III
Quadr.
lubilate deo omnis (F) Vs. 2: 6 times Dom. II post Epiph.
Fer. ii post Dom. IV
Quadr.
lustitie domini (F) Refrain: 4 times Dom. III Quadr.
*Vs. 1: 3 times*
Vs. 2: 4 times*
Lauda anima (b/E) Vs. 2: 5 times Dom. II post Oct. Pasch.

Laudate dominum (D) Vs. 1: 2 times Dom. IV Quadr.
Vs. 2: 4 times
Vs. 3: 3 times
Mirabilis deus (G) Vs. 1: 2 times Sts Alexander and
Vs. 2: 2 times Theodulus
Populum humilem (G) Vs. 1: 3 times Fer. vi post Dom. IV
Quadr.
Portas celi (G) Vs. 1: 1 time Fer. iv post Pascha
Vs. 2: 2 times
Precatus est (G) Vs. 1: 3 times Fer. v post Dom. II
Quadr.
Reges Tharsis (F) Vs. 1: 1 time Epiphany
Vs. 2: 1 time
Vs. 3: 5 times
Sperent in te (F) Refrain: 5/6 times Fer. iii post dom. V

*Vs 2: 4 times
The asterisk indicates the position of the FormB melisma (Example 6) in

refrain or verses.
57
Joseph Dyer
APPENDIX 3
Old Roman Offertories with Repetition and Return
A. Refrain (part) reused in verses
Offertory Description
Ave Maria R: a-a-b-b-c-c-d-d
Vs. 1: a-b' a'-b--c-FormA+cadence

Confortamini Vs. 1: middle based on repetition o
ribuet') of refrain
Domine vivifica Vs. 2: elaboration of the repetenda
Levabo oculos
Gressus meos Vs. 2: modeled on refrain, leads to varied statement
of the repetenda
In te speravi Phrase from end of refrain ('in manibus') repeated
at beginning and end of vs. I and end of vs. 2 (vs. 2
based on FormB)
Meditabar/bor R: a-a'-a"
Vs. 2 (last half): a-a-a
Reges Tharsis Phrase repeated three times in refrain ('arabum,
adducent, terre') used in vs. 1 ('regis')
B. Melody of verse 1 is model for verse 2
Angelus domini Vss. 1 and 2: similar beginnings

Ascendit deus Final phrase of vs. I used for all of (brief) vs. 2
Benedicam Dominum Vs. 2 derived from repetition and variation of a
portion of the first phrase of vs. 1
Benedictus es ... Vss. 3-6 (only in C 74, fols. 37-37v): all modeled
in labiis on vs. 3
Benedictus qui venit First phrase of vs. 2 mode
ues with FormB)
Bonum est Vss. based on elaborated recitation on F
Vs. 1: a-b-b-a'
Vss. 2-3: based on repetition of phrase a; the
repetition of a phrase from vs. 2 ('domine peri-
bunt') provides the music for vs. 3
58
Conjitebor domino Vs. 2 derived from vs. 1

Deus, deus, meus Vss. I and 2 derived from repetitions of the first
phrase of vs. 1 (see also section C below)
Exulta satis Vss. I and 2: last halves correspond
Improperium Central phrase of vs. 1 ('intraverunt aque')
expectavit repeated three times in vs. 2
lubilate Deo Vss. 1 and 2, both with text/music repetition
universa (a-a-b), share the same music, ending with a long,
complex melisma with internal repetitions
Letamini in Domino Same music for both verses: Vs. 1: Inton-a-a' Vs. 2:
Inton-a-a-a"-a'
Letentur celi Music of vs. 1 expanded for vs. 2 (one phrase
repetition and FormA: 1 time)
Levabo oculos Same music for both verses; see also section C.
Mirabilis deus Same music for first halves of vss. 1 and 2: compo-
nents of vs. 1 rearranged for first half of vs. 2
(second halves of vss.: FormB)
Reges Tharsis R: phrase first heard at 'arabum' recurs twice in
refrain and once in vs. 1 ('regis'); vss. 2 and 3 based
on last phrase of vs. 1 (a free version of FormB)
Si ambulavero Vs. 1: a-a
Vs. 2: a-a-b
Superflumina First phrase of vs. 1 is recycled, wholly or in part,
for vss. 2, 3, and 4
Tui sunt celi Final phrase of vs. 1 ('autem .. .') provides material
for two-thirds of vs. 2
C. Large-scale repetition and return structures
Ave Maria R: a-a-b-b-c--d-c--e

Vs. 1: a'--a"-c-FormA-c +cadence
Benedicam Dominum R: Inton-a-a'-b +repetenda
Benedictus es ... R: a-a-b-b'
ne tradas
Benedictus qui venit R: begins with short a-a-a

