Prologue to the Cistercian Antiphonary
Prologue to the Cistercian Antiphonary
Mount Melleray, rath c. Antiphonary from Hauterive (Switzerland), f.1. The text has been edited by H. Séalon,
Nomasticon Cisterciense, Solesmes, 1892, p244.
Cambridge, Jesus College, Ms. 34, f.t09. A 12thc. collection of "varia" from the library of Rievaulx.
Heiligenkreuz, Ms. 20, f.1. r2th/13th c. Antiphonary.
Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, Ms. lat. 16662, f.70V. 13th c. collection of musical treatises, once in the possession of the Sorbonne. The text was used by J. Hommey, in his Supplementum Patrum, Paris, 1684, pp. 5-6.
The version in PL 182: 1121-1122, is the non-critical (but good) edition prepared by Dom Mabillon with the help of a transcript sent by Cardinal Bona.
The present translation is based, of course, on the excellent text established by Dom Leclercq and Dom Rochais, which renders obsolete the other above-mentioned editions (as well as the poorer editions left unmentioned).
The place of the Prologus The manuscripts link the Prologus intimately with the Praefatio immediately following in all manuscripts, and mentioned specifically in the final paragraph of the Prologus. This Praefatio is something of a treatise on Cistercian chant theory, and explains in a fair amount of detail the musical principles operative in the reform of the primitive chant books of the Order. Similar in spirit, though more utilitarian in purpose, is the Tonale, often juxtaposed with the preceding two opuscula, and serving as a practical catechism of the Cistercian psalm-tones and other similar formulae.? Since antiphonaries of the period preceding the Bernardine reform have not 2. The most accessible edition of the Praefatio is found in PL 182:1121-1132.
Typographical errors further confuse the poor edition. The Tonale is likewise found in the same volume, col. 1153-1166, no less badly edited. The manuscripts present two recensions of the Tonale, one considerably longer than the other. These treatises deserve better editions.
The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux been known to be extant, the Prologus together with the Praefatio and the Tonale have been the chief sources drawn upon for a knowledge of the Order's chant prior to the reform.
The Prologus description of the Cistercian reform Though almost every phrase invites attention, only a few specific points may be mentioned within the limits of this introduction to the text. For a more ample treatment of the material under discussion, together with select bibliographical references, see the paper by the author of this introduction, "The Origin and Early Evolution of the Cistercian Antiphonary: Reflections of Two Cistercian
Chant Reforms," in The Cistercian Spirit: A Symposium (Cistercian Studies Series, 3).
Bernard begins by speaking of an initial antiphonary reform inaugurated at an early but unspecified date by the "Fathers, that is to say, those who began (inchoatores) the Cistercian Order." In Archbishop Hugh of Lyon's official Act regulating the details of Robert's return to Molesme, special mention is made of the liturgical books brought from Molesme to New Monastery. These books are to be kept by the pioneer monks, with the exception of a certain breviary which may be retained for purposes of transcription only until the Feast of St John the Baptist.? Evidently there was a certain continuity, then, in the Molesme and primitive New
Monastery liturgical repertory (however much the style of celebration may have differed). How long did this continuity perdure:
Impossible to say. The first-generation monks, in keeping with their thirst for the most "authentic,'' abandoned the Molesme books for the tradition embodied in the Metz Antiphonary.
"Authentic" is here a key word of central importance. While 3. The text of Hugh's letter, embodying the decisions taken at the Colloquy of Pont-d'Anselle in 1099, forms ch. 7 of the Exordium Parvum, which has been frequently edited. An English translation can be found in L. Lekai, The White Monks (Okauchee, Wis., 1953), pp. 255ff.
Prologue to the Cistercian Antiphonary
certainly including present day connotations of "genuine" and "meaningful," emphasis lay rather, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, on "authentic" as "authoritative, because of conformity with the original.''
For the early Cistercians as for their coevals, 'authentic antiphonary" and "Gtegorian antiphonary" were convertible terms.
Indeed, it is only in relatively recent times that Pope St Gregory's role in the codification of the chant we style "Gregorian" has come in for reappraisal. In the twelfth century, John the Deacon's ninthcentury account of Gregory transcribing the chant melodies under direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit (in the form of a dove) was accepted as standard doctrine.
Where were "authentic" antiphonaries to be found? Bernard tells us that the Cistercian Fathers went to Metz. It was, indeed,
Metz which, in the eighth century and later, had been the center of diffusion for the Roman liturgy imported by Pippin, Charlemagne, and their successors. It was held that the early tradition linked with Gregory's name was still alive and flourishing in Metz.
Yet the early Cistercians, Bernard tells us, were sadly disillusioned.
