One of the principal branches of Christian liturgical chant in the West during the Middle Ages. It was sung on the Iberian peninsula, but its influence extended beyond Spain to touch other chant repertories such as the Gregorian, Ambrosian and Gallican. The relationship between the Mozarabic and Gallican rites is now of particular interest to scholars.
3. Musical forms in the Office.
DON M. RANDEL (with NILS NADEAU)
The repertory of Mozarabic chant belongs to the rite observed by Spanish Christians until its suppression in favour of the Roman rite in 1085. The term ‘Mozarabic’ refers to Christians living under Muslim domination. It is generally applied to the rite because its principal surviving documents date from the period after the Muslim invasion of the Iberian peninsula in 711. The term, however, is not strictly appropriate in some respects, for the formation of the rite clearly antedates the Muslim invasion. And many of the surviving manuscripts, though copied in the Mozarabic period, were copied in lands already reconquered from the Muslims by Christian rulers. Alternatives such as ‘Visigothic’ and ‘Hispanic’ are, however, equally inappropriate in some respects. Scholars have come to favour the term ‘Old Hispanic’ for this repertory.
The earliest evidence for the existence of a rite essentially like that preserved in later manuscripts is found in the writings of Isidore of Seville (d 636). His Etymologiae and De ecclesiasticis officiis contain descriptions of the Mass that closely parallel the later liturgical and musical documents themselves. Furthermore, the process of unification within the Iberian peninsula and parts of southern France was evidently already well advanced by 633, for in that year the Fourth Council of Toledo met under Isidore’s leadership to decree the observance of ‘one order of prayer and singing in all Spain and Gaul’. Only about 70 years later was the oldest surviving liturgical document for this rite copied. This is the Orationale of Verona, which, although it does not contain musical notation, does contain prayers and text incipits for antiphons and responsories. Comparison of this manuscript with the musical manuscripts of the 10th and 11th centuries makes it clear that the musical repertory too must have been set largely before 711.
The Mozarabic rite began to give way to the Roman rite as the reconquest of the peninsula gradually proceeded. The Roman rite entered Catalonia as early as the 8th century, but it was not until 1071 that it was adopted in Aragon. In 1076 it was adopted in parts of Castile and León, although surviving manuscripts from these territories make it clear that the Mozarabic rite had been observed here in the years immediately following the reconquest.
Toledo, the seat of the Spanish Church, was not recaptured from the Muslims until 1085. Hence, it was not until that year and the appointment of a French archbishop that the Roman rite could be imposed on the Spanish Church as a whole. Although Pope Alexander II had approved the Mozarabic service books as recently as 1065, Pope Gregory VII made their suppression official. Only a few parishes in Toledo itself were allowed to continue in the observance of their ancient rite. Whether the rite continued to be observed in territory held by the Muslims as late as 1492 is not known.
In the late 15th century Cardinal Jiménez de Cisneros embarked on a project to restore the rite. He published a missal in 1500 and a breviary in 1502. Some of the manuscripts on which these are based are still preserved in Toledo; they transmit a form of the rite that was not, however, found in the majority of the manuscripts there, or in any of the manuscripts from northern Spain. Scholars disagree over which form of the rite is the more ancient. New musical manuscripts were also copied at this time, although their melodies, in rhythmic notation, are evidently different from those of the older, non-diastematic sources.
The restoration of the rite received added impetus from Cardinal Lorenzana in the late 18th and early 19th centuries with the publication of new books and with increased support for the Mozarabic chapel in Toledo Cathedral. Except for relatively brief periods, this chapel has functioned continuously since that time, and services are still held daily. A few churches elsewhere in Spain have received permission to celebrate the Mozarabic Mass, but none does so on a regular basis.
There are more than 20 surviving manuscripts and as many more fragments containing musical notation for Mozarabic chant. With only five exceptions, all these sources employ non-diastematic notation. The exceptions are four manuscripts copied during and after Cisneros’s restoration of the rite around 1500 and one 11th-century manuscript containing about 20 melodies in Aquitanian neumes. Hence, the melodies will forever remain indecipherable, unless new sources are discovered that employ a more advanced notation. It is unlikely, however, that such sources ever existed, for the rite was suppressed and the copying of manuscripts virtually ceased at just the period in which diastematic notation came into general use. Even scribes in Toledo, where the rite was observed after 1085, seem not to have bothered to recopy their melodies in a notation like that of the French manuscripts which the new archbishop had brought in that year.
On notational grounds, the manuscripts (excluding those copied during and after Cisneros’s restoration) may be divided into two broad classes: those employing northern notation and those employing Toledan notation. These labels should not be taken to represent the actual geographical state of affairs in the 11th century and before. It is not certain, for example, whether all the Toledan manuscripts were actually copied in Toledo, and we have no idea at all of what notations might have been used in the southern half of the peninsula.
The northern notation is found primarily in manuscripts copied in the provinces of León (e.g. the antiphoner E-L 8) and Castile (e.g. GB-Lbl Add.30851, from S Domingo de Silos). It bears some resemblance to neumatic notations found elsewhere in Europe and is characterized by a predominance of upright neumes employing vertical strokes (see fig.1 and ex.1).
By contrast, vertical strokes are almost totally lacking in Toledan notation, the neumes being generally inclined to the right. There are, furthermore, two types of Toledan notation. The first is found in manuscripts that embody the liturgical tradition of the north (referred to in the literature as tradition A). This notation includes a large number of delicate, rounded strokes (see fig.2). The second type of Toledan notation is found only in manuscripts embodying a different liturgical tradition (tradition B), and is much coarser and more angular in appearance (see fig.3).
The chronology of the sources, and thus the relative antiquity of the notations they contain, is not yet fully established, especially with respect to Toledan sources. The latter have been thought to include manuscripts copied as early as the 9th century. The manuscripts in question may, however, actually date from the 12th century and in some cases from as late as the 13th and 14th centuries (Mundó, 1965). The idea that non-diastematic notation continued in use into the 14th century must, of course, raise serious questions, but it is important to note that the earlier dating of these manuscripts is not firmly based.
