Category Archives: Medieval Stuff

Eight Plainsong Masses (OJN)

I now have posted eight plainsong masses that Fr. John-Julian arranged, setting the words of the Rite II BCP to medieval settings. Please feel free to not just reference these but to use them as well.

The graduals, sequence, and tracts mentioned on the title page coordinate with the old BCP calendar; with the change to the RCL they are now out of date. Replacements are in the works but will not be available for quite a while…

One hindrance to the use of the masses may be that they—like the other files on the page—are in square-note plainsong notation. While square-note is (and should be) considered normative for writing plainsong, it clearly requires a congregation familiar with it—and few these days are. If anyone has the software and capability to transcribe these masses into the modern form of stemless notation used in contemporary hymnals to write chant (like the material in the front service music section of the ’82 Hymnal), please do so that these masses may be more broadly used and known.

As far as use goes, this material (and everything else here) falls under the Creative Commons license that appears on my side bar: you can use it and adapt it but must give attribution to Fr. John-Julian and the order, and you can’t sell the material or your adaptation (without contacting the author and making arrangements). Given the nature of the material, if you do use it I think it would be only fitting to include a prayer for the order in your Prayers of the People as well…

St Brendan the Voyager and the Offices

Michelle at Heavenfield has a fascinating post up summarizing an article on the Liturgy of the Hours in the voyage of St Brendan. As I read it, the author argues that the Life of St Brendan is a means of arguing for and presenting an ideal monastic implementation of the Offices. St Brendan is one of the Celtic saints that I recognize, but have never read any of the literature about him. So–for the edification of us all, here’s a link to his Life.

Partial Ordo Romani XIIIa

I keep loosing this file so I’ll stick it out here…

This is a partial (though mostly complete) rough translation of OR XIII that I did on the train from NYC when I was living in Philly–and thus had a limited dictionary with me. The source is Michel Andrieu, Les ordines romani du haut moyen age, Louvain : Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense Administration, 1961-1974.

This ordo provides directions for the Night Office lectionary through the year. Although used in monastic settings, its origin is secular as is evident from the reference to three nocturns during Triduum. Andrieu places it as originating in Rome in the first half of the eighth century.

The bold headings are my own for ease of reference and do not appear in the original. This text breaks off rather abruptly–I don’t think there was much more but will correct and update this post as I have the time to do so…

Ordo XIIIA

Septuagesima—Lent
1. In the beginning of Septuagesima they place the Heptateuch until the fourteenth day before Easter.

Passiontide
2. On the fourteenth day before Easter they place Jeremiah the prophet until Maundy Thursday.

Triduum
3. On Maundy Thursday they read three readings from the Lamentations of Jeremiah and three tracts of St Augustine concerning the Psalm Exaudi Deus orationem meum cum deprecor (Ps 64); three from the Apostle where he says to the Corinthians Ego accepi a domino quod et tradidi vobis (1 Cor 11:23ff); nine psalms, nine readings, and nine responsaries complete everything. On the following morning, Matins having been completed, we do not say Kyrie eleison, nor ne nos inducas in temptationem. Also on this day we do not say the introit nor Dominus vobiscum. A lesson is read from the Apostle and neither a responsary nor an antiphon is sung at communion. Kissing, the brothers pray for their victory (??). After Mass is completed, the deacon does not call Ite but they exit in silence (check).
4. Similarly on Good Friday three readings from the Lamentations of Jeremiah the prophet, three from the tract of St Augustine concerning Ps 69, three from the Apostle where he says to the Hebrews: Festinemus ergo ingredere ad illam requiem (Heb 4:11ff). Then Matins follows.
5. Similarly on Holy Saturday the Psalms, readings, and responsaries are all completed as we said above and, if there are proper sermones, they should be read.

Easter
6. In Easter is placed the Acts of the Apostles—after that, the seven canonical epistles. Then following, the Apocalypse until the Octave of Pentecost.

After Pentecost
7. In the Octave of Pentecost are placed Kings and Chronicles until the first Sunday in the month of August.
8. In the first Sunday of the month of August are placed the books of Solomon until the kalends of September, that is, until the first Sunday in the month of September.
9. In the first Sunday in the month of September is placed Job, Tobit, Judith, Esther, and Esdras until the kalends of October, that is, until the first Sunday in the month of October.
10. In the first Sunday of the month of October is placed the Maccabees until the kalends of November.
11. In the first Sunday of the month of November are placed Ezekiel and Daniel and the twelve minor prophets until the Feast of Andrew, that is, until the kalends of December.

