The customs, liturgy and chant of the medieval cathedral of Salisbury (‘Sarum’ is an incorrect expansion of the contracted form of ‘Sarisburia’, the Latin name for Salisbury). Sarum chant and liturgy were paramount in later medieval England, and much English sacred polyphony of the period was performed within its context. The modern fame of the Use of Sarum is to a great extent an accidental product of the political and religious preoccupations of 19th-century English ecclesiastics and ecclesiologists. The Use certainly deserves attention and respect as an outstanding intellectual achievement, but it is far from unique, and the fascination that it has exerted still threatens to limit rather than increase our understanding of the medieval English Church.
2. History of the Salisbury Use.
NICK SANDON
A Use is a body of custom sufficiently distinctive and defined to be identified with a particular ecclesiastical foundation or group of foundations such as a cathedral church and its diocesan churches or with a religious order such as the Cistercians or Dominicans. Though not confined to the later Middle Ages, the concept of Use was thoroughly exploited during this period because it was well attuned to contemporary attitudes and conditions: the prominent role of the Church; the elaborateness of the liturgy; the desire to create and codify minutely ordered systems; and the strength of regionalism.
A medieval Use typically involved three aspects of a religious community’s existence: its constitution (its operation as a corporate body, and the duties and privileges of its members); its liturgy (the ritual and ceremonial, or content and conduct, of its worship); and the repertory of chant to which its liturgy was sung. These aspects were interrelated: the main purpose of most religious foundations was to perform the liturgy on behalf of the rest of society; the intricate liturgy demanded a high degree of expertise if it was to be performed in a manner worthy of its object; and the liturgy exploited the music of the chant subtly, thoroughly and resourcefully.
Although the diocese of Salisbury was a post-Conquest creation, its roots lay in Anglo-Saxon England. In 635 St Birinus converted Cynegils, king of Wessex, to Christianity and became the first bishop of the West Saxons, establishing his see at Dorchester-on-Thames and subsequently founding several other churches, including one at Winchester. It may have been the threat of Mercian intrusion that prompted Cynegils’ successor Cenwalh to make Winchester the seat of a second diocese; in about 660 Dorchester itself ceased to be a bishopric, leaving Winchester as the sole see of the West Saxon kingdom. The westward expansion of Wessex soon made it impossible for its church to be administered from a single centre. In 705 a western diocese was founded at Sherborne, and in 909 three more bishoprics were created, at Crediton, Ramsbury and Wells; Ramsbury was united with Sherborne in 1058. In 1075 William the Conqueror moved the see of Sherborne to Old Sarum, where he transformed an ancient hill-fort into a stronghold and administrative centre. Less than a century and a half later, however, the settlement was transferred to a more favourable site beside the River Avon two miles to the south, which became known as New Sarum or Salisbury. Here a new cathedral was built between about 1220 and 1266. Its diocese corresponded roughly to the counties of Berkshire, Dorset, and Wiltshire.
The observable history of the Use of Salisbury begins with the appointment of Bishop Osmund in 1078. Osmund was more than just another of the foreign ecclesiastics chosen by William to bring the English Church into conformity with Norman models: he was a Norman aristocrat, son of the Count of Sées; he was William’s own nephew and had accompanied him to England in 1066; he had been his chaplain and, since 1072, his chancellor. He quickly proved himself an energetic and effective bishop. By 1089 Osmund had converted his cathedral church from a Benedictine monastery into a house of secular canons, and in 1091 he provided the community with a written constitution. Such steps had ample precedent; radical reform had been taking place in the English Church since the appointment of Lanfranc to Canterbury in 1070, and in 1090 two of Osmund’s compatriot bishops, Thomas of Bayeux and Remigius of Fécamp, had enacted similar constitutional legislation at York and Lincoln.
