State Library of Victoria > La Trobe Journal

No 51 & 52 1993

50

The Poissy Antiphonal: a Major Source of Late Medieval Chant

The Manuscript Melbourne, State Library *096.1/R66A is an Antiphonary written for the use of the Dominican nuns at Poissy-St Louis in the second quarter of the fourteenth century.1 It contains the complete annual cycle of liturgical chants needed for the Divine Office according to Dominican observance in the mid-fourteenth century. This repertoire includes chants from the most ancient liturgical traditions: a third of the texts in the Poissy Antiphonal are found in liturgical manuscripts from the ninth and tenth centuries. It also includes chants composed within ten years of the compilation of the manuscript, and other chants datable by the introduction of new feasts into the liturgy. Integral to the original design of the manuscript are the feasts of Corpus Christi2 and St Thomas Aquinas, which were introduced during the first quarter of the century.3 Professor Manion and Dr Vines have dated the manuscript between 1335 and 1345.4
The manuscript is distinctive for the completeness of its texts and music: there is very little cross-referencing to other parts of the book — most chants are found in situ, for the practical convenience of daily use in the choir. The musical incipit and cadence formula of each psalm is given, thus leaving no ambiguity about the mode of the associated antiphon. It is a musical source of major importance, especially for the study of liturgical chant as it was practised at the beginning of the fourteenth century.
The purpose of this essay is to examine the musical contents of the manuscript, to relate these to other sources of liturgical chant and other Dominican sources, and to identify the characteristics of the most recent music to be added to the manuscript. These musical compositions were contemporary with the last decades of the ars antiqua and the first years of the ars nova, with the compilation of the great motet collection in the Montpellier manuscript5 and the musical additions to the Roman de Fauvel.6 These were the most recent compositions of liturgical chant during the lifetimes of Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, John Duns Scotus, William of Occham, Adam de la Halle, Jehann de Lescurel,

Fig. 7. Antiphon for SS Sebastian and Ivo. Antiphonal. Melbourne, State Library of Victoria, *096.1/R66A.f.424v. The last folio of the original manuscript, before the addition of the Office of the Translation of St Thomas Aquinas.

Philippe de Vitry and Guillaume da Machaut: in their compositions we can hear the beginnings of the tonal and rhythmic systems which have been the foundation of European music for the last six hundred years.
The liturgical music of their day was written in an identifiably different style to the ancient chants
51

Plate 20. The Office of Corpus Christi. Antiphonal. Melbourne, State Library of Victoria, *096.1/R66A. ff.157v-158r. This Office was approved for use throughout the Dominican Order at the Chapters General 1322–1323–1324.

52

Plate 21. The Offices of the Cathedra of St Peter and St Thomas Aquinas. Antiphonal. Melbourne, State Library of Victoria, *096.1/R66A.f.243v. It is clear from this folio that the Office of St Thomas, written 1334, was integral to the design of the manuscript. Note the text ligatum est in celis et quodc_[m]que solveris super terram erit is without music. Both the text and its music are found on the previous recto: this suggests that the scribe was following the usual practice of writing the text first, then adding the music — but made an error, forgetting that he had already copied this text.

53
of the western church: it was chant which was part of a living tradition, in which music already five hundred years old sat comfortably with the new. This musical repertoire is both the oldest and the largest collection of melodies to have survived in written form from the middle ages. Some 8247 texts for use in the Office have been catalogued:7 no comprehensive catalogue of melodies has yet been made. The present study is based on 5,200 chants from Dominican sources which have been completely encoded, both music and text, for investigation by computer.8
The earliest manuscripts are from the ninth century, some two hundred years after the death of Pope Gregory I in 604. The remarkable similarity of the melodies transmitted in the first generation of manuscripts has lead many scholars to assume that they had their ultimate origin in a written copy.9 Others argue that the differences, relatively minor though they be, cannot be explained by scribal error, but are witness to the oral transmission of the melodies for some centuries before they were committed to writing.10 Those who posit a written original have devoted considerable research to the establishment of “archetypal” collections of chants; those who argue for an oral transmission see this quest for an archetype as an impossible, and, because of the nature of the evidence, a pointless quest.
From the middle of the eleventh century, the earliest form of music notation — neume notation — began to be replaced by a notation which by the end of the twelfth century had become standardised on four lines with two clefs and square noteshapes, roughly equivalent to the cursive neumes of the earliest sources.11 This form of notation was much more precise in the notation of musical pitch, but much less precise in the notation of expressive and rhythmic details. By the beginning of the thirteenth century the rhythmic nuance of the earliest sources had ceased to be written down, and contemporary writers tell us that each note in liturgical chant was sung to more-or-less equal rhythmic values.12 By the time the exemplars of the Poissy Antiphonal were copied, the transmission of liturgical music was written rather than oral, and the pitch of each note and the neumeshapes

