One of the paradoxes of Gregorian chant is the way in which written sources become ever more plentiful across the Middle Ages while commentaries on its cultural and intellectual status take the opposite direction, becoming rare after the ninth century. An exception to that trend is the essay De varia psalmorum atque cantuum modulatione (On the Varied Modulation of Psalms and Chants), a substantial yet little known offering from the music theorist and liturgist Berno of Reichenau (d. 1048). Previously considered to be of uncertain authorship and doubtful musical value, the work is now shown to be an authentic witness, in part through evidence provided by a rediscovered manuscript (Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Mus.ms.theor. 95). This permits a new appreciation of the author's unique and revealing agenda—to soothe the many tensions reportedly incited by the textual content of chant. With resonances in contemporary music theory, De varia psalmorum testifies to divergent practices in need of a new theoretical underpinning, as well as to previously unstudied cultures of textual correction existing between the ninth and twelfth centuries. In so doing it offers a rare insight into the liturgical chant traditions of the post-Carolingian age, both in Berno's native Germany and further afield.

Rarely can the writings of a medieval ecclesiastic be packaged as a cure for heartburn. This is precisely what happened, however, when Berno of Reichenau (d. 1048) penned a cover letter to Henry III of Germany at some point in the late 1040s.1 Likening the continual study of the scriptures and Church Fathers to an aristocratic banquet, the enjoyment of which gives pleasure in moderation but can cause nausea in excess, the abbot offered his king a tonic for spiritual overindulgence. “After sacred readings of the spiritual fathers,” he wrote, “after the plates of divine scripture have been crammed full, I ask that you consider accepting our little sound bites [nostris dictaciunculis], with which you may regularly revive your mind, as if they were wild strawberries growing on the ground.”2 As a polymath whose pen had previously turned to music theory, composition, poetry, homiletics, computus, and liturgy, Berno offered a characteristically mixed selection.3 Alongside sermons for the feasts of Christmas and the Assumption, as well as a little epistle considering whether or not Christ had a soul, Berno had collected his thoughts on the authoritative texts customarily sung and intoned in church: psalmody, readings, canticles, and above all chant. Though little known to musicologists and “little flavored with the salt of wisdom,”4 as the author put it himself in deference to the king, this collection of musings offers the modern reader a feast of historical nourishment that is itself in danger of verging on excess.5 

The text now known as De varia psalmorum atque cantuum modulatione (On the Varied Modulation of Psalms and Chants) is an amorphous, serpentine work, whose attention to the grammatical minutiae of liturgical texts has proved unpalatable to even the hardiest of investigators.6 Appearances notwithstanding, however, its fifteen hundred lines of discussion incorporate well over a hundred pieces of Romano-Frankish (or “Gregorian”) chant, either by quotation or by allusion, and many of these texts have been provided with neumatic notation. Although the chant citations represent but a fraction of the Romano-Frankish repertory at large (see the  Appendix to this article for an inventory of the compositions discussed), the importance of such a survival from the eleventh century can hardly be overstated. Inasmuch as it has been written, the reception history of chant in the medieval Latin West is a patchy affair, centering on two peaks of activity at some distance from our text. At one end stands the arrival of Roman chant practices in Carolingian Francia, first described in connection with the decrees of Pippin III and his son Charlemagne (d. 814)—hence the term “Romano-Frankish”—and subsequently discussed at length by ninth-century authors such as Helisachar, Amalarius of Metz, and Agobard of Lyon.7 The other high point coincides with the new religious orders of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, above all the Cistercians and Carthusians, who famously harnessed new technologies of notation and modes of critical engagement to promulgate their own authorized books of chant.8 But between these two peaks there lies a shaded valley, full of pressing questions that musicologists have yet to answer. What was the cultural status of Romano-Frankish chant in the years after it had been established and naturalized as a Frankish musical tradition? How stable were chanting practices in the post-Carolingian centuries, particularly given the social, political, and economic changes that were taking place at the time? And to what extent did Carolingian ideologies outlast the Carolingians, above all the familiar concept of an authentic, corrected antiphoner bearing the imprimatur of Pope Gregory the Great?9 Medieval music theory can give us some understanding of these matters, especially with the arrival of pitched notations at the turn of the millennium,10 and surviving chant manuscripts are themselves an obvious resource, not only for raw musical texts but also for material testimony. But for historical insights into this “second phase” of Romano-Frankish chant nothing quite compares with Berno's account.

What makes De varia psalmorum especially important for chant scholarship is its evocation of musical disagreement. Berno's text stands as a lengthy rebuttal to the idea that medieval chant practices were as serene as their surviving manuscript pages, meticulously notated and confident in their presentation. Indeed, the purpose of his tract is to dampen the flames of contention that chant singing can reportedly incite. As might have been predicted from surviving graduals and antiphoners, part of that tension arises from the general lack of uniformity—whether textual, melodic, or as a repertory in toto—that is well known to have persisted long after the Carolingians had supposedly established a single way of chanting.11 This is something of which medieval witnesses were also demonstrably aware.12 But in Berno's reading there is another, more insidious tension at work, because the Frankish liturgy is unstable even in itself. Its creative freedoms, juxtapositions, and permutations are themselves a recipe for disagreement, above all in the fraught relationship between poetic chant librettos and the scriptural texts on which they are based.13 Although such frictions are not always apparent on the written page, we learn that they could still simmer beneath the surface. Uniquely, Berno attests not only to an atmosphere of disagreement and uncertainty over certain Mass and Office compositions, but also to a culture in which eleventh-century singers (himself included) were actively offering their own emendations, creating tension within the chant repertory in their earnest attempts to iron it out. Even if Berno's primary concern in De varia psalmorum is textual rather than melodic, there are valuable intellectual parallels here with contemporary music theory, the implications of which will be explored further below.

This document points in a number of fruitful directions for chant scholarship, to be considered here in five complementary sections. Of considerable initial importance is the reestablishment of De varia psalmorum as an admissible piece of evidence. The work's authorship was once in doubt, but confidence is here restored with the help of a newly rediscovered manuscript. A second section reevaluates Berno's thesis, long misrepresented as an investigation into psalmody, and unpacks the latent tensions behind the various aspects of his commentary. A third section explores the musical implications of Berno's account by mapping his advice onto surviving chant manuscripts from Germany and across Europe, while the remaining two sections situate the author's views on musical difference within broader intellectual and historical trends. By way of a conclusion I shall reflect on what De varia psalmorum might tell us about the very notion of a “Gregorian” repertory in the eleventh century. The papal epithet enjoyed wide currency by Berno's time, and claims concerning the pope's creative or curatorial involvement—a heterogeneous set of views commonly termed the “Gregory myth”—had been made as far back as the eighth century.14 Berno constructs liturgical authority in a decidedly different manner, however, and in so doing illuminates some of the other strategies by which chant practices were legitimized in this period. In this way De varia psalmorum gestures well beyond itself. It is to be valued as a long-neglected work by a celebrated medieval mind, the product of an equally celebrated south German monastery, and a text that, as I shall argue, had at least some influence over chant practices in eleventh- and twelfth-century Germany. But by virtue of its unique agenda, its demonstrably cosmopolitan author, and its broad engagement with primary source material De varia psalmorum is also a tantalizing evocation of the status of Romano-Frankish chant within the wider world of eleventh-century intellectual and political thought. This is a world that, for chant historians, has hitherto remained largely obscured from view. It is therefore high time we ventured in.

Bringing De varia psalmorum Back to the Table

Berno's use of a food metaphor is an attractive literary conceit, and one with a strong Christian precedent,15 but in this story it is potentially much more than that. When Pierre Blanchard offered the first critical assessment of De varia psalmorum in 1912 he came to the conclusion that this rambling collection of thoughts, strung together with weak transitional passages, was inauthentic.16 Although the prologue begins with the author's name (“Bern qui quod vult deus”),17 Blanchard considered it no less than “reckless” to suppose that the surviving construction was an unaltered original.18 Study of the two surviving witnesses had revealed not only several internal textual discrepancies, but also a disconnect between the text and Berno's account of its contents, as found in the cover letter to Henry III:

Herewith I have enclosed a few lines of narrative … for love of the nourishment of those who have desired to ask me about this business, namely: on the dissonance between the Roman and Gallican Psalter translations that we use; on the utterances of the prophet Isaiah; on verses not quite fitting their responsories; on antiphons or responsories not regularly or comfortably fitting in; on the intermission of the Alleluia, the incantation customarily dismissed at morning prayer on Septuagesima Sunday, and the words of its chants.19 

Although these lines actually summarize De varia psalmorum relatively well, Blanchard struggled to reconcile the letter with the surviving content, and could only imagine that Berno's original had been adjusted by a later editorial team. “In place of the five separate dissertations,” he wrote, “[Berno's] disciples saw fit to compose a collected volume, whose unique title responds poorly to the content and promises less than it gives.”20 That assessment has long since been absorbed into the literature, with the result that De varia psalmorum stands on the fringes of Berno's oeuvre, and is generally excluded from discussion.21 Yet nowhere in his communication with Henry III did Berno actually promise “five separate dissertations.” He had merely proffered a collection of tasty morsels.

The distinction matters because, though superficially inchoate, De varia psalmorum has probably survived more or less as advertised. The key to that assessment is an appreciation of the work's unique structure, which unfolds from one topic or example to the next, akin to a monologue, with an associative logic not untypical of medieval liturgical commentary.22 This format is more or less what Berno promises in the opening lines, when he likens his nascent creation to the “foundation” of an “edifice” that he hopes may “grow upward ever more solid.”23 It is also what we find in the rhetoric, as each change of direction is accompanied by the colloquial adverb “nunc” (“now,” as in “now then”; see Table 1). Hence the work's opening salvo on the Psalms, with its imposing succession of seventy-four case studies (Chapters 1–5 in Martin Gerbert's edition), eventually moves into a discussion of liturgy drawn from Isaiah (Chapter 6), the common theme being Old Testament liturgical texts. Subsequently, the author's interest in Isaiah as reworked for the liturgy leads into a discussion of scripture as reworked in Romano-Frankish chant, first in connection with grammar (Chapters 7–8) and then on literary grounds (Chapters 9–12, recte 9–11), including the dramatic “O” antiphons and Septuagesima Office. The theme of reworking then persists into the final section, which offers new verses for responsories as a way of improving their scriptural narrative (Chapters 13–14, recte 12–13). Further evidence of continuity in De varia psalmorum appears, paradoxically, on the one occasion when the narrative thread breaks down. Swerving from Marian theology to the Advent “O” antiphons, the author apologizes for the “muddled order” (“praepostero ordine”) of his thoughts.24 Although Blanchard saw such comments as probable interpolations from later revisers, that reasoning does not negate the basic linear coherence that Berno's assembly can otherwise be shown to possess.

Table 1

The principal subject areas of De varia psalmorum and the rhetorical transitions between them

Subject under considerationGerbert chaptersTransitional sentences
Psalter translations in the liturgy 1–5  
Isaiah in the liturgy “Now, I shall try to turn my hand to Isaiah” (“Nunc manum conabor transmittere ad Esaiam”)
“Now, let us look first at what is written” (“Nunc primo videamus, de eo quod scriptum est”) 
Grammatical reworkings of scripture in chant 7–8 “Now, it therefore pleases my soul to note those certain chants” (“Nunc igitur libet animo notare quosdam cantus”) 
Other reworkings of scripture in chant “But enough of these things; now, let us look at others” (“Sed de his satis, nunc videamus de ceteris”) 
11 (recte 10) “Now, if you will accept the muddled order it is appropriate to consider those antiphons” (“Nunc licet praepostero ordine illas antiphonas convenit conspicere”) 
12 (recte 11) “Now, I think it necessary that something be said about the solemnity known as Septuagesima” (“Nunc igitur necessarium videtur aliquid tractandum de solemnitate quae Septuagesima pretitulatur”) 
Responsory verses and their use of scripture 13–14 (recte 12–13) “Now, it pleases my pen to turn to those responsories” (“Igitur nunc placet stilum vertere ad ea responsoria”) 
Subject under considerationGerbert chaptersTransitional sentences
Psalter translations in the liturgy 1–5  
Isaiah in the liturgy “Now, I shall try to turn my hand to Isaiah” (“Nunc manum conabor transmittere ad Esaiam”)
“Now, let us look first at what is written” (“Nunc primo videamus, de eo quod scriptum est”) 
Grammatical reworkings of scripture in chant 7–8 “Now, it therefore pleases my soul to note those certain chants” (“Nunc igitur libet animo notare quosdam cantus”) 
Other reworkings of scripture in chant “But enough of these things; now, let us look at others” (“Sed de his satis, nunc videamus de ceteris”) 
11 (recte 10) “Now, if you will accept the muddled order it is appropriate to consider those antiphons” (“Nunc licet praepostero ordine illas antiphonas convenit conspicere”) 
12 (recte 11) “Now, I think it necessary that something be said about the solemnity known as Septuagesima” (“Nunc igitur necessarium videtur aliquid tractandum de solemnitate quae Septuagesima pretitulatur”) 
Responsory verses and their use of scripture 13–14 (recte 12–13) “Now, it pleases my pen to turn to those responsories” (“Igitur nunc placet stilum vertere ad ea responsoria”) 

Indeed, Blanchard's suspicions about textual revision can be shown to have been based largely on a misapprehension of the manuscript evidence. Before the twentieth century De varia psalmorum was known in only one version, which had been edited by Martin Gerbert from an eleventh-century south German compendium of theology and music theory, possibly from Reichenau or nearby Constance, now Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. Sal. IX,20.25 The stimulus for Blanchard's article, however, was the resurfacing of a second manuscript, a fifteenth-century paper booklet from Saint Peter's, Erfurt, which had recently been put up for sale by the bookseller Ludwig Rosenthal.26 This second witness was highly revealing, for it transmitted the food-suffused prefatory letter to Henry III, previously unknown, as well as several extra clauses and sentences not found in the Gerbert edition. But the newly transmitted texts were also highly troubling, for they not only cast doubt on the veracity of the published text, but brought to mind two major precedents in Berno's oeuvre. Both the Libellus de quibusdam rebus ad missae officium pertinentibus (a text on the Mass also referred to as De officio missae) and the Prologus in tonarium (the music theory text known to Blanchard through Hugo Riemann's study of 1898) were known to have been reworked or interpolated after Berno's death.27 Not unreasonably, Blanchard suggested that De varia psalmorum had suffered the same fate. Yet he never produced the critical study that would have given substance to his claim, perhaps because the second manuscript was soon sold. As far as we can tell, he only ever had sight of a transcription, prepared by his colleague Gabriel Beyssac. The booklet again came up for sale in Berlin in 1929 among the books of the collector Werner Wolffheim and was purchased by the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, where during the 1930s it was consulted by eminent musicologists Jacques Handschin and Joseph Smits van Waesberghe.28 For whatever reason, however, the memory of its existence then faded. When in 1957 the Berno scholar Franz-Josef Schmale was unable to locate the manuscript he resigned himself to the likelihood that it had gone to an American collector, the fate of many of the Wolffheim volumes.29 (The preceding lot in the 1929 sale, priced at 10,000 Rentenmarks, was a remarkable eleventh-century music theory anthology, including Berno's Prologus in tonarium, which went to the Sibley Library at the Eastman School.)30 But in fact this second copy of De varia psalmorum had gone nowhere. Unbeknownst to Schmale, Oesch, and the various others who have since tried to track it down, the manuscript remains at the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin. Thus a full century after this witness first came to public attention Blanchard's claims can finally be assessed anew.

The resurfacing of the Berlin manuscript teaches us that the textual tradition of De varia psalmorum is actually far less problematic than Blanchard implied, the differences being easily communicable without recourse to a formal critical edition. Beyond occasional infelicities of spelling, most of the more substantive discrepancies can be put down to the Heidelberg scribe's propensity for eyeskip—that is, mistakenly jumping from one instance of a word to another further down the page. That leaves just three substantive points of difference, each of which consists of a small paragraph-sized addition present only in the main text of the Berlin manuscript. (One of these was later inscribed in the margin of the Heidelberg manuscript, on folio 76v, probably by the original text scribe but as an afterthought.) Such discrepancies give weight to the idea that the text might have been expanded posthumously, or by a team of editors. Crucially, however, none of these additions relates to the reordering of sections, as Blanchard thought had happened, and none is particularly meaningful in terms of the overall text: one is an extra example, another a defensive postscript to a half-baked argument, and the third (in the Heidelberg margin) a supporting citation.31 Even were a later scribe to have made these alterations, there remains little reason to doubt that this is basically the work of its stated author. Moreover, as I shall show, the content and context of De varia psalmorum provide numerous reasons to believe that it is.

Soothing the Tensions of Eleventh-Century Chant

The text known as De varia psalmorum is neither a self-contained treatise nor a commentary, and it is certainly not a study of the Psalms, as is sometimes mistakenly inferred from Gerbert's editorial title.32 It is a work of counsel on matters of liturgical singing, written not for the author's own sake but “for love of the nourishment of those who have desired to ask me about this business,” as we read in the cover letter.33 Two monks are mentioned by name at the beginning of the work, Meginfrid and Penno, and one of them is also credited as a driving force, the author having been “compelled by the asking of your brotherly goodwill, o Meginfrid, to write something for you.”34 Berno was abbot of Reichenau when he wrote De varia psalmorum, which explains both the requests from his flock and the fatherly response. But less clear is why singing practices should have been a source of contention at all, given that Carolingian scholars had repeatedly addressed this problem some two centuries previously. While we might expect Berno to dwell on the question of musical variance—famously the cause of blame-trading between the Romans and the Franks in the ninth century, and later the catalyst for a murderous confrontation in post-Conquest England—his response in fact takes us into the inner workings of the repertory itself.35 What we learn is that Romano-Frankish chant is predisposed to cause disagreement. We have already seen that the cover letter introduces the “dissonance” between Psalter versions, and the “not quite fitting” and irregular antiphons and responsories; to this litany of problems the opening lines add the “varied modulation” of psalms and chants, “which customarily occurs in church differently and confusingly.”36 There were evidently tensions in the air, and they required the abbot's most considered explanation.

Berno's first concern was to explain those confused psalm texts used in the Frankish church (Chapters 1–5 in Gerbert's edition). The issue in question was one that all Christian worshippers must have recognized but surprisingly few ever voiced: the Frankish liturgy incorporated two conflicting translations of the Psalms, one for psalm-based chants and one for the actual psalmody. Accordingly, those who sang the Easter Sunday offertory “Terra tremuit et quievit” still had the words “Terra timuit et quievit” ringing in their ears from Psalm 75 at Friday Lauds. Similarly, those who sang the Good Friday tract “Eripe me domine,” to borrow one of Berno's most sizable examples, were faced with words very slightly altered from the psalm sung the previous night at Vespers:37 

Tract “Eripe me domine” (verses 1–8) Psalm 139:1–8 
    
Eripe me domine ab homine malo: a viro iniquo libera me. Eripe me domine ab homine malo: a viro iniquo eripe me. 
Qui cogitaverunt malitias in corde: tota die constituebant proelia. Qui cogitaverunt iniquitates in corde: tota die constituebant proelia. 
Acuerunt linguas suas sicut serpentes: venenum aspidum sub labiis eorum. Acuerunt linguam suam sicut serpentes: venenum aspidum sub labiis eorum. 
Custodi me domine de manu peccatoris: et ab hominibus iniquis libera me. Custodi me domine de manu peccatoris: ab hominibus iniquis eripe me. 
Qui cogitaverunt supplantare gressus meos: absconderunt superbi laqueos mihi. Qui cogitaverunt subplantare gressus meos: absconderunt superbi laqueum mihi. 
Et funes extenderunt in laqueos pedibus meis: iuxta iter scandalum posuerunt mihi. Et funes extenderunt in laqueum: iuxta iter scandalum posuerunt mihi. 
Dixi domino deus meus es tu: exaudi domine vocem orationis meae. Dixi domino deus meus es tu: exaudi domine vocem deprecationis meae. 
Domine domine virtus salutis meae: obumbra caput meum in die belli. Domine domine virtus salutis meae: obumbrasti super caput meum in die belli.38  

Just as the modern chorister might encounter Tate and Brady's “As pants the hart for cooling streams” in close proximity to the biblical reading “As a deer longs for flowing streams,”39 the dilemma lay in the reconciliation of two authoritative yet mutually incompatible texts.