Osmund’s ordinances for his new cathedral, preserved in two documents known as the Charta Osmundi and the Institutio Osmundi, are almost entirely concerned with its finances and the duties of its senior clergy. Since the earliest surviving service book from Salisbury (the unnotated gradual GB-SB 149) postdates Osmund by about a century, and the earliest chant books postdate him by half as long again, his contribution to the cathedral’s liturgy and chant is a matter for conjecture. He must surely have been an innovator, for the replacement of a monastic community with a secular chapter was bound to have liturgical consequences. Revisions were certainly being made to the liturgies of other English churches, such as Canterbury, where Lanfranc imported customs from Bec. If liturgical changes were made, they may, but need not, have been accompanied by the adoption of new chant and/or methods of chanting. At Glastonbury, Abbot Thurstan of Caen caused a riot by introducing Norman chant or chanting, whereas at Canterbury pre-Conquest versions of at least some of the chants evidently continued to be used within Lanfranc’s revised liturgy.
The origins of Sarum liturgy and chant and the evolution of the Use during the 12th century are thus very obscure. Presumably Osmund’s written constitution was amplified from time to time, the liturgy was established and developed and perhaps recorded in outline, and the chant was sung and transmitted in versions considered authentic and definitive. GB-SB 149 shows that the Mass liturgy was already formed half a century before the first extant chant books. When they are encountered in documents of the early 13th century, both the liturgy and the chant show close connections with Norman models, particularly with Rouen, but the extent (if any) to which they retain pre-Norman elements is unknown.
The resettlement at New Sarum coincided with major developments in the Use. By this time there was evidently a need for a detailed and orderly description of the cathedral’s liturgical customs. This was supplied by Richard Poore, a zealous organiser who, as dean of Salisbury from 1197 to 1215 and bishop from 1217 to 1228, presided over the move to the new site and the beginning of work on the new cathedral. It was probably during his deanship that Poore, perhaps in emulation of northern French practice, provided his cathedral with two treatises that constitute the earliest comprehensive account of the Salisbury liturgy: the ordinal and consuetudinary. Although these overlap, they are essentially complementary: the ordinal is a directory of the services, listing their constituent items and describing the method of service day by day; the consuetudinary is an analysis of ceremonial, prescribing basic liturgical conduct and departures from it on particular occasions, and setting out the duties of the participants according to the type of service and grade of feast. These are not service books, but reference books for the precentor. The ordinal quickly came to be considered part of the essential equipment of every parish church in the diocese, being frequently mentioned in visitation records from the 1220s onwards.
The Sarum ordinal and consuetudinary were periodically revised in response to such factors as the adoption of new feasts, changes in liturgical fashion and the need for greater precision. Alterations were often made piecemeal by addition or small-scale emendation, but occasionally more radical revision was necessary. In about 1246 the consuetudinary was restructured on a chronological basis and its ceremonial material was greatly amplified. As the basic handbook to the services, the ordinal was subject to greater alteration than the consuetudinary; by the mid-14th century it had reached such a state of confusion that a wholesale revision, known as the new ordinal, was produced. The new ordinal then became the main source for the rubrics in later Sarum service books. Unlike the ordinal, the consuetudinary seems to have fallen into disuse early in the 14th century, doubtless because much of its contents applied only to the cathedral and a great deal of the rest was duplicated in the ordinal. With its constitutional content abbreviated, its material on general liturgical deportment kept and its instructions about the Divine Office expanded, it was turned into a new reference book known as the customary; this seems to have been intended for parish churches, and it was often copied as a supplement to the ordinal.
During the 15th century the revised ordinal was itself criticized for its complexity, and the authorities at Salisbury were accused of not understanding their own liturgy. Particularly cogent and influential criticism came from Clement Maydeston, a monk of Syon, in three treatises: Directorium sacerdotum (c1440), Defensorium directorii (c1448) and Crede michi (c1452). The first of these resolved contradictions and clarified obscurities in the standard ordinal; the second reinforced the Directorium by exposing discrepancies between the ordinal and contemporary interpretations of it; and the third went into further detail and revealed the inadequacy of replies made by the canons of Salisbury to liturgical questions asked of them. The Directorium and its supplementary tracts seem quickly to have been accepted as authoritative, circulating in manuscript and being printed at least four times between 1487 and 1495; a revision by William Clerke, precentor of King’s College, Cambridge, was then printed a further seven times between 1497 and 1508, before being made redundant in 1509 by the incorporation of its rubrics into the breviary itself.