Fig. 8. The end of the Tonary and the rules for the correct copying of chant. Antiphonal. Melbourne, State Library of Victoria, *096.1/R66A.f.4r.

in which it was written were required to be copied with the same precision as the text to be sung. Both the Dominicans and the Franciscans laid down rules for the copying of liturgical manuscripts in which the text, the music and each noteshape of the music was to be copied exactly. The copying was to be checked by singing the melodies; only after the melodies were certified to be exact copies could the book be certified for official liturgical use.13
While many monastic and mendicant orders in the late middle ages required houses observing the same rule to have a uniform liturgy, this uniformity did not always extend to the music. Three orders took uniformity of liturgy to include uniformity of chant: the Cistercians, whose reforms of plainsong
54
are in many ways parallel to their reforms of monastic architecture; the Dominicans, who adopted the Cistercian reforms in their own way; and the Franciscans, who did not follow the Cistercians or Dominicans, but whose reforms of the liturgy under the generalship of Haymo of Faversham became the basis of the modern Roman liturgy.

Fig. 9. The Office of Corpus Christi. Antiphonal. Melbourne, State Library of Victoria, *096.1/R66A.f.159r. Shows corrections made by scraping the ink from the vellum. In one place the correction has pierced the folio.

Although there is some continuing discussion about some details, it seems clear that the Dominicans observed a uniform liturgy from 1228. during the Minister-Generalship of Jordan of Saxony. Pope Gregory I adapted the newly revised Franciscan Breviary as the Roman Breviary in 1241; the Ordinal, completed in 1243–44, was to become the new Roman Missal.14 It is not surprising that the Dominicans should institute a revision of their uniform liturgy at the chapter in 1244, which was completed in time for the chapter at Buda in 1256. This reform resulted in the production of a manuscript containing all the chants for the whole year: all liturgical books were to be copied from this prototype, according to the direction of the Minister General, Friar Humbert of Romans. There are four extant copies of this: one dating from immediately after the Chapter of Buda, c. 1256, and now located in the Dominican house in Rome GB-Lbl 23935;15 the other is a small (175mm. x 265mm.) but capacious (574 folios) copy, the Minister General's personal exemplar, copied 1256–1262. It is now in the British Library, Additional 23935.16
In the process of the production of the Humbert prototype an extensive program of chant reform was implemented. The reforms involved editing the liturgical chant to conform to five criteria, some of which were derived from earlier Cistercian reforms, some were taken further by four friars, one from each of the provinces of England, Germany, France and Italy, who also rejected some of the Cistercian revisions and preferred older readings of many chants. The main principles on which their revision was based were that chants were to be simple, and for this reason some of the more elaborate ones were abbreviated; the range was to be restricted to the decachord; the use of B rotumdum17 was to be avoided wherever possible; each chant was to be in one mode, and mixtures of plagal and authentic modes were to be avoided.18
The changes to traditional chant melodies did not go without protest: the General Chapter in London in 1250 registered complaints; but later chapters at Metz (1251) and Buda (1254) enjoined the observance of the edited chants on the whole order. In 1256 a tax of £20 per province was imposed for the production of the prototype manuscript under the direction of Humbert of Romans. Chapters in 1258 and 1265 insisted on all liturgical books being copied from this prototype; and in 1267 Clement IV gave papal approval to the reforms approved by the Chapter of Buda in 1256.
From the time of the earliest surviving manuscripts, great attention was paid to the musical relationships between the melodies of the antiphons which preceded and followed each psalm, and the melody of the psalm itself. Thus
55
there developed from Carolingian times a body of music theory about modes which governed the relationship between the antiphon and its psalm. In the twelfth century this body of theory derived from liturgical practice was fused with classical theories of acoustics, transmitted from the Greeks to the middle ages by Boethius.19 This resulted in a very precise system of tuning intervals, using a monochord, being applied to the practice of singing liturgical chant. Many liturgical books, called Tonaries, grouped the chants not according to the ecclesiastical feasts but according to mode, later Tonaries also suggested mnemonics for each of the eight melodic formulas.20
The Dominican Antiphonary included from its beginning the prologue “Omnis cantus ecclesiasticus”, the rules of psalmody, the cadence-formulae and the rules for the correct transcription of liturgical music. 21 Because of the prominence of the Dominican order in the dissemination of learning, and the use of Dominican treatises on music — especially those written after the reform of liturgical chant, like those by Jerome of Moravia — analytical descriptions of chant and discussions of mode are likely to have been based on this revised repertoire rather than on the original chants which the modal system was supposed to describe. The examples cited by Jerome in Chapter 24 of his treatise as models of chant writing are taken from Dominican feasts of St Dominic and St Peter Martyr — two recently created feasts of Jerome's own order — rather than chants hallowed by the use of centuries.
In the decades following the final acceptance of the new liturgy several new feasts were introduced into the Dominican liturgy which give us a glimpse of chant composition from the end of the thirteenth century: Corpus Christi, the Crown of Thorns and St Louis, King of France were observed outside the order; the Translation of St Dominic, St Thomas Aquinas and the Translation of St Thomas were observed with greater solemnity in Dominican houses than elsewhere. Music for these six feasts provides us with six datable sets of music “composed” between the completion of GB-Lbl 23935 and the institution of the feast of the Translation of St Thomas in 1369.