This was by no means a new problem. While the conflict can be dated back to the Carolingian importation of Roman chant in the eighth century, the seeds had been sown even earlier. When Jerome set out to prepare a new Latin version of the Bible in the late fourth century he did so not once but several times, in pursuit of the most faithful rendering.40 To the existing “Roman” version, based on the cluster of texts known as the Vetus latina, he added the so-called “Gallican” version, a revision based on the Greek text of the Septuagint, before returning to the Hebraica veritas, or “Hebrew truth,” for a third version known as the “Hebrew.” Although the latter never caught on in liturgical use, the first two did, the Roman prospering in Italy and Anglo-Saxon England and the Gallican in Ireland and much of continental Europe. These different Psalter traditions seem to have coexisted happily until the eighth century, when the Carolingians decided to adopt a chant repertory based upon the psalms of the Roman Psalter, all the while maintaining their liturgical use of the Gallican Psalter. Now the conflict was made manifest. Walahfrid Strabo acknowledged this problem elliptically in the ninth century when he reported that “many people claim that they can distinguish between Roman and other chants by both words and melody.”41 There is also evidence of an ongoing tussle between Roman and Gallican traditions in the earliest Carolingian chant books, as recently demonstrated by Susan Rankin, in which the native Gallican text often seems to have won out.42 But the structural disagreement between the two translations was never fully resolved.

“The Romans are still reciting from a corrupt vulgate edition of the Psalter,” Berno tells us in De varia psalmorum, “from which they composed the chant and delivered over to us a practice of singing.”43 He continues: “Whence it happens that words that in the day and night Offices are modulated for the custom of singing are intermingled and grafted confusingly onto our psalms, so that to the less expert it is almost impossible to discern what our edition and that of the Romans have in common.”44 It is extremely significant to learn that eleventh-century singers still perceived this friction, and that the complaint was concentrated among “the less expert” rather than among an intellectual elite. But no less significant is Berno's abbatial response. Although his mention of a “corrupt” Roman Psalter sounds like a dig, nowhere does Berno seek to assert the primacy of the native Gallican Psalter. Indeed, with one small exception, nowhere does he actually try to arbitrate between different psalms and psalm-based chants.45 Instead, he offers a history lesson. This begins with an extensive account of Jerome's translating activities, thereby giving equal legitimacy to the three Psalters as they stand, and it concludes with a painstaking comparison of extracts from seventy-four psalms, encompassing not only the Roman and Gallican recensions but also the Hebrew, for which he may have drawn upon Reichenau's parallel edition of all three (now Karlsruhe 38). The intent of this section, quite clearly, is to educate his audience, to turn “the less expert” into the more expert. In so doing Berno enacts a philosophy that underlies much of De varia psalmorum: if one perceives a problem in the Frankish liturgy the best solution is not to intervene but to understand.

This attitude has important political implications, in ways that I shall explore, but for chant scholarship it is also revelatory in its own right. The very fact that the author counsels his audience to withstand the frictions within Romano-Frankish chant, and to uphold the basic shape of the repertory as it stands, implies that some people in this period felt otherwise. Indeed, Berno tells us as much, for he goes on to describe how some habitually alter their texts. His investigation into liturgical materials drawn from Isaiah (Chapter 6 in Gerbert) is premised on the idea that “Many people, not only those less accomplished in the knowledge of letters but also those learned in liberal arts, are for this prophet accustomed to punctuate a reading or quote words in a chant quite differently from what is preserved in the [Hebraica] veritas.”46 The interesting implication is that these alterations take place in the act of performance, or at least in texts that are designed for use in performance, as if the context explains the deviation. Through a series of examples including chants, readings, and the Isaiah canticle “Dixi non videbo,” Berno goes on to document and then counsel against alterations, either by offering further scriptural context or by invoking a theological argument. There are many reasons why people might misconstrue scripture in this way, but the finger of blame ultimately points toward those trained in grammar (Chapters 7–8 in Gerbert), whose vain presumption he goes on to condemn in an uncharacteristic outburst of vitriol:

Remarkable is the way that, when some people of this world want to appear to be wise, they try through a superstitious intelligence to submit the words of holy scripture to their own interpretation, and they sing and say the words—which the very virtue of God and wisdom of God brings forth through itself, or which the Holy Spirit foretold through the mouths of prophets or apostles—differently by changing the word order according to Donatus or Priscian.47 

Although Berno acknowledges the possibility that people alter liturgical texts out of ignorance, his critique is directed primarily at the classical liberal arts, those pre-Christian modes of thought whose relationship to Christian learning had been a long-standing ecclesiastical concern. Berno was by no means the only author of his generation to have been troubled by these ways of thinking, as I explore further below, but he stands alone in having documented the specific threat that grammatical learning posed to liturgical singing.

The nature of this perceived threat is revealed by Berno's extended investigation of the Requiem offertory “Domine Iesu Christe”:

Where we sing “Libera animas omnium fidelium defunctorum de manu inferni, et de profundo laci,” others, with a certain arrogance, sing “de profundo lacus,” taking little notice of the fact that the noun “lacus” can be used in the genitive in either of its declensions (i.e., second or fourth). Indeed, the idiom of the sacred scriptures tends to set the second declension “laci” more frequently than “lacus,” chiefly where the deep pitfalls and the abyss or depth of Hell are being described.48 

The point is abstruse, but worth pursuing. Berno is contending that the idiom “de profundo laci” (from the depth of the pit) ought not to be altered to “de profundo lacus” (same meaning, but using the historically idiomatic fourth declension) since that ignores a scriptural preference for “laci,” specifically in the books of Isaiah and Daniel, where the word evokes the image of Hell. There is a large hole in the argument, since neither Isaiah nor Daniel ever wrote in Latin, and this probably explains why in the Berlin manuscript of De varia psalmorum there follow three sentences about the inviolable translations of Jerome.49 The intention is nonetheless sound. Berno objects to the grammatical intervention not simply because it is presumptuous, but because it distorts the perceived scriptural meaning. As he concludes, disdainfully, “we determine by right to follow the authority of him whose lips have been cleansed by the celestial fire [i.e., Isaiah], rather than the teaching of any old grammarian.”50 Or, as he later exhorts, paraphrasing a famous injunction from Jerome to which he has already alluded, “Wise reader, always beware superstitious intelligence, so that you do not adjust the scriptures to your sense, but bind your sense to the scriptures.”51 

If we now consider that “Domine Iesu Christe” is not a piece of scripture, but a highly poetic chant text bearing little resemblance to any canonical portion of the Bible, Berno's defense may appear highly contradictory. How could our author invoke scriptural authority to justify a musical composition that barely has any? Moreover, how could he extend this reasoning to an entire repertory celebrated for its propensity to take liberties with the texts of the Bible?52 What we learn from reading De varia psalmorum is that Berno's sensitivities arise not from obsession with “sola scriptura,” but from a desire simply to uphold the integrity of scripture—or, as he puts it, “to safeguard the honor we owe to the divine utterances.”53 This helps to explain why the Isaiah-based introit chant “Puer natus est,” a textbook example of scripture reworked to poetic and musical effect, escapes without censure. Berno simply shows how the different versions match up:

In the introit that we chant on Christmas Day, “Unto us a boy is born and unto us a son is given,” our translation according to the Hebraica veritas has “Unto us an infant is born, unto us a son is given.” And where we sing, “whose power is upon his shoulder,” the Hebraica veritas has “and his government shall be upon his shoulder.” And where we sing, “and his name will be called the angel of great counsel,” in the Hebrew there are six names: “wonderful, counsellor, God, the mighty one, the everlasting father, the prince of peace.”54 

We might conclude from this little account that, by exposing the differences as inconsequential, Berno is simply trying to shield a famous chant from criticism. But because the author employed precisely the same rhetoric in his earlier discussion of the Psalms, there is another implication on offer: that “Puer natus est” is itself an authentic work of Jerome, or rather that the liturgical text is a perfectly legitimate witness to that same divine truth. Berno blurs this boundary on more than one occasion, as I shall shortly show, and the situation is not without precedent. Other scholars have observed the medieval tendency to quote the Bible using the “chant” version of a given passage, as if this was equally authoritative;55 and a potentially analogous behavior may be observed in medieval lectionaries and collectars, whose liturgical readings sometimes deviate from the canon yet appear to have been regarded as no less legitimate.56 

This perspective begins to explain Berno's reasoning in the face of otherwise non-scriptural chants, whose very discussion, like that of all the examples in this portion of De varia psalmorum, indicates that their status is in question.57 Although the author cannot find a source for the antiphon “Sancti estis dicit dominus” (You are holy, says the Lord), he reasons that no one would dare attribute a saying to God if it were not the truth.58 In the case of the introit “Dicit dominus” (The Lord says), an example found only in the Berlin manuscript, he reports a possible textual resemblance to John Chrysostom before affirming that, either way, the content must be prophetic: “whatever his faithful can speak about him, they receive from him.”59 Similarly, in his assessment of the Advent responsory “Aspiciens a longe,” the Advent introit “In excelso throno,” and the Marian responsory “Vidi speciosam,” Berno speculates that these anonymous texts derive from legitimate biblical translations that predate Jerome's Vulgate, by which he must mean the Vetus latina.60 Although it is not clear whether he thinks that the chants are actually coterminous with the Vetus latina (that is, from the fourth century or earlier), we certainly gain that impression when he reports finding a quotation of “Vidi speciosam” in a letter attributed to Jerome, unaware that his source is in fact a pastiche by the ninth-century author Paschasius Radbertus.61 Thus, even where scripture is lacking, a certain quasi-scriptural authority is affirmed.

Even the Advent “O” antiphons and the Septuagesima Office, two famously anomalous corners of the Romano-Frankish repertory, find legitimacy in Berno's account. In the case of the former, the author cannot construct an argument from scripture, so he turns to the rhythms of the liturgy. First, he uses the vagaries of the pre-Christmas calendar, as sanctioned by the Church Fathers, to explain the antiphons' function as a liturgical stopgap.62 He then provides a brief overview of the pieces and their aptly prophetic content before concluding, “I have thus cared to write about these, so that it is plain to see that those [chants] are unique that, consistently and properly composed, seem to pertain to summoning the Advent of the Lord.”63 Assurances about “consistent” and “proper” composition would surely be unnecessary were the author not anticipating accusations of inconsistency and impropriety. As for the Septuagesima Office, the negative opinion is actually acknowledged: “The author of this nocturnal Office is rebuked by some people, because, without the testimony of holy scripture, he has striven to join to the alleluia such a narrative of musical song, as if in conversation with some individual.”64 Berno is referring to the annual ceremony in which valedictory passages of the Bible are crassly reworked into a musical farewell for the personified Alleluia, who is about to be banished until Easter.65 Yet even in this most extreme case he gives the chants a wide berth, weakly asserting that “we do not wish to silence those things that we know are somehow taken from authentic scripture.”66 Perhaps in recognition that he has not resolved the underlying tension, he suggests that the Office be brought forward to the preceding Saturday, thereby avoiding the Sunday feast.

On some occasions, however, the urge to uphold the scriptural basis of chant is so strong that Berno commits the acts of intervention that elsewhere he is inclined to condemn. In the case of the responsory “In columbae speciae” he recommends discarding the words “ipsum audite” (hear him) because they belong to the story of the transfiguration (Matthew 17:5) rather than to the story of baptism being referenced in the chant (Matthew 3:17).67 Similarly, when he argues for the substitution of “virgo” (virgin) for “virginitas” (virginity) in the responsory “Sancta et immaculata” he does so in the knowledge that the ensuing verse, “Benedicta tu in mulieribus” (Blessed art thou among women), represents an address to a human being, not to an anthropomorphic virtue.68 A similar kind of narrative logic underlies the final section of De varia psalmorum (Chapters 13–14, recte 12–13, in Gerbert), in which the author turns his hand to some sixty or more Office responsories that “concord minimally with their verses, not to mention disagreeing greatly in sense and in vocabulary.”69 Once again, this is a state of conflict that demands resolution. In this case Berno opts not to adjust the responsories themselves but simply to substitute new texts for the verses. Thus for the Marian responsory “Ave Maria gratia plena” (Hail, Mary, full of grace: Luke 1:28), ordinarily accompanied by the psalmic verse “Tollite portas principes vestras” (Lift up your heads, O ye gates: Psalm 23), Berno recommends substituting the more appropriate “Quomodo fiet istud” (How shall this be: Luke 1:34).70 In that example the new verse is drawn from the same biblical book as the responsory, and the text is unadulterated from the Vulgate. But that is not the rule. The second responsory, for instance, “Ecce dominus veniet” (Behold the Lord comes: after Zechariah 14:5), is paired with the verse “Ecce dominus cum virtute veniet” (Behold the Lord comes with virtue: after Isaiah 40:10).71 The texts clearly do not come from the same place, nor is either purely biblical, yet we can see perfectly well what Berno has achieved. There is no longer a tension either in “sense” or in “vocabulary,” but rather two complementary and harmonious expressions of scripture.

Given that Berno is therefore arguing both for the preservation of chant texts as they stand and for their emendation, there are times when De varia psalmorum can appear highly contradictory. Indeed, it is tempting to dismiss Berno's entire discussion as inconsequential, given that many of his arguments are founded upon no more than an errant grammatical ending or stray word. Both objections are answered, however, in a viewpoint articulated at the beginning of his tirade against meddling grammarians: “Prayers and orations may not be uttered unless sanctioned, nor may any of these be sung in church at all unless discussed by the more experienced people and ratified in synod, so that nothing be composed that is strongly heretical, whether through ignorance or through design.”72 These words from a fifth-century African church council form part of a lengthy discussion in the ninth-century De antiphonario of Agobard of Lyon, which Berno himself quotes at length. What we learn is that our author is not merely irritated by the actions of ignorant grammarians, nor simply desirous of an unattainable biblical coherence. He fears that liturgical deviations from scripture, if unchecked, are in danger of spreading heresy. Presumably he had good reason to believe that singers were capable of this, and historical corroboration of that view will emerge toward the end of this article. But we can already see why this man, an elderly abbot who evidently regarded himself as one of “the more experienced people,” saw no contradiction in defending chant from alteration while simultaneously offering his own emendations. What mattered to him was that Christian doctrine remained unobscured.

Although none of the examples cited thus far can be said to threaten the beliefs of the church, several chants cited in De varia psalmorum do indeed point in that direction. The Christmas antiphon “Mirabile mysterium” is singled out for its phrase “innovantur naturae,” whose invocation of God's plural “natures” clearly offends against the teaching of an indivisible Trinity.73 Berno's response is first to quote the proper doctrine from canon law, and then to offer an appropriate correction. In a similar way, the responsories “Suscipe verbum,” “Annuntiatum est,” and “Descendit de caelis missus ab arce” are cited for their theological aberrancy and corrected or disposed of accordingly.74 All three deal with the story of the Annunciation, and all three peddle the same popular image of the “conceptio per aurem,” the idea that Mary conceived Christ not through her womb but through Gabriel's speech, and thus by the means of her ear.75 Agobard had already noted the theological problem,76 but Berno now puts those words into action. Substituting “per aurem” with the more doctrinally appropriate “in utero” costs just one syllable, so that is an easy solution for the first chant. The second chant is more problematic—Berno reports that it is “justly condemned by the wise”—while so irredeemable is the third that the author brands it as “deservedly rejected,” and advocates the use of a completely sanitized version instead.77 Although otherwise so keen that his audience should understand and accept the liturgy as it has been handed down, even this author has to draw a line somewhere. Some chants are simply beyond the pale.

To the seasoned chant scholar the arguments surveyed to this point may sound extremely familiar. When Berno tells us that the liturgy could be confusing in its entanglement of texts, that chants might be reworked to improve their scriptural coherence or to ameliorate their grammar, or that the poetry of Romano-Frankish chant texts could be considered improper, he could just as well have been writing in the ninth century. Back then, Agobard of Lyon and his ally Florus the Deacon railed against non-scriptural chants and their heretical potential, Amalarius of Metz largely upheld them, Helisachar tried to sort out the scriptural content of responsory verses, Walahfrid Strabo noted the variant Psalter traditions (and scribes apparently adapted chants accordingly), and Gottschalk of Orbais explored the relationship between chant, scripture, and grammar, in part as a response to purportedly heretical alterations by Hincmar of Reims.78 But the lack of novelty in De varia psalmorum is in a sense the point that ought to interest us most. The fact that the same basic issues reappear in the 1040s, not only in Berno's mind but also apparently in the minds of his correspondents, now gives us cause for serious reflection. How successful had the Carolingian chant “reforms” really been, and how influential were the many instances of correcting activity described by the aforementioned ninth-century texts? And what had happened some two hundred years later, not only to encourage new waves of correction and intervention, but also to induce Berno's outpouring of written attention? These are the questions that will shape the second half of our investigation.

De varia psalmorum and Eleventh-Century Musical Practice

Although we can be relatively sure that De varia psalmorum was written at Reichenau in the middle of the eleventh century, its relationship to local practices has yet to be demonstrated. Only by situating Berno's advice within the surviving corpus of early medieval chant books—a corpus that is today increasingly susceptible to assessment, thanks to the growth of online facsimiles and databases—can we begin to appreciate what kind of musical tradition he was familiar with, and what practical changes, if any, his abbatial counsel actually effected. At the outset, however, we must acknowledge that De varia psalmorum offers only limited traction on this wider state of evidence. The problem is not that Berno fails to engage with current musical practices, but that his default position on those practices is to uphold that which is already established. Thus when he teaches that a particular chant is based on the Roman Psalter there are no particular insights to be gained about eleventh-century musical activity. What we learn belongs to the realm of cultural history: that texts based on the Roman Psalter caused confusion for singers, and that the abbot's preferred solution was to explain the textual history of the Psalter. The same applies to many of the other examples already discussed, whether the reaffirmed “O” antiphons or the acceptably poetic introit “Puer natus est.” It is therefore wholly inappropriate to see De varia psalmorum as an instrument of musical reform.79 But in the instances where Berno does detail specific musical differences, both negatively (through condemnation) and positively (through suggested alteration), we can gainfully investigate how his preferences relate—causally or otherwise—to documented tendencies in eleventh-century chant practice.

This approach is more meaningful than it might at first seem, because we know that Berno cast his net far and wide. Ironically, it is very difficult to show how the advice in De varia psalmorum relates to native musical traditions at Reichenau, since we lack any remotely contemporary documentation of local Mass or Office repertories at large; even the two local tonaries show no significant overlap.80 But it is relatively easy to show that our author had looked elsewhere. When Berno makes a dismissive comment about those who sing the historia “Si oblitus fuero” at Septuagesima he can only have been referring to the monks at nearby Saint Gall, whose books are unique among eleventh-century survivals in preserving this variant practice.81 Meanwhile, in his discussion of the antiphon “Dum ortus fuerit” Berno mentions the existence of “certain codices” in which the variant “a patre” is present but “has been erased by the moderns.”82 Although we have yet to find a codex that contains such an erasure, German chant books bear the argument out. The phrase “a patre” is found in the majority of CAO sources but is missing from the eleventh-century Quedlinburg Antiphoner, while Berno's preferred alteration to “a matre” is documented in the Hartker Antiphoner, in the Zwiefalten Antiphoner, and in the Old Roman tradition, among others.83 The latter variant had already been suggested by Agobard in his ninth-century De antiphonario,84 and the Hartker Antiphoner comfortably predates our text, so there is certainly no reason to attribute agency to Berno. The useful finding here is that Berno's understanding of eleventh-century codices matches ours: there was a genuine discrepancy within contemporary German practice and it required an answer.

Although in the cases of “Si oblitus fuero” and “Dum ortus fuerit” there is no reason to believe that Berno was working with anything other than German materials, one of the more intriguing aspects of De varia psalmorum is the author's engagement with demonstrably non-German practices.85 One of the central precepts of medieval chant study is the idea that the Romano-Frankish tradition bifurcated at an early stage into eastern and western subtraditions—the basic dividing line being the Rhine or the watershed between the Germanic and Romance languages—a division evident not only in the differing choices of repertory but also in a number of distinct melodic behaviors.86 What we find in Berno's writing, however, is clear evidence of transfer from one subtradition to another.