During the later Middle Ages the Use of Salisbury became influential both within and occasionally also outside the British Isles. Its diffusion began in the 12th century, when the cathedral’s reputation for good constitutional practice prompted Lincoln, Chichester, Lichfield and probably Wells to introduce legislation based on the Institutio Osmundi or on amplifications of it. The advent of the ordinal and consuetudinary (perhaps also the production of service books) encouraged further borrowing and shifted the emphasis from constitution to liturgy. During the 13th century the Sarum liturgy was adopted either partly or wholly, and often with the retention of local elements, by St Patrick’s (Dublin), St David’s, Elgin and Wells, and also by some collegiate foundations in dioceses whose cathedrals were monastic. It also left its mark on the revision of the Dominican rite carried out in 1244–6. The process of dissemination continued in the 14th century: Exeter and to a lesser extent Hereford borrowed from Salisbury, and Sarum Use became standard for household chapels and academic colleges. It even travelled to Portugal when Philippa of Lancaster, daughter of John of Gaunt, married João I in 1387, and some features were retained in the Use of Braga for a considerable time. During the 15th century the Use was accepted by London and Lichfield, and early in the 16th Exeter adopted it in its entirety. The only diocese largely untouched by Salisbury was York. Hereford’s claim to independence is weakened by its ordinal and even more by its missal and breviary. By the early 1500s Salisbury Use had been adopted by most of the southern and Midlands dioceses, and in 1542 it attained the zenith of its influence when Canterbury Convocation imposed it upon the entire southern province of the English Church. Seven years later, however, it was replaced by the English liturgy of the first Book of Common Prayer. It was briefly reinstated by Mary (1553–8), but the Elizabethan religious settlement of 1559 brought about its final abandonment, although it continued to be used by members of the English College at Douai until about 1577.
The ascendancy of the Use of Sarum was at least partly fortuitous. The cathedral churches of several English dioceses, including Canterbury, the mother church of England, and Winchester, leader of the late Saxon ecclesiastical revival, were Benedictine priories, and their monastic liturgies were unsuitable for their diocesan churches. Organized so thoroughly and so early, Salisbury was well able to fill the gap; once begun, colonization created its own momentum. Other explanations of Salisbury Use’s success, such as its adoption by household chapels and chantry and academic colleges, and the ability of copyists and booksellers to supply Salisbury service books on demand, are more likely to be results than causes.
The fact that the earliest surviving manuscripts of Sarum chant, such as the graduals GB-Lbl 12194 and Ob Rawl.lit.d.3 and the antiphoner Cu Mm.2.9, date from the second quarter of the 13th century may imply that Poore’s work on the ordinal and consuetudinary was part of a larger project to codify the cathedral’s liturgical heritage. Like the ordinal and consuetudinary, the service books were subject to revision in response to liturgical evolution. Among additions and changes which may help to date a manuscript are: the Deposition and Translation of St Edmund of Abingdon (1246 and 1247); the octave of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin (1252); the transference of the Feast of Relics from 15 September to the Sunday following the Translation of St Thomas (1319); St Anne (1383); Sts David, Chad and Winifred (1415); St Osmund and his Translation (1456 and 1457); the Name of Jesus (1457); the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin, the Transfiguration, St Etheldreda and St Frideswide (1480). The absence of Corpus Christi is no guarantee that a Sarum book predates the feast’s promulgation by Pope Urban IV in 1264; Salisbury seems not to have adopted it until about 1317, when Pope John XXII renewed the attempt to establish it.