Dates for a number of the northern manuscripts were provided by their copyists; all fall within the 11th century. Others, such as the antiphoners of León and S Millán de la Cogolla (E-Ma Aemil.30), have been assigned by scholars to the 10th century, although further study may show that some of these, too, should be placed in the 11th century.
The organization of the manuscripts into types and the arrangement of material within each of the types (for which see the writings of Pinell) are peculiar to the Mozarabic rite. For example, material which, in service books for the Roman rite, would be divided between the antiphoner (containing chants for the Office) and the gradual (containing chants for the Mass) is present in a single book in the Mozarabic rite. The León antiphoner is such a book and thus from the Roman point of view is not strictly an antiphoner at all. Within this volume all the music for both the secular Office and the Mass are combined in a single series so that the feasts of the Lord and the feasts of the saints appear in the order in which they would normally occur during the liturgical year. This series is followed by Offices and Masses for the Common of Saints, ordinary Sundays and various special occasions such as marriages and deaths. Other sources, such as the antiphoner of S Millán de la Cogolla, add to this same arrangement all the Proper prayers for both Mass and Office. Finally, the Liber ordinum from Silos (E-SI 4) contains the special liturgy for the week before Easter as well as numerous votive masses, including those for bishop, king and the sick or troubled. Music, prayers and readings are all provided in this manuscript.
The musical forms encountered in Mozarabic chant present a number of analogies with those of the Roman rite. For example, a comparable distinction exists between antiphonal and responsorial singing. And Mozarabic chant may be seen to make use of three styles: syllabic, neumatic and melismatic, much as in Gregorian chant. In the following descriptions of the principal musical items in both the Mozarabic Office and Mass, some of these analogies will be discussed further. The items from the Mass are presented here in the appropriate liturgical order.
Mozarabic chant, §3: Musical forms in the Office
There are approximately 3000 in the surviving manuscripts. They are generally moderate in length and employ a simple syllabic or moderately neumatic style. Descriptions of the singing of antiphons found in the writings of Isidore of Seville and in the second prologue to the antiphoner of León make it clear that the alternation of two choirs was used, much as it is in Gregorian chant. Mozarabic manuscripts show, furthermore, that the verse or verses following the antiphons were sung to simple recitation formulae much like the Gregorian psalm tones. Unfortunately, however, there is very rarely musical notation for an entire verse. Instead, most antiphons are simply provided with the incipit of a single verse, usually without any notation at all. This was presumably done because the formulae were simple and so well known that there was no need to write them down, at least not for every antiphon.
The exact number of antiphonal psalm tones used in Mozarabic chant has not so far been ascertained because of the fragmentary nature of the evidence. Certainly it cannot be shown that there were eight tones corresponding to eight modes, as in Gregorian chant. Nevertheless, there are at least two tones that recur often enough to suggest that the application of the psalm tones depended on some scheme for classifying melodies, a scheme analogous to the modal system of Gregorian chant. Evidently these psalm tones could be modified slightly in order to adapt to individual antiphons, although these modifications are not so numerous or extensive as the Gregorian differentiae.
The structure of the two most common tones is simple, consisting of an intonation of two or four elements, apparently applied without regard for text accent, a recitation tone, perhaps modified by an occasional elevation, and a final cadence consisting in one case of two elements and in the other of four applied mechanically to the final syllables of the verse. Whether these psalm tones were divided into two parts by a medial cadence is not clear.
The verse incipits provided for the antiphons are frequently not drawn from the beginning of a psalm, nor do the manuscripts always concur well in the choice of verse for a given antiphon. It is thus often doubtful, in the secular Office at least, whether an entire psalm was to accompany each antiphon, although the descriptions of antiphonal singing mentioned above always refer to the singing of ‘verses’ between the two choirs. Only in the monastic Office does it seem clear that entire psalms were sung with antiphons and that there was some provision for singing the entire psalter on a regular basis. For this purpose, however, psalters provided with antiphons were used in conjunction with other books containing other types of music such as the responsories. There seems to have been no single book containing all the music for the monastic Office.
At Matins, pairs of antiphons are each combined with an alleluiaticus (the term for an alleluiatic antiphon; see below) and a responsory to form missae, the number of which varies with the solemnity of the feast. Normally, the notation of the four pieces within any single missa does not suggest that they share common musical material. But a few missae, which definitely postdate the oldest core of the repertory, do display a musical unity brought about by shared material, sometimes extending to the responsory as well as the antiphons and alleluiaticus.
Another regular feature of Matins is a group of three antiphons, one drawn from each of the three Psalmi canonici (Psalms iii, l and lvi in the Vulgate numbering) and each presumably accompanied by the singing of the appropriate psalm. Although they do not follow one another immediately in the service, the three pieces are generally cut from the same melodic stock.
Mozarabic chant, §3: Musical forms in the Office
These are simply alleluiatic antiphons, and they share the psalm tones and musical style of the antiphons just described. The rubrics in the sources, however, clearly distinguish these pieces from the remaining antiphons, and they occur only at specific points in the liturgy: as the third item in the missae at Matins and as the second antiphon at Vespers. Even during parts of Lent, when the word ‘alleluia’ is eliminated from the liturgy, pieces drawn from the alleluiatic psalms and bearing the rubric for the alleluiatici continue to appear in the appropriate places at Matins and Vespers.
Mozarabic chant, §3: Musical forms in the Office
Approximately 500 responsories survive, and they bear a strong resemblance to the Great Responsories of Gregorian chant. They occur at Matins as the last item of each missa (see above) and at certain of the lesser hours. Their style is generally neumatic, as illustrated in ex.1 by one of the few melodies to have survived in both Mozarabic and decipherable Aquitanian neumes.
Most responsories are provided with a single verse written out complete with musical notation, and the manuscripts embody four clearly distinguishable traditions for the psalm tones to which these verses are sung. The northern sources transmit two of these traditions, one in sources from the region of León and the other in sources from the Rioja (the Ebro River valley above and below the city of Logroño) and neighbouring Castile. The melodies of these two traditions clearly correspond to one another, and since neither seems clearly to have been derived from the other, they must have descended from a common archetype dating from before the 10th century and the earliest surviving northern sources.