We see this first in his discussion of heretical Annunciation responsories, when the refutation of one chant induces a geographical observation: “‘Descendit de caelis missus ab arce patris introivit per aurem virginis in regionem nostram’ is deservedly rejected, and in its place in many churches of the Gauls it is modulated in the way we have exposed in writing below: ‘Descendit de caelis deus verus a patre …’”87 Chant scholars will recognize the chant under consideration, for “Descendit de caelis missus ab arce” was the bearer of the celebrated neuma triplex, a lengthy, structured melisma first described by Amalarius of Metz in the ninth century.88 The chant was also roundly condemned by Amalarius's archenemy Agobard of Lyon, another Frenchman, who singled it out as heretical and whose original complaints soon found a comprehensive remedy in a second text that Berno lists here.89 Berno's knowledge of this “Gallican” chanting tradition is itself noteworthy, because Agobard never actually revealed the text of his preferred replacement. But the really significant point is that Berno appears to be encouraging its adoption in Reichenau. In both surviving manuscripts of De varia psalmorum the words “modulated … in writing below” are followed by a fully written out and notated version of “Descendit de caelis deus verus” (see Figure 1). Whether or not Berno can be shown to have authorized the notation personally, the clear implication is that this “Gallican” variant is being exposed to a new audience—the virtue of neumatic notation in this regard being that it allows singers efficiently to adapt an old melody to a new text.90 (See Example 1 for an attempted reconstruction, noting that for the putative Reichenau singer, already familiar with the melody, this task would be entirely intuitive.) Crucially, the wider state of manuscript survival not only supports Berno's assertion that “Descendit de caelis deus verus” was from France, but also provides no evidence of its existence in Germany prior to De varia psalmorum.91 Thus Berno's promotion of this variant responsory in the 1040s affords us a startling insight into the historical dynamics of Romano-Frankish chant. Some two centuries after its codification a Carolingian “reform” was finally pushing its way into local German use.

Figure 1

Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. Sal. IX,20, fol. 78v. Used by Creative Commons license CC-BY-SA 3.0.

Figure 1

Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. Sal. IX,20, fol. 78v. Used by Creative Commons license CC-BY-SA 3.0.

Example 1

Two German versions of “Descendit de caelis,” the first from a local heighted source (Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Cod. Aug. perg. 60, fol. 17r, with neuma removed), the second reconstructed from the neumes and text present in De varia psalmorum (Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. Sal. IX,20, fol. 78v)

Example 1

Two German versions of “Descendit de caelis,” the first from a local heighted source (Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Cod. Aug. perg. 60, fol. 17r, with neuma removed), the second reconstructed from the neumes and text present in De varia psalmorum (Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. Sal. IX,20, fol. 78v)

Berno's interactions with French chant traditions are in evidence again in the corpus of sixty-one responsory verses that come at the end of his text. Like the responsory “Descendit de caelis deus verus,” but unlike any other chant cited in De varia psalmorum, the verses are fully notated in both surviving manuscript copies. From this we may infer that the verses were also new arrivals in eleventh-century Reichenau, the notation serving to fit their well-known melodic formulae to previously unknown texts.92 (Figure 2 presents the responsories as found in the fifteenth-century Berlin manuscript, complete with the late medieval adiastematic neumes that evidently continued to serve this purpose.) We already know that these were new texts for the Reichenau community, because Berno later discloses his use of outside sources: “Not only have we listed for emendation those verses that we have been able to find in emended antiphoners, but we have also cared to note down others newly composed in place of the above.”93 Datable concordances indicate that as many as fifty-nine verses may have been borrowed from these “emended antiphoners,” seemingly from a variety of sources.94 Only the replacement verses now survive, for that is the author's intent, but we can infer what lies beneath from a comment that concludes the discussion, where Berno expresses his distaste for three verses in particular: “Of these examples it should be known that, even if certain verses concord with their responsories, they are essentially worthless and bring on fastidium, because of their often excessive repetitiveness. Examples are ‘Deus a Libano veniet’ [Habakkuk 3:3], ‘A solis ortu’ [Psalm 106:3], ‘Qui regis Israel’ [Psalm 79:2], and many of this sort.”95 Comparison with other early Office manuscripts reveals that three of his sixty-one responsories would previously have been paired with “Deus a Libano” (all Advent chants), six with “A solis ortu” (again all Advent chants), and ten with “Qui regis Israel” (all “Summer” chants, from Pentecost to the end of the church year). Thus with the benefit of hypothetical “before” and “after” states for nineteen responsories, and in the knowledge that Berno had access to certain “emended antiphoners,” we are now in a unique position to assess the place of De varia psalmorum within European chant practices of this period.

Figure 2

Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Musikabteilung mit Mendelssohn-Archiv, Mus.ms.theor. 95, fol. 10v. Used by permission.

Figure 2

Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Musikabteilung mit Mendelssohn-Archiv, Mus.ms.theor. 95, fol. 10v. Used by permission.

Through the use of plus and minus signs, respectively, Table 2 records the spread of scripturally coherent verses (as recommended by Berno) and generic verses (as disparaged by Berno) among the nineteen responsories just cited. (The verses marked “a” are scripturally apposite but not documented by Berno.) The columns represent the different manuscript sources, and these are drawn from the twelve sources of Hesbert's CAO and a selection of other early or otherwise relevant manuscripts, ordered first by geographical region and then by approximate date. Precisely as observed by Ike de Loos a decade ago in her own survey of responsory verses, there are clear regional tendencies, and to these we can now attach value: German sources are more likely to irk Berno, while French sources are much more likely to please.96 The worst of the selection is the Quedlinburg Antiphoner (Berlin 40047), closely followed by the earliest known German witness, the ninth-century list-type antiphoner Trier 1245-597, and then by a collection of eleventh-century antiphoners from institutions either side of the Alps: Saint Gall 390/391 (CAO H), Ivrea CVI (CAO E), Monza C. 12/75 (CAO M), and Verona XCVIII (CAO V). By contrast, the best fit is Paris 1085, compiled at Saint Martial, Limoges, in the early decades of the eleventh century, followed closely by a clutch of sources that are either the same age or older, including the late ninth-century Aquitanian antiphoner Albi 44.97 

Table 2

The distribution of nineteen responsories and their verses in early Office manuscripts, showing conformity to the requirements of De varia psalmorum

French/Iberian manuscriptsGerman/north Italian manuscriptsOthers
ResponsoryOld verse (–)New verse (+)CAOAssignmentParis 17436, 860-77 (CAO C)Albi 44, s. ixexMont-Renaud, s. xParis 1085, s. xiinToledo 44.1, s. xiinDurham B. III. 11, s. xi (CAO G)London Add. 30850, s. xi (CAO S)Paris 12584, s. xi/xii (CAO F)Paris 17296, s. xii (CAO D)Trier 1245-597, 860sSaint Gall 390/391, s. x/xi (CAO H)Berlin 40047, s. xiIvrea CVI, s. xi (CAO E)Monza C. 12/75, s. xi (CAO M)Verona XCVIII, s. xi (CAO V)Bamberg Lit. 23, s. xiex (CAO B)Klosterneuburg 1013/1012, s. xiiKarlsruhe 60, s. xiiexZurich 28, s. xiii (CAO R)Rome B 79, s. xiiBenevento 21, s. xii/xiii (CAO L)
Jerusalem plantabis Deus a Libano Exsulta satis filia 7033b Advent II – –/+ a/+  – – – – – – – – – –  
Bethleem civitas Loquetur pacem 6254c Advent III – –/+ –/+  –/+ – – – – – – –/+ – – – 
Ecce radix Iesse Dabit ei 6606b Advent III – –/+ a/+  – – – –  – – –/+ – – – 
Ecce dominus veniet A solis ortu Ecce dominus 6586b Advent II – –/+ –/+  – – – – – – – –  
Descendet dominus Et adorabunt eum 6408b Advent III – –/+ a/+  – – – – – – –/+ – – 
Canite tuba Annuntiate 6265b Advent IV – a/+  – – – – – – – –/+ – 
Virgo Israel revertere In caritate 7903b Advent IV – –/+ a/+ – – – – – – – – – – – 
Iuravi dicit dominus Iuxta est salus 7045b Advent IV – –/+ a/+ – – – – – – – –/+ – – 
Orietur stella ex Iacob Et adorabunt eum 7338b Advent IVh – a/+ a/+ –/+ – – – – – – – 
Exaudisti domine Qui regis Israel Domine qui 6688a Post-Pentecost –/+ –/+ a/+  – – – – 
Domine si conversus Si peccaverit 6514a Post-Pentecost –/+ –/+ a/+  – – – 
Peto domine Omnia iudicia tua 7381a September – –/+ a/+ – – – –/+ – – – 
Domine rex omnipotens Exaudi orationem 6511a September –/+ –/+ a/+  – – – – 
Spem in alium Domine deus caeli 7684a September –/+ –/+ a/+   – – – – – – 
Tua est potentia Creator omnium 7793a October –/+  a/+  – – 
Tu domine universorum Tu domine cui 7786 October – – –/a? –/a/+  – – – – –  – – – 
Muro tuo inexpugnabili Erue nos 7192a November –/+  –/+ a/+  – – 
Civitatem istam Avertatur furor tuus 6291a November  –/a?  –/+  –/+  –  
Qui caelorum contines Non enim 7471a November     –/+  – – a/+ – 
French/Iberian manuscriptsGerman/north Italian manuscriptsOthers
ResponsoryOld verse (–)New verse (+)CAOAssignmentParis 17436, 860-77 (CAO C)Albi 44, s. ixexMont-Renaud, s. xParis 1085, s. xiinToledo 44.1, s. xiinDurham B. III. 11, s. xi (CAO G)London Add. 30850, s. xi (CAO S)Paris 12584, s. xi/xii (CAO F)Paris 17296, s. xii (CAO D)Trier 1245-597, 860sSaint Gall 390/391, s. x/xi (CAO H)Berlin 40047, s. xiIvrea CVI, s. xi (CAO E)Monza C. 12/75, s. xi (CAO M)Verona XCVIII, s. xi (CAO V)Bamberg Lit. 23, s. xiex (CAO B)Klosterneuburg 1013/1012, s. xiiKarlsruhe 60, s. xiiexZurich 28, s. xiii (CAO R)Rome B 79, s. xiiBenevento 21, s. xii/xiii (CAO L)
Jerusalem plantabis Deus a Libano Exsulta satis filia 7033b Advent II – –/+ a/+  – – – – – – – – – –  
Bethleem civitas Loquetur pacem 6254c Advent III – –/+ –/+  –/+ – – – – – – –/+ – – – 
Ecce radix Iesse Dabit ei 6606b Advent III – –/+ a/+  – – – –  – – –/+ – – – 
Ecce dominus veniet A solis ortu Ecce dominus 6586b Advent II – –/+ –/+  – – – – – – – –  
Descendet dominus Et adorabunt eum 6408b Advent III – –/+ a/+  – – – – – – –/+ – – 
Canite tuba Annuntiate 6265b Advent IV – a/+  – – – – – – – –/+ – 
Virgo Israel revertere In caritate 7903b Advent IV – –/+ a/+ – – – – – – – – – – – 
Iuravi dicit dominus Iuxta est salus 7045b Advent IV – –/+ a/+ – – – – – – – –/+ – – 
Orietur stella ex Iacob Et adorabunt eum 7338b Advent IVh – a/+ a/+ –/+ – – – – – – – 
Exaudisti domine Qui regis Israel Domine qui 6688a Post-Pentecost –/+ –/+ a/+  – – – – 
Domine si conversus Si peccaverit 6514a Post-Pentecost –/+ –/+ a/+  – – – 
Peto domine Omnia iudicia tua 7381a September – –/+ a/+ – – – –/+ – – – 
Domine rex omnipotens Exaudi orationem 6511a September –/+ –/+ a/+  – – – – 
Spem in alium Domine deus caeli 7684a September –/+ –/+ a/+   – – – – – – 
Tua est potentia Creator omnium 7793a October –/+  a/+  – – 
Tu domine universorum Tu domine cui 7786 October – – –/a? –/a/+  – – – – –  – – – 
Muro tuo inexpugnabili Erue nos 7192a November –/+  –/+ a/+  – – 
Civitatem istam Avertatur furor tuus 6291a November  –/a?  –/+  –/+  –  
Qui caelorum contines Non enim 7471a November     –/+  – – a/+ – 

From this we can make two useful deductions. The first, already implicit in his recommendations, is that Berno is once again encouraging the adoption of practices from outside his local tradition, practices that predominate in sources to the west. The second, more tantalizing deduction is that one of his “emended antiphoners” may have come specifically from southern France, the very region in which Helisachar had rewritten his responsory verses back in the ninth century.98 There is no reason to believe that Berno knew of Helisachar or drew specifically on his work, but we may note the particular strength of the Aquitanian connection through the Maccabees responsory “Tu domine universorum,” for which Berno offers the verse “Tu domine cui.” That pairing has no parallels in any CAO source, and it is unknown in any German source before Berno's time. But it does have a unique precedent in the early eleventh-century manuscript Paris 1085, which is already fêted for its idiosyncrasies, including a number of apparently unique responsory verses.99 In this instance the verse is not unique so much as misappropriated. “Tu domine cui” derives not from the book of Maccabees, as we would expect for a Maccabees responsory, but from Judith 9:16. Indeed, it is much better known as the counterpart to the Judith responsory “Dominator domine caelorum” (CAO 6488), whose text is based on the adjacent passage Judith 9:17. When judged against Berno's high standards of scriptural coordination this is surely an honest mistake, but we should be glad of it, since it all but confirms his use of one or more “emended antiphoners,” and therefore transports our story into the depths of southern France. If we thought that Romano-Frankish chant behaved according to broadly regional tendencies in the eleventh century, only later tempered by the pan-European networks of monastic and mendicant orders, this kind of musical exchange forces a reassessment. Cross-fertilization between east and west demonstrably took place. Indeed, it may have been much more common than we have previously realized, and to that end the possibility of a specific eleventh-century connection between Reichenau and Saint Martial is now a pressing matter for further research.100 

One other dynamic revealed in Table 2 is the manner in which certain sources carry two layers of responsory verses, such that the “problem” and the “solution” lie side by side (indicated by “−/+”). It is not clear that scribes always saw it this way: James Grier makes the point that the multiple verses could have represented a special performance practice, and we know from Amalarius not only that this was a long-standing custom for the first Advent responsory “Aspiciens a longe,” but also that in Rome multiple verses represented alternates for use on repeat performances.101 But Berno's investment in the issue gives us good reason to believe that doubled verses could also represent two fused layers of practice, the older and the newer, just as Michel Huglo suggested of the tenth-century Mont-Renaud Antiphoner, and as Ike de Loos concluded more generally of northern French sources.102 Thus when we find the occasional doubled verse among German manuscripts of the eleventh century, with no obvious liturgical rationale for the anomaly, this may well be evidence of recent change. If so, we learn that Berno was not the only person in eleventh-century Germany to be broaching this issue. The presence of extra verses in the Hartker Antiphoner, a local compilation already known for its oversupply of responsories, is but one indicator of a potentially wider interest in scriptural harmony at this time.103 

The doubled verses in the early twelfth-century antiphoner volumes Klosterneuburg 1013/1012, on the other hand, are so close to De varia psalmorum as to suggest the influence of our author.104 Indeed, a closer look reveals his influence throughout. Among the responsories of Klosterneuburg is the Maccabees text “Tu domine universorum” with its telltale Judith verse “Tu domine cui,” together with the Saint Martin responsory “O beatum virum” and its verse “Oculis ac manibus,” pairings otherwise restricted to French sources at this point in time. No less significantly, in Klosterneuburg 1013 we have the earliest Germanic chant book known to transmit the heresy-free “Gallican” version of “Descendit de caelis.”105 Another highly revealing metric is the doubling of responsory verses, since of a total of several thousand Office chants spread across the two Klosterneuburg volumes just fifteen responsories have more than one verse, and nine of them have the alternate verses recommended for them in De varia psalmorum (see Table 3).106 Moreover, of the twelve instances of Berno's three bugbear verses “Deus a Libano,” “A solis ortu,” and “Qui regis Israel” six have been supplemented with a second verse. Although one instance concerns the Advent responsory “Aspiciens a longe,” whose multiple verses come as standard, the remaining five are provided exactly as Berno recommends (see Table 4). Also incorporated are Berno's suggested alterations of the responsory “Suscipe verbum virgo” (“concipies in utero” in place of “concipies per aurem”), as well as the Christmas antiphons “Dum ortus fuerit” (“a matre” in place of “a patre”) and “Mirabile mysterium” (“innovatur naturae” in place of “innovantur naturae”). Similarly, the heretical responsory “Annuntiatum est” is presented in an altered form, such that the offending image of “aurem virginis” (ear of the virgin) now reads “alme virginis” (of the kind virgin). Ultimately, where the suggestions in Berno's tract have not been taken on board, which is still the case for a good number of chants, there is no difficulty in crediting the Klosterneuburg clergy with intellectual autonomy. But where the suggestions do appear to have been incorporated, and are otherwise unattested in German-speaking lands, it is very difficult to believe that De varia psalmorum had not provided the motivation.107 Given that Klosterneuburg was located some four hundred miles to the east of Reichenau, and was not founded until the twelfth century, the evidence of this connection substantially expands our understanding of De varia psalmorum's potential transmission, a history previously restricted to just two manuscripts.108 No less importantly, it tells us that in this one significant instance, and perhaps in others that are yet to be discovered, the abbot's counsel had genuinely taken hold.