Salisbury service books reflect liturgical developments in other ways too. Some early manuscripts, such as GB-Mr lat.24, include the Kyrie prosula Rex virginum amator and the Gloria trope Regnum tuum solidum, which are not found in later sources. This noted missal also gives the melodic phrases of the troped Kyries twice over, once with the prosula text and once as a melisma, reflecting an early method of performance in which each phrase was sung with the words of its prosula by soloists and repeated melismatically by the choir, as in the proses attached to some Matins and processional responsories. Most graduals, for example, the manuscripts Cq Horne 16(28), Lbl 17001 and Lansdowne 462, Llp 7, Ob Hatton 3 and all four printed editions, include the offertory verses sung on ferias during Advent and from Septuagesima to Maundy Thursday, whereas some of the earliest manuscript graduals, including Lbl 12194 and Mr lat.24, omit them; still other early sources, such as Exc 3515, have them as marginal additions. Variation may also indicate the use of a Sarum book in another diocese: an antiphoner still belonging to its original owner, the parish church of St Helen, Ranworth, Norfolk, has as an appendix the fully notated Office of its patron saint, who is not even mentioned in the Sarum calendar.
Surviving Sarum chant books naturally use fully developed staff notation. They are generally accurate, most of their melodic and textual variants occurring in traditionally ambiguous contexts. In certain respects the notation is conservative: liquescence is regularly indicated, even in the printed sources, and in the manuscripts the pes stratus occurs frequently, although the quilisma is not used. There is some confusion between the liquescent clivis and the doubling or lengthening of a note by adding a descending right-hand stem to it (a procedure perhaps suggested by the breve and long of mensural notation); this may explain the treatment of the liquescent clivis as a single note of doubled value in many polyphonic works based on monorhythmic chant cantus firmi. There is considerable variation and some family grouping between manuscripts in the choice of compound neumes for the notation of melismas. The compound neumes used in printed books appear to have been chosen partly for technical reasons; for example, the podatus on adjacent pitches is largely avoided.
Salisbury possessed a full range of chant books characteristic of the later Middle Ages. The processional may have been an addition to the original corpus; material for the processions is commonly included in early graduals and antiphoners but omitted from later copies, and the earliest extant examples of the processional itself date from the mid-14th century. The late 14th-century processional Lbl 57534 contains illustrations of the standard and special processions which may be the originals of the woodcuts found in most of the printed processionals. In view of the evident desire to keep service books up to date, it is surprising that some copies of the processional describe a route for the Palm Sunday procession that must have applied to the cathedral at Old Sarum, with its cloisters to the north of the church, not to the new cathedral at Salisbury, with its cloisters on the south. Since every church adapted the processional routes to suit its own layout, this anachronism need not have caused trouble. The Sarum tonary or tonal, in which the chant melodies are classified according to mode and melodic type, is particularly thorough and well organized.
Manuscript and printed copies of Sarum service books, and of books of Hours claiming to follow Sarum Use, survive in relatively large numbers. Printers and publishers found Sarum books so profitable that editions appeared with astonishing frequency; between 1487 and 1558 there were, for example, about 60 printings of the missal, 50 of the breviary and 250 of the Hours. The chant books were printed less often, but during the same period the processional was printed at least 25 times, the hymnal eight times and the much more voluminous gradual four times (1508, 1527, 1528 and 1532). The antiphoner was printed only once (in two parts, 1519 and 1520), but this monumental undertaking is one of the major achievements of early printing. Relatively few of these editions, and particularly few of the chant books, were printed in England. The antiphoner and all four editions of the gradual were printed in Paris, and over three-quarters of the editions of the missal and breviary were printed there or in Rouen. The processional and hymnal, however, were printed more often in Antwerp than anywhere else. The only Sarum book to be printed more often in England than abroad was the book of Hours or primer, but even here continental editions supply nearly 40% of the total.