Confortamini Vs. 2: a-a'-b-c-b' +melisma
Constitues eos Vs. 1: a-b-b'-c
Deus, deus meus Vs. 1: Inton-a-a'-a"
Vs. 2: Inton-a-a"
59
Joseph Dyer
Deus enimfirmavit R: repetition of motives from phrase 'qui non

commovebitur'
Vs. 2: a-b-a-c-b-b'+melisma
Domine exaudi R: a-a-a-a-b-b
Domine vivifica Vs. 2: a-a'-a
Imittet angelum R: Inton-a-a'-a" (final melisma: a-a)
Vs. 1: b-b
In virtue Vs. 1: same melisma at beginning, midpoint and
end
Levabo oculos R: a-a'-a"
Vs. 1: Inton-b-b'
Vs. 2: Inton-b'
Meditabar/bor R: a-a'-a"
Vs. 2 (last half): a-a-a
Precatus est R: a-a'-b-b'-c-c-d (a-a' is text repetition);
'Aaron/Moyses' (vss.) set to similar music
Sanctificavit Moyses Vss. 2-8: two phrases, variously arranged and
repeated, account for all of the music of these
verses
Si ambulavero R: a-a' (brief)-a"-b--c

Vs. 1: d-d
Vs. 2: d-d-e
Tui sunt celi Vs. 2: a-b-b'-c
60

DYER, &#39;Tropis Semper Variantibus&#39;

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

DYER, &#39;Tropis Semper Variantibus&#39;

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

'Tropis semper variantibus': Compositional Strategies in the Offertories of Old Roman

TR OPIS SEMPER VARIANTIB US:

In the introduction to the second volume of the series Monumenta

around the middle of the sixth century cannot, of course, be applied

insatiabile bonum tropis semper variantibus innovatur.' Expositio psalmorum, ed. M.

and integrate these features with purposeful musical organisation.

4 No separate collections of offertories or their verses comparable to the Gregorian offer-

up 160 pages."' (Depending on the tempo chosen, the longest offer-

While the Gregorian offertory repertoire consists mainly of

mitted by musical or ritual circumstances, an accomplished impro-

form a body of music organised according to consistent principles,

contexts is relatively slight - once or twice at most. It occurs much

The recitational element b makes no distinction between

1. Di-li- - gain te do-mi - ne vir-tus me - a do -mi- ne fir -ma-mentu

1~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ... q----;-... _-,._--.__-

might have been made in performance (a very likely possibility).

Despite the fact that FormA appears to manifest certain fea-

celebrated in the late seventh or early eighth century.29 The struc-

B Alleluia verse 1 (or incipit)

Alleluia verses 1 and 2 (B) are sung to a sp

29 The rubrics of the Old Roman gradual correspond alm

ofDominus regnavit is expanded by the addition of an extended melo-

Example 3 Alleluia. Cantate

chants de la messe selon la tradi

The offertories that depend most heavily on FormA are: Conjirma

40 R.-J. Hesbert, 'Un antique offertoire de la Pentec6te', in Organicae voces: FestschriftJosep

porates a podatus (part of element b) that can be repeated to

Elements e andf, on the other hand, seem to be alternatives or

?IF~'ii~III1 ?It- PINI II1 2.~ t I 1~

0 011 011 11 111 IFI h

ence and location are indicated by asterisks in Appendix 2. The

Vi-tam pe- - - - - - - ti- it...

The Old Roman offertory Factus est domi

Table 1 Factus est dominus

Roman Psalter Old Latin Old Roman offertory Gregorian offertory

17:19b. Factus est 17:19b. Factus est Refrain: Factus est

Psalter.55 The refrain of the Old Ro

reading similar to that found in the Verona Psalter and several

would normally be taken as a reference to the concluding phrase

60 Cologny-Geneve, Bibliotheca Bodmeriana C 74, fols. 62v-63. The cue is in

In addition to the offertories with one of the formulae just

62 Wagner observed the importance of melodic repetitions in the Gregorian offertories

can shed on formal and historical questions. The refrain of the

1. T-lu- mi- - -na fa - -ci-em tu- - am su - -pe

Example 7 In te speravi: portions of

Leva- bo o-cu4osme - os etcon-si-de - ra- bo mi-ra-bi- - li-

[ut doceas] me iu-

da mi- - chi in-tel -lec- tum ut di- scam man-

Example 8 Levabo oculos: R

?111 1111 o 1 C?4

'benediximus vos'. Its cadential gesture (b-a-c-b-a) would seem to

-~ iK1 Ifi?:~ ii .5=

1.Haec di- - es quam fe - - cit

2. La-. . pi- - -dem quem re-pr

(1) do- mi- - nus ex-ul-te- - mus et le - te--mur

(2) can - - tes hic fa- ctus

(2) est inca- put an-gu - li

(2) a do- mi -no fa - ctum est

Example 11 Benedictus qui venit (C 74, fol. 87):

and ingenuity in the three previous offer

recorded by the Schola Hungarica, Old Roman Litur

,111 0(,1 1,to

sense of monotony, though such an inflexible application of repe-

A few offertories listed in Appendix 3B (Benedicam dominum,

DYER, 'Tropis Semper Variantibus'

DYER, 'Tropis Semper Variantibus'