Table 3

Responsories in Klosterneuburg 1013/1012 that have more than one verse

CAOResponsoryVerse 1Verse 2Verse recommended in De varia psalmorum
6129 Aspiciens a longe Quique terrigenae Qui regis Israel  
6578 Ecce apparebit Apparebit in finem Ecce dominator  
6254 Bethleem civitas dei Loquetur pacem Deus a Libano Loquetur pacem 
7485 Qui venturus est Deponet omnes Ex Sion species  
7744 Suscipe verbum Paries quidem Ave Maria Paries quidem 
6056 Aegypte noli flere Ecce dominus veniet Ecce dominator Ecce veniet dominus 
6408 Descendet dominus Et adorabunt A solis ortu Et adorabunt 
6481 Docebit nos Venite ascendamus Ex Sion species Venite ascendamus 
6606 Ecce radix Jesse Dabit ei Deus a Libano Dabit ei 
6265 Canite tuba in Sion Annuntiate A solis ortu Annuntiate 
7045 Iuravi dicit dominus Iuxta est salus A solis ortu Iuxta est salus 
6292 Clama in fortitudine Ecce dominator Supra montem Super montem 
7172 Modo veniet Ecce dominator Orietur [lacuna]  
7470 Quem vidistis Natus est nobis Dicite quidnam  
7023 Isti sunt sancti Tradiderunt … ad Tradiderunt … propter  
CAOResponsoryVerse 1Verse 2Verse recommended in De varia psalmorum
6129 Aspiciens a longe Quique terrigenae Qui regis Israel  
6578 Ecce apparebit Apparebit in finem Ecce dominator  
6254 Bethleem civitas dei Loquetur pacem Deus a Libano Loquetur pacem 
7485 Qui venturus est Deponet omnes Ex Sion species  
7744 Suscipe verbum Paries quidem Ave Maria Paries quidem 
6056 Aegypte noli flere Ecce dominus veniet Ecce dominator Ecce veniet dominus 
6408 Descendet dominus Et adorabunt A solis ortu Et adorabunt 
6481 Docebit nos Venite ascendamus Ex Sion species Venite ascendamus 
6606 Ecce radix Jesse Dabit ei Deus a Libano Dabit ei 
6265 Canite tuba in Sion Annuntiate A solis ortu Annuntiate 
7045 Iuravi dicit dominus Iuxta est salus A solis ortu Iuxta est salus 
6292 Clama in fortitudine Ecce dominator Supra montem Super montem 
7172 Modo veniet Ecce dominator Orietur [lacuna]  
7470 Quem vidistis Natus est nobis Dicite quidnam  
7023 Isti sunt sancti Tradiderunt … ad Tradiderunt … propter  
Table 4

Responsories in Klosterneuburg 1013/1012 that have the generic verses “Deus a Libano,” “A solis ortu,” and “Qui regis Israel”

CAOResponsoryGeneric verseExtra verse in KlosterneuburgVerse recommended in De varia psalmorum
7660 Sicut mater Deus a Libano   
6254 Bethleem civitas dei Deus a Libano Loquetur pacem Loquetur pacem 
6606 Ecce radix Jesse Deus a Libano Dabit ei Dabit ei 
6149 Audite verbum A solis ortu   
7306 Obsecro domine A solis ortu   
6408 Descendet dominus A solis ortu Et adorabunt Et adorabunt 
7824 Veni domine A solis ortu   
6265 Canite tuba in Sion A solis ortu Annuntiate Annuntiate 
7903 Virgo Israel revertere A solis ortu  In caritate 
7045 Iuravi dicit dominus A solis ortu Iuxta est salus Iuxta est salus 
6129 Aspiciens a longe Qui regis Israel Quique terrigenae  
7684 Spem in alium Qui regis Israel  Domine deus 
CAOResponsoryGeneric verseExtra verse in KlosterneuburgVerse recommended in De varia psalmorum
7660 Sicut mater Deus a Libano   
6254 Bethleem civitas dei Deus a Libano Loquetur pacem Loquetur pacem 
6606 Ecce radix Jesse Deus a Libano Dabit ei Dabit ei 
6149 Audite verbum A solis ortu   
7306 Obsecro domine A solis ortu   
6408 Descendet dominus A solis ortu Et adorabunt Et adorabunt 
7824 Veni domine A solis ortu   
6265 Canite tuba in Sion A solis ortu Annuntiate Annuntiate 
7903 Virgo Israel revertere A solis ortu  In caritate 
7045 Iuravi dicit dominus A solis ortu Iuxta est salus Iuxta est salus 
6129 Aspiciens a longe Qui regis Israel Quique terrigenae  
7684 Spem in alium Qui regis Israel  Domine deus 

From Charlemagne's Spring to the Depth of the River: Authorizing Eleventh-Century Chant

The finding that certain chant variants may have traveled from Aquitaine to Reichenau in the 1040s, and then again from Reichenau to Klosterneuburg at a later date, serves to underline what is already attested by De varia psalmorum: that chant texts never fully stabilized under the Carolingians but remained dynamic, subject to active reworking and vigorous debate. But on what basis, exactly, did eleventh-century individuals such as Berno still feel qualified to intervene in the content of their chant tradition? And on what basis did they not intervene—that is to say, what was the force that preserved a sense of authorized canon? On one level Berno was himself a de facto authority, and it appears that those responsible for the Klosterneuburg antiphoners may have considered him one, too. But even in his most didactic moments the abbot was clearly channeling other sources of wisdom, whose nature and deployment allow us to probe more deeply this eleventh-century individual's relationship with the substance of Romano-Frankish chant.

It is important to recognize at the outset that in his attempts to locate authority in his local chant tradition Berno had more than one option available. When his contemporary Ekkehard IV wrote a history of the musical practices at nearby Saint Gall he concocted a narrative based on John the Deacon's Life of Gregory, an influential and outsized ninth-century hagiography that subsequently enjoyed great popularity north of the Alps.109 According to John's version of events (entirely apocryphal, so far as we know) the chants of Rome and Francia had originated with Pope Gregory the Great around the end of the sixth century, but practices had subsequently diverged. When Charlemagne discovered this discrepancy two centuries later, realizing that purity was more likely to be found in the “perennial spring” (Rome) than in the “tainted water from the stream” (Francia), he called for Roman cantors to be sent north to Metz, one of whom—in Ekkehard's unique rendering—fell ill and stayed at Saint Gall.110 As acts of musical legitimation go this one may seem relatively thin. Yet belief in an authorized archetype was precisely how the Carolingians had first set about promulgating the texts and melodies of their new chant repertory in the eighth and early ninth centuries.111 The frequent exhortation to possess the “corrected” texts was complemented by affixing the authorizing prologue “Gregorius praesul” to the front of chant books, a custom that continued in earnest in the centuries that followed.112 Back at Saint Gall a clear inheritor of that tradition was the first Hartker Antiphoner volume, copied ca. 1000, whose opening prologue reminds the reader how Gregory supposedly “collected and set forth this [work] from the entire field of scripture.”113 On the facing page is the now celebrated depiction of a dove singing chant into Gregory's ear, as a scribe traces neumes on a piece of parchment.114 The image is so ubiquitous in modern scholarship that we can easily forget its exceptional status, both as creation and as survival. Yet if we take a broader view across all media at the turn of the millennium it appears that such “divine inspiration” theories of chant were very much on the rise.115 

Set against this background the arguments of De varia psalmorum belong to a different intellectual world altogether.116 Indeed, it follows from the very existence of Berno's investigation that correctness does not reside in a single city or authorized codex; nor can the name of a famous pope dispel the tensions reported by Berno's correspondents. There is nothing novel about this standpoint, since it was also the view of many later Carolingian scholars, working a generation or two after Charlemagne's time, who labored to correct (or otherwise legitimize) Romano-Frankish chant texts by measuring them against existing authorities, including scripture, exegesis, grammar, and liturgy.117 That is to say, textual authority could now be considered as extrinsic rather than intrinsic to the repertory. The classic example is Agobard of Lyon, active in the first half of the ninth century, whose overriding belief in the sanctity of the Bible, coupled with a deep suspicion of human poetic creativity, left little room for the authorized chant texts as they stood.118 Hence his forceful disavowal of the “myth” in a scathing passage that Berno had doubtless had an opportunity to read:

Truly, because the name “Gregorius praesul” stretches forth as the title of the aforesaid book, and because having swallowed this idea some people believe that it was composed by blessed Gregory, Roman pope and illustrious doctor, let us consider what that holy man ordained in relation to ecclesiastical chant, or what the Roman church sang in his time. …

… No one, except him who is most sincerely ignorant of his own faith, most excellently oblivious of erudition, doubts that these [chants] were not composed by that great man.119 

But Berno's text diverges from this approach in a couple of interesting ways. In common with what we find at contemporary Saint Gall, the pope is treated as a legitimate musical authority, as we will shortly see, but his authority is circumscribed, and he stands as but one among several sources of wisdom and precedent against which the chant repertory is now to be measured.

If there is a primary authority at work in De varia psalmorum it is not Gregory but Jerome, the father of the Latin scriptures, whose translations in one way or another stand behind the entire tradition of Romano-Frankish chant. The Latin Bible is central to the message of De varia psalmorum, and we have already seen that Berno makes extensive use of Jerome's authority in order to sanction the frictions between psalms and psalmic chants, and that he twice invokes Jerome's cautions against “superstitious intelligence” when emending received texts. There is even one instance of unquestioning deference when, admitting that neither Daniel nor Isaiah could ever have preferred the word “laci” over “lacus” in the offertory “Domine Iesu Christe,” Berno simply yields to the authority of the translator: “I am not ashamed to follow the learned man who stood out as skilled in the teaching of all worldly knowledge and expert in many languages.”120 But we have also seen that Jerome is not always able to do the work Berno wishes of him. Some of the chants that Berno tries to legitimize strain the notion of Jerome's authority, while many are justified without it. In these instances, self-evidently, different kinds of reasoning are required.

This is the context in which Berno draws support from others, with references to John Chrysostom, to Christian canon law, and to the patristically sanctioned shape of the Advent liturgy, to cite but three examples already encountered. This is also the context for a cameo appearance by Pope Gregory, conveniently timed for the discussion about the problematic Septuagesima Office, whose chants scripture alone cannot authorize. De varia psalmorum has previously been found to contain two brief citations of Gregorian authority, neither of which is musical: one comment is about grammar, the other about translations of the Bible.121 But the pope is clearly to be found hiding between the lines when Berno, perplexed as to why some people sing Easter responsories on Septuagesima Sunday instead of the normal Office, makes an uncharacteristically curt remark, probably directed at the monks of Saint Gall: “If the author of the antiphoner had originally wanted them to be sung then, he would surely have written them there.”122 The identity of this irreproachable author is self-evident, not least because Berno outlined this very same understanding of Gregory's responsibility in another work, the Libellus de quibusdam rebus: “Whence it should be noted that, just as we trust holy Gregory [the compiler] of the sacramentary and antiphoner, whoever may have composed this or that chant, so also do we trust blessed Jerome the compiler of the lectionary, as his prologue testifies at the head of the same so-called Comes.”123 With the help of the barbed “whoever” clause we learn that Gregory's authority is seen to lie primarily in the compilation of chant books, not in their contents.

No fewer than six Church Fathers are cited by name in De varia psalmorum—in the form of Jerome, Gregory, Augustine, Cassiodorus, Benedict, and John Chrysostom—and that total rises to seven if we include Athanasius from the cover letter.124 These figures are not only cited for the words attributed to them; they are also in some sense present when Berno supports his argument with three versions of the Vulgate Psalter, a lectionary, multiple copies of the Bible (all attributed to Jerome), an older scriptural tradition that is probably the Vetus latina (and that is itself regularly cited in patristic texts), portions of canon law, and of course the well-ordered antiphoner (in the name of Gregory). Further sources that are quoted but not named in De varia psalmorum include Isidore of Seville, Agobard of Lyon, Haimo of Auxerre, and Paschasius Radbertus (the last three being Carolingian scholars), and given the content of his argument it would be no surprise to hear that Berno had consulted the work of Helisachar, Aurelian, Walahfrid, and Amalarius (also all Carolingians), as well as the tenth-century cleric Gunzo (on whom more below). It is only too clear that non-Christian learning has no place here: cited by name in disapproving tones are Donatus, Priscian, Terence, Tullius (Cicero), and Virgil. The distinction between valid and invalid authorities comes across loud and clear. But there is also something significant, I suggest, in the number of sources cited. It surely helped matters that Berno was an unusually well-traveled and well-connected individual, who by the 1040s had made at least three trips to Rome (1014, 1022, 1027), had secured for himself a papal privilege, and had participated among the bishops at German church councils.125 Moreover, as a scholarly Reichenau monk he had access to one of the greatest of all Carolingian monastic libraries. Yet past experience indicates that Berno's breadth of citation was more than mere happenstance: it was a conscious decision.

Back in the 1020s Berno had written a lengthy letter to Archbishop Aribo of Mainz, explaining how to tackle a thorny liturgical problem. (The parallels with his letter to Henry III are palpable, and I return to these below.) Although he acknowledged in the letter that his answer might be seen to contravene “canonical authority,” Berno was content to declare that his argument had located an “indisputable” precedent in “the holy fathers Gelasius, Gregory, Jerome, and Hilary, who stand fast as if pedestals in the foundations of the holy church.”126 That sentence is significant enough for our understanding of De varia psalmorum, for both texts locate their solutions among the works of the Christian Fathers. But the sentiment is given particular weight in the words that immediately follow: “To refuse to permit their opinions is a transgression of divine law.”127 In fact, the said letter incorporates more than just patristic opinions, for we also find Amalarius and Bede cited alongside the contemporary witnesses Adalbold of Utrecht and Heriger of Lobbes. As in De varia psalmorum Berno is drawing upon a wide spectrum of Christian scholarship. Crucially, this breadth of scope is acknowledged and explained to the archbishop in terms of a divine imperative: whenever there is cause for disagreement, Berno says, we should go looking for truth, as the scriptures say in Job 28:11: “The depths of the rivers he has searched, and the hidden things he has brought forth to light.”128 If we extend that implication to De varia psalmorum, we learn that Romano-Frankish chant is not to be justified in relation to a single archetype, nor against one favored authority. Its content is authorized, rather, in the deep rivers of Christian learning.

It is in this last respect that Berno, as chant scholar, most clearly differs from his ninth-century forebears. His approach is highly characteristic of Christian scholars of the eleventh century, emerging into the light of a newly literate age, faced not only with the substantial inheritance of the early church but now also with the considerable fruits of Carolingian scholarship that had accumulated since.129 Their task involved making sense of multiple authorities who were often locked in disagreement. In the case of De varia psalmorum the inheritance comprised not only primary sources that were at odds with each other (chant books, Bibles, Psalters) but also the supporting texts: anyone who knew the work of Agobard and Amalarius, as Berno almost certainly did, would have known how irreconcilable their musical opinions were. So we can well understand why intellectual rapprochement had suddenly risen to the top of the agenda. Some parallel examples make the same point. One of Berno's contemporaries was the German bishop Burchard of Worms (d. 1025), who in his Decretum set out to reconcile the tangled thousand-year-old inheritance of Christian canon law. Borrowing a sonic metaphor that was to become popular in legal circles, Burchard's preface describes the “dissonantia” of the received texts.130 The very same period saw the scholar Heriger of Lobbes (d. 1007), whose work Berno says he knew, reengage with the long-standing controversy about the nature of the Eucharist. The text assembled by Heriger draws not only from the Church Fathers Ambrose, Augustine, Basil, Jerome, and Gregory but also from the ninth-century protagonists Radbertus and Ratramnus, effecting what Brian Stock has described as “a union between opposed positions.”131 A closer intellectual parallel to De varia psalmorum could hardly be imagined.

No less illuminating are the parallels with medieval music theory, which since the ninth century had been concerned with one problem above all—reconciling the speculative tradition of the ancients (musica) with the contemporary realities of singing chant (cantus).132,De varia psalmorum has strong intellectual affinities with that tradition, and not merely because Berno was himself a famous and influential exponent of it, having penned the Prologus in tonarium a decade or two earlier. The common ground exists because both kinds of venture seek to bridge a conceptual gap between a fundamental truth (whether musica or the wisdom of scripture) and its less than perfect instantiation in contemporary practice (chant melodies and chant texts). In either case practice is not to be judged against a single or arbitrarily defined authority, least of all Gregory's; rather, it is to be assessed by assembling a theoretical edifice that can contain it.133 While that observation rings true for a large body of music-theoretical literature from the ninth century onward, we can point to several specific connections with Berno's work as a music theorist. For instance, like De varia psalmorum the Prologus in tonarium draws on a wide range of authorities: Oesch considered it to be based on remnants of Aurelian, Hucbald, Regino of Prüm, and Pseudo-Bernelinus, while others have found in it traces of Boethius, the Scolica and Musica enchiriadis, Macrobius, and Augustine.134 Berno's two treatises also have broadly comparable priorities, seeking wherever possible to fit the authority to the chant, rather than the chant to the authority. The latter option was a very real risk for those scribes who in this period were beginning to affix chant melodies to a staff, or for the theorists who were trying to squeeze chants onto a theoretical matrix that had been established after the fact. Thus in Berno's treatment of fourth-mode antiphons, as Dolores Pesce noted, “his priority lay in preserving the melodic character of chants he had inherited, rather than in molding them to an a posteriori system of classification.”135 It is difficult not to be reminded by that comment of the thought processes of Berno's De varia psalmorum, and in particular of his stated aversion to grammarians, those presumptuous beings who bend chant to their own faulty logic. Different rules apply to texts and melodies, of course, but the common intellectual heritage of the two treatises is beyond doubt. One further indication of a relationship, in what turns out to be their single point of repertorial overlap, is the fact that both works set out to grant legitimacy to the modally and textually deviant “O” antiphons.136 

These arguments about Berno's intellectual world also find corroboration in material form, by means of the earliest surviving manuscript of De varia psalmorum. As we have already seen, De varia psalmorum is first attested in a composite volume now in Heidelberg, whose many marginal annotations imply that the greater part had been assembled and was known in the Reichenau area by the 1080s; the text is itself in the hand of a mid-eleventh-century Reichenau scribe.137 In the middle of the manuscript, next to De varia psalmorum and in the hand of another mid-century Reichenau scribe, is a letter by Berno, the placement of which here is surely an acknowledgment of the texts' common authorship. No less significantly, in the preceding section we find a copy of the aforementioned treatise on the Eucharist by Heriger of Lobbes, which sits next to a ninth-century text on the same by Ratramnus, as well as the latter's tract on predestination. That is to say, De varia psalmorum is preceded by texts from two headline doctrinal controversies of the ninth century and an early eleventh-century attempt at reconciliation. Finally, at the other end of the manuscript, following an anonymous Old Testament commentary (whose script suggests a quite different history) and a page of chants, we find a collection of music theory, comprising the common trilogy of the Musica enchiriadis, the Scolica enchiriadis, and a text on the monochord. We might have hoped to see the Prologus in tonarium in their stead, but that does not deaden the impact of this astonishing juxtaposition. Whoever assembled this manuscript, whether or not a member of Berno's circle at Reichenau, was presumably aware of the intellectual and methodological continuities between the book's principal subject areas. Each in its own way deals directly with themes of discord and harmony, whether metaphorical or musical, and all three do so in similar ways. Considered in the context of this apparently deliberate placement, then, the intellectual wrangling of De varia psalmorum assumes a decidedly political hue.

Harmony and Heresy under Henry III

As we have already seen from Berno's food-suffused salutation, sent at some point in the 1040s, De varia psalmorum was intended not solely for the edification of monks. It was also destined for the perusal of the king. This was not the first time Berno had petitioned someone in high office, for two decades earlier he had submitted his liturgical thoughts to Archbishop Aribo of Mainz with a plea for the metropolitan's higher authorization, knowing that without his intervention “we will struggle to convince others.”138 In the light of that story the drafting of a letter to Henry III that encloses a series of thoughts on irregular chants and dissonant Psalters, and that documents manifold sources of confusion and disagreement in the singing of the liturgy, is highly suggestive of the same agenda. But what might have prompted Berno to share his concerns with the king? Everything deduced to this point suggests an association with a famous contemporary event. At the church council of Constance in 1043, barely a few miles away from Berno's home on the Reichenau island, Henry III delivered an address to the assembled German bishops and abbots. The king climbed the altar step on the fourth day, according to the local annals account, and “in glittering speech began to exhort the people toward peace,” thereby echoing a popular sentiment of the period, as enacted in the contemporary “Peace of God” and “Truce of God” movements in France.139 While Berno's pupil the music theorist and chronicler Hermannus Contractus credited the king's speech with bringing about “a peace unheard of for many centuries,” Berno himself wrote to Henry III in 1044 or 1045 on the very same subject, congratulating him that “justice and peace … have secured such great treaties of concord throughout your kingdom as have been unknown in all centuries gone by.”140 As it happens, that congratulatory epistle survives in only one copy, and the reader may now predict where it resides: it is sandwiched between Heriger's Eucharistic controversy and Berno's De varia psalmorum in the local Heidelberg compilation just discussed. But that is not the only connection we can point to. As the letter goes on to imply, peace can take many forms, whether in the remedying of discord, of deceit, of treachery, or of sacrilege. It is therefore no challenge to understand why Berno, the author of those words, might have considered the harmonious singing of the liturgy to stand among them. As the Carolingians realized before him, few activities could be more communicative of Christian concord than a people united in song and prayer.141 And as one anonymous author wrote of the Frankish liturgy at the end of the first millennium, reviving those sentiments in lofty tone, “If there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, so may there also be a single unanimity of the church.”142 

Having taken a journey through De varia psalmorum we now know for ourselves that, for Berno's correspondents, if not for others too, chant practices could arouse discord on several fronts. Chief among the offenders were grammar and heresy, issues that turn out to have been of primary importance in eleventh-century Christian thought. With the reawakening of literacy at the end of the first millennium came, among other things, a newfound awareness of difference. Musicians now had access not only to an increasing proliferation of chant books, but also, potentially, to a glut of pitched versions that could now be compared with each other. Moreover, many of these individuals and their books were on the move, prime examples being the cosmopolitan Berno and his hypothetically Aquitanian books of chant. These changes presumably stand behind Guido of Arezzo's humorous observation that “now commonly the antiphoner is called not Gregory's, but Leo's or Albert's, or anybody else's,” and they explain the numerous reports from eleventh-century writers on the divergent content of the liturgy.143 More generally, this was a period that saw the growth in text-critical approaches and systems of written organization from alphabetized lists to prescriptive rules and customaries, as well as changing attitudes to memory and the archive.144 As Brian Stock put it, in terms that might pique the musicologist's interest, “men began to think of facts not as recorded by texts but as embodied in texts.”145 It is therefore no wonder that Berno should wish to communicate his concerns about the minuscule details of chant texts that, his research had now revealed, differed from source to source. (It is conceivable that oral delivery had rendered many of these issues invisible up to this point.) Nor is it any wonder that those textual minutiae should have given rise to two new kinds of tension in musical practice: a sense of the danger posed to a canonical repertory by overzealous attention to grammar, and a sense of the danger posed by that canonical repertory through its unseen and untraceable propagation of heresy.