Fig. 10. The responsory Dum Sansonis for the feasts of St Peter Martyr, cited by Jerome of Moravia as an example of the most beautiful (pulcherrima) chant. Antiphonal. Melbourne, State Library of Victoria, *096.1/R66A.f.258r.

The four principal liturgical books used by Dominicans for their daily religious observance were the Gradual (which contained the music for the Mass), the Missal (prayers and readings for Mass), the Antiphonal (music for the Office), the Breviary (prayers and readings for the Office) and the Processional (music and prayers for processions).22 The hours of the Divine Office consisted of the Psalms arranged for chanting at each of the canonical hours: three for Prime, Tierce. Sext. None and Compline, five for Vespers and Lauds and nine for Matins. At each of the hours a Hymn was sung, and after the Lessons at Matins and sometimes also at Vespers were sung the Responsories with their Verses. The Responsories are the longest and most elaborate chants of the Office, being equivalent in length and style to the Gradual at Mass. They are rarely heard even in the most liturgically observant convents today. The Poissy Antiphonal contains the chants used for the Divine Office. It contains no music for the Mass, and no readings for the Office, nor the short chants and prayers which form the basic structure of each of the Hours of the Office, nor the full texts of the psalms which make up the bulk of each of the hours. It needs to be used in conjunction with a Breviary,23 or with a Psalter and Lectionaries.
56
The contents of the manuscript are:
Folios Fascicles Contents
1–3v 1 Tonary of Jerome of Moravia
4–196 1–25 Temporal cycle
197–368 26–47 Sanctoral cycle
369–397 48–51 Commons of Saints
398–424 52–55 Hymns
425–428 56 Trans of St Thomas Aquinas
The manuscript comprises fifty-six gatherings, of which all but five are quaternions.24 The ends of major sections of the manuscript correspond with the gathering structure; except for the last fascicle, which is in a later hand, the manuscript seems to be the work of one scribe who wrote both the music and the text. As was the usual practice, the text was written before the music.25 Each fascicle ends with a catchword which corresponds with the opening word on the following fascicle.
The Poissy Antiphonal begins with three texts relating to the practice of liturgical chant: two citations from Jerome of Moravia's Tractatus de musica relating to the range and characteristics of plagal and authentic modes; a tonary, in which a melodic paradigm for each of the eight modes and their cadence formulae or differentiae are given, also found in Jerome of Moravia's Tractatus; and rules for the accurate copying of liturgical chant.
Throughout the manuscript each antiphon is normally followed both by the opening phrase and closing phrases of its psalm.26 The manuscript is unusually precise in its notation of the mode of every antiphon, giving both the paradigms from Jerome of Moravia, and the opening and closing of each psalm, thus defining the mode of each antiphon. This unusual completeness makes the manuscript of particular importance for the study of late medieval chant, as it links a contemporary music theorist, Jerome, and his modal paradigms on the first four folios with virtually every one of the 3241 pieces of chant in the manuscript.
The Poissy Antiphonal contains 1419 antiphons, 84 Invitatory antiphons, 694 responsories and verses and 127 hymns. These include chants from the oldest traditions of the West as well as works composed within ten years of the writing of the manuscript. Some preserve the most ancient traditions intact; some reflect the reforms of liturgical chant carried out by the Cistercians in the twelfth century and the four Dominican friars, one from each province, whom the Chapter General had commissioned in 1245; others represent music contemporary with the manuscript itself. To appreciate the musical significance of the contents of the Poissy Antiphonal, it is necessary to examine each of these groups.
An essential tool for the study of the Divine Office is the six-volume work by Dom Réné Hesbert, a Benedictine monk of the community of St Pierre de Solesmes, Corpus Antiphonalium Officii. As the title implies, this work sets out to give a comprehensive account of the chants of the Office. The first two volumes publish synoptic tables of contents of twelve important manuscripts, six of the cursus Romanus and six of the cursus monasticus.2127 Volumes three and four contain a critical edition of the texts used for the invitatories, antiphons, responsories, versiles and hymns, and assign a numerical code to each item. These codes can be used to link other manuscripts — such as the Poissy Antiphonal — to the two main traditions of texts edited by Hesbert. As the six manuscripts selected by Hesbert to represent the ancient tradition of liturgical texts of the Office, the numerical codes assigned by Hesbert to the texts in both the Roman and Monastic traditions can be used to identify those chants which set texts belonging to the most ancient tradition.
The Poissy Antiphonal contains 1320 (30%) of the 4331 antiphons listed by Hesbert, 578 (30%) of the 1922 responsories, 64 (34%) of the 186 invitatories and 61 of the 208 hymns. In addition, there are 33 antiphons and 23 responsories not listed by Hesbert which occur in the feasts of the Temporal cycle, and therefore might well have been included by Hesbert had his selection of manuscripts been broader. In addition there are 134 antiphons, 56 responsories and 14 hymns from new feasts associated with the Dominican order for which new liturgies had been composed between 1228 and the middle of the fifteenth century. Thus the musical contents of the manuscript show three
57