Advent
12. In the first Sunday of the month of December, that is, in the first Sunday of the Advent of our Lord Jesus Christ is placed Isaiah the prophet until the Birth of our Lord.

Christmas
13. In the Vigil of the Birth of the Lord, are placed first three readings from Isaiah, that is, the first reading begins: Primo tempore adleviata est terra Zabulon (Isa 9:1); the second reading begins: Consolamini, consolamini (Isa 40:1); the third reading: Consurge, consurge, induere fortitudine (Isa 52:1). And these readings are not bounded; rather, the prior may continue as he sees fit. Then are read sermons or homilies of the Catholic Fathers pertaining to the day, that is, by Augustine, Gregory, Jerome, Ambrose, and others.
14. In the Feast of St Stephen are read the Acts of the Apostles and readings of the orthodox Fathers pertaining to the day and similarly sermons congruent with the celebration.
15. In the Feast of St John the Evangelist are read the Apocalypse and similarly sermons congruent with the celebration.
16. In the Feast of the Innocents also the Apocalypse and in the same way, if available, sermons for their feast.
17. In the Octave of the Lord the same psalms and readings which were also for the Birth of the Lord, or sermons if they are available of the day.
18. In Epiphany similarly three readings from the prophet Isaiah. The first reading begins: Omnes sicientes venite ad aquas (Isa 55:1ff); The second reading begins: Surge, inluminare, Hierusalem (Isa 60:1ff); the third reading begins: Gaudens gaudebo in domino. Then they read sermones of Augustine, Gregory, Jerome, Ambrose, or others.

After Epiphany
19. In the Octave of Epiphany, the same psalms and lessons as at Epiphany.
20. After these festivals which we have written about concerning the birth of our Lord, they place the Apostle or the commentary on the Psalms by St Augustine until Pentecost.

Specific Saints
21. In the Feast of St Peter (that is at the vigil), they read three readings from the Acts of the Apostles. The first begins: Petrus et Iohannes ascendebant in templum. (Acts 3:1ff). The second reading begins: Factum est autem Petrum dum pertransiret universos devenire ad sanctos qui habitabant Lidde (Acts 9:32ff). The third

Feast of St. Bede

Blessed Feast of St. Bede to all! At haligweorc, it’s an important feast as he’s the patron here. There’s a note on him up at the Cafe as well, but–like most things written for popular consumption on Bede–it regards him primarily as an historian. History was just a small part of what he did. Here’s his reckoning of his accomplishments:

Thus much of the Ecclesiastical History of Britain, and more especially of the English
nation, as far as I could learn either from the writings of the ancients, or the tradition
of our ancestors, or of my own knowledge, has, with the help of God, been digested by me,
Bede, the servant of God, and priest of the monastery of the blessed apostles, Peter and
Paul, which is at Wearmouth and Jarrow; who being born in the territory of that same
monastery, was given, at seven years of age, to be educated by the most reverend Abbot
Benedict, and afterwards by Ceolfrid; and spending all the remaining time of my life in
that monastery, I wholly applied myself to the study of Scripture, and amidst the
observance of regular discipline, and the daily care of singing in the church, I always
took delight in learning, teaching, and writing
. In the nineteenth year of my age, I
received deacon’s orders; in the thirtieth, those of the priesthood, both of them by the
ministry of the most reverend Bishop John, and by the order of the Abbot Ceolfrid. From
which time, till the fifty-ninth year of my age, I have made it my business, for the use
of me and mine, to compile out of the works of the venerable Fathers, and to interpret and
explain according to their meaning these following pieces –

On the Beginning of Genesis, to the Nativity of Isaac and the Reprobation of Ismaal,
three books.

Of the Tabernacle and its Vessels, and of the Priestly Vestments, three books.

On the first Part of Samuel, to the Death of Saul, four books.

Of the Building of the Temple, of Allegorical Exposition, like the rest, two books.

Item, on the Book of Kings, thirty Questions.

On Solomon’s Proverbs, three books.

On the Canticles, seven books.

On Isaiah, Daniel, the twelve Prophets, and part of Jeremiah, Distinctions of Chapters,
collected out of St. Jerome’s Treatise.

On Esdras and Nehemiah, three books.

On the Song of Habacuc, one book.

On the Book of the blessed Father Tobias, one Book of Allegorical Exposition concerning
Christ and the Church.

Also, Chapters of Readings on Moses’s Pentateuch, Joshua, and Judges.

On the Books of Kings and Chronicles.

On the Book of the blessed Father Job.

On the Parables, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles.

On the Prophets Isaiah, Esdras, and Nehemiah.

On the Gospel of Mark, four books.