The very fact that grammatical reasoning was being applied to chant texts, if Berno's account is to be believed, must be seen as a side effect of the same millennial upturn in learning. The change was concentrated in a new generation of clerics, educated not by monks but in newly founded cathedral schools, according to a curriculum that placed a particular emphasis on the classical liberal arts, especially the trivium of grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic.146 The problem for Christian communities, however—a problem invariably articulated by those in monasteries—was that the new learning had been so successfully taken up as to pose a serious threat to sacred texts.147 The question was certainly pertinent to Reichenau, for in the 960s Gunzo of Novara wrote a letter to the monks in which he voiced his irritation at an instance of grammatical pedantry, and pointed out to them that sense and signification are as important as the means of verbal expression.148 Berno's pupil Hermannus Contractus would later wrestle with his love of classical poetry in the Carmen de octo vitiis principalibus, a text that bears witness to the very same conflict of pagan and Christian learning.149 And in Berno's own text those sentiments are the driving force behind an argument concerned with divine wisdom: “For what is the consequence of Priscian being heard,” he memorably asks, “and the truth that is God being condemned?”150 Among many choice anecdotes in the same text we learn from Berno that classical works are being treated as if they are more canonical than the scriptures, and that some people have even dared to correct the grammar of the gospels.151 The problem was not unique to Reichenau, either. In nearby Saint Gall Berno's contemporary Ekkehard IV included in his Liber benedictionum a trilogy of poetic confutationes, or refutations, one directed at each element of the trivium; the third of these reasserts the place of patristic authorities (Jerome for scripture and, notably, Gregory for chant) over classical grammarians (Priscian and Donatus), and accuses the younger generation of understanding everything but “the tenets of faith.”152 In much the same way, a few years after Berno's death the Bavarian monk Williram of Ebersberg would lament those who “under the rod of the schoolmaster are instructed in the studies of grammar and rhetoric, [and] believing these to be sufficient for them, are entirely oblivious of the divine page.”153 

It is only to be expected, then, that these new incursions into the canonicity of sacred texts should have been resisted, and should have become closely associated with heretical thought. This was famously the case in the later eleventh century, when Berengar of Tours proposed new, grammatically informed understandings of the Eucharist, and Lanfranc of Bec used the same to fight back, thereby giving new impetus to the time-honored tradition of Eucharistic controversy.154 Berno certainly saw a connection between grammar and heresy in chant, as we have already witnessed in his pointed citation of a fifth-century canon, although technically none of his most aberrant examples actually derives from a grammarian's intervention. There are nevertheless good reasons to believe that these were current concerns, even for musicians. We might note, for example, that the same heretical understandings of divine nature that were inadvertently projected in the chant “Mirabile mysterium” were also among the deviances that led to the infamous burning of heretics at Orléans in 1022.155 If word of this had reached Reichenau, we can well imagine the discomfort of singers as they realized their own complicity. Yet a specific connection is not strictly necessary, since changes in social organization and literate practice in the eleventh century had contrived to bring heresy firmly into the foreground of European medieval life.156 An important symptom of that renewed consciousness, for our purposes, may be the eleventh-century return to prominence of Agobard's De antiphonario, a prescient set of warnings about liturgical heresy and scriptural purity that, apparently little heeded back in the ninth century, may at last have found a receptive audience.157 Such observations can begin to explain the hunger of the Reichenau monks for Berno's advice. Whatever problems the Carolingians had perceived in chant in the ninth century—or not perceived, as the case may be—and whatever irritations might have remained despite their best efforts at correction, some two centuries had now passed. A dynasty had fallen, several more had arisen, and in the meantime society had changed irrevocably. Old issues had now taken on a new complexion, and new issues were in the offing. Chant was still very much on the move.

Conclusion: Lessons from Abbot Berno

Persevering through the winding arguments of De varia psalmorum teaches us a great deal about the cultural status of Romano-Frankish chant in the eleventh century. Above all, we gain a vivid sense of a repertory held in tension between competing intellectual concerns: the threat of new learning, the lurking danger of heretical thought and doctrine, the imperative to avert disunity and discord, and an enduring respect for authorities past and present. But despite the richness of these insights one question looms unanswered. Precisely which musical tradition was it that Berno set out to uphold? In whose memory, or in which church, or on what sheet of parchment resided the authentic, harmonious vocal practice to which singing Christians were meant to aspire? The answer takes us to the crux of our author's endeavor, because by its very existence De varia psalmorum acknowledges the absence of an authoritative “fountain” from which all musical and liturgical legitimacy flows, that mythical source in which the Carolingians supposedly believed, but in which this worldly and well-traveled monk of the eleventh century evidently could not. Hence we can begin to empathize with Berno's response. Lest his correspondents should infer that their musical inheritance is arbitrary or flawed, the abbot's advice establishes new ways of making it authoritative. It emphasizes through manifold authorities the inviolable contributions of the Church Fathers, above all Jerome, the harmonious nature of the scriptures, and the symbolic value of the liturgy and its calendar, as well as chant's potential to communicate divine truth. It also pointedly avoids the pagan learning of the trivium. Where a chant does not conform to those expectations, it is simply treated as if it should.

One important precedent for this behavior has been located in contemporary music theory, in which propriety is not generally intrinsic to the sounding object but is measured by a propensity to conform to a set of externally defined parameters, an authoritative edifice beyond which one may not stray. But it is worth reemphasizing that this was not the only way in which musical authority could be invoked in our period. Arguably far easier, and indeed far more communicative, was simply to play up the legitimacy of the status quo. This is where Gregory reenters the conversation. It is no coincidence, I suggest, that while Berno was seeking to shore up his repertory with recourse to the streams of Christian wisdom, artists were for the first time representing Gregory's musical encounter with a dove, exemplifying an ascendant notion of a “divinely inspired” tradition of chant. However abstract the idea of Gregorian responsibility may have seemed to the average singer, it was presumably much less abstract when affixed to written codices, particularly those codices with pitch-specific notations that now embodied (to paraphrase Stock) that which they once merely recorded. If literate practices of the eleventh century were thus strengthening Gregory's significative potential, then De varia psalmorum hints at the appeal. Authority is often craved most when it is absent, or when—as Berno's text suggests—it is difficult to rationalize in any systematic way. In this way the Gregory iconography can be seen as akin to the façade that conceals an aging building: it may provide an impression of stability, but by its very existence it acknowledges that the cracks are beginning to show. An alternative reading of the situation, recently advanced by David Hiley, is that the locus of Gregorian authority in this period had shifted somewhere else.158 Those same literate practices that may have strengthened Gregory's appeal may also, paradoxically, have shattered the illusion. The moment at which one looks forensically at the problematic textual tradition that bears the pope's name, as Berno does, is surely also the moment that the notion of papal responsibility becomes untenable. Yet if chant can be deemed authoritative through appealing to a more universalizing logic—as Berno seems to do for the texts in De varia psalmorum, and as music theorists had long sought to achieve for the melodies—then what better token of that authority than a Church Father? And what better Church Father than one widely believed to have had an aural encounter with the Holy Spirit? As Hiley says, this helps to explain the otherwise implausible rush of new additions to the Romano-Frankish repertory in this period.159 It also explains why Berno's near contemporary Guido of Arezzo equates Gregory's authority not with the chants but with the rules that now underlie them, and why Pseudo-Odo reports that, through the pope's mediation, musica “is undergirded by authority not only human but also divine.”160 In this subtle rereading Gregory is not the divinely inspired author of chant but the emblem of its divine authority.

If De varia psalmorum is valuable for its insights into eleventh-century musical thought, it also teaches us a lesson about the substance of chant in this period, and hence the means by which we approach its written evidence. While many of the arguments presented here rely on the ready availability of collated manuscripts in the CANTUS database,161 we quickly learn that neither that resource nor its original model, Hesbert's CAO, is optimized for the historical “heat” that Berno's text appears to document. While our author shows an interest in the arrangement of manuscripts, even apparently citing Gregory as an authority, his far greater concern is the crucial adjectival ending or conjunction on which the truth of the divine utterance—and hence the legitimacy of the chant in question—turns. We can alert ourselves to this history by combing the critical apparatus, but databases tend to prioritize the larger constitution of repertories over the minutiae of variance, such that we may gain false impressions of congruity. That said, much of what Berno writes is designed precisely to uphold that congruity, and to smooth over the problems that might otherwise be apparent to us from the manuscript pages. In this way De varia psalmorum helps us to appreciate how singing practices could be a source of confusion and challenge beneath the surface, in much the same way that frictions inevitably persist, unwritten, in the written liturgical traditions of today. Berno's text is thus particularly to be valued for reasserting the role of human actors in a musical history that, in some readings, can appear relatively passive. Variation in the Romano-Frankish repertory of the tenth and eleventh centuries should not simply be seen as a pernicious by-product of transmission, even if that was a factor, just as the absence of variation is not proof of stability. The likely reality, however imperceptible, is that the content of these chant books, both changing and unchanging, was the object of ongoing intellectual engagement throughout the Middle Ages, as well-meaning individuals sought to steer their repertory toward one kind of authority or another. Whether or not Berno was alone in this endeavor in the eleventh century remains to be seen, but the congruence of his arguments with wider intellectual discourses of the period—as well as with at least one prominent set of twelfth-century antiphoners—should now be clear.

These findings render it all the more ironic that previous assessments of De varia psalmorum have written it off as non-musical, or rather as insufficiently concerned with melody to be of musicological concern.162 While it is true that Berno devotes his attention solely to matters of text, it is neither difficult nor problematic to make inferences about the sounding repertory at large, since this was self-evidently the author's ultimate concern. Indeed, we learn something about melody simply from Berno's angle of attack: when it comes to assessing the legitimacy of a composition, melody has to be a secondary issue. No matter how perfect its sequence of tones, a chant is nothing if it promotes heresy; and no composition is too tuneful to escape the claws of a grammarian. We can be confident that this was the author's perspective in De varia psalmorum because of the way in which notations are deployed in a supporting role, functioning specifically to adapt old melodies to new texts. This gives cause to reflect on the nature of melodic change back when it all began, for even if notated archetypes were being promulgated to Frankish churches far and wide ca. 800, as some have argued, subsequent attempts at textual emendation would have necessitated further rewriting. Even in the eleventh century, it seems, textual authority remained a primary consideration.

It could be argued that, with the growth of musical literacy and pedagogy in the eleventh century, conceptions of chant were soon to shift away from the issues under Berno's consideration, from a practice in which the words of scripture were actively projected through melody (chant as process) to a musical way of being that was more literate, and therefore literal, and in which a singular written authority for liturgical singing was not only conceivable but also preferable (chant as object). If so, it may be that the various tensions reported in De varia psalmorum were shortly to recede from view, hidden behind Gregory's imposing façade. (This might also explain our text's limited transmission.) Or it may be that musicians were simply becoming hardened to the many intractable problems that accompanied their now canonical musical legacy. Presumably the great majority of people continued to sing whatever it was they knew, safe in the knowledge that one or other of the Church Fathers had given it legitimacy, or at the very least in the hope that God could hear them. That is certainly what the written testimony of chant books tends to suggest. But it was clearly a different situation for our author, whose offering evokes something of the honored professor emeritus in Ingmar Bergman's 1957 film Wild Strawberries, with which my article shares its title. There is no comparable melancholy in De varia psalmorum, however, because for the elderly abbot the disunity of received opinion could be tuned into harmony, and the distasteful problems of liturgical song could be shown to offer up delectable truths. As his letter to Henry III reveals, these morsels could even be fed upon and chewed over, as a way of refreshing the king's mind. The texts of Romano-Frankish chant were not the sole domain of Pope Gregory, we learn, but a microcosm of human activity, thought, and experience.

Appendix

Chants quoted or otherwise alluded to in De varia psalmorum, in order of appearance

Subject under considerationGenreChantCAOAction
Explained/left aloneAlteredRejected
Psalter translations in the liturgy (Gerbert chs. 1–5) Antiphon Servite domino in timore 4876   
Communion Servite domino in timore    
Offertory Iustitiae domini rectae    
Tract Adnunciabunt caeli    
Offertory In te speravi domine    
Alleluia Gaudete iusti in domino    
Communion Gaudete iusti in domino    
Introit Clamaverunt iusti    
Offertory Terra tremuit et quievit    
Introit Exultate deo adiutori    
Versicle Scapulis suis    
Offertory Si ambulavero    
Tract Eripe me domine    
Responsory Educ de carcere 6622   
Introit Sancti tui domine    
Gradual Prope est dominus    
Isaiah in the liturgy (Gerbert ch. 6) Introit Puer natus est    
Antiphon Sancti qui sperant 4734   
Responsory Illuminare illuminare 6882   
Responsory [Venit lumen tuum] V. Filii tui de longe 7833a   
Introit Sitientes venite ad aquas    
Grammatical or other reworkings of scripture in chant (Gerbert chs. 7–12, recte 7–11) Offertory Domine Iesu Christe    
Responsory Aspiciens a longe 6129   
Introit In excelso throno    
Responsory Vidi speciosam 7878   
Introit Dicit dominus sermones meos    
Antiphon Concussum est mare 1864   
Alleluia Concussum est mare    
Antiphon Sancti estis dicit dominus 4728   
Responsory Suscipe verbum virgo 7744   
Responsory Annuntiatum est 6103   
Responsory Descendit de caelis missus 6411   
Responsory Descendit de caelis deus verus 6410   
Responsory Sancta et immaculata V. Benedicta tu 7569a   
Antiphon Dum ortus fuerit 2462   
Antiphon O sapientia 4081   
Antiphon O Adonai 3988   
Antiphon O radix Iesse 4075   
Antiphon O clavis David 4010   
Antiphon O oriens 4050   
Antiphon O rex gentium 4078   
Antiphon O Emmanuel 4025   
Antiphon Mirabile mysterium 3763   
Responsory In columbae speciae 6892   
Responsory Alleluia mane apud nos hodie 6075   
Responsory Alleluia dum presens est 6071   
Responsory Alleluia delectatio bona 6070   
Responsory Angelus domini bonus 6091   
Responsory Multiplicentur a domino 7188   
Responsory Alleluia nomen bonum 6076   
Responsory Si oblitus fuero 7653   
Responsory Salus nostra 7559   
Responsory verses and their use of scripture (Gerbert chs. 13–14, recte 12–13) Responsory Ave Maria gratia plena V. Quomodo fiet 6157a   
Responsory Ecce dominus veniet V. Ecce dominus cum 6586b   
Responsory Ierusalem plantabis vineam V. Exsulta satis 7033b   
Responsory Bethleem civitas dei V. Loquetur pacem 6254c   
Responsory Suscipe verbum virgo V. Paries quidem 7744b   
Responsory Aegypte nole flere V. Ecce veniet dominus 6056b   
Responsory Descendet dominus V. Et adorabunt eum 6408b   
Responsory Ecce radix Iesse V. Dabit ei dominus 6606b   
Responsory Docebit nos dominus V. Venite ascendamus 6481b   
Responsory Canite tuba V. Annuntiate in finibus 6265b   
Responsory Virgo Israel revertere V. In caritate perpetua 7903b   
Responsory Iuravi dicit dominus V. Iuxta est salus mea 7045b   
Responsory Clama in fortitudine V. Super montem 6292a   
Responsory Orietur stella ex Iacob V. Et adorabunt eum 7338b   
Responsory Egredietur dominus V. Et elevabitur super 6640b   
Responsory Praecursor pro nobis V. Ipse est rex iustitiae 7421b   
Responsory Videbunt gentes V. Et eris corona gloriae 7854a   
Responsory Radix Iesse V. Super ipsum continebunt 7508b   
Responsory Congratulamini mihi V. Beatam me dicent 6322b   
Responsory Continet in gremio V. Maternis vehitur 6333e   
Responsory Patefactae sunt V. Mortem enim 7358a   
Responsory Qui vicerit faciam illum. V. Vincenti dabo 7486b   
Responsory Magi veniunt V. Vidimus stellam eius 7112a   
Responsory Omnipotens adorande V. Te confiteor 7318b   
Responsory Agatha laetissima V. Nobilissimis orta 6061b   
Responsory Erit mihi V. Si reversus fuero 6668b   
Responsory Audi Israel V. Observa igitur 6143b   
Responsory Opprobrium factus V. Locuti sunt 7325c   
Responsory O Iuda V. Corpore tantum 7272b   
Responsory Surgens Iesus V. Una ergo sabbatorum 7734b   
Responsory Isti sunt agni V. In conspectu agni 7012a   
Responsory De ore prudentis V. Sapientia requiescit 6396b   
Responsory Locutus est V. Et sustulit me in spiritu 7096b   
Responsory Haec est Ierusalem V. Portae eius non 6803b   
Responsory Non conturbetur V. Ego rogabo patrem 7225b   
Responsory Priusquam te V. Posui verba mea 7435   
Responsory Praecursor domini V. Hic est enim 7420b   
Responsory Puer meus V. Liberabo te de manu 7449b   
Responsory O Hippolyte si credis V. Si dictis inquit 7271a   
Responsory Hic est vir V. Strinxerunt corporis 6831   
Responsory In conspectu gentium V. Cantate domino 6895b   
Responsory O beatum virum V. Oculis ac manibus 7258   
Responsory O beata Caecilia V. Beata es virgo 7253b   
Responsory Virgo gloriosa V. Cilicio Caecilia membra 7902b   
Responsory Cilicio Caecilia V. Non diebus neque 6284a   
Responsory Beata Caecilia V. Sicut enim amor dei 6161c   
Responsory Caecilia me misit V. Inveniens Valerianus 6258   
Responsory Dilexit Andream V. Elegit eum dominus 6451b   
Responsory Exaudisti domine V. Domine qui custodis 6688a   
Responsory Domine si conversus V. Si peccaverit in te 6514a   
Responsory Initium sapientiae V. Dilectio illius custodia 6967b   
Responsory Peto domine V. Omnia iudicia tua 7381a   
Responsory Tempus est V. Benedicite deum caeli 7759a   
Responsory Domine rex V. Exaudi orationem 6511a   
Responsory Spem in alium V. Domine deus caeli 7684a   
Responsory Tua est potentia V. Creator omnium deus 7793a   
Responsory Tu domine universorum V. Tu domine cui 7786   
Responsory Disrumpam vicula V. Revertar Ierusalem 6461b   
Responsory Muro tuo inexpugnabili V. Erue nos 7192a   
Responsory Civitatem istam V. Avertatur furor tuus 6291a   
Responsory Qui caelorum V. Non enim 7471a   
Responsory In sudore V. Pro eo quod oboedisti 6937a   
Responsory [Dixit Iudas fratribus] V. Cumque abisset 6477a   
Responsory Dum deambularet V. Domine audivi 6537b   
Subject under considerationGenreChantCAOAction
Explained/left aloneAlteredRejected
Psalter translations in the liturgy (Gerbert chs. 1–5) Antiphon Servite domino in timore 4876   
Communion Servite domino in timore    
Offertory Iustitiae domini rectae    
Tract Adnunciabunt caeli    
Offertory In te speravi domine    
Alleluia Gaudete iusti in domino    
Communion Gaudete iusti in domino    
Introit Clamaverunt iusti    
Offertory Terra tremuit et quievit    
Introit Exultate deo adiutori    
Versicle Scapulis suis    
Offertory Si ambulavero    
Tract Eripe me domine    
Responsory Educ de carcere 6622   
Introit Sancti tui domine    
Gradual Prope est dominus    
Isaiah in the liturgy (Gerbert ch. 6) Introit Puer natus est    
Antiphon Sancti qui sperant 4734   
Responsory Illuminare illuminare 6882   
Responsory [Venit lumen tuum] V. Filii tui de longe 7833a   
Introit Sitientes venite ad aquas    
Grammatical or other reworkings of scripture in chant (Gerbert chs. 7–12, recte 7–11) Offertory Domine Iesu Christe    
Responsory Aspiciens a longe 6129   
Introit In excelso throno    
Responsory Vidi speciosam 7878   
Introit Dicit dominus sermones meos    
Antiphon Concussum est mare 1864   
Alleluia Concussum est mare    
Antiphon Sancti estis dicit dominus 4728   
Responsory Suscipe verbum virgo 7744   
Responsory Annuntiatum est 6103   
Responsory Descendit de caelis missus 6411   
Responsory Descendit de caelis deus verus 6410   
Responsory Sancta et immaculata V. Benedicta tu 7569a   
Antiphon Dum ortus fuerit 2462   
Antiphon O sapientia 4081   
Antiphon O Adonai 3988   
Antiphon O radix Iesse 4075   
Antiphon O clavis David 4010   
Antiphon O oriens 4050   
Antiphon O rex gentium 4078   
Antiphon O Emmanuel 4025   
Antiphon Mirabile mysterium 3763   
Responsory In columbae speciae 6892   
Responsory Alleluia mane apud nos hodie 6075   
Responsory Alleluia dum presens est 6071   
Responsory Alleluia delectatio bona 6070   
Responsory Angelus domini bonus 6091   
Responsory Multiplicentur a domino 7188   
Responsory Alleluia nomen bonum 6076   
Responsory Si oblitus fuero 7653   
Responsory Salus nostra 7559   
Responsory verses and their use of scripture (Gerbert chs. 13–14, recte 12–13) Responsory Ave Maria gratia plena V. Quomodo fiet 6157a   
Responsory Ecce dominus veniet V. Ecce dominus cum 6586b   
Responsory Ierusalem plantabis vineam V. Exsulta satis 7033b   
Responsory Bethleem civitas dei V. Loquetur pacem 6254c   
Responsory Suscipe verbum virgo V. Paries quidem 7744b   
Responsory Aegypte nole flere V. Ecce veniet dominus 6056b   
Responsory Descendet dominus V. Et adorabunt eum 6408b   
Responsory Ecce radix Iesse V. Dabit ei dominus 6606b   
Responsory Docebit nos dominus V. Venite ascendamus 6481b   
Responsory Canite tuba V. Annuntiate in finibus 6265b   
Responsory Virgo Israel revertere V. In caritate perpetua 7903b   
Responsory Iuravi dicit dominus V. Iuxta est salus mea 7045b   
Responsory Clama in fortitudine V. Super montem 6292a   
Responsory Orietur stella ex Iacob V. Et adorabunt eum 7338b   
Responsory Egredietur dominus V. Et elevabitur super 6640b   
Responsory Praecursor pro nobis V. Ipse est rex iustitiae 7421b   
Responsory Videbunt gentes V. Et eris corona gloriae 7854a   
Responsory Radix Iesse V. Super ipsum continebunt 7508b   
Responsory Congratulamini mihi V. Beatam me dicent 6322b   
Responsory Continet in gremio V. Maternis vehitur 6333e   
Responsory Patefactae sunt V. Mortem enim 7358a   
Responsory Qui vicerit faciam illum. V. Vincenti dabo 7486b   
Responsory Magi veniunt V. Vidimus stellam eius 7112a   
Responsory Omnipotens adorande V. Te confiteor 7318b   
Responsory Agatha laetissima V. Nobilissimis orta 6061b   
Responsory Erit mihi V. Si reversus fuero 6668b   
Responsory Audi Israel V. Observa igitur 6143b   
Responsory Opprobrium factus V. Locuti sunt 7325c   
Responsory O Iuda V. Corpore tantum 7272b   
Responsory Surgens Iesus V. Una ergo sabbatorum 7734b   
Responsory Isti sunt agni V. In conspectu agni 7012a   
Responsory De ore prudentis V. Sapientia requiescit 6396b   
Responsory Locutus est V. Et sustulit me in spiritu 7096b   
Responsory Haec est Ierusalem V. Portae eius non 6803b   
Responsory Non conturbetur V. Ego rogabo patrem 7225b   
Responsory Priusquam te V. Posui verba mea 7435   
Responsory Praecursor domini V. Hic est enim 7420b   
Responsory Puer meus V. Liberabo te de manu 7449b   
Responsory O Hippolyte si credis V. Si dictis inquit 7271a   
Responsory Hic est vir V. Strinxerunt corporis 6831   
Responsory In conspectu gentium V. Cantate domino 6895b   
Responsory O beatum virum V. Oculis ac manibus 7258   
Responsory O beata Caecilia V. Beata es virgo 7253b   
Responsory Virgo gloriosa V. Cilicio Caecilia membra 7902b   
Responsory Cilicio Caecilia V. Non diebus neque 6284a   
Responsory Beata Caecilia V. Sicut enim amor dei 6161c   
Responsory Caecilia me misit V. Inveniens Valerianus 6258   
Responsory Dilexit Andream V. Elegit eum dominus 6451b   
Responsory Exaudisti domine V. Domine qui custodis 6688a   
Responsory Domine si conversus V. Si peccaverit in te 6514a   
Responsory Initium sapientiae V. Dilectio illius custodia 6967b   
Responsory Peto domine V. Omnia iudicia tua 7381a   
Responsory Tempus est V. Benedicite deum caeli 7759a   
Responsory Domine rex V. Exaudi orationem 6511a   
Responsory Spem in alium V. Domine deus caeli 7684a   
Responsory Tua est potentia V. Creator omnium deus 7793a   
Responsory Tu domine universorum V. Tu domine cui 7786   
Responsory Disrumpam vicula V. Revertar Ierusalem 6461b   
Responsory Muro tuo inexpugnabili V. Erue nos 7192a   
Responsory Civitatem istam V. Avertatur furor tuus 6291a   
Responsory Qui caelorum V. Non enim 7471a   
Responsory In sudore V. Pro eo quod oboedisti 6937a   
Responsory [Dixit Iudas fratribus] V. Cumque abisset 6477a   
Responsory Dum deambularet V. Domine audivi 6537b   

