IN WHAT DID THE WORK OF ST. GREGORY CONSIST?
John the Deacon describes his Antiphoner as a “cento” (Antiphonarium Centonem compilavit), and speaks of him, as we have seen, as “Antiphonarium centonizans.” “Cento” is a Low Latin word meaning patchwork, combination, or compilation. “Antiphonarius cento” would therefore mean an Antiphoner compiled from various sources. And this is the character of the Gregorian Antiphoner of the Mass, even of the nucleus which remains after omitting the parts known to have been added since Gregory’s time. Indeed the whole phrase quoted above has a ring of truth about it, and makes the tradition which he reports of a more genuine historical character, for if it had been a mere vague tradition in glorification of St. Gregory, he would have been more likely to have spoken of him as the composer of the Antiphoner, and not as a mere compiler. The oldest part of the book is formed of the Feasts celebrated in honour of events and saints spoken of in Scripture, and of the oldest Roman Saints. The Masses for these are taken from Scripture, especially from the Psalms. For Feasts of non-Roman origin, the text is taken from the Church from which they are introduced; e.g., the Feast of St. Agatha from the Sicilian Church, or the Feasts coming from the Greek Church which were translated from the Greek. The want of uniformity in the arrangement of the text is seen by comparing the different classes of chants in Codex St. Gall, 329. As a rule, the words of one and the same Mass are all of different origin. The most ancient part of the Masses is the Graduals and Tracts, and all these (which are the most ancient solos of the Mass) in the Gregorian nucleus are taken from Biblical sources. This part of the “cento Antiphonarius” is put together in one system after an established tradition. In the oldest Feasts there are Psalm-graduals, but Introits taken from other books of the Bible. The parts other than the Gradual and Tract were chosen on a different system, a considerable number in fact have words not taken from the Bible at all. The Communions, again, form a class by themselves, and were sometimes chosen with special reference to the Gospel for the day, which is the case with no other class of the texts of the chants.
Now this editing of the texts must have implied the editing of the music also. In the middle ages the choir played a more important part than they do to-day in the Roman Church. For now the Service is complete without their part, as the priest says the whole Service whether the choir is there or not. But formerly it was different; all listened or took part, including the celebrant, while the choir sang. The latter had a very definite share in the liturgical order, which was incomplete without them; in particular, the soloists had full scope for their talents in the chants between the Epistle and Gospel. In view of this intimate relation between the choir and the altar, a revision of the text must almost necessarily have implied a revision of the music. And this is probably the chief part of his musical reform; in the saying about him, ascribed to Pope Adrian II., “Ipse Patrum monumenta sequens renovavit et auxit.”
What was the musical material on which he had to work, which he had to put into shape, and to which he added new pieces? It is probably substantially represented by the Ambrosian chant as we find it in the oldest MSS. It seems most likely that it is the musical counterpart of the primitive liturgy organized, as is supposed, about the epoch of Pope Damasus, of which the Ambrosian, Gallican, Mozarabic, and Celtic are so many variations, due to national characteristics. Documentary proof of this is but scanty, but a study of the Lessons used at Mass supports the theory as far as the text is concerned. It is further recorded that at Monte Cassino the Ambrosian chant was fused with the Gregorian by order of Pope Stephen IX. (1057-8). Here the Pre-Gregorian chant is simply called Ambrosian.
ANTIPHON
Gregorian
O Sa-pi-en-ti-a, quae ex o-re Al-tis-sim-i
pro-di-is-ti at-tin-gens a fi-ne
us-que ad fi-nem, for-ti-ter su-a-vi-ter-que
dis-po-nens om-ni-a: ve-ni ad do-cen-dum nos
vi-am pru-den-ti-ae.
Ambrosian
O Sa-pi-en-ti-a, quae ex o-re Al-tis-sim-i
pro-ces-si-sti at-tin-gis a fi-ne
us-que ad fi-nem, for-ti-ter su-a-vi-ter
dis-po-nens que om-ni-a: ve-ni ad do-cen-dum nos
vi-am sci-en-ti-ae.
[[play tune: Antiphon, Gregorian]]
[[play tune: Antiphon, Ambrosian]]
INTROIT
Gregorian
Gau-de-a-mus om-nes in Do-mi-no,
di-em fes-tum ce-le-bran-tes in ho-no-re
A-ga-thae mar-ty-ris: de cu-jus pas-si-o-ne
gau-dent an-ge-li, et col-lau-dant
Fi-li-um De-i.
