[[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.