The Prologus describes the Metz texts and melodies as "'corrupt (vitiosum), quite badly structured (incompositum nimis), and deserving of contempt in almost every respect (ac paene per omnia contemptibile)."" Harsh words. Some scholars have thought that the negative judgment simply reflects a lack of knowledge about the real chant.
The Cistercian critics, malformed in their attitude towards chant by the bizarre musical theory of the twelfth century, simply did not recognize as authentic what was, in actual fact, a pure expression of the very best tradition. This opinion, unfortunately, is based on mere conjecture; and a serious study of the twelfth-thirteenth century chant of Metz reveals that, while there was a very homo4. For an extensive treatment of authenticum and correlative terms, see
M. D. Chenu op, Introduction a S—Thomas (Montréal-Paris, 1950), pp. 110ff.
This treatment of the word in the thirteenth-century context differs in little from the same author's discussion of twelfth-century usage, in La théologie au douzieme siecle, Etudes de Philosophie Médiévale 45 (Paris, 1957), pp. 351-365, where the period studied is precisely the one under scrutiny.
The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux genous tradition at Metz, with many indications of archaic elements; the chant had nevertheless evolved along the lines of a chant
"dialect." It differed considerably from what passed as "standard" in most of France and Northern Italy, and—though most of our documentation is from the thirteenth century—must have already reached a rather bad state by the twelfth century.
In spite of the negative reaction, the Metz chants were adopted (because of their "authority":). At last the suffering became too acute, and the Abbots of the General Chapter, Bernard writes, entrusted him with the revision of the Order's Antiphonary.
Bernard mentions no one by name, but he does specify that he invoked the help of those of the brethren (the antecedent is "Abbots of the Chapter') with a competence in the theory and practice of the chant. He notes, too, that the reformed Antiphonary derives from many different sources (de multis et diversis).
After the legal clause of promulgation, there follows the directive to the effect that the interested reader should study the following
Preface for further information about the reformed Antiphonary.
Not surprisingly, until recently, it has been taken for granted that the principles discussed in the Preface adequately cover the proeram of revision. Scholars commenting on the Cistercian musical reform inevitably study only those instances evidently involving the application of the chant principles exposed in this interesting presentation of medieval chant theory. Since these principles are now recognized as artificial and incompatible with the true nature of the traditional repertory, it follows that Bernard and his felloweditors are seen as perpetrators of a systematic mutilation of the authentic Mass and Office chants.
It is now possible, however, to get a clearer picture of the reform.
With the help of several Metz manuscripts, together with an almost complete composite twelfth-century Cistercian antiphonary predating the Bernardine reform, but corrected according to the later reformed chant version, the earlier Cistercian Office chants can be reconstructed with a high degree of scientific accuracy in most instances. A collation of the earlier with the later version reveals that, though the changes made in the name of chant theory are many and
Prologue to the Cistercian Antiphonary
significant, most of the changes are merely corrections of the Metz musical "dialect," thus ensuring greater conformity of the Cistercian repertory with the chant we would style "standard."
Bernard's role in the chant reform Nothing in the Prologus or in other sources suggests that Bernard himself was an expert theorist or musicologist. His chief role in the reform was that of organizer and coordinator; and though this postulates, on his part, at least a basic knowledge of the chant theories implemented in the reform, this knowledge need not have been remarkably extensive or profound.
But Bernard nevertheless has something to teach us by his attitude towards music.
For those who have concerned themselves with the nature of music, there have always been two chief centers of emphasis. Many have been concerned with the effects of music; thus, music is envisaged first and foremost in its ethical connotations, i.e., in its function as an instrument for the promotion of the individual in good or for his debasement in evil: Plato, Aristotle, Augustine.
Others have been more concerned for the structure of music as it is in itself, stressing the essence of music rather than its effects. For these, music is largely an affair of the reason. It is, therefore, submitted to laws, and admits of precise analyses in terms of ratios and mathematical formulae: Boethius .
. and the authors of our own Cistercian chant treatises. These latter tended to analyze the nature of music, draw up a canon of rules which music ought to follow, and then re-write the music to make it conform with the rules.
However sympathetic he was to this topic, Bernard's own references to music strike a quite different note. Nowhere does he deal so explicitly with the nature of ecclesiastical music as in the letter he wrote to Abbot Guy of Montiéramey (1137-1163), when he sent Dom Guy the St Victor Office composed by Bernard at his request. "The chant if it is employed," writes St Bernard, "should
The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux be quite solemn, nothing sensuous or rustic. Its sweetness should not be frivolous. It should please the ear only that it might move the heart, taking away sorrow and mitigating wrath. It should not detract from the sense of the words but rather make it more fruitful.'