Notes

Notes
Earlier versions of this article were presented at meetings of the American Musicological Society in Milwaukee, WI, in November 2014 and the Medieval Academy of America at Notre Dame, IN, in March 2015. For their assistance in helping me to trace the missing Berno manuscript I thank Bob Kosovsky of New York Public Library and Roland Schmidt-Hensel of the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin. For their valuable contributions and reflections I thank Sam Barrett, Sean Curran, Daniel DiCenso, C. Stephen Jaeger, Lori Kruckenberg, Alejandro Planchart, Susan Rankin, Anna Zayaruznaya, and my anonymous readers. Thanks also to the members of the Covent Garden Seminar at the University of Cambridge and the Medieval Song Lab at Yale University for reading early drafts.
1.
Berno of Reichenau, Die Briefe, 64–65 (letter no. 29). There is no scholarly consensus on whether to adopt the Latinate “Berno” or the Germanic “Bern”; for the sake of consistency within my own work I use the former here. The dating to the 1040s is not internal to the text, but has been deduced by scholars from a complicated coincidence of factors, including Berno's documented relationship with Henry III, the characteristic form of address in the letter, the suggestion within the main text that the author is elderly, and the absence of the letter from an extensive collection dated to 1043–44; see Blanchard, “Notes sur les œuvres,” 100; Schmale, “Zu den Briefen,” 88; and Oesch, Berno und Hermann, 54–55, 74. As will later become clear, this dating is plausible on several further grounds. On the famous Benedictine community of Reichenau, located on an island in the Bodensee, see Beyerle, Die Kultur der Abtei Reichenau, and Maurer, Die Abtei Reichenau; on music there during Berno's lifetime, see Oesch, Berno und Hermann, and Klaper, Die Musikgeschichte.
2.
Berno of Reichenau, Die Briefe, 65: “Post sacras spiritualium patrum lectiones, post referta divine scripture fercula, quibus assidue mentem refovetis, nostris dictaciunculis rogo ut uti velitis velud humi nascentibus fragis.” In this and all subsequent quotations from editions of Latin texts I have standardized the orthography and have modified punctuation where sense requires it. Manuscript readings are preferred wherever the existing printed editions prove inadequate, and these are transcribed according to the same policy, with abbreviations silently expanded. Translations are my own unless otherwise specified.
3.
For a fuller sense of his interests and talents, see the summary catalogs in Oesch, Berno und Hermann, 43–83, and Blume, Bern von Reichenau, 81–114. Berno's correspondence is edited in Berno of Reichenau, Die Briefe, where a good example of mixed interests is letter no. 27, partially printed on pages 56–64. Berno also basks in the reflected glory of his pupil Herman of Reichenau (Hermannus Contractus), on whose comparable achievements see Oesch, Berno und Hermann, 135–83.
4.
Berno of Reichenau, Die Briefe, 64: “Etsi minus sapientie sale conditas.”
5.
The essay on Christ's soul is not known to have survived, while the sermons are transmitted separately, as described in Oesch, Berno und Hermann, 61–64; in what follows I am concerned solely with the portion on music and liturgy.
6.
Illustrative of the work's neglect are two recent book-length studies of Reichenau musical thought and practice, in each of which De varia psalmorum merits little more than a sentence: Klaper, Die Musikgeschichte, 24, and McCarthy, Music, Scholasticism and Reform, 20. Brief references also appear in Huglo, “Les remaniements,” 119, and Hiley, “Cantate Domino canticum novum,” 130. An exception is the extended discussion in Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, 3:1–36, which provides some valuable context but is also densely polemical. The work's title was fashioned for the edition of it in Gerbert, Scriptores ecclesiastici, 2:91–114; this edition was later reproduced in PL, vol. 142, cols. 1131–54. For the sake of clarity, all subsequent citations will include the relevant chapter and page numbers from Gerbert's Scriptores ecclesiastici, vol. 2, and column numbers from PL, vol. 142. (Chapters 10–14 in Gerbert are misnumbered 11–15.) Variants found in individual manuscripts will be cited with folio numbers.
7.
These three authors are the principal subjects of Huglo, “Les remaniements.”
8.
See ibid., 90–91; see also Waddell, “Origin and Early Evolution,” and Hiley, Western Plainchant, 608–15.
9.
On the invocation of Pope Gregory as a musical authority, see Hucke, “Die Entstehung der Überlieferung”; Stäblein, “‘Gregorius Praesul’”; and Treitler, “Homer and Gregory.” The Carolingian empire cast a long shadow over subsequent centuries, as recently summarized in MacLean, “Carolingian Past.”
10.
See, most recently, Atkinson, Critical Nexus, 202–33; see also McCarthy, Music, Scholasticism and Reform. On our author's role as theorist, to be considered further below, see Oesch, Berno und Hermann, 84–116, and Rausch, Die Musiktraktate.
11.
The melodic differences are clear in various Solesmes publications, above all Le graduel romain; for the textual differences, see Hesbert, Antiphonale missarum sextuplex and Corpus antiphonalium officii (henceforth CAO); for repertorial differences, see CANTUS: A Database for Latin Ecclesiastical Chant, accessed August 1, 2015, http://cantusdatabase.org, which incorporates all of the material from CAO.
12.
See, for example, Guido of Arezzo's famous comments in the Prologus in antiphonarium, one of which is quoted below; see also Hiley, “Thurstan of Caen.”
13.
The classic study of this relationship remains Marbach, Carmina scripturarum.
14.
On this history, see Hucke, “Die Entstehung der Überlieferung,” 264, which traces the first instance of “Gregorian chants” (“Gregoriana carmina”) to a letter from Pope Leo IV to Honoratus of Farfa, ca. 850. An equivalent phrase appears not long afterward in John the Deacon, Vita sancti Gregorii magni (col. 91), an extremely popular text whose transmission is documented in Castaldi, Vita Gregorii I Papae.
15.
See, principally, Gregory the Great, Homiliae in Hiezechihelem prophetam 1.10, in which volumes are eaten and scripture devoured; see also Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob 1.20.31. Similar metaphors are also used by Berno in Die Briefe, 46 (letter no. 13), and by his pupil Herman of Reichenau in “Musica” of Hermannus Contractus, 140–41.
16.
Blanchard, “Notes sur les œuvres.”
17.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum (no chapter number), 91 (PL, col. 1131), which preserves the reading in Heidelberg IX,20, fol. 69r. See also Berlin 95, fol. 1r, in which the variant reading “Bernhardus” can be plausibly explained as an incorrect expansion of “Bern,” executed by a scribe working some four hundred years after the fact.
18.
Blanchard, “Notes sur les œuvres,” 107: the word used is “téméraire.”
19.
Berno of Reichenau, Die Briefe, 64 (letter no. 29): “Preterea subieci series narrationum aliquas … eorum tamen victus amore qui me super hac re studuerunt rogare, videlicet: de dissona psalterii Romani ac Gallicani qua nos utimur interpretatione; de quibusdam Esaye prophete sermonibus; de versibus minus cum responsoriis convenientibus; de antiphonis vel responsoriis non regulariter nec convenienter se habentibus; de intermissione alleluie et eius cantuum verbis. Qui cantus in septuagesime dominica ad matutinas laudes solet dimitti.” Owing to the ambiguous form of “victus,” the phrase “for love of the nourishment of those” might also be rendered as “conquered by love of those.”
20.
Blanchard, “Notes sur les œuvres,” 102: “Au lieu de cinq dissertations détachées … ses disciples ont jugé bon de composer un ouvrage d'ensemble, dont le titre unique répond mal au contenu et promet moins qu'il ne donne.”
21.
This is what we find in Gushee and Pesce, “Berno of Reichenau.” The text is not listed among Berno's musical writings in Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart; see Rausch, “Bern, von Reichenau.”
22.
The point about liturgical commentary is that its subject tends to resist systematic engagement. Unless there is an obvious means of subdividing the topic (e.g., successive actions in the Mass, dates in the calendar, or objects in the liturgy), chapters often proceed instead by association. The point at hand is underlined by Susan Rankin's concession that “such a recital of textual problems” among Carolingian Mass books may leave “the reader dizzy”; she concludes that “it is most unlikely that any one scribe … was able to deal directly with all of the issues raised here.” In those sentiments Berno's work is inadvertently encapsulated. See Rankin, “Making of Carolingian Mass Chant Books,” 50.
23.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum (no chapter number), 91 (PL, col. 1131): “Quatenus velut hoc quodam iacto sermonis fundamento, nostrae narrationis aedificium solidius surgat in altum.” Berlin 95, fol. 1r, preserves the variant “altius” for “solidius,” i.e., “grow upward ever higher.”
24.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 11 (recte 10), 108 (PL, col. 1149).
25.
Gerbert, Scriptores ecclesiastici, 2:91–114. On the dating, see Hoffmann, Buchkunst und Königtum, 1:320–21. My discussion will exclude the eighteenth-century manuscript Bologna A.43, as listed in Oesch, Berno und Hermann, 54, because it belonged to Gerbert's friend and collaborator Padre Martini.
26.
On the Erfurt provenance, see Blanchard, “Notes sur les œuvres,” 99.
27.
Riemann, Geschichte der Musiktheorie, ch. 3, 51–72. The text has since been reedited in Rausch, Die Musiktraktate, 31–68. A critical edition of the Libellus de quibusdam rebus is overdue; for now see PL, vol. 142, cols. 1055–80.
28.
See Versteigerung der Musikbibliothek, 2:7–8, where the booklet has the title “De dissona psalterii romani ac gallicani qua nos utimur interpretatione.” At the Staatsbibliothek the manuscript is cataloged as Mus.ms.theor. 95; the names are inscribed on a register enclosed in the front of the manuscript, the last twentieth-century consultation being dated to August 1938.
29.
Schmale, “Zu den Briefen,” 88.
30.
Rochester ML92 1100. On the events surrounding the purchase, see Goldberg and Lindahl, “Gathering the Sources,” 18–20. Also in attendance at the 1929 sale was Otto Kinkeldey, later president of the American Musicological Society.
31.
These texts are found in Berlin 95, fols. 7v–8r, 8r–v, and 7v, respectively, and they correspond to Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 8, 106 (PL, col. 1146) (after “ossa eorum comminuerunt”), ch. 9, 107 (PL, col. 1147) (after “invenire possumus”), and ch. 8, 105 (PL, col. 1145) (after “auctoritate sumpserint”). These supporting paragraphs will be reedited at a future date; for the purposes of this article relevant texts will be cited from the manuscript, which is now available online at http://resolver.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/SBB00018F5200000000 (accessed July 16, 2016).
32.
See, for example, Gushee and Pesce, “Berno of Reichenau.”
33.
See above.
34.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum (no chapter number), 91 (PL, col. 1131): “Fraternae dilectionis tuae rogatu compulsus o Meginfride aliquid tibi scribere.”
35.
I refer to the famous opposing accounts of John the Deacon and Notker Balbulus, and to the events at Glastonbury Abbey in 1081 or 1083; see, respectively, Rankin, “Ways of Telling Stories,” 371–76, and Hiley, “Thurstan of Caen.”
36.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum (no chapter number), 91 (PL, col. 1131): “de varia psalmorum atque cantuum modulatione, quae dissimiliter vel confuse solet in ecclesia fieri.”
37.
Ibid., ch. 5, 101 (PL, col. 1141).
38.
Tract text transcribed from Saint Gall 359, pp. 98–99; psalm text from Karlsruhe 38, fols. 191r–v, col. 1 (my emphasis). For the suggestion that this tract is non-Roman and potentially insular, and for a more detailed account of textual differences, see Hornby, Medieval Liturgical Chant, 136–38, 149–50, 280–82.
39.
Psalm 42:1 (New Revised Standard Version). As it happens, Berno discusses the equally familiar Latin equivalent, the Gallican “Quemadmodum” and the Roman “Sicut cervus” (Psalm 41 in the Vulgate): Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 5, 95 (PL, col. 1135).
40.
For a summary of the arguments that follow, see Dyer, “Latin Psalters,” 13–14.
41.
Walahfrid Strabo, Libellus de exordiis et incrementis, 166–67: “quae plerique et verbis et sono se a ceteris cantibus discernere posse fatentur” (English translation from the same edition).
42.
Rankin, “Making of Carolingian Mass Chant Books,” 48–51.
43.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 4, 93 (PL, col. 1133): “Romanis adhuc ex corrupta vulgata editione psalterium canentibus, ex qua Romani cantum composuerunt nobisque usum cantandi contradiderunt.”
44.
Ibid.: “Unde accidit, quod verba quae in diurnis, vel in nocturnis officiis canendi more modulantur, intermisceantur et confuse nostris psalmis inserantur, ut a minus peritis haut facile possit discerni quid nostrae vel Romanae conveniat editioni.”
45.
The exception is the offertory “Iustitiae domini,” whose rendering of Psalm 18 jumps from verse 9 to verse 11; Berno suggests a small grammatical adjustment, not because he prefers one translation to another, but because it smoothes over the textual apostrophe: ibid., ch. 5, 95 (PL, col. 1135).
46.
Ibid., ch. 6, 102 (PL, col. 1142): “Multi non solum litterarum scientia minus perfecti, verum etiam liberalibus artibus eruditi, solent in hoc propheta multo aliter quam veritas se habeat in lectione distinguere vel cantu verba proferre.”
47.
Ibid., ch. 8, 105 (PL, col. 1145): “Et mirum in modum, dum quidam huius mundi sapientes videri et esse volunt, per superstitiosam intelligentiam sacrae scripturae verba suo sensui applicare conantur, et verba quae ipsa dei virtus et dei sapientia per se protulit, vel spiritus sanctus per ora prophetarum ac apostolorum praedixit, aliter secundum Donatum et Priscianum permutando canunt et dicunt.” Donatus and Priscian were the twin authorities on grammar, and household names for any medieval individual with an education.
48.
Ibid. (PL, col. 1146): “Ubi canimus ‘Libera animas omnium fidelium defunctorum de manu inferni, et de profundo laci’ aliqui, cum quodam mentis coturno, canunt ‘de profundo lacus,’ minus adtendentes quod illud nomen ‘lacus’ genitivum iuxta utramque declinationem, id est secundam et quartam, solet proferre. Verum secundum idioma sacrae scripturae sepius solet poni ‘laci’ quam ‘lacus,’ praecipue ubi altas foveas et abyssum vel profundum inferni designatur” (original spellings reinstated from Berlin 95, fol. 7v, and Heidelberg IX,20, fol. 77r).
49.
For this extra passage, see below.
50.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 8, 106 (PL, col. 1146): “Iure igitur censemus illius auctoritatem magis sequi, cuius labia mundata sunt igne caelesti, quam magisterium alicuius doctoris grammatici” (“doctoris” is reinstated from Berlin 95, fol. 7v, and Heidelberg IX,20, fol. 77r; the printed edition has “auctoris”). For the story of the cleansed lips, see Isaiah 6:6–7.
51.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 8, 106 (PL, col. 1146), after Jerome, Commentariorum in Matthaeum 1.1730, on Matthew 10:29: “Prudens lector, semper cave superstitiosam intelligentiam, ut non tuo sensui adtemperes scripturas, scripturis sensum tuum adiungas.” Berno's use of this passage has been discussed heatedly, but largely because of a misapprehension about the text: the crucial conjunction “sed” (but), previously thought to have been a deliberate omission, is in fact present in Berlin 95, fol. 8r. For a sense of the arguments without the benefit of that finding, see Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, 3:34–35.
52.
On the non-scriptural and apocryphal portions of the repertory, see, among others, Rose, Ritual Memory, and Fulton, “‘Quae est ista.’”
53.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 8, 106 (PL, col. 1147): “Debitum honorem divinis eloquiis conservare.”
54.
Ibid., ch. 6, 102 (PL, cols. 1142–43), based on Isaiah 9:6: “In illo introitu, quem canimus in die natalis domini ‘Puer natus est nobis, et filius datus est nobis,’ nostra translatio secundum Hebraicam veritatem habet: ‘parvulus natus est nobis, filius datus est nobis’; et pro eo, quod canimus ‘cuius imperium super humerum eius,’ Hebraica veritas habet: ‘Et factus est principatus super humerum eius’; et pro eo quod canimus ‘et vocabitur nomen eius magni consilii angelus,’ in Hebraeo sex nomina habentur: ‘admirabilis, consiliarius, deus, fortis, pater futuri seculi, princeps pacis.’” Berno proceeds to condemn those who list only five names by fusing the third and fourth, the very arrangement preserved in the King James Bible and, in turn, in Handel's Messiah.
55.
See, for example, Rankin, “Beyond the Boundaries,” 229–30, and Fulton, “‘Quae est ista,’” 93.
56.
There survives no justification for this practice, only a lone condemnation from the twelfth century: see Morin, “Un critique en liturgie.”
57.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, chs. 9–12 (recte 9–11), 106–10 (PL, cols. 1147–51); see also the  Appendix below.
58.
Ibid., ch. 9, 107 (PL, col. 1147): “Sed quia deus veritas est, debuit veritatem dicere qui de eo talia praesumit proferre.”
59.
Berlin 95, fol. 8r–v, here fol. 8v: “quecumque sui fideles de eo dicere possunt ab ipso accipiunt.” (The quoted sentence is located within a larger portion of text added to Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 9, 107 (PL, col. 1147).)
60.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 9, 106–7 (PL, col. 1147).
61.
The pastiche in question is the Cogitis me, also known as Pseudo-Jerome's epistle to Paula and Eustochium. On the relationship between this text and the chant “Vidi speciosam,” see Fulton, “‘Quae est ista,’” 92–95.
62.
Berno here alludes to a previously undocumented performance practice for the “O” antiphons, whereby each chant corresponds to a fixed day, from the Fourth Sunday of Advent (“O sapientia”) to the following Friday (“O Emmanuel”); the next chant in the sequence is sung only if Christmas has not yet arrived. On Berno's existing interest in this calendar, see Berno of Reichenau, Die Briefe, 39–46 (letter no. 13), and Parkes, Making of Liturgy, 205–6.
63.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 11 (recte 10), 109 (PL, col. 1149): “Quas ideo notare curavi, ut aperte daretur intelligi illas solas esse quae regulariter ac recte compositae videntur ad adventum dominicum invitandum pertinere.”
64.
Ibid., ch. 12 (recte 11), 110 (PL, col. 1150): “Huius nocturni officii auctor a quibusdam reprehenditur, eo quod sine sacrae scripturae testimonio ad ipsum alleluia quasi quandam personam alloquendo, talem musicae cantilenae narrationem studuerit contexere.”
65.
See Robert, “Les adieux à l'alleluia.”
66.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 12 (recte 11), 110 (PL, col. 1150): “Nos ea quae ex autenticis scripturis aliquo modo sumpta cognovimus reticere nolumus” (spelling from Berlin 95, fol. 9v, and Heidelberg IX,20, fol. 79v).