Like virtually every other Use of medieval Europe, that of Salisbury was liturgically and musically a dialect of the Romano-Frankish lingua franca; its local feasts and liturgical peculiarities were superimposed on a foundation that was the common property of the Western Church. When new feasts were adopted at Salisbury, their texts and music were often taken from the existing Commune sanctorum (as for St David and St Chad) or imported ready-made (as for Corpus Christi). Sarum chant cannot claim any great originality; very little of it was peculiar to Salisbury, and although the Sarum versions of widely disseminated chants may show variance in pitch, underlay or degree of elaboration, the variants are insufficiently large, systematic or stable to constitute a recognizable dialect. Among the very small corpus of chant evidently unique to Salisbury is a rhymed Office Suscipe cum gaudio for the Translation of St Osmund, perhaps composed for the translation ceremony of 1457. This Office may have been confined to the cathedral itself, for it survives in a single incompletely notated manuscript, and the printed Sarum antiphoner of 1519–20 prescribes that both of Osmund’s feasts should be celebrated with material from the Commune. The text of the Office mingles goliardic metre with classical hexameters, and the chant has the aimless floridity and lack of balance characteristic of late medieval examples. Even if it were possible to identify a sizable body of chant specifically composed at or for Salisbury, this would almost certainly not allow the identification of a local idiom; late medieval West European chant is simply not distinctive in this way.
Comparison of the three secular Uses whose autonomy was recognized in later medieval England – those of Salisbury, York and Hereford – does, however, reveal numerous but mainly small differences. The text of an item on a particular day may vary: for instance, in the mass for Ember Wednesday in September the three Uses have the graduals Venite filii audite me, Domine refugium factus es and Propitius est Domine respectively. Independence in the choice of sequences is common: for example, Salisbury’s Mass of St Thomas of Canterbury has Solemne canticum hodie, York’s has Spe mercedis et coronae and Hereford’s has Mundo Christus oritur. The series of alleluias for the Sundays after Trinity also differ, as on the seventh Sunday when Salisbury’s Te decet hymnus contrasts with York’s Omnes gentes plaudite manibus and Hereford’s Eripe me de inimicis. Similar discrepancies also occur in the Divine Office, so that, for example, at Salisbury the seventh responsory at Matins of the Epiphany is Hodie in Jordane, whereas at York it is Videntes stellam magi and at Hereford it is Illuminare illuminare Jerusalem. There are also differences in spoken items and ceremonial, such as the manner of giving the Pax within the Canon: at Salisbury the prayer Domine sancte Pater precedes the Pax, but at York and Hereford it follows it; the altar ceremonial differs, and the celebrant gives the Pax with different words. The three secular Uses also differ considerably in their repertories of Kyrie prosulas and their choice of these for particular days.
The Use of Salisbury makes little or no formal provision for polyphony, the only possible reference being a remark in the customary to the effect that on Christmas Day, the four following days and a couple of other occasions Benedicamus Domino is to be sung ‘dupliciter’. It seems likely that in this context this means ‘in two voices’ rather than ‘by two people’, because it would have been obvious that Benedicamus should be performed by two singers on such important days as these. Some English Uses, for instance, that of Exeter as revised by Bishop Grandisson in the mid-14th century, make much more explicit and lavish provision for polyphony, either by prescribing which liturgical items may be performed polyphonically or by allowing polyphonic settings of non-liturgical texts to be inserted into services at specified points. Such practices were probably tacitly permitted by Salisbury too.
Despite Salisbury’s reticence on the subject, English sacred polyphony of the later Middle Ages was profoundly influenced by the Sarum liturgy and its chant because, whether it was improvised or composed and notated, this polyphony was usually based upon chant melodies and designed for performance within a liturgical context. When setting liturgical texts such as items from the Lady Mass, Matins responsories, Marian antiphons, single movements from the Mass Ordinary, and pieces peculiar to days of special festivity (such as Dicant nunc Judei, the verse of the Easter processional antiphon Christus resurgens), composers habitually incorporated the chant to which the text was normally sung, either quoting it fairly literally in the middle of the texture or ornamenting it in the highest voice. Most English cyclic masses, such as Power’s Alma Redemptoris mater and Tallis’s ‘Puer natus’, have as their cantus firmus a Sarum chant presumably chosen for its referential significance. Several 15th- and early 16th-century manuscripts contain collections of polyphony showing a particularly close connection with the Sarum rite; these include Lbl 57590 (the Old Hall manuscript, connected with the House of Lancaster), Lbl Eg.3307 (perhaps from St George’s Chapel, Windsor), Cmc Pepys 1236 (probably from the Almonry Chapel in Canterbury Cathedral) and Lbl 5665 (associated with Exeter and London).