For Bernard, music is in the service of something higher than itself. Its function is to deepen one's experience of the life-giving word of God, to intensify the richness of one's spiritual experience.
This concept of music as a "fecundation of the text" is more than interesting; it is of prime importance for our own efforts in the direction of a sung monastic office suitable for our own contemporary context.
Chrysogonus Waddell ocso Gethsemani Abbey Trappist, Kentucky 5. Letter 389, PL 182:611. A full translation of this letter as well as the Office of St Victor will be found further on in this volume.
PROLCLOGUEBSTO-PRE CISTERCIAN
AN TIP HONARY
BERNARD, humble Abbot of Clairvaux, To all who are to transcribe this Antiphonary, or sing from it.
[ees WERE A NUMBER of things for which our Fathers, that is to say, those who began the Cistercian Order, were zealous, and rightly so. Among these concerns, the chanting of the divine praises according to the most authentic version was the object of their most earnest, dedicated efforts. They accordingly sent persons to transcribe and bring back the Metz
Antiphonary, since this Antiphonary, it was said, was "Gregorian."
They found the reality far different from what they had heard. For, upon examination, the Antiphonary proved unsatisfactory: texts and melodies were found to be corrupt, quite badly structured, and deserving of contempt in almost every respect. But once they had begun, they put it into use and retained it up to our own day. The time finally came, however, when our brethren, i.e., the Abbots of our Order, were no longer able to put up with it. Having agreed that the Antiphonary was to be revised and corrected, they put me in charge of the task. I, however, summoned those of these same brethren of ours, who proved to be better instructed and more skillful in the theory and practice of chant. We put together the new
Antiphonary — presented in the following volume — from many I6I
The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux different sources; and we believe that, textually and musically, it is beyond reproach. Anyone who sings from this Antiphonary will prove this (provided, of course, he knows something about chant).
We therefore wish that, from now on, the Antiphonary as revised and contained in this volume, be adopted in our monasteries, both as regards texts and melodies; and, in virtue of the authority of the whole General Chapter, where this Antiphonary was accepted and confirmed by all the Abbots, we prohibit any change whatsoever to be made by anyone, and in any way. Should the Reader wish to know in greater detail the reasons and principles behind the present revision, he should read the following Preface, which the above-mentioned revisers of the old Antiphonary were at pains to prefix to the new version. A clear exposé of the textual and musical faults of the earlier volume will make the necessity and usefulness of the revised, corrected Antiphonary appear in clearer light.
THE OFFICE-OF ST VICTOR
INTRODUCTION
ERHAPS THE THING
that interests us most in regard to the Office of St Victor is the covering letter which St Bernard composed when he sent this office to the Abbot and monks of Montiéramey (S Petri Arremarensis).1 In this letter
Bernard expresses concisely the qualities he believes should be found in liturgical texts and chants so that they might truly fulfill their proper function in the cultic life of the ecclesial community.
On the other hand the texts of the Office itself do not offer us anything of particularly great interest save perhaps the witness to Bernard's fidelity to tradition. Indeed it adheres strictly to the established form (in this undoubtedly St Bernard had no choice), but also the mode of expression and the choice of sources are wholly in line with prevailing practice. As we would expect, the Bible is the principal source employed.? The historical allusions are drawn largely from a Life of the Saint which was sent to Bernard by Abbot
1. A translation to this letter appears below as an appendix to this section.
2. Dom Jean Leclercq has produced an interesting study on the Office, exploring with care its Latin vocabulary:
'Saint Bernard Ecrivain d'aprés l'Office de Saint Victor" in Revue Bénédictine, 74 (1964), pp. 155-169, reproduced in Recueil d'études sur saint Bernard et ses écrits II (Rome: Edizioni di
Storia e Letteratura, 1966), pp. 149-168. Its greatest value for Leclercq seems to lie in the witness it gives to certain qualities in the author.
3. There are no direct citations, but very many allusions. For a listing of these, see Leclercq, op. cit., pp. 163f.
The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux Guy of Montiéramey.* The two Sermons for the Feast of St Victor?
(which will appear in a later volume of the CrsTERICAN FATHERS Serres) which St Bernard intended to be used as the lessons at this
Office also draw something from this Life. But Bernard, the cenobite, writing an office for a cenobitical community, generally passed over the eremitical aspects of the Saint's career. On the whole the texts are not found to be particularly inspiring, at least not in today's liturgical climate, yet they do give some taste of what was in vogue at that time and what appealed to Bernard's sense of piety.
They also give an example of the structure of the office that was proper to the Benedictines at that time. Whether Bernard himself composed any of the music which is found with these texts in the manuscripts is unknown.'