Ambrosian
Lae-te-mur om-nes in Do-mi-no,
di-em fes-tum ce-le-bran-tes ob ho-no-rem
A-ga-thae mar-ty-ris: de cu-jus tro-phae-o
gau-dent an-ge-li, et col-lau-dant
Fi-li-um De-i.
[[play tune: Introit, Gregorian]]
[[play tune: Introit, Ambrosian]]
GRADUAL
Gregorian
Ex Si-on spe-ci-es de-co-ris e-jus:
De-us ma-ni-fe-ste ve-ni-et.
℣ Con-gre-ga-te il-li sanc-tos e-jus,
qui or-di-na-ve-runt
te-sta-men-tum e-jus
su-per sa-cri-fi-ci-a.
Ambrosian
Ex Si-on spe-ci-es de-co-ris e-jus:
De-us ma-ni-fe-ste ve-ni-et.
℣ Con-gre-ga-te il-lic sanc-tos e-jus,
qui or-di-na-ve-runt
te-sta-men-tum e-jus
su-per sa-cri-fi-ci-a.
[[play tune: Gradual, Gregorian]]
[[play tune: Gradual, Ambrosian]]
The theory is further supported by a comparison of the most ancient MSS. of the Milanese chant with the Gregorian Antiphoner. A considerable number of melodies are practically identical with those in the Roman books. The framework, so to speak, is the same, but the details and embellishments often differ. The Ambrosian melodies are sometimes rather bald, and often excessively florid; the extremely long neums which they often contain appear to have been due to Greek influence. The Gregorian, on the other hand, appear to have been in some places pruned, in others expanded, with the result that they give the impression of being better balanced; the different parts of the musical phrases are more justly proportioned. In the Ambrosian melodies the B natural occurs very constantly, and gives them a masculine flavour, sometimes amounting to harshness.
The examples here given will enable some idea to be formed of the advance made by the Gregorian version upon the Ambrosian, both in music and text.
But Pope Adrian II. says of St. Gregory not merely “renovavit,” but “auxit.” He not only edited and adapted the old melodies, but provided new ones for the new texts which he added to the cycle of liturgical worship. What were these musical additions?
He extended the use of Alleluia to all Sundays and Festivals throughout the year except in Septuagesima, and it is probable that he added new melodies for the new Alleluias. It is significant that the Alleluias are the least stable part of the Antiphoner. At all events, the Ambrosian alleluiatic verses differ entirely from the Gregorian. The same consideration applies to the tracts, the use of which he extended in Septuagesima.
Another tendency of Gregory’s reform was his marked desire to harmonize the text of the Communions with that of the Gospel of the day. There are a considerable number of these, hardly any traces of which are to be found in the Ambrosian books. It is, then, reasonable to ascribe to St. Gregory an important part in the composition of these chants.
The further important question arises, did Gregory carry out this musical work himself, or was it done by others under his direction?
It is natural to think of his Schola Cantorum in this connection. The foundation of this must have had a profound effect both on the standard of the performance of the chant, and on the spread of the Gregorian reform. Books were scarce in those days, and musical notation defective. Teaching was chiefly by word of mouth. The Director of the Choir had his manuscript to teach from, and his pupils had to learn the melodies by heart. The chief singer also had his liber cantatorius from which to sing the solos, such as the Graduals and Tracts. The School was, necessarily, not merely for teaching correct versions of the chant, but for preserving the correct tradition of the method of performance. Most of the seventh century popes were connected with the School or proceeded from it.
The skilled musicians belonging to this School may have helped to carry out the reform under Gregory’s direction. But no tradition appears to have been preserved to that effect, and the unity and uniform characteristics seem to point to the work of one genius, even in the smallest details; and the characteristics there displayed seem to fit in with what we know from other sources of his character, in his writings and in his actions.
In conclusion it is submitted that the evidence here put forward, though in some respects rather scanty, yet, in the absence of any strong evidence to the contrary, is quite sufficient to justify the tradition that St. Gregory was the organiser, reformer, and to some extent the author of the Antiphoner of the Mass. It is, of course, more difficult to say definitely what his work actually was in these three divisions, but a quite sufficient amount of certainty has been attained for us to realize the extent and the nature of the debt which succeeding ages have owed to the great Pope, and so far the attacks that have been made on the tradition have only resulted in setting it on a firmer and more definite basis.