W.H. Frere, ed.: Graduale sarisburiense: a Reproduction in Facsimile of a Manuscript of the Thirteenth Century, with a Dissertation and Historical Index Illustrating its Development from the Gregorian Antiphonale missarum (London, 1894/R)
W.H. Frere, ed.: Antiphonale sarisburiense: a Reproduction in Facsimile of a Manuscript of the Thirteenth Century, with a Dissertation and Analytical Index (London, 1901–24/R)
R.-J. Hesbert, ed.: Le tropaire-prosaire de Dublin, Monumenta musicae sacrae, iv (Rouen, 1970)
G.R. Rastall, ed.: Processionale ad usum Sarum 1502 (Clarabricken, 1980)
N. Sandon, ed.: The Use of Salisbury, i: The Ordinary of the Mass (Newton Abbot, 1984, 2/1990); ii: The Proper of the Mass from Advent to Septuagesima (Newton Abbot, 1986, 2/2000); iii: The Proper of the Mass from Septuagesima to Palm Sunday (Newton Abbot, 1991); iv: The Masses and Ceremonies of Holy Week (Newton Abbot, 1996); v: The Proper of the Mass from Easter to Trinity (Newton Abbot, 1998); vi: The Proper of the Mass from Trinity to Advent (Newton Abbot, 1999)
[A.H. Pearson], ed.: The Sarum Missal, in English (London, 1868, rev. and enlarged 2/1884)
F.H. Dickinson, ed.: Missale ad usum insignis et praeclarae ecclesiae Sarum (Burntisland, 1861–83/R)
W.G. Henderson, ed.: Missale ad usum insignis ecclesiae Eboracensis (London, 1874)
W.G. Henderson, ed.: Missale ad usum percelebris ecclesiae Herfordensis (Leeds, 1874/R)
W.G. Henderson, ed.: Manuale et processionale ad usum insignis ecclesiae Eboracensis (London, 1875)
F. Procter and C. Wordsworth, eds.: Breviarium ad usum insignis ecclesiae Sarum (Cambridge, 1879–86/R)
S.W. Lawley, ed.: Breviarium ad usum insignis ecclesiae Eboracensis (London, 1880–83)
W.G. Henderson, ed.: Processionale ad usum insignis ac praeclarae ecclesiae Sarum (Leeds, 1882/R)
W.H. Frere, ed.: The Use of Sarum, i: The Sarum Customs as Set Forth in the Consuetudinary and Customary (Cambridge, 1898/R); ii: The Ordinal and Tonal (Cambridge 1901/R)
C. Wordsworth, ed.: Ceremonies and Processions of the Cathedral Church of Salisbury (Cambridge, 1901)
W. Cooke and C. Wordsworth, eds.: Ordinale Sarum, sive Directorium sacerdotum ... auctore Clemente Maydeston (London, 1901–2)
W.H. Frere and L.E.G. Brown, eds.: The Hereford Breviary (London, 1904–15)
J.W. Legg, ed.: The Sarum Missal Edited from Three Early Manuscripts (Oxford, 1916/R)
A. Jefferies Collins, ed.: Manuale ad usum percelebris ecclesie Sarisburiensis (Chichester, 1960)
HarrisonMMB
W.H. Frere: Bibliotheca musico-liturgica: a Descriptive Handlist of the Musical and Latin-Liturgical MSS of the Middle Ages Preserved in the Libraries of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, i (London, 1894–1932)
H. Littlehales, ed.: The Prymer, or Lay Folks’ Prayer Book (London, 1897/R)
E. Hoskins: Horae Beatae Mariae Virginis or Sarum and York Primers with Kindred Books and Primers of the Reformed Roman Use together with an Introduction (London, 1901/R)