On the Gospel of Luke, six books.

Of Homilies on the Gospel, two books.

On the Apostle, I have carefully transcribed in order all that I have found in St.
Augustine’s Works.

On the Acts of the Apostles, two books.

On the seven Catholic Epistles, a book on each.

On the Revelation of St. John, three books.

Also, Chapters of Readings on all the New Testament, except the Gospel.

Also a book of Epistles to different Persons, of which one is of the Six ages of the
world; one of the Mansions of the Children of Israel; one on the Words of Isaiah,
“And they shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited;
” one of the Reason of the Bissextile, or Leap-Year, and of the Equinox, according to
Anatolius.

Also, of the Histories of Saints. I translated the Book of the Life and Passion of St.
Felix, Confessor, from Paulinus’s Work in metre, into prose.

The Book of the Life and Passion of St. Anastasius, which was ill translated from the
Greek, and worse amended by some unskillful person, I have corrected as to the sense.

I have written the Life of the Holy Father Cuthbert, who was both monk and prelate,
first in heroic verse, and then in prose.

The History of the Abbots of this Monastery, in which I rejoice to serve the Divine
Goodness, viz. Benedict, Ceolfrid, and Huetbert, in two books.

The Ecclesiastical History of our Island and Nation in five books.

The Martyrology of the Birthdays of the Holy Martyrs, in. which I have carefully
endeavored to set down all that could find, and not only on what day, but also by what
sort of combat, or under what judge they overcame the world.

A Book of Hymns in several sorts of metre, or rhyme.

A Book of Epigrams in heroic or elegiac verse.

Of the Nature of Things, and of the Times, one book of each.

Also, of the Times, one larger book.

A book of Orthography digested in Alphabetical Order.

Also a Book of the Art of Poetry, and to it I have added another little Book of Tropes
and Figures; that is, of the Figures and Manners of Speaking in which the Holy Scriptures
are written.

Emphasis added to highlight what he considered to be his most important work; history is literally the smallest part…

As specifically his works on the gospels show, Bede saw his role to complement and complete. That is, his cycle of 40 homilies was specifically designed to fill out Gregory the Great’s own book of 40–the almost complete lack of overlap signals this. Too, Bede’s commentary efforts were not on the two gospels most often used in the liturgy for which good commentary already existed but, rather, Luke and Mark–the two used the least and for which good commentary was hard to find. He sought to plug the gaps, fill in the holes. That is, he saw himself as part of a team effort for edifying and building up the Church.

And that’s why he’s the patron here.

“Traditional” Office Hymns

One of my favorite words that gets thrown around–“traditional”–is inherently slippery… “Traditional” for whom? When is the ideal time when something stops and starts being traditional?

The notion of tradition is always a contemporary construct–an idea of how we view things and privilege things that appeared and/or happened in the past. There was discussion on Ship of Fools about whether the “Traditional Office Hymns” in my “traditional Anglo-Catholic” ordo were, in fact traditional. It’s a perfectly fair question and my response is that the list I give matches the list in the first edition of Ritual Notes supplemented and checked with the Anglican Breviary meaning that the list stands firmly documented within Anglo-Catholic tradition.

On the other hand…

Here’s another list:

From Nov 1 Matins: Primo dierum | Lauds: Aeterne rerum | Vespers: Lucis Creator (Sunday, O lux beata) | Compline: Christe qui lux es
Advent Matins: Verbum Supernum | Lauds: Vox clara | Vespers: Conditor alme siderum
Christmas Matins: A Patre unigenitus | Lauds: A solis ortus cardine | Vespers: Christe redemptor omnium
Epiphany Matins: A Patre unigenitus | Lauds: Iesus refulsit omnium | Vespers: Hostis Herodes impie
LXX Matins: Alleluia piis edite laudibus | Lauds: Almum sidereae iam patriae decus | Vespers: Alleluia dulce carmen
Lent Matins: Clarum deus ieiunii | Lauds: Iesu quadragenariae | Vespers: Audi benigne conditor
Passiontide Matins: Arbora decora | Lauds: Auctor salutis | Vespers: Vexilla Regis
Easter Matins: Iesu nostra redemptio | Lauds: Aurora lucis rutilat | Vespers: Ad cenam Agni prouidi
After Asc Matins: Optatus votis omnium | Lauds: Aeterne rex altissime | Vespers: Hymnum canamus gloriae
Pentecost Matins: Veni creator Spiritus | Lauds: Beata nobis gaudia | Vespers: Iam Christus astra ascenderat
Until Nov 1 Matins: Nocte surgentes | Lauds: Ecce iam noctis | Vespers: Deus creator omnium (Sunday, Lucis creator) | Compline: Te lucis ante terminum

There are a number of commonalities between this list and the other, the chief difference being static hymnody through the week in Ordinary time in this listing… But there are other differences as well. This list comes straight from a 10th century English Benedictine customary (Ælfric’s LME for the OE folk in the crowd)–so it’s pretty darn “traditional” too. But which is more traditional? How do we adjudicate?