Fig. 11 (above). The antiphons Salve Regina and Ave regina celorum, with the opening of the Matins hymn Te Deum laudamus. Antiphonal. Melbourne, State Library of Victoria,*096.1/R66A.ff.395v-396r.
Fig. 12 (right). The alternate Office for the feast of St Ursula and the 11,000 Virgins. Antiphonal. Melbourne, State Library of Victoria,*096.1/R66A.f.339v. It is unusual to have two Offices, one simple and the other of duplex rank, both fully written in the same liturgical book. The same Office is found in the Poissy Breviaries at Paris ((Arsenal 603, f.377v.) and Oxford (Bodleian MS Rawl. lit. e 2,f.184).

58
distinct layers: chants which belong to a common and mostly ancient tradition, with many being older than the written tradition can currently document; those composed specifically for the Dominican order and included in the prototype of Humbert of Romans (i.e. the chants for the feasts of St Dominic and St Peter Martyr); and those chants not listed in Hesbert, and not included in the Humbert prototype, and composed for feasts instituted after 1256 (Corpus Christi, St Louis, the Crown of Thorns, probably the alternate office of St Ursula, and the feasts of the Translation of St Dominic and the Translation of St Thomas Aquinas). Correlation of the manuscript with other contemporary Dominican manuscripts has shown a very high degree of conformity to the notational style of the other sources, as one might expect from the rules of copying and the certification inscribed on the inside back cover, “correct pour la saison d'iver”.

Fig. 13. Correct pour la saison d'[h]iver. Antiphonal. Melbourne, State Library of Victoria, *096.I/R66A. Inside back cover. Certification that the contents of the manuscript have been examined and found “correct for the winter season”.