Studies of early Spanish monasticism suggest that, following their reconquest in the 8th century, parts of Castile were colonized by monks from Galicia, and that it was from Castile that the Rioja was colonized. The organization of monastic life in all three of these regions clearly sets them apart from León. Hence, it is not surprising that the musical manuscripts from Castile and the Rioja should present a tradition different from that of the Leonese manuscripts. And even though there are no musical sources from Galicia before the colonization of Castile, we may conclude that the differences between the two northern traditions reach back as far as the 8th century.
Of the two northern traditions, the Leonese is the more elaborate and systematic. Seven different tones occur more than once in the sources from León, but two of these appear much more frequently than the others (227 and 150 times, respectively, in a total of almost 500 pieces in the antiphoner of León). This immediately suggests that, here again, some scheme for the classification of melodies existed which formed the basis for the assignment of a particular psalm tone to each responsory. But it seems not to have been a scheme as elaborate as the Gregorian system of eight modes.
The application of the more common psalm tones to the responsory verses follows extremely closely certain principles, especially in the Leonese sources. As in the Gregorian Great Responsories, the melodies are generally bipartite, certain formulae (notably the final cadences) remaining fixed while others are adjusted to the structure of the text in question. These adjustments are carried out through the addition of single notes and through the contraction or division of more complex neumes. Even the adjustable formulae, however, are modified within narrow limits, and here the accentuation of the text clearly provides the guiding principle. In fact the treatment of accentuation in these melodies, unlike that in their Gregorian counterparts, is so careful that it provides clear evidence for some of the kinds of changes that were taking place in Latin on the Iberian peninsula just at the time when the vernacular began to emerge. The grammatical construction of the texts also exercises a clear influence on the melodies, for clauses and phrases in the text are punctuated through the introduction of secondary mediants and intonations. The verse in ex.1 presents one of the tones from the Rioja tradition.
The Toledan sources also transmit two traditions for the responsorial psalm tones, and these differ markedly from one another as well as from the two northern traditions. The two Toledan musical traditions correspond to the two liturgical and notational traditions found in these manuscripts. In the sources that agree liturgically with the northern manuscripts, there are again two tones that account for the great majority of examples. But neither of these tones corresponds clearly to any of the northern tones, even allowing for the considerable differences between the two notational systems. The melodies of the responsories themselves are clearly the same in these Toledan manuscripts and in the northern manuscripts, but responsories assigned to a single tone in one tradition are divided among several tones in the other. In general, these Toledan tones are much less elaborate and systematic than those of either northern tradition.
The Toledan sources embodying liturgical tradition B present four distinct responsorial psalm tones, and of these, one accounts for more than half of the total. It is treated with much the greatest consistency, but none of the four is applied to its texts as systematically as are the northern tones, and none significantly resembles tones in any other tradition.
An understanding of this last Toledan tradition must await a better knowledge of the liturgical tradition with which it is associated. But if the remaining three traditions for the responsorial psalm tones are compared, several conclusions emerge. The responsories themselves are the same in these three traditions, allowing for minor variants and notational differences. Consequently the disparity between the psalm tones of the two northern traditions on the one hand and the Toledan tradition on the other suggests that the psalm tones were transmitted orally long after the responsories themselves had been written down. By the time the psalm tones were written down, individual melodies and the criteria for applying them had evidently undergone considerable change in different parts of the peninsula, and they must have been written down only after the Toledan and northern notations had become quite distinct.
The existence of two quite distinct notational systems transmitting a single repertory of responsories can perhaps be attributed to the Muslim domination of large parts of the peninsula. Musical notation of the type found in Western chant manuscripts generally can only have been in its very first stages, if that, at the time of the Muslim invasion in 711. The Toledan and northern notations must therefore have become distinct only after the Muslims were in control of much of Spain. Northern notation probably developed on the Christian side of the frontier, and Toledan probably among Christians living in territories on the Muslim side (the latter notation is thus properly ‘Mozarabic’). And until it moved to the south of Toledo, opening the way for the suppression of the rite altogether, it was this frontier, marked with fire and blood, that kept the two notational and musical traditions separate.
These conclusions about regional differences in Mozarabic chant and its notations have been based almost exclusively on a study of the responsories for the Office and their psalm tones. But many of them could doubtless be confirmed by systematic studies of other types of chant.
Mozarabic chant, §3: Musical forms in the Office
Occurring only at Matins, these pieces are evidently antiphons which are set apart from the others because their texts treat the appropriate themes for the early morning hours. They are normally provided with a notationless incipit for one verse.
Mozarabic chant, §3: Musical forms in the Office
Not to be confused with the benedictiones of the Mass, these are antiphons sung to the accompaniment of Daniel iii.52, ‘Benedictus es Domine Deus’, and the verses following. The sources occasionally provide the normal rubric for antiphons along with the rubric ‘BNS’ which always accompanies these pieces. Since the verse to follow was invariable, the sources do not always provide an incipit for it.
Mozarabic chant, §3: Musical forms in the Office
These often melismatic melodies occur at both Matins and Vespers. Their style and formal design, which resemble those of the sacrificia of the Mass (see below), make it clear that they are soloistic chants at least in part. Their refrain form suggests that they might be responsorial chants, but they are not mentioned in the prologues to the antiphoner of León as numbering among those pieces sung in the manner of responsories. The numbering of their verses also suggests that they belong to a separate category, for the first verse following the initial refrain always bears the rubric ‘II’ instead of the ‘VR’ of clearly responsorial chants. These melodies occasionally include long melismas (often on the word ‘alleluia’) that embody the double versicle structure of the sequentiae found in other chant repertories. With only the rarest exceptions in peripheral sources, these melismas were apparently not provided with prosae.
Mozarabic chant, §3: Musical forms in the Office
Pieces bearing this title occur at Matins, at some of the Little Hours and at the Mass. The singing of ‘alleluia’ is a prominent feature of all of them except during Lent, when this word is suppressed throughout the liturgy.
Mozarabic chant, §3: Musical forms in the Office
These pieces occur at Matins and Vespers, generally without a verse following, although they were to be followed always by the Doxology. What melodies, if any, were to be used for this latter is not known, nor can it be said with certainty how the piece as a whole was performed and by whom. The closest analogy outside Mozarabic chant is provided by the psallendae of Ambrosian chant, although there are no concordances between the two groups.