C. Wordsworth and H. Littlehales: The Old Service Books of the English Church (London, 1904)
E. Bishop: Liturgica historica (Oxford, 1918/R)
A. Hollaender: ‘The Sarum Illuminator and his School’, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, l (1942–4), 230–62
K. Edwards: The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages (Manchester, 1949, 2/1967)
D. Stevens: ‘Pre-Reformation Organ Music in England’, PRMA, lxxviii (1951–2), 1–10
S. Corbin: Essai sur la musique religieuse portugaise au Moyen-Age (1100–1385) (Paris, 1952)
D. Stevens: ‘A Unique Tudor Organ Mass’, MD, vi (1952), 167–75
D. Stevens: ‘Processional Psalms in Faburden’, MD, ix (1955), 105–10
F.Ll. Harrison: ‘Music for the Sarum Rite’, AnnM, vi (1958), 99–144
S. Corbin: La déposition liturgique du Christ au Vendredi Saint: sa place dans l’histoire des rites et du théâtre religieux: analyse des documents portugais (Paris, 1960)
N.R. Ker: Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: a List of Surviving Books (London, 2/1964; suppl. ed. A.G. Watson, 1987)
J.D. Bergsagel: ‘An English Liquescent Neume’, Essays Presented to Egon Wellesz, ed. J. Westrup (Oxford, 1966), 94–9
R.W. Pfaff: New Liturgical Feasts in Later Medieval England (Oxford, 1970)
T. Bailey: The Processions of Sarum and the Western Church (Toronto, 1971)
M. Huglo: Les tonaires: inventaire, analyse, comparaison (Paris, 1971)
N. Davison: ‘So which way round did they go? The Palm Sunday Procession at Salisbury’, ML, lxi (1980), 1–14
R.-J. Hesbert: ‘The Sarum Antiphoner: its Sources and Influence’, JPMMS, iii (1980), 49–55
D. Hiley: ‘The Norman Chant Traditions: Normandy, Britain, Sicily’, PRMA, cvii (1980–1), 1–33
A. Hughes: Medieval Manuscripts for Mass and Office: a Guide to their Organization and Terminology (Toronto, 1982)
P.J. Underwood: ‘Melodic Traditions in Medieval English Antiphoners’, JPMMS, v (1982), 1–12
D.L. Droste: The Musical Notation and Transmission of the Music of the Sarum Use, 1225–1500 (diss., U. of Toronto, 1983)
D. Hiley: ‘Ordinary of Mass Chants in English, North French and Sicilian Manuscripts’, JPMMS, ix (1986), 1–128
O.T. Edwards: ‘A Fourteenth-Century Welsh Sarum Antiphonal: National Library of Wales ms. 20541’, JPMMS, x (1987), 15–21
I. Woods: ‘“Our awin Scottis use”: Chant Usage in Medieval Scotland’, JRMA, cxii (1987), 21–37
O.T. Edwards: Matins, Lauds and Vespers for St David’s Day: the Medieval Office of the Welsh Patron Saint in National Library of Wales MS 20541 E (Cambridge, 1990)
M. Floyd: ‘Processional Chants in English Monastic Sources’, JPMMS, xiii (1990), 1–48
E. Duffy: The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England c. 1400–1580 (London, 1992)
D. Hiley: ‘Post-Pentecost Alleluias in Medieval British Liturgies’, Music in the Medieval English Liturgy, ed. S. Rankin and D. Hiley (Oxford, 1993), 145–74
A. Hughes: ‘British Rhymed Offices: a Catalogue and Commentary’, ibid., 239–84