67.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 11 (recte 10), 109 (PL, col. 1150).
68.
Ibid., ch. 9, 108 (PL, col. 1148).
69.
Ibid., ch. 13 (recte 12), 111 (PL, col. 1151): “Responsa cum quibus versus sui minime concordant sed sensu et verbis multum discrepant” (Berlin 95, fol. 10r, has “responsoria”). On the similarity of this endeavor to that of the ninth-century abbot Helisachar, see below.
70.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 13 (recte 12), 111 (PL, col. 1151).
71.
Ibid.
72.
Ibid., ch. 7, 105 (PL, col. 1145), quoting from Agobard of Lyon, De antiphonario, ch. 11, 344: “Preces et orationes, nisi probatae fuerint non dicantur, nec aliqua ex his omnino canantur in ecclesia, nisi quae a prudentioribus tractata et comprobata fuerint in synodo, ne forte aliquid contra fidem, vel per ignorantiam, vel per studium sit compositum.” The canon is associated with the early fifth-century councils of Milevis and Carthage, and was copied in many prominent legal collections available in Berno's time; for a useful overview, and for reference to a further citation in Bernold of Constance's Micrologus, see Taylor, “Bernold of Constance,” 63–65.
73.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 11 (recte 10), 109 (PL, col. 1149).
74.
Ibid., ch. 9, 108 (PL, cols. 1147–48).
75.
For a useful overview, see Steinberg, “‘How Shall This Be?’”
76.
Agobard of Lyon, De antiphonario, ch. 7, 341–42.
77.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 9, 108 (PL, col. 1148): “iure a sapientibus … reprobatum”; “merito refutatur.” For more on this chant and its replacement, see below.
78.
The achievements of these figures are considered variously (and primary sources cited) in scholarship including Huglo, “Les remaniements”; Levy, “Abbot Helisachar's Antiphoner”; Rankin, “Making of Carolingian Mass Chant Books”; Rankin, “Beyond the Boundaries”; and Rankin, “To Speak Well.”
79.
We learn as much from one instance of cultivated deference, when Berno declares that his opinion is his own, derived from his own perception, without prejudice to the wisdom of others: Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 12 (recte 11), 110 (PL, col. 1151) (“hoc enim secundum quod sentio ex me profero, non praeiudicans aliorum prudentiae quos in laude dei studiosos cognosco existere”).
80.
For an overview of the situation, with a discussion of some recently discovered fragments, see Klaper, Die Musikgeschichte, esp. 9–29, 203–25; see also Möller, “Zur Reichenauer Offiziumstradition.” On the twelfth-century antiphoner Karlsruhe 60, once considered to be from Reichenau or nearby Petershausen but now attributed to Zwiefalten, see Möller, Antiphonarium, 7–14. For the claim that the Reichenau tonaries (the one assembled by Berno and the one in Bamberg Lit. 5) represent a missing link between Carolingian Metz and German chant books of the eleventh century, including the important Quedlinburg Antiphoner (Berlin 40047), see Lipphardt, Der karolingische Tonar. This thesis has been discredited, however: Michel Huglo ruled out the connection to Metz, and Harmut Möller has since disassembled Lipphardt's argument by placing the Quedlinburg tradition elsewhere; see Huglo, Les tonaires; Möller, Antiphonarium; and Möller, Das Quedlinburger Antiphonar.
81.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 12 (recte 11), 110 (PL, col. 1151). See Saint Gall 390, p. 134; Saint Gall 413, p. 503; Saint Gall 414, p. 480.
82.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 9, 108 (PL, col. 1148): “In quibusdam codicibus habetur scriptum ‘procedentem a patre, tamquam sponsum de thalamo suo,’ quamvis id ‘a patre’ a modernis sit abrasum.”
83.
See, respectively, Berlin 40047, fol. 17r; Saint Gall 390, p. 44; Karlsruhe 60, fol. 16r; and Rome B 79, fol. 25r.
84.
Agobard of Lyon, De antiphonario, chs. 4–5, 339–40.
85.
It should be mentioned in passing that Berno was once thought to have learned his trade in Fleury, which could otherwise explain the use of non-German materials. For an early challenge to that idea, see Blanchard, “Notes sur les œuvres,” 104–7.
86.
On this history, see above all Huglo, “Division de la tradition monodique”; see also Kruckenberg, “Lotharingian Axis,” and Loos, “Responsory Verses.”
87.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 9, 108 (PL, col. 1148): “‘Descendit de caelis missus ab arce patris introivit per aurem virginis in regionem nostram’ merito refutatur, et pro eo a multis Galliarum ecclesiis, quod subter scribendo subiecimus, taliter modulatur: ‘Descendit de celis deus verus a patre …’”
88.
See Kelly, “Neuma Triplex.”
89.
Agobard of Lyon, De antiphonario, ch. 7, 341–42. On the likely connection between Agobard and the new chant, see Huglo, “Les remaniements,” 111–22, and Catta, “Le texte du répons ‘Descendit,’” 79–81.
90.
This way of employing notation is documented in Rankin, “From Memory to Record,” 105–9, discussed further in Treitler, “Reading and Singing,” 170–77. Neumes are also used in this way in Berno's Prologus in tonarium; on the relationship between these texts, see below.
91.
The manuscripts are surveyed in Catta, “Le texte du répons ‘Descendit.’” As Catta shows, the textual traditions are more diverse than a simple east-west division might imply; the broad categorization nonetheless holds.
92.
Formulae may be sung ex tempore, of course, but the notation ensures that the grammar of the verse will not be misconstrued. This is consonant with the views of the ninth-century theorist Aurelian of Réôme, as discussed in Rankin, “To Speak Well.”
93.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 14 (recte 13), 113 (PL, col. 1154): “Nos non solum eos versus quos in emendatioribus antiphonariis invenire potuimus emendationis causa posuimus, verum etiam alios pro superioribus noviter conditos adnotare curavimus.”
94.
The two examples for which I cannot find earlier concordances are “Caecilia me misit V. Inveniens Valerianus pauperes dixit: ostendite mihi sanctum Urbanum” (CAO 6258, with a verse crafted out of a hagiographical text), and “Hic est vir V. Strinxerunt corporis membra posita in craticula subiicientibus prunas exultat levita Christi beate Laurenti martyr Christi intercede pro nobis” (CAO 6831, with a verse apparently drawn from CAO 7711).
95.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 14 (recte 13), 113 (PL, col. 1154): “Inter haec sciendum quia etsi quidam versus cum suis responsoriis conveniunt, ex nimia tamen assiduitate qua sepius ponuntur, quodammodo vilescunt et fastidium ingerunt. Sicut sunt: ‘Deus a Libano veniet,’ ‘A solis ortu,’ ‘Qui regis Israel,’ multique huiuscemodi.”
96.
Loos, “Responsory Verses.”
97.
On the date and substance of Paris 1085, see Grier, “Divine Office at Saint-Martial,” 180–82; on Albi 44, see Emerson, Albi, Bibliothèque Municipale Rochegude.
98.
See Huglo, “Les remaniements,” 100–101, and Loos, “Responsory Verses,” 136–38.
99.
See Grier, “Divine Office at Saint-Martial,” 186–92.
100.
By way of a preliminary observation I note that Henry III of Germany, to whom Berno sent a copy of De varia psalmorum in the 1040s, married into an Aquitanian noble family in 1043. For more on the events of that year, see below. Further speculation about the connection is, alas, beyond the bounds of this study.
101.
Grier, “Divine Office at Saint-Martial,” esp. 188–89; Amalarius of Metz, Liber de ordine antiphonarii, 3:13 (Prologus 1–2).
102.
Huglo, “Les remaniements,” 100–101; Loos, “Responsory Verses.”
103.
See CAO, 2:viii, with the interesting suggestion that the extra chants in the Hartker Antiphoner derive from “traditions diverses.” Further parallels to contemporary activity at Saint Gall are considered below.
104.
The arguments that follow rely upon the collations of Debra Lacoste, published on the CANTUS database, accessed August 1, 2015, http://cantusdatabase.org/index?source=374037 and http://cantusdatabase.org/index?source=374036.
105.
See Catta, “Le texte du répons ‘Descendit,’” 77.
106.
Concordance evidence from CAO only strengthens the case: eight of Berno's nine recommendations are otherwise foreign to Germanic sources.
107.
This is not the first time that such a connection has been found. Jürg Stenzl noted that the same Klosterneuburg antiphoners preserve the rare antiphon “Quo abiit dilectus tuus,” whose earliest source is from Reichenau and whose author is likely to be Berno himself: Stenzl, Der Klang des Hohen Liedes, 1:55–57. For this important insight I thank one of my anonymous readers.
108.
That is, a near contemporary copy from the Reichenau vicinity (the Heidelberg manuscript) and a fifteenth-century copy from Erfurt (the Berlin manuscript). For dates and provenance, see Hoffmann, Buchkunst und Königtum, 1:320–21, and Blanchard, “Notes sur les œuvres,” 99.
109.
Ekkehard IV, St. Galler Klostergeschichten, ch. 47, 106–9; on the relationship to John the Deacon, see Haug, “Der Beginn europäischen Komponierens.” According to Castaldi, Vita Gregorii I Papae, some 150 copies survive, of which one-third date from the eleventh century or earlier. On the wider cultural significance of this text, see Leyser, “Memory of Gregory.”
110.
John the Deacon, Vita sancti Gregorii magni, col. 91: “Ergo et nos qui de rivo corruptam lympham usque hactenus bibimus, ad perennis fontis necesse est fluenta principalia recurramus.” For translations, see McKinnon, Early Christian Period, 69–70. For detailed discussion of the Saint Gall version of the story, including identification of Ekkehard's hand, see Rankin, “Ways of Telling Stories,” 373–75.
111.
On the ideology of correction, see, most recently, Rankin, “To Speak Well.” The texts were certainly circulated in writing; on the possibility of early notations performing a similar function, see Levy, “Charlemagne's Archetype,” recently lent support in Grier, “Adémar de Chabannes.”
112.
See Stäblein, “‘Gregorius Praesul.’”
113.
Saint Gall 390, p. 12: “Quem … omni scripturae campo legit et explicuit.”
114.
Ibid., p. 13.
115.
On the use of the dove image in a musical context, see Treitler, “Homer and Gregory,” 335–37, and for a more general overview of the iconography, see Croquison, “Les origines,” and Eberlein, Miniatur und Arbeit. On the verbal instances of the same idea, both in variant texts of the “Gregorius praesul” prologue and in the eleventh-century trope “Sanctissimus namque Gregorius,” see Stäblein, “‘Gregorius Praesul,’” 554, 559–61. For Ekkehard's own description of Gregory's “divine inspiration,” see Stotz, “Verleugnung der Wortkunst,” 413. To my knowledge, no author before the tenth century claims that melodies were dictated from above; the historical development of this story is the subject of my ongoing research.
116.
The contrast may be no accident. Walter Berschin has written of the oppositional tendencies in the cultures of Saint Gall and Reichenau in precisely this period (Berschin, Eremus und Insula), and below I consider an instance of veiled critique.
117.
See Huglo, “Les remaniements,” and Rankin, “To Speak Well.”
118.
Here I refer solely to the message of Agobard's De antiphonario, and not to the later medieval antiphoners from the orbit of Lyon, whose distinct contents are sometimes considered to be the work of Agobard.
119.
Agobard of Lyon, De antiphonario, ch. 15, 347–48: “Verum, quia Gregorii praesulis nomen titulus praefati libelli praetendit, et, hinc opinione sumpta, putant eum quidam a beato Gregorio Romano pontifice et inlustrissimo doctore compositum, videamus, quid sanctus ille vir de cantu ecclesiastico ordinaverit, vel quid eius tempore Romana ecclesia decantarit. … [Q]uae a tanto illo viro non esse conposita nemo, nisi qui sincerissime eius fidei et excellentissime eruditionis ignarus, dubitat.” Note that older quotations of this passage, including that in Hucke, “Die Entstehung der Überlieferung,” 261, preserve a textual tradition that is at odds with the wider manuscript testimony, as found in van Acker's edition.
120.
Berlin 95, fol. 8r: “Non erubescens illum sequi doctiloquum, qui tocius secularis sciencie doctrina instructus ac multarum linguarum extitit peritus.” (The quoted sentence is located directly before the phrase “Petimus igitur canendo” in Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 8, 106 (PL, col. 1146).)
121.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 3, 93 (PL, col. 1132), and ch. 5, 97 (PL, col. 1137), as pointed out in Hiley, “Cantate Domino canticum novum,” 130.
122.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 12 (recte 11), 110 (PL, col. 1151): “Si auctor antiphonarii, in primis voluisset ea tunc decantari, ibi utique ea scriberet.” Berno is referring to the historia “Si oblitus fuero.” Saint Gall is the only institution known to have used the chants in this way (see above).
123.
Berno of Reichenau, Libellus de quibusdam rebus, col. 1057: “Ubi notandum, ut sicut sanctum Gregorium, quicunque has vel has cantilenas composuisset libri Sacramentorum et Antiphonarum, ita et beatum Hieronymum credimus ordinatorem Lectionarii, ut ipsius testatur prologus appositus in capite eiusdem Comitis sic eum appellavit.” The missing “compiler” in the first clause is implicit from the second; I see no way around this interpretation, although a critical edition may one day shed further light on the passage.
124.
Some of these fontes are cited by name, and can be located in the existing Gerbert edition; the others listed here will be described in greater detail in a planned future edition.
125.
See Oesch, Berno und Hermann, 36–40. Oesch overturns the claim that Berno began his career in Fleury: ibid., 29–32. The privilege concerned celebrating Mass in episcopal garb, on which see Herman of Reichenau, Chronicon, 121.
126.
Berno of Reichenau, Die Briefe, 46 (letter no. 13): “Quodsi respondebunt, hoc canonica auctoritate esse prohibitum, et nos veraciter dicimus: quia ritum … a sanctis patribus Gelasio, Gregorio, Hieronimo atque Hilario indubitanter accepimus, qui velut bases consistunt in sanctae ecclesiae fundamentis.”
127.
Ibid.: “Quorum sententiis nolle quiescere transgressio est legis divinae.”
128.
Ibid., 40: “Profunda fluviorum scrutata est et abscondita produxit in lucem.”
129.
On the rise of literate practices in this period, see above all Stock, Implications of Literacy.
130.
See Austin, Shaping Church Law, 76–77, and Kuttner, “Harmony from Dissonance.”
131.
Stock, Implications of Literacy, 271–72, here 271.
132.
See Bower, “Transmission of Ancient Music Theory,” and Atkinson, Critical Nexus.
133.
As in De varia psalmorum, citations of Gregorian authority in music theory are the exception rather than the rule. Examples are collated in Hiley, “Cantate Domino canticum novum.”
134.
Oesch, Berno und Hermann, 84–90, 102–6; see also Rausch, Die Musiktraktate, 135–39.
135.
Pesce, Affinities and Medieval Transposition, 18.
136.
See Rausch, Die Musiktraktate, 54–55, and Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 11 (recte 10), 108–9 (PL, col. 1149).
137.
The annotating hand comes from Constance cathedral, a few miles from Reichenau, as described in Autenrieth, Die Domschule von Konstanz, 97–99. Portions of the manuscript's first text are in a later medieval hand but can be shown to be like-for-like replacements for parchment sheets that had been lost. On the original scribal hands, see Hoffmann, Buchkunst und Königtum, 1:320–21.
138.
Berno of Reichenau, Die Briefe, 46 (letter no. 13): “Haud facile tamen aliis persuadebimus.”
139.
Saint Gall 915, p. 231: “Luculento sermone populum ad pacem cohortari coepit.” On the “Peace of God” and “Truce of God” movements, see Head and Landes, Peace of God, and more recently, with notable intellectual parallels with our situation, Koziol, “Conquest of Burgundy.”
140.
Herman of Reichenau, Chronicon, 124: “Pacemque multis seculis inauditam”; Berno of Reichenau, Die Briefe, 57 (letter no. 27): “iustitia et pax … in universo regno vestro tanta concordiae foedera composuerunt, ut cunctis retro saeculis sint inaudita.”
141.
On the Carolingian situation, see Morrison, “‘Know Thyself,’” 379–88, and McKitterick, “Unity and Diversity,” 81–82. Such sentiments go back to the early church.
142.
Ratio generalis, col. 1088: “Si est unus dominus, una fides, unum baptisma, sit et una ecclesiae unanimitas.” The spread of this text (erroneously attributed to Berno in PL) has not fully been mapped out, but examples are listed in Parkes, Making of Liturgy, 208.
143.
Guido of Arezzo, Prologus in antiphonarium, 412–13: “Vulgoque iam dicitur antiphonarium non Gregorii sed Leonis aut Alberti aut cuiuscumque alterius” (English translation from the same edition). On these eleventh-century writers, see, among others, Cowdrey, “Pope Gregory VII”; Taylor, “Bernold of Constance”; and Parkes, Making of Liturgy.
144.
See Stock, Implications of Literacy, and Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance.
145.
Stock, Implications of Literacy, 59–87, here 62.
146.
See above all Jaeger, Envy of Angels. On the social and political implications of this shift more widely, see Moore, First European Revolution.
147.
See Fichtenau, Living in the Tenth Century, 284–300, and Smalley, Study of the Bible, 45–46.
148.
Gunzo, Epistola ad Augienses.
149.
See Williams, “Taming the Muse.”
150.
Berno of Reichenau, De varia psalmorum, ch. 8, 105 (PL, col. 1145): “Quae enim est consequentia, ut Priscianus audiatur, et veritas quae deus est contempnatur?” Certain specific echoes of Gunzo's text in De varia psalmorum require further investigation.
151.
On the latter question, which remained current in the later Middle Ages, see Linde, How to Correct.
152.
Saint Gall 393, pp. 142–50, here p. 148: “Hoc solum non scit fidei quod robora nescit.” The Latin is opaque, and I am guided principally by Stotz, “Verleugnung der Wortkunst,” 398, with relevant translations on 413–14. Sincere thanks to one of my anonymous readers for the reference.
153.
Williram of Ebersberg, “Expositio in Cantica canticorum,” 1: “Sunt qui sub scolari ferula grammaticae et dialecticae studiis imbuuntur; haec sibi sufficere arbitrantes, divinae paginae omnino obliviscuntur.”
154.
See Colish, Mirror of Language, 70–74.
155.
See Stock, Implications of Literacy, 106–20.
156.
On the rise of so-called “popular heresy,” see, among many pertinent works by the same author, Moore, Origins of European Dissent. On the literary tradition of heresy, see Stock, Implications of Literacy, esp. 145–46.
157.
On this possible revival, see Huglo, “Les remaniements,” 103–5; Berno's text is further evidence of renewed interest, as is the plentiful quotation of Agobard in the Collectio IX librorum, an eleventh-century Italian canon law collection, transmitted in Rome Vat. Lat. 1349.
158.
Hiley, “Cantate Domino canticum novum.”
159.
Ibid., 132–33.
160.
“Dum divinitus Sancto Gregorio datum, non solum humana, sed etiam divina auctoritate fulcitur.” I draw these insights and the Latin text from Hiley, “Cantate Domino canticum novum,” 130.
161.
See note 104 above.
162.
See Oesch, Berno und Hermann, 54–56; Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, 3:30; and Gushee and Pesce, “Berno of Reichenau.”