Margaret Manion, Vera Vines and Joan Naughton have demonstrated the importance of this manuscript in the context of early fourteenth-century book production. Its importance as a musical document rests on the care and precision of the copying of the text and melodies, as the regulations on folio 4 assert, and extensive comparative studies have verified. The collation of the contents with Hesbert's Corpus Antiphonalium Officii enables us to compare 2571 of its musical items with the melodies setting the same texts in other manuscripts, and to relate it to the current research projects in medieval chant which is extending the scope of Hesbert into central European and Italian sources.28 It documents the two layers of reform of the chant by the Cistercians in the twelfth century and the revisions by the Dominicans themselves in the middle of the thirteenth century. And by incorporating the analytical work of Jerome of Moravia, and continuing to include newly composed Dominican chant from the time of Humbert's reform to the middle of the fourteenth century, it provides us with an unusually well documented measure of the changes in musical taste exactly contemporary with the developments in polyphonic music at the beginning of the fourteenth century, recognised even by its contemporaries as an Ars Nova, a new art.
John Stinson
La Trohe University
59

1

K. V. Sinclair. Descriptive Catalogue of Mediaeval and Renaissance Western Manuscripts in Australia, Sydney, 1969. no.218; Margaret Manion and Vera Vines. Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in Australian Collections, London. 1984. no. 70.

2

The feast of Corpus Christi was first celebrated in 1247 as a local feast in Liège. It was extended to the whole church in 1264 by Pope Urban IV. The Pope died shortly after, and the new feast was observed only locally in Liège and Rome. Pope Urban's bull was confirmed by Pope Clement V in 1317. and its universal popularity dates from this time. The Dominican order began observing the feast throughout the order in 1304, and at the chapters of 1322–23–24 the Office attributed to St Thomas Aquinas was adopted. Its adoption and the attribution to St Thomas were not unrelated to the cause of his canonization. The sources of the office are identified in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale. lat. 1143. See Thomas J. Mathiesen. “The office of the new feast of Corpus Christi in the Regimen Animarum at Brigham Young University”, The Journal of Musicology 2, 1983, pp. 13–44; Bonniwell, pp. 239ff.

3

This suggests that the earliest date of the manuscript, on liturgical and codicological grounds, could be 1323 (the year in which Aquinas was canonized), but 1334 is more likely, as the first Office for the new saint was found to be unsatisfactory, and a second Office, the one contained in the Poissy Antiphonal, was approved by the Chapter General of the Dominican Order in that year. In 1334–35–36 a revision of the hymns Quem terra pondus sidera and O gloriosa Domina should insert “Maria Mater gratiae” before the last verse; these revisions were again proposed in 1378. These revisions are not reflected in the contents of the Poissy Antiphonal. A later addition was the last fascicle, which contains the Office for the Translation of St Thomas Aquinas, instituted in 1369. The first Office, composed in 1328, was found to be unsatisfactory, and the chapter of 1334 ordered a new one to be written, with new chant. See Acta Cap. Gen. II. p. 224. Cited in Bonniwell. History of the Dominican Liturgy, p.235

4

See Manion and Vines, p. 177.

5

Facsimile edition by Yvonne Rokseth, Polyphones du Xllle siècle. 4 Vols, Paris, 1935–9.

6

Facsimile edition, Edward Roesner, Francois Avril and Nancy Freeman Regalado (eds), Le Roman tie Fauvel in the edition of Mesire Chaillou de Pastain, New York, 1990.

7

See Rènè Hesbert in his Corpus Antiphonalium Officii. 6 Vols. Rome, 1963–70.

8

This project was begun in 1984 in collaboration with Professor Margaret Manion. With Brian Parish a computer program, SCRIBE, was developed to enable the entry, searching and analysis of medieval music. Mark Allen. Lloyd Fleming, Gavin Kerr. Cecilia O'Brien and Victoria White assisted with encoding data.

9

See Kenneth Levy, “Charlemagne's Archetype of Gregorian Chant”, Journal of the American Musicological Society 40, 1987. pp. 1–31.

10

See Leo Treitler, “Homer and Gregory: the transmission of epic poetry and plainchant”. The Musical Quarterly 60, 1974. pp. 333–72; “ ‘Centonate’ chant: Übeles Flickwcrk or E pluribus iiniis”. Journal of the American Musicological Society 28, 1975, pp. 1–23; Helmut Hucke, “Toward a new historical view of Gregorian chant”. Journal of the American Musicological Society 33, 1980, pp. 437–67.

11

The meaning of the various signs used in neume notation and the very rough approximations in square notation is the principal subject of the study by Dom Eugène Cardine, Gregorian Semiology, translated by Robert M. Fowles, Solesmes. Abbaye Saint-Pierre, 1982 (originally published in Études Grègoriennes XI, 1970. See also Solange Corbin, Die Neumen Paleographie der Musik, Band I. Faszikel 3, Cologne, 1977.