Mozarabic chant, §3: Musical forms in the Office
The prologues to the antiphoner of León identify these as having been sung in the manner of responsories. Neumatic in style, they occur as the first item at Vespers and bear some resemblance to the Ambrosian lucernaria, their texts dealing with the traditional subjects of light, evening, night and the like. Although the term ‘vespertinus’ goes back at least as far as the Council of Merida in 666, the term ‘lucernarium’, describing what is certainly the same item in the liturgy, may be found in the Regula monachorum of Isidore of Seville and in the canons of the First Council of Toledo, which met between 397 and 400. Some Toledan manuscripts employ the rubric ‘Lm’, which should perhaps be interpreted as standing for ‘lucernarium’, given the Spanish tradition for this term.
There are not sufficient vespertini to provide a different piece for each feast. Hence, many of them are repeated during the course of the year. Within this limited repertory (fewer than 70 examples in the antiphoner of León) there is a considerable variety of forms. For example, although the vespertini are grouped among the responsorial pieces, about a quarter of them (notably those assigned to the ferias of Lent) lack verses. Almost another quarter have two or more verses, one of these pieces including as many as nine.
How the pieces without verses were performed is not clear. The ones with verses were almost certainly performed by soloists and a choir, as were other responsorial pieces. The verses were evidently performed by the soloists alone in most cases, for each verse is generally followed in the manuscripts by an indication to repeat the final portion of the refrain. This method of responsorial singing corresponds with Amalarius of Metz’s description of responsorial singing among the Franks. Only when the music of the refrain and the verse is the same (or when the two at least end with the same material) is the repetition of part of the refrain omitted. In such cases, the choir presumably joined the soloists in singing the final portion of the verse.
The number of verses included in any one piece seems to be an index of the solemnity of the feast to which it is assigned. The composition of the texts with multiple verses, furthermore, makes it clear that these pieces are not remnants of a practice in which all vespertini consisted of entire psalms, for some of them intermingle psalmodic and non-psalmodic verses.
The vespertini illustrate most clearly the use of centonate composition in Mozarabic chant (see Centonization). Some of them employ common melodic formulae in such a way as to eliminate any possibility that one melody served as the model for the remainder. Among the vespertini without verses, however, there is one melody that was simply provided with different texts for different days in Lent.
Mozarabic chant, §3: Musical forms in the Office
Occurring in both the Office and the Mass, the preces, in their most highly developed form, present us with rhythmic poetry composed in relatively short strophes separated by a brief refrain. Musically, this refrain may be entirely separate from the strophe or it may be the final phrase in what is essentially a single musical statement comprising both a strophe and a refrain. The melodies range between a simple syllabic and a moderately neumatic style.
The tradition of the preces reaches back at least into the 7th century and offers one of the principal points of contact between the Mozarabic and Gallican rites. It is generally thought that the texts shared by the two rites are Spanish in origin. Only two of these texts, however, can be shown to have employed the same melodics in France and Spain, and their distribution in Spanish sources suggests that they may have originated in France. Among Spanish manuscripts, those associated with Toledo, and particularly those embodying liturgical tradition B, are richest in preces.
Mozarabic chant, §3: Musical forms in the Office
Mozarabic manuscripts present texts for numerous hymns, many of which are common to other rites. But only a very few examples include musical notation. Hymns are assigned to Matins, Vespers and a number of the Little Hours.
These correspond in function to the Gregorian introits and, like them, are examples of antiphonal psalmody. In fact, some melodies in the Mozarabic rite serve both as praelegenda for the Mass and as antiphons or alleluiatici for the Office. In general, the manuscripts do not provide complete verses for the praelegenda, but there are enough verses with notation to reveal that the same psalm tones are employed as those found among the antiphons for the Office.
Although this text and melodies for it rarely appear in the manuscripts, the antiphoner of León contains several versions among the pieces for ordinary Sundays.
The threefold singing of ‘Hagios’ to melodies that are at times quite melismatic is provided for in the manuscripts on only a few occasions. The texts sometimes present just the transliterated Greek; sometimes both the Greek and a Latin translation sung to the same melody; and in one case the Latin alone is given. The only rubric employed for these pieces is ‘GRC’, which is also used in the Office for antiphons with texts in transliterated Greek.
All texts for the benedictiones of the Mass are drawn from the Canticle of the Three Children in the book of Daniel. Because their melodies are neumatic and even moderately melismatic, all verses in each piece are written out with notation. Within each piece, all verses employ much the same melodic material, and each is followed by the repetition of a refrain, a feature built into the scriptural text itself.
Although scholars have generally employed the term ‘psallenda’ (singular ‘psallendum’), the sources suggest that ‘psalmi’ (singular ‘psalmo’) ought to be preferred. In the antiphoner of León, these pieces are referred to as ‘psalmi pulpitales’. They correspond to the Gregorian graduals in a number of respects.
Like the vespertini, they are numbered among the responsorial pieces by the author of the second prologue to the antiphoner of León. They are generally neumatic or melismatic in style, most consisting of a refrain and a single verse. As with the vespertini, part of the refrain is repeated after the verse unless the refrain and verse share the same melody. Only five out of more than 120 surviving examples have non-psalmodic texts.
Only nine examples include more than a single verse, and these nine are assigned to the Sundays in Lent, with the exception of the first, and to Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of Holy Week. The number of verses gradually increases as the weeks pass, and the psalmo for Good Friday in the antiphoner of León includes a total of 15 verses. This artificial arrangement alone suggests that these pieces are not remnants of an earlier practice in which all of the psalmi consisted of whole psalms. The structure of the texts adds some support to this notion, for the verses are not always presented in the order in which they occur in the psalm itself. Thus, at the very least, a considerable amount of rearranging was done in the course of abbreviating them. If the psalmi (and perhaps analogous pieces in other rites) originally consisted of whole psalms, it seems likely that nothing of the original melodies has been preserved for us.