If we push it further, though, we find that this isn’t even “the” Office Hymn cycle for 10th century English Benedictines. Rather, there were two different hymnal types in circulation, the Winchester-Worcester type and the Canterbury type, that reflect how continental influences shaped local practice during the Benedictine Revival (the 10th c. rebirth of monasticism in England after the Viking depredations of the previous centuries). This present list, while an important witness of actual(?) use, isn’t even a “pure” form of the Winchester-Worcester type. Furthermore, how we even define “pure” is up in the air–do we consider “pure” to be what is in the majority of the sources that have survived? And if so–we need to consider how representative the books are that have survived…

“Traditional” is simple until you start pushing on it and defining it;”tradition” is one of those things that becomes fuzzier the more you look at it.

Tradition isn’t a static thing and it isn’t a single thing. As any medievalist will tell you, there isn’t a common “medieval” anything. Rather, we can only talk about what certain texts represent about what was happening in certain places at certain times (…and discussions will ensue about whether any of it actually happened as it was represented…). Much of what appears as Anglo-Catholic tradition is a Victorian adjudication about what is properly medieval in light of their construct of the high medieval period as an English golden age. (Which is why the contemporaneous pre-Raphaelite paintings of the Arthurian cycle have the 5th century characters in 14/15th century accoutrements…)

Thoughtful discernment is key here. The answer on the Office Hymns is clearly that both lists—the Anglo-Catholic (presumably Tridentine) one and Ælfric’s one—have a place in the tradition. The one we choose positions us in relation to that tradition. Personally, I like Ælfric’s because it has more static elements and thus fits the peculiarities of my current Office practice. Too, it aligns me with the English Benedictine pre-Scholastic practice which I think most fully and properly illuminates the Anglican way. At the same time, I recognize that it falls outside of what is “traditional” for classic Victorian-inspired (heavily Scholastic) Anglo-Catholicism.

I guess if there’s a note I want to end on, it’s this: “tradition” often gets used in churchy circles as a rhetorical blunt instrument meant to end discussions. It doesn’t have to be. Tradition can also be a way of understanding the fullness of what we have received and understanding how adjudicating among the manifold options makes a difference for how we understand ourselves, our faith, and our practices of faith now.

The Current Office in the Roman Church

I recently came across a fascinating article from Musica Sacra by a Roman traditionalist* that answered some of my questions about the state of the Daily Office in the Roman Church. For instance, I knew about the changes of Vatican II–the introduction of the Office of Readings, etc. But I knew that *something else* had happened as well and was not sure when or how that had come about… That is, I know the early medieval Office patterns from my research on monastic liturgies. I also know the Anglican Breviary–and that it is a translation of the pre-Vatican II Offices. …But the medieval monastic Offices and the Anglican Breviary have quite a number of differences–some of them major. I thought the answer might lie in that the AB was a secular use rather than a monastic one, but I had my doubts…

This article cleared them up for me. There was a reform at the beginning of the 20th century that changed things.

This author explains the old system and doesn’t just describe elements, rather, he speaks of the spiritual trajectory of the Office through the day, then explains how the early 20th century reform damaged this trajectory, then how the Vatican II one squashed it. Many of his points resonate strongly with some things I’ve been feeling especially as he emphasizes both singing and memorization–something I’ve been experimenting with recently.

I especially like how he ends it–so well so that I’ll quote it here. He apologizes by stating that he knows that he is writing for “insiders,” but I love the way he defines that term:

To my mind, the “insider” is not the scholar of liturgy, though when a decision is required, some knowledge of liturgical matters is undoubtedly called for. By “insider” I mean one who lived and lives in the liturgy, who is rooted and implanted into the permanency of the Church’s worship, who has learned in his own case how much the Office — its shape, the conscious and unconscious experiences gathered from the Office — can contribute to spirituality: how profoundly he was formed and educated day by day when taking part in the Office. Let us recall : Chorus facit monachum [ed: The Office-experience makes the monk]– and not only monachum! The “insider” may experience how the words spoken in the Office convey the great tradition of the faith itself; he observes that the “how” of the Office, the radiation of its actual order, may influence our approach to faith and salvation. He feels the difference between the two: when we turn spontaneously to God, and when we join with the ecciesia orans, the praying Church. Such a Christian desires to know that he is not following the new ideas of some persons, solely by reason of obedience, but he desires assurance that the mature experience of the praying Church comes to him from the anonymity of the Great Times, in jib tempore, and that it is a great honour and privilege to follow this current of prayerful praise, to adapt his heart and mind to the words placed upon his lips, following St Benedict’s rule so frequently forgotten today: ut mens concordet voci, that the mind should follow what is expressed by the voice.