It is not possible to date the composition of this Office precisely.
It was written for use at the Abbey of Montiéramey where the body of St Victor was preserved with veneration, at the insistent request of the Abbot, Guy, and his community.§ As Guy became abbot in 1137 the Office must have been composed sometime after that date and before the death of Bernard in 1153. At Montiéramey they celebrated two feasts in honor of St Victor: his dies natalis, February
26th, and the translation of his relics. The Office seems to have been composed for the former feast, and was actually employed on that day.® 4. ". .. the ancient life of the Saint which you sent me. . . ." (St Bernard's letter fo Abbot Guy). This Life is probably substantially i ete same as the one to be found in Acta Sanctorum Boll., Feb. Il, 3rd ed. (Paris, 1865), pp. 671f.
5. PL 183 :371-376.
6. "There is also a responsory for the first vespers and, according to your custom, two short responsories. . . ." (St Bernard's letter to Abbot Guy). There is some indication that these might have actually been added to the Office by Bernard, after he had composed the rest, at the specific request of the Abbot; see Leclercq, op. cit., pp. 150ff.
7. Leclercq raises the question but leaves it to the musicologists to solve (op. cit., pp. 153f.). In publishing his study, he gives generous credit to the assistance of one of the most qualified musicologists for this period, Fr
Chrysogonus Waddell ocso.
8. "When I delay, you insist; when I make excuses, you urge me on... ."
(St Bernard's letter to Abbot Guy).
9. Ms. Troyes 721, f. 42.
The Office of St. Victor
The translation presented here is based on the critical edition of the Office prepared by Dom Jean Leclercq and Henri Rochais and published in the third volume of the S. Bernardi Opera (Rome,
1963). In his introduction to this edition, Dom Jean Leclercq notes that there is no known manuscript that contains the entire Office as it is described by Bernard in his letter to Abbot Guy.?° However, actually the oldest extant manuscript, Troyes 721, is also the most complete, and has largely been used as the basis of the critical edition. While the catalog ascribes this twelfth-century manuscript to Montier-la-Celle, in all probability it actually comes from Montiéramey itself.* While several Latin editions have appeared since it was first published in 1616 by J. Picard, a canon regular of St Victor of Paris, this is to our knowledge the first time that it has appeared in English translation.
M. Basil Pennington ocso St Joseph's Abbey Spencer, Massachusetts 10. "Then in regard to the singing I have composed a hymn.
. .
. I have arranged twelve responsories and thirty-seven antiphons, putting each in its proper place. There is also a responsory for the first vespers and, according to your custom, two short responsories for the feast, one for lauds and the other for vespers" (St Bernard's letter to Abbot Guy). The count of thirty-seven antiphons is arrived at by including the four which Bernard had prepared for the octave day. These are not included in the present translation as they are not included in the critical edition.
11. See the introduction in the critical edition: S. Bernardi Opera, III (Rome:
Editiones Cistercienses, 1963), pp. 497f.
THE OFFICE OF Si. ViGwOR
FIRS T.VESPERS
First Antiphon O victorious soul, you, like a wary sparrow, avoided the fowler's snare; we though are caught in it; come, snatch us out.
Second Antiphon O veteran soldier, your battle is over, your deserved retirement has come; we though are still engaged amid hostile swords; come, look on us as we sing your praises.
Third Antiphon O Victor renowned, how gloriously you triumphed over the foe; to you we belong; yours is the glory at stake if ever the foe should glory over us.
Fourth Antiphon O victorious Jesus, yours was the victory our Victor won. Let him glory in you, but let him not forget us here.
Responsory A Victor indeed! As long as you lived, you lifted the banner of victory in triumph after triumph from the womb to the tomb.
* Your victories give us heart; may your weaponry give us security.
The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux V. That we be enabled to resist on the evil day, and in all things to stand perfect. * Your victories... V. Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
HYMN Victor, whose life is splendid for its merit— life here on earth, yet not of earth, not earthy; heavenly rather, given as a model for imitation.
In him was living, not himself but Jesus; Christ in him, showing dead men ways of living, men of this world the ways of men of heaven, seeking to match them.
Men whose profession called for saintly conduct found too in Victor model and example: decency, honor, uncorrupted virtue, integral, holy.
That is the reason why the heavens opened, why he beheld the vision of the angels— angels who love to show themselves to human eyes that are modest.
Glory to highest Trinity of Godhead; glory unique for three all-holy persons; total for each and undivided singly— three who are one God.
VY. Pray for us, O blessed Victor.
Magnificat Antiphon O the magnitude of the power of your Lord, Blessed Victor, and of his kindness too! Favorable to us as he was lavish to you; powerful in you, and through you a savior for us!