Only about 20 feasts are provided with clamores, and these pieces, though always identified by the appropriate rubrics, clearly form part of a continuous piece with the psalmi. A clamor normally consists of two parts separated by the acclamation Deo gratias, the melody for which is invariable. After the second part of the clamor, it is the refrain from the preceding psalmo that is repeated. If the concept of mode is applicable to these melodies at all, each clamor must be in the same mode as its associated psalmo. And since parts of the clamor melody are always the same, it would appear that all clamores and all their associated psalmi must be in the same mode. The 20 or so feasts to which these pieces are assigned are among the most ancient and important of the liturgical year. Hence, it appears that the oldest core of the psalmo repertory is constructed from a single mode, even though the notation for these pieces does not suggest significant melodic similarities among them. It is not possible to say, however, how many other psalmi might be in this same mode or how many other modes might be represented in the repertory of psalmi as a whole.
The clamores also bear on the question of whether the psalmi might originally have included more than one verse as a general rule. The text for a clamor is almost always taken from the psalm providing the text for its psalmo, and such an addition would have been pointless if the psalmo already consisted of the entire psalm. Hence, if the clamores and psalmi are of equal antiquity, as is generally agreed, the psalmi for which clamores exist must not have consisted originally of entire psalms.
The 11 pieces bearing this name substitute for the psalmi on certain days in Lent. Their texts are drawn from the books of Job, Jeremiah and the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and in the antiphoner of León all 11 pieces begin with the same refrain followed by three or four verses. Furthermore, all the pieces, and all verses within each piece, make use of the same melismatic melody. As with the psalmi, in which refrain and verse share the same melody, the refrain of the threni is not repeated after each of the verses. Hence, it is not entirely clear that they should be regarded as responsorial pieces. Their closest analogue in Gregorian chant is the tract, although this substitutes not for the gradual in Lent but for the alleluia.
The laudes of the Mozarabic Mass correspond clearly to the alleluias of the Roman Mass. Outside Lent these pieces begin with the singing of the word ‘alleluia’ to a lengthy melisma. This is followed by a verse (although the usual rubric for verses does not appear here) that is neumatic in style, and this in turn is followed by a repetition, sometimes modified or expanded upon, of the initial alleluia melisma. Since the laudes are grouped among the pieces sung in the manner of responsories, it seems likely that they were performed in much the same manner as the Gregorian alleluias, although the manuscripts do not indicate the specific roles of the soloists and choir. Like the Gregorian alleluias, too, the laudes for the Mass may be grouped into a number of melodic families.
The Mozarabic Mass includes an item with the title ‘laudes’ in Lent too. But since the word ‘alleluia’ itself is suppressed during this season, the laudes of Lent have quite a different form from their non-Lenten counterparts. In most respects they resemble the psalmi and the vespertini, for they are neumatic in style and consist of a refrain followed by one or two verses. And unless refrain and verse share the same melody, the final portion of the refrain is repeated after each verse.
These correspond in function to the Gregorian offertories and are often quite long and highly melismatic. Each consists of a refrain followed by one or more verses (usually not from the psalter), although the first verse following the refrain always bears the roman numeral ‘II’. In this and other respects, they resemble the soni of the Office, and in fact, an occasional piece serves in both categories. In this connection, it should be remembered that in the Gallican rite the piece which corresponds to the Gregorian offertory and the Mozarabic sacrificium is called the sono.
The final portion of the refrain is repeated after each of the verses, and in this respect the sacrificia resemble the psalmi and other responsorial pieces. But the second prologue to the antiphoner of León does not include them in this category. Hence, because of other peculiarities such as the scheme for numbering their verses, they are best placed in a separate category along with the soni.
The few melodies sung during Mass at the giving of the kiss of peace bear only the rubric ‘ad pacem’. They are, however, antiphons which share the psalm tones found with the antiphons of the Office.
Chants bearing this rubric are provided for only a few important feasts. The texts, of which there are several different examples, are related to, but not the same as, the Sanctus of the Roman Mass. The rubric ‘ad sanctus’ is occasionally applied also to the Latin version of the Trisagion, which normally precedes the benedictiones of the Mozarabic Mass.
Sung at the breaking of the bread, this piece most often bears the rubric ‘RS’ for responsory. Unlike the responsories for the Office, however, it is rarely provided with a verse, even though a few melodies serve in both Office and Mass. The characteristic formulae for the verses of the Office responsories are never presented with the pieces for the Mass.
These melodies correspond in function to the communion antiphons of the Roman rite. They are similar to the Office antiphons in style and in the treatment of their verses, sharing with them the same psalm tones.