* Warning: As a traditionalist, he uses the Vulgate numbering for the Psalms. That is, if it’s over 10, add 1 to the number until you get to 145 or so… So whenever he talks about Ps 118, for instance, it’s the BCP/KJV/NRSV Ps 119.

On Monastic Interpretation

A junior colleague of mine stopped me in the hall after a class we teach together and wanted to get my advice on the history of New Testament interpretation. He’s in the usual graduate seminar that surveys such things. Now, my program is such that it actually gives an entire semester to the pre-Reformation history of interp. I don’t think most other programs do this, considering such “pre-critical” readings as not useful for modern NT scholars. Anyway, he’s been assigned to present on medieval monastic interp and want to pick my brain for a bit. His first question was essentially that which any NT scholar would ask: “They’re just reading the Fathers and using that, right?”

My answer was a classic yes–but no. It took a while…

In the aftermath, I was thinking through how I would go about teaching medieval monastic exegesis to try and communicate just what was going on. Here’re some initial thoughts:

  • Give them a sense of monastic life as life within an intentional liturgical community.
    • Yes, have the students read the section in the Rule on the Offices to give them a sense of Benedict’s concept of the monastic cursus.
    • Then, have them read a corresponding section from the 10th century Regularis Concordia to show them how different and how much more complicated the monastic liturgical life was than Benedict had ever envisioned.
    • Then give them some photocopies from the Breviary to reinforce that a) all liturgy is not just your Sunday morning liturgy; b) Scripture is constantly in juxtaposition with other Scripture and with non-Scriptural texts; c) this is far more complex in practice than it sounds.
  • Give them a sense not just that the patristic authors were used but how and in what contexts
    • Remind them about manuscript production costs, then emphasize and re-emphasize that the monastics didn’t have the Patrologia Latina at hand. Or even the Ante/Post Nicene Fathers. No–Paul the Deacon’s homiliary for the Night Office & Cassiodorus on the Psalms really were the sources for 90% of what 90% of medieval monks knew of the Fathers.
    • Yes, some monks probably read the Fathers for study material but the paradigmatic encounter with them was in the liturgical setting. The sermons, homilies, or commentary extracts would be interrupted four times for responsaries thematically tying the third Nocturn back into the main biblical content of the first Nocturn as determined by the liturgical season… The main point being: their encounter with the patristic interpretation was in a far different setting than either ours or even the works’ original contexts–and that would effect how they would hear it.
    • Have them read a homily by Bede or Gregory–then have them read the corresponding “adaptation” by somebody like Aelfric. Highlight, too, that what was on the page was not necessarily what was heard…
  • Give them a sense that biblical interpretation in this setting is not fundamentally about data and information. Rather, it was about experiencing the text and its transformative potential through an elaborate and interconnected system designed for this purpose.
    • This is underscored and reinforce by how the many lectionary cycles fit together. The way (as I was saying before) the Mass Epistle shows up in the versicles & responses for the Little Hours and verses from the Mass Gospel appear as the Canticle antiphons through the week…
    • Guiding and directing a lot of this is the liturgical year. The seasons themselves are interpretations of biblical events and texts and the texts within the seasons were chosen to fit within them–but, at the same time, their actual content nuances the meaning of the seasons. Furthermore certain kinds of interpretive material either appear or disappear based on the season…

It’s complicated. And, in many ways, this is my chapter 3–to lay all of this out in a (more or less) comprehensible fashion.

One of the major themes that I see running through my pedagogical attempts is interpretation and appropriation through recontextualization. That is, yeah, they used patristic material–but in a different way from which it was intended which has the effect of altering its purpose so the same text is acting in a new way and producing a new result.

Another major theme I see is reinforcing the alien nature of the interpretive culture. This kind of interpretation is not about a guy at a desk with a book. Its about a communal experience and embodiment of the text. There’s a reason why so much of the monastic exegesis can be classified as “moral”–it’s because a major focus was not on “thinking thoughts” about the text but rather on how to put the text into practice. Maybe what we label the “moral sense” might be better labeled “the sense capable of being embodied”…