12

For a discussion of rhythm in Gregorian chant, see Handrik van der Werf, The Emergence of Gregorian Chant. Rochester, N.Y., 1983, Chapter II: Accentuation and Duration, pp. 22–42.

13

See Michel Huglo, “Règlement du Xllle siècle pour la transcription des livres notées”. Festschrift Bruno Stäblein :nm 70. Geburtstag;, Martin Ruhnke (ed.), Kassel, 1967, pp. 121–33.

14

See S. J. P. van Dijk and J. Hazelden Walker, Origins of the Modern Roman Liturgy, Westminster, Maryland, 1960.

15

Ms Archiv. Gen. O.P. XIV L I.

16

Hereafter cited by its RISM siglum, GB-Lbl 23935. The two other copies, one in Salamanca, the other in Oxford, were not available for this study. Details of these sources are reported in Bonniwell, p. 97.

17

Literally the ‘rounded’ B, equivalent to our flattened B, a semitone above A and a whole tone below C. By the time of the Dominican reform the B rotundum had been regularly in use in chant and other written music for at least a century, and in oral practice for several centuries.

18

Robert Haller O.P. has studied the process of reform of Dominican Mass chants in “Early Dominican Mass Chants: a witness to thirteenth-century chant style”, PhD dissertation, Catholic University of America, 1986. There is no equivalent study of the Office chants yet available.

19

A late tenth or early eleventh-century manuscript of Boethius' De Musica is held in the State Library of Victoria, shelf-mark *091/B63.

20

The principal study of the tonaries is by Michel Huglo, Les Tonaires, Paris, 1971.

22

The prototype of Dominican liturgical books compiled by Humbert of Romans contains fourteen books: in addition to the four listed above are the Ordinarium (the equivalent of a modem ceremonial), the Martyrologium, the Collectarium, the Psalterium, the Pulpitarium (containing those chants to be sung from the pulpit in the middle of the choir: i.e. the responsories at Matins and the Gradual at Mass), two Missals (one for the convenual Mass, the other for use at secondary aliars) and collections of Epistles and Gospels. See Bonniwell pp.85–97 for a full description.

23

A sixteenth-century Breviary from Poissy which could well have been used in conjunction with this manuscript is held by the State Library of Western Australia. Ms I. See Sinclair, pp. 405ff.

24

A quaternion is four sheets of vellum or paper, each of which is folded in the middle (i.e. a bifolium). making a gathering of eight folios or sixteen pages. It was usual for manuscripts of this size to be planned in regular gatherings of four or five bifolia, and irregularities in the gathering structure can sometimes indicate later additions or alterations. In the present case, the Office of the Translation of St Thomas Aquinas, clearly in a hand different from the main hand of the manuscript, has been added as the last gathering. Detailed examination of the irregular fascicles (25, 47, 51 and 55) shows that their contents are integral to the original plan of the manuscript.

25

Confirmation of this can be found on folio 243v. where the scribe has written the text “ligatum est in celis et quodcuinque solveris super terram erit”, but without music. The text with its music had already been written on the previous recto.

26

The melody of the conclusion of the doxology appended to each psalm, notated in the shorthand EUOUAE, being the vowels for sEcUOrlUm AmEn, the last two words of the doxology.

21

Huglo, Les Tonaires, p. 368f. The first folio of the prototype now in Rome is missing; the prologue is found on f. 249 of GB-Lbl 23935. Other fourteenth-century manuscripts with both the prologue and the tonary include Brussels. Bib. Royale 223–224, 3585–86. 6429–30; Florence. San Marco 779; Paris, B.N. Musique. fonds du Conservatoire. Res. 1531: Oxford. Bodl. lat. a 5: Rome. Vat. lat. 10771; Solesmes, Abbaye St Pierre, Rés. 68.

27

The cursus romanus assigned nine psalms to Matins, disposed into three nocturnes of three antiphons, three psalms, three responsories and three readings; the cursus monasti-cus used twelve psalms, arranged also in three nocturnes, but with six antiphons and four responsories in the first two. none antiphon and four responsories in the third, with a total of thirteen antiphons and twelve responsories. See Corpus Antiphonalium Officii I, p. xii.

28

For further information on the Central European project, see Lázló Donszay and Gábor Prószéky, Corpus Antiphonalium Officii Ecclesiarum Centralis Europae — A preliminary report, Budapest, 1988.