C. Blume, ed.: Die mozarabischen Hymnen des alt-spanischen Ritus, Att, xxvii (Leipzig, 1897/R)
M. Férotin, ed.: Le Liber ordinum en usage dans l’église wisigothique et mozarabe d’Espagne du Ve au XIe siècle (Paris, 1904/R)
J.P. Gilson, ed.: The Mozarabic Psalter (London, 1905)
M. Férotin, ed.: Le Liber mozarabicus sacramentorum et les manuscrits mozarabes (Paris, 1912/R)
J. Vives, ed.: Oracional visigótico, Monumenta hispaniae sacra, Serie litúrgica, i (Barcelona, 1946)
Antifonario visigótico mozárabe de la Catedral de León, Monumenta hispaniae sacra, Serie litúrgica, v/2, Facsimiles musicales, i (Madrid and Barcelona, 1953)
L. Brou and J.Vives, eds.: Antifonario visigótico mozárabe de la Catedral de León, Monumenta hispaniae sacra, Serie litúrgica, v/1 (Barcelona and Madrid, 1959)
I. Fernández de la Cuesta: ‘El “Breviarium gothicum” de Silos’, Hispania sacra, xvii (1964), 393–494
J. Janini, ed.: Liber ordinum sacerdotal (Cod. Silos, Arch. monástico, 3) (Burgos, 1981)
I. Fernández de la Cuesta, ed.: Antiphonale silense: British Library Mss. Add. 30.850 (Madrid, 1985)
I. Fernández de la Cuesta, ed.: Antiphonale hispaniae vetus: S. X–XI (Zaragoza, 1986)
J. Janini, ed.: Liber ordinum episcopal (Cod. Silos, Arch. monástico, 4) (Burgos, 1991)
W.M. Whitehill and J.Pérez de Urbel: ‘Los manuscritos de Santo Domingo de Silos’, Boletín de la Real academia de la historia, xcv (1929), 521–601
W.M. Whitehill: ‘A Catalogue of Mozarabic Liturgical Manuscripts Containing the Psalter and Liber Canticorum’, Jb für Liturgiewissenschaft, xiv (1934), 95–122
A. Millares Carlo: Manuscritos visigóticos: notas bibliográficas, Monumenta hispaniae sacra, Subsidia, i (Barcelona and Madrid, 1963); first pubd inHispania sacra, xiv (1961), 337–464
K. Gamber: Codices liturgici latini antiquiores (Freiburg, 1963, 2/1968)
J.M. Mora Ontalba: ‘Bibliografía general, ediciones de textos, trabajos y repertorios’, Estudios sobre la liturgia mozárabe, ed. J.F. Rivera Recio (Toledo, 1965), 165–87
J.M. Pinell: ‘Los textos de la antigua liturgia hispánica: fuentes para su estudio’, ibid., 109–64
D.M. Randel: An Index to the Chant of the Mozarabic Rite (Princeton, NJ, 1973)
I. Fernández de la Cuesta: Manuscritos y fuentes en España: Edad Media (Madrid, 1980)
J.E. Kreider: ‘A Checklist of Spanish Chant Sources at the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library, St. John’s Abbey and University’, Notes, xl (1983–4), 7–29
J.F. Riaño: Critical and Bibliographical Notes on Early Spanish Music (London, 1887/R)
F. Cabrol: ‘Mozarabe (La liturgie)’, Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, ed. F. Cabrol and H. Leclercq (Paris, 1903–53)
F. Cabrol: ‘Mozarabe (Messe)’, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, ed. A. Vacant, E. Mangenot and E. Amann (Paris, 1903–53)
W. Meyer: Die Preces der mozarabischen Liturgie (Berlin, 1914)
W.C. Bishop: The Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites: Four Essays in Comparative Liturgiology, ed. C.L. Feltoe (London, 1924)
G.M. Suñol: Introducció a la paleografía musical gregoriana (Montserrat, 1925; Fr. trans., 1935)
J. Pérez de Urbel: ‘Origen de los himnos mozárabes’, Bulletin hispanique, xxviii (1926), 5–21, 113–39, 209–45, 305–20
G. Prado: Manual de liturgia hispano-visigótica o mozárabe (Madrid, 1927)
G. Prado: Historia del rito mozárabe y toledano (Burgos, 1928)
G. Prado: ‘Mozarabic Melodies’, Speculum, iii (1928), 218–38
P. Wagner: ‘Der mozarabische Kirchengesang und seine Überlieferung’, Spanische Forschungen der Görresgesellschaft, 1st ser., i (1928), 102–41
C. Rojo and G.Prado: El canto mozárabe (Barcelona, 1929)
P. Wagner: ‘Untersuchungen zu den Gesangstexten und zur responsorialen Psalmodie der altspanischen Liturgie’, Spanische Forschungen der Görresgesellschaft, 1st ser., ii (1930), 67–113
H. Anglès: El codex musical de Las Huelgas, i (Barcelona, 1931/R)
W.S. Porter: ‘Early Spanish Monasticism’, Laudate, x–xii (1932–4); excerpted and trans. as ‘Monasticismo español primitivo’, Hispania sacra, vi (1953), 3–36
W.S. Porter: ‘Studies in the Mozarabic Office, I: the Verona Orationale and the Leon Antiphoner’, Journal of Theological Studies, xxxv (1934), 266–86
H. Anglès: La música a Catalunya fins al segle XIII (Barcelona, 1935/R)
A. Millares Carlo: Los códices visigóticos de la catedral toledana: cuestiones cronológicas y de procedencia (Madrid, 1935)
H. Anglès: ‘La música medieval en Toledo hasta el siglo XI’, Spanische Forschungen der Görresgesellschaft, 1st ser., vii (1938), 1–68
L. Brou: ‘Un passage de Tertullien conservé dans un répons pour la fête de S. Jean-Baptiste’, Ephemerides liturgicae, lii (1938), 237–57
L. Brou: ‘Le répons “Ecce quomodo moritur” dans les traditions romaine et espagnole’, Revue bénédictine, li (1939), 144–68
H. Anglès: ‘Hispanic Musical Culture from the 6th to the 14th Century’, MQ, xxvi (1940), 494–528
H. Anglès: La música española desde la Edad Media hasta nuestros días (Barcelona, 1941)
J. Enciso: ‘El breviario mozárabe de la Biblioteca nacional’, Estudios biblicos, ii/2 (1943), 189–212
G. Prado: Valoración y plan de reforma del rito mozárabe (Madrid, 1943)
R.E. Messenger: ‘Mozarabic Hymns in Relation to Contemporary Culture in Spain’, Traditio, iv (1946), 149–78
L. Brou: ‘Etudes sur la liturgie mozarabe: le trisagion de la messe d’après les sources manuscrites’, Ephemerides liturgicae, lxi (1947), 309–34
L. Brou: ‘Le psallendum de la messe et les chants connexes’, Ephemerides liturgicae, lxi (1947), 13–54
P. David: Etudes historiques sur la Galice et le Portugal du VIe au XIIe siècle (Lisbon and Paris, 1947)
C.J. Bishko: ‘Salvus of Albelda and Frontier Monasticism in Tenth-Century Navarre’, Speculum, xiii (1948), 559–90
L. Brou: ‘Les “benedictiones” ou cantique des trois enfants dans l’ancienne messe espagnole’, Hispania sacra, i (1948), 21–33
L. Brou: ‘Les chants en langue grecque dans les liturgies latines’, Sacris erudiri, i (1948), 165–80; iv (1952), 226–38
L. Brou: ‘Bulletin de liturgie mozarabe, 1936–48’, Hispania sacra, ii (1949), 459–84
L. Brou: ‘Liturgie “mozarabe” ou liturgie “hispanique”?’, Ephemerides liturgicae, lxiii (1949), 66–70
M. Huglo: ‘Mélodie hispanique pour une ancienne hymne à la croix’, Revue grégorienne, xxviii (1949), 191–5
L. Brou: ‘L’antiphonaire wisigothique et l’antiphonaire grégorien du VIIIe siècle’, AnM, v (1950), 3–10
J. Moll Roqueta: ‘Nuevos hallazgos de manuscritos mozárabes con neumas musicales’, AnM, v (1950), 11–14
J. Pérez de Urbel: ‘La reconquista de la Rioja y su colonización espiritual en el siglo X’, Estudios dedicados a Menéndez Pidal, i (Madrid, 1950), 495–534
C.J. Bishko: ‘Gallegan Pactual Monasticism in the Repopulation of Castile’, Estudios dedicados a Menéndez Pidal, ii (Madrid, 1951), 513–53
L. Brou: ‘L’alleluia dans la liturgie mozarabe’, AnM, vi (1951), 3–90
L. Brou: ‘Séquences et tropes dans la liturgie mozarabe’, Hispania sacra, iv (1951), 27–41
L. Brou: ‘Fragments d’un antiphonaire mozarabe du monastère de San Juan de la Peña’, Hispania sacra, v (1952), 35–65
L. Brou: ‘Notes de paléographie musicale mozarabe’, AnM, vii (1952), 51–77
L. Brou: ‘Un antiphonaire mozarabe de Silos d’après les fragments du British Museum’, Hispania sacra, v (1952), 341–66
S. Corbin: Essai sur la musique religieuse portugaise au Moyen Age (1100–1385) (Paris, 1952)
M. Huglo: ‘Source hagiopolite d’une antienne hispanique pour le Dimanche des Rameaux’, Hispania sacra, x (1952), 367–74
M.L. Povés: ‘Los fragmentos de códices visigóticos de la Catedral de Santo Domingo de la Calzada’, Revista de archivos, bibliotecas y museos, lviii (1952), 517–20
H. Allinger: The Mozarabic Hymnal and Chant with Special Emphasis on the Hymns of Prudentius (diss., Union Theological Seminary, New York, 1953)
H. Anglès: ‘Mozarabic Chant’, NOHM, ii (1954), 81–91
L. Brou: ‘Le joyau des antiphonaires latins’, Archivos leoneses, viii (1954), 7–114
M.C. Díaz y Díaz: ‘Los prólogos del antiphonale visigothicum de la Catedral de León (León, Arch. Cat. 8)’, Archivos leoneses, viii (1954), 226–57
J. Moll Roqueta: ‘El canto mozárabe’, Arbor, xxviii (1954), 380–82
J. Pérez de Urbel: ‘Antifonario de León: el escritor y la época’, Archivos leoneses, viii (1954), 115–44
J.M. Pinell: ‘Las “missae”, grupos de cantos y oraciones en el oficio de la antigua liturgia hispana’, Archivos leoneses, viii (1954), 145–85
J. Vives: ‘Fuentes hagiográficas del antifonario de León’, Archivos leoneses, viii (1954), 288–99
L. Brou: ‘Notes de paléographie musicale mozarabe’, AnM, x (1955), 23–44
M. Huglo: ‘Les “preces” des graduels aquitains empruntées à la liturgie hispanique’, Hispania sacra, viii (1955), 361–83
J. Vives: ‘En torno a la datación del antifonano legionense’, Hispania sacra, viii (1955), 117–24
J. Pinell: ‘El “matutinarium” en la liturgia hispana’, Hispania sacra, ix (1956), 61–85
J. Pinell: ‘Vestigis del lucernari a occident’, Liturgica, i, Scripta et documenta, vii (1956), 91–149
A.A. King: Liturgies of the Primatial Sees (London, 1957)
J.M. Pinell: ‘El oficio hispano-visigótico’, Hispania sacra, x (1957), 385–427
L. Brou: ‘Etudes sur le missel et le bréviaire “mozarabes” imprimés’, Hispania sacra, xi (1958), 349–98
L. Brou: ‘Deux mauvaises lectures de chanoine Ortiz dans l’édition du bréviaire mozarabe de Ximenez: lauda, capitula’, Miscelánea en homenaje a Monseñor Higinio Anglés (Barcelona, 1958–61), i, 173–202
H. Husmann: ‘Alleluia, Sequenz und Prosa im altspanischen Choral’, ibid., i, 407–16
E. Werner: ‘Eine neuentdeckte mozarabische Handschrift mit Neumen’, ibid., ii, 977–92
A. Franquesa: ‘El codice emilianense 60 y sus piezas litúrgicas’, Hispania sacra, xii (1959), 423–44
M. Rabanal Alvarez: ‘Sobre algunas piezas griegas (transcritas) del antifonario visigótico-mozárabe de la Catedral de León’, Archivos leoneses, xiii (1959), 67–85
B. Thorsberg: Etudes sur l’hymnologie mozarabe (Stockholm, 1962)
J.M. Martín Patino: ‘El breviarium mozárabe de Ortiz: su valor documental para la historia del oficio catedralicio hispánico’, Miscelánea Comillas, xl (1963), 205–97
M.S. Gros: ‘Les fragments parisiens de l’antiphonaire de Silos’, Revue bénédictine, lxxiv (1964), 324–33
J. Llopis Sarrió: ‘La sagrada escritura, fuente de inspiración de la liturgia de difuntos del antiguo rito hispánico’, Hispania sacra, xvii (1964), 349–92
L. Brou: ‘Ediciones de textos, investigaciones y estudios de los últimos treinta años’, Estudios sobre la liturgia mozárabe, ed. J.F. Rivera Recio (Toledo, 1965), 2–31 [incl. suppl. by J.M. Pinell]
M.C. Díaz y Díaz: ‘El latín de la liturgia hispánica’, ibid., 55–87
E. Jammers: Tafeln zur Neumenschrift (Tutzing, 1965)
R.E. Messenger: ‘The Mozarabic Hymnal’, The Hymn, xvi (1965), 49–63
A.M. Mundó: ‘La datación de los códices litúrgicos visigóticos toledanos’, Hispania sacra, xviii (1965), 1–25
G. Prado: ‘Estado actual de los estudios sobre la música mozárabe’, Estudios sobre la liturgia mozárabe, ed. J.F. Rivera Recio (Toledo, 1965), 89–106
J. Bernal: ‘Primeros vestigios del lucernario en España’, Liturgica, iii, Scripta et documenta, xvii (1966), 21–49
M.S. Gros: ‘El ordo romano-hispánico de Narbona para la consagración de igliesias’, Hispania sacra, xix (1966), 321–401
J. Janini: ‘Los fragmentos visigóticos de San Zoilo de Carrión’, Liturgica, iii, Scripta et documenta, xvii (1966), 73–83
J.M. Pinell: ‘Las horas vigiliares del oficio monacal hispánico’, ibid., 197–340
R.F. Lechner: ‘Mozarabic Rite’, New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1967)
I. Wortman: ‘Mozarabic Rite, Chants of’, ibid.
C.W. Brockett: Antiphons, Responsories and Other Chants of the Mozarabic Rite (Brooklyn, NY, 1968)
D.M. Randel: ‘Responsorial Psalmody in the Mozarabic Rite’, Etudes grégoriennes, x (1969), 87–116
D.M. Randel: The Responsorial Psalm Tones for the Mozarabic Office (Princeton, NJ, 1969)
H. Anglès: ‘Spanisch-mozarabische Liturgie’, Geschichte der katholischen Kirchenmusik, ed. K.G. Fellerer, i (Kassel, 1972), 208–19
J. Abad Ibáñez: ‘¿La “Missa pro solo episcopo dicenda” es la antigua misa de ordenación episcopal hispaña?’, Teología del sacerdocio, ix (1977), 391–428
J. Moll: ‘La notación visigótico-mozárabe y el origen de las notaciones occidentales’, Liturgia y música mozárabes [Toledo 1975] (Toledo, 1978), 257–72
J. Pinell: ‘El problema de las dos tradiciones del antiguo rito hispánico’, ibid., 3–44
I. Fernández de la Cuesta and C. del Alamo: ‘Fragmento de un salterio visigótico con notación musical’, RdMc, ii (1979), 9–17
M.C. Díaz y Díaz: ‘Literary Aspects of the Visigothic Liturgy’, Visigothic Spain: New Approaches, ed. E. James (Oxford, 1980), 61–76
D.M. Randel: ’Antiphonal Psalmody in the Mozarabic Rite’, IMSCR XII [Berkeley 1977], ed. D. Heartz and B. Wade (Kassel, 1981), 414–22
I. Fernández de la Cuesta: Historia de la música española, i:Desde los orígenes hasta el ‘ars nova’ (Madrid, 1983)
K. Levy: ‘Toledo, Rome and the Legacy of Gaul’, EMH, iv (1984), 49–99
J. Pinell: ‘Repertorio del “Sacrificium” (canto offertorial del rito hispánico) para el ciclo dominical “De quotidiano”’, Ecclesia orans, i (1984), 57–111
D.M. Randel: ‘El antiguo rito hispánico y la salmodía primitiva en occidente’, RdMc, viii (1985), 229–38
C. Rodríguez Fernandez: El antifonario visigótico de León: estudio literario de sus formulas sálmicas (León, 1985)
I. Fernández de la Cuesta: ‘Sobre el canto liturgico en la vida monastica primitiva’, Codex aquilarensis: Cuadernos de investigación del Monasterio de Santa Maria da Real, i (1987), 81–9
R. Gonzalvez: ‘Mozarabic Rite’, Dictionary of the Middle Ages, ed. J.R. Strayer, viii (New York, 1987), 516–17
M. Huglo: ‘La notation wisigothique est-elle plus ancienne que les autres notations européennes?’, España en la música de occidente [Salamanca 1985], ed. E. Casares Rodicio, I. Fernández de la Cuesta and J. López-Calo (Madrid, 1987), i, 19–26
K. Levy: ‘Old-Hispanic Chant in its European Context’, ibid., i, 3–14
O. Cullin: ‘Le répertoire de la psalmodie in directum dans les traditions liturgiques latines: la tradition hispanique’, Etudes grégoriennes, xxiii (1989), 99–140
H. González Barrionuevo: ‘Dos grafías particulares del scandicus flexus en la notación “mozárabe” de tipo vertical’, AnM, xliv (1989), 5–21
H. González Barrionuevo: ‘La grafía del sálicus en la notación “mozárabe” de tipo vertical’, RdMc, xii (1989), 397–410
H. González Barrionuevo: ‘Présence de signes additionnels de type mélodique dans la notation “mozarabe” du nord de l’Espagne’, Etudes grégoriennes, xxiii (1989), 141–53
C.J. Gutiérrez: ‘El himnario de Huesca: nueva aproximación’, AnM, xliv (1989), 23–60
H. González Barrionuevo: ‘Dos grafías especiales del “scandicus” en la notación “mozárabe” del norte de España’, RdMc, xiii (1990), 11–80
O. Cullin: ‘Richesse et diversité de la tradition liturgique hispanique: l’exemple des psallenda et des laudes de Carême’, RdMc, xvi (1993), 2246–56
I. Fernández de la Cuesta: ‘El canto viejo-hispánico y el canto viejo-galicano’, RdMc, xvi (1993), 438–56
H. González Barrionuevo: ‘Dos “scandicus subbipunctis” particulares en la notación “mozárabe” de tipo vertical’, AnM, xlviii (1993), 47–62
M. Huglo: ‘Recherches sur les tons psalmodiques de l’ancienne liturgie hispanique’, RdMc, xvi (1993), 477–90
K. Levy: ‘The Iberian Peninsula and the Formation of Early Western Chant’, RdMc, xvi (1993), 435–7
M. Pedro Ferreira: ‘Three Fragments from Lamego’, RdMc, xvi (1993), 457–76
D.M. Randel: ‘The Old Hispanic Rite as Evidence for the Earliest Forms of the Western Christian Liturgies’, RdMc, xvi (1993), 491–6
S. Zapke: ‘Procesos asimilativos del nuevo repertorio franco-romano en el norte de la península’, RdMc, xvi (1993), 2257–67
S. Zapke: El antifonario de San Juan de la Peña (siglos X–XI): estudio litúrgico-musical del rito hispanico (Zaragoza, 1995)