Works Cited

Works Cited
Abbreviations
CAO René-Jean Hesbert, ed. Corpus antiphonalium officii. 6 vols. Rerum ecclesiasticarum documenta, Series maior, 7–12. Rome: Herder, 1963–79. (Cited by chant number.) 
PL J.-P. Migne, ed. Patrologiae cursus completus, Series latina. 221 vols. Paris: Garnier, 1844–64. 
Manuscript Sources
Albi 44 Albi, Bibliothèque Municipale Rochegude, Ms. 44 
Bamberg Lit. 5 Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, MS Lit. 5 
Bamberg Lit. 23 Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, MS Lit. 23 (CAO B) 
Benevento 21 Benevento, Archivio Capitolare, V 21 (CAO L) 
Berlin 95 Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Mus.ms.theor. 95 
Berlin 40047 Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Mus.ms. 40047 (Quedlinburg Antiphoner) 
Bologna A.43 Bologna, Museo Internazionale e Biblioteca della Musica, MS A.43 
Durham B. III. 11 Durham, Cathedral Library, B. III. 11 (CAO G) 
Heidelberg IX,20 Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. Sal. IX,20 
Ivrea CVI Ivrea, Biblioteca Capitolare, CVI (CAO E) 
Karlsruhe 38 Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Cod. Aug. perg. 38 
Karlsruhe 60 Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Cod. Aug. perg. 60 (Zweifalten Antiphoner) 
Klosterneuburg 1013/1012 Klosterneuburg, Augustiner-Chorherrenstift, Bibliothek, Cod. 1013 and Cod. 1012 
London Add. 30850 London, British Library, Add. 30850 (CAO S) 
Mont-Renaud Mont-Renaud, antiphoner in private collection 
Monza C. 12/75 Monza, Basilica San Giovanni, C. 12/75 (CAO M) 
Paris 1085 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Lat. 1085 
Paris 12584 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Lat. 12584 (CAO F) 
Paris 17296 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Lat. 17296 (CAO D) 
Paris 17436 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Lat. 17436 (CAO C) 
Rochester ML92 1100 Rochester, NY, Sibley Music Library, ML92 1100 
Rome B 79 Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Archivio San Pietro, B 79 
Rome Vat. Lat. 1349 Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. Lat. 1349 
Saint Gall 359 Saint Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 359 
Saint Gall 390/391 Saint Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 390 and Cod. 391 (Hartker Antiphoner, CAO H) 
Saint Gall 393 Saint Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 393 
Saint Gall 413 Saint Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 413 
Saint Gall 414 Saint Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 414 
Saint Gall 915 Saint Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 915 
Toledo 44.1 Toledo, Archivo y Biblioteca Capitulares, Ms. 44.1 
Trier 1245-597 Trier, Stadtbibliothek, 1245-597 
Verona XCVIII Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, XCVIII (CAO V) 
Zurich 28 Zurich, Zentralbibliothek, Rheinau 28 (CAO R) 
Books, Articles, and Editions
Agobard of Lyon
. De antiphonario. In
Agobardi Lugdunensis: Opera omnia
, edited by Lieven van Acker,
335
51
. Corpus christianorum continuatio mediaevalis 52.
Turnhout, Belgium
:
Brepols
,
1981
.
Amalarius of Metz
. Liber de ordine antiphonarii. In
Amalarii episcopi opera liturgica omnia
, edited by Jean-Michel Hanssens,
3
:
13
224
. Studi et testi 140.
Vatican City
:
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana
,
1950
.
Atkinson, Charles M.
The Critical Nexus: Tone-System, Mode, and Notation in Early Medieval Music
. AMS Studies in Music.
Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
,
2009
.
Austin, Greta.
Shaping Church Law around the Year 1000: The “Decretum” of Burchard of Worms
.
Aldershot, UK
:
Ashgate
,
2009
.
Autenrieth, Johanne.
Die Domschule von Konstanz zur Zeit des Investiturstreits: Die wissenschaftliche Arbeitsweise Bernholds von Konstanz und zweier Kleriker dargestellt auf Grund von Handschriftenstudien
.
Stuttgart
:
W. Kohlhammer
,
1956
.
Berno of Reichenau
.
Die Briefe des Abtes Bern von Reichenau
. Edited by Franz-Josef Schmale. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für geschichtliche Landeskunde in Baden-Württemberg, Reihe A, 6.
Stuttgart
:
W. Kohlhammer
,
1961
.
Berno of Reichenau
.
De varia psalmorum atque cantuum modulatione
. In Gerbert, Scriptores ecclesiastici,
2
:
91
114
(reproduced in PL, vol.
142
, cols. 1131–54).
Berno of Reichenau
.
Libellus de quibusdam rebus
. In PL, vol.
142
, cols. 1055–80.
Berno of Reichenau
.
Prologus in tonarium
. In Rausch, Die Musiktraktate,
31
68
.
Berschin, Walter.
Eremus und Insula: St. Gallen und die Reichenau im Mittelalter—Modell einer lateinischen Literaturlandschaft
.
Wiesbaden
:
Ludwig Reichert
,
1987
.
Beyerle, Konrad, ed.
Die Kultur der Abtei Reichenau: Erinnerungsschrift zur zwölfhundertsten Wiederkehr des Gründungsjahres des Inselklosters, 724–1924
.
2
vols.
Munich
:
Münchener Drucke
,
1925
.
Blanchard, Pierre.
“Notes sur les œuvres attribuées à Bernon de Reichenau.”
Revue bénédictine
29
(
1912
):
98
107
.
Blume, Dieter.
Bern von Reichenau (1008–1048): Abt, Gelehrter, Biograph
. Vorträge und Forschungen 52.
Ostfildern
:
Jan Thorbecke
,
2008
.
Bower, Calvin M.
“The Transmission of Ancient Music Theory into the Middle Ages.”
In
The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory
, edited by Thomas Christensen,
136
67
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
,
2002
.
Castaldi, Lucia, ed.
Vita Gregorii I Papae (B.H.L. 3641–3642)
. Vol. 1,
La tradizione manoscritta
.
Florence
:
SISMEL, Edizioni del Galluzzo
,
2004
.
Catta, Dominique.
“Le texte du répons ‘Descendit’ dans les manuscrits.”
Études grégoriennes
3
(
1959
):
75
82
.
Colish, Marcia L.
The Mirror of Language: A Study in the Medieval Theory of Knowledge
. Rev. ed.
Lincoln, NE
:
University of Nebraska Press
,
1983
.
Cowdrey, H. E. J.
“Pope Gregory VII (1073–1085) and the Liturgy.”
Journal of Theological Studies
55
(
2004
):
55
83
.
Croquison, Joseph.
“Les origines de l'iconographie grégorienne.”
Cahiers archéologiques
12
(
1962
):
249
62
.
Dyer, Joseph.
“Latin Psalters, Old Roman and Gregorian Chants.”
Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch
68
(
1984
):
11
30
.
Eberlein, Johann Konrad.
Miniatur und Arbeit
.
Frankfurt am Main
:
Suhrkamp
,
1995
.
Ekkehard IV.
St. Galler Klostergeschichten: Casus sancti Galli
. Edited by Hans F. Haefele. Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters 10.
Darmstadt
:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft
,
1980
.
Emerson, John A.
Albi, Bibliothèque Municipale Rochegude, Manuscript 44: A Complete Ninth-Century Gradual and Antiphoner from Southern France
. Edited by Lila Collamore. Musicological Studies 77.
Ottawa
:
Institute of Mediaeval Music
,
2002
.
Fichtenau, Heinrich.
Living in the Tenth Century: Mentalities and Social Orders
. Translated by Patrick J. Geary.
Chicago
:
University of Chicago Press
,
1991
.
Fulton, Rachel.
“‘Quae est ista quae ascendit sicut aurora consurgens?’: The Song of Songs as the historia for the Office of the Assumption.”
Mediaeval Studies
60
(
1998
):
55
122
.
Geary, Patrick J.
Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millennium
.
Princeton
:
Princeton University Press
,
1994
.
Gerbert, Martin.
Scriptores ecclesiastici de musica sacra potissimum
.
3
vols.
Sankt Blasien
:
Typis San-Blasianis
,
1784
.
Goldberg, Louise, and Charles Lindahl. “Gathering the Sources: A Case History.” In
Modern Music Librarianship: Essays in Honor of Ruth Watanabe
, edited by Alfred Mann,
3
26
.
Stuyvesant, NY
:
Pendragon Press
,
1989
.
Gregory the Great
.
Homiliae in Hiezechihelem prophetam
. Edited by Marcus Adriaen. Corpus christianorum series latina 142.
Turnhout, Belgium
:
Brepols
,
1971
.
Gregory the Great
.
Moralia in Iob
. Edited by Marcus Adriaen.
3
vols. Corpus christianorum series latina 143.
Turnhout, Belgium
:
Brepols
,
1979
85
.
Grier, James.
“Adémar de Chabannes, Carolingian Musical Practices, and nota romana.”
This Journal
56
(
2003
):
43
98
.
Grier, James. “The Divine Office at Saint-Martial in the Early Eleventh Century: Paris, BNF lat. 1085.” In
The Divine Office in the Latin Middle Ages: Methodology and Source Studies, Regional Developments, Hagiography
, edited by Margot E. Fassler and Rebecca A. Baltzer,
179
204
.
Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
,
2000
.
Guido of Arezzo
. Prologus in antiphonarium. In
Guido d'Arezzo's “Regule rithmice,” “Prologus in antiphonarium,” and “Epistola ad Michahelem”: A Critical Text and Translation
, edited and translated by Dolores Pesce,
405
35
. Musicological Studies 73.
Ottawa
:
Institute of Mediaeval Music
,
1999
.
Gunzo of Novara
. Epistola ad Augienses. In
Gunzo Epistola ad Augienses und Anselm von Besate Rhetorimachia
, edited by Karl Manitius,
19
57
. Monumenta Germaniae historica: Quellen zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 2.
Weimar
:
Hermann Böhlaus
,
1958
.
Gushee, Lawrence, and Dolores Pesce. “Berno of Reichenau.” In
New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians
, edited by Stanley Sadie,
3
:
441
42
.
London
:
Macmillan
,
2001
.
Haug, Andreas.
“Der Beginn europäischen Komponierens in der Karolingerzeit: ein Phantombild.”
Die Musikforschung
58
(
2005
):
225
41
.
Head, Thomas F., and Richard Allen Landes, eds.
The Peace of God: Social Violence and Religious Response in France around the Year 1000
.
Ithaca, NY
:
Cornell University Press
,
1992
.
Herman of Reichenau (Hermannus Contractus)
. Chronicon. In
Annales et chronica aevi Salici
, edited by Georg H. Pertz,
67
133
. Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scriptores (in folio) 5.
Hanover
:
Hahn
,
1844
.
Herman of Reichenau (Hermannus Contractus)
.
The “Musica” of Hermannus Contractus
. Edited and translated by Leonard Ellinwood. Revised with an introduction by John L. Snyder.
Rochester, NY
:
University of Rochester Press
,
2015
.
Hesbert, René-Jean, ed.
Antiphonale missarum sextuplex
.
Brussels
:
Vromant
,
1935
.
Hesbert, René-Jean, ed.
Corpus antiphonalium officii
.
6
vols. Rerum ecclesiasticarum documenta, Series maior, 7–12.
Rome
:
Herder
,
1963
79
.
Hiley, David.
“Cantate Domino canticum novum: Old and New in Medieval Chant and the Status of St Gregory.”
Musica e storia
14
(
2006
):
127
41
.
Hiley, David.
“Thurstan of Caen and Plainchant at Glastonbury: Musicological Reflections on the Norman Conquest.”
Proceedings of the British Academy
72
(
1986
):
57
90
.
Hiley, David.
Western Plainchant: A Handbook
.
Oxford
:
Clarendon Press
,
1993
.
Hoffmann, Hartmut.
Buchkunst und Königtum im ottonischen und frühsalischen Reich
.
2
vols. Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae historica 30.
Stuttgart
:
Anton Hiersemann
,
1986
.
Hornby, Emma.
Medieval Liturgical Chant and Patristic Exegesis: Words and Music in the Second-Mode Tracts
. Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Music 9.
Woodbridge, UK
:
Boydell Press
,
2009
.
Hucke, Helmut.
“Die Entstehung der Überlieferung von einer musikalischen Tätigkeit Gregors des Großen.”
Die Musikforschung
8
(
1955
):
259
64
.
Huglo, Michel.
“Division de la tradition monodique en deux groups ‘est’ et ‘ouest.’”
Revue de musicologie
85
(
1999
):
5
28
.
Huglo, Michel. “Les remaniements de l'antiphonaire grégorien au IXe siècle: Hélisachar, Agobard, Amalaire.” In
Culto cristiano, politica imperiale carolingia
, with an introduction by Ovidio Capitani,
87
120
.
Todi
:
L'Accademia tudertina
,
1979
.
Huglo, Michel.
Les tonaires: Inventaire, analyse, comparaison
.
Paris
:
Société Française de Musicologie
,
1971
.
Jaeger, C. Stephen.
The Envy of Angels: Cathedral Schools and Social Ideals in Medieval Europe, 950–1200
.
Philadelphia, PA
:
University of Pennsylvania Press
,
1994
.
Jerome
.
Commentariorum in Matheum libri IV
. Edited by David Hurst and Marcus Adriaen. Corpus christianorum series latina 77.
Turnhout, Belgium
:
Brepols
,
1969
.
John the Deacon (John Hymmonides)
.
Vita sancti Gregorii magni
. In PL, vol.
75
, cols. 59–242.
Kelly, Thomas Forrest.
“Neuma Triplex.”
Acta musicologica
60
(
1988
):
1
30
.
Klaper, Michael.
Die Musikgeschichte der Abtei Reichenau im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert
. Beihefte zum Archiv für Musikwissenschaft 52.
Stuttgart
:
Franz Steiner
,
2003
.
Koziol, Geoffrey.
“The Conquest of Burgundy, the Peace of God, and the Diplomas of Robert the Pious.”
French Historical Studies
37
(
2014
):
173
214
.
Kruckenberg, Lori. “The Lotharingian Axis and Monastic Reforms: Towards the Recovery of an Early Messine Trope Tradition.” In
Papers Read at the Twelfth Meeting of the IMS Study Group CANTUS PLANUS, Lillafüred, Hungary, 2004
, edited by László Dobszay,
723
52
.
Budapest
:
Institute for Musicology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
,
2006
.
Kuttner, Stephan.
“Harmony from Dissonance: An Interpretation of Medieval Canon Law.”
In
The History of Ideas and Doctrines of Canon Law in the Middle Ages
, 2nd ed. (no page numbers).
Aldershot, UK
:
Ashgate
,
1992
.
Levy, Kenneth.
“Abbot Helisachar's Antiphoner.”
This Journal
48
(
1995
):
171
86
.
Levy, Kenneth.
“Charlemagne's Archetype of Gregorian Chant.”
This Journal
40
(
1987
):
1
30
.
Leyser, Conrad. “The Memory of Gregory the Great and the Making of Latin Europe, 600–1000.” In
Making Early Medieval Societies: Conflict and Belonging in the Latin West, 300–1200
, edited by Kate Cooper and Conrad Leyser,
181
201
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
,
2016
.
Linde, Cornelia.
How to Correct the “sacra scriptura”? Textual Criticism of the Latin Bible between the Twelfth and the Fifteenth Century
.
Oxford
:
Society for the Study of Medieval Languages and Literature
,
2012
.
Lipphardt, Walther.
Der karolingische Tonar von Metz
. Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen 43.
Münster
:
Aschendorff
,
1965
.
Loos, Ike de. “Responsory Verses: What Do They Tell Us about Chant Traditions?” In
The Past in the Present: Papers Read at the IMS Intercongressional Symposium and the Tenth Meeting of the CANTUS PLANUS, Budapest and Visegrád, 2000
, edited by László Dobszay,
2
:
123
49
.
Budapest
:
Liszt Ferenc Academy of Music
,
2003
.
Lubac, Henri de.
Medieval Exegesis
. Vol. 3,
The Four Senses of Scripture
. Translated by Edward M. Macierowski.
Grand Rapids, MI
:
Eerdmans
,
2009
.
MacLean, Simon. “The Carolingian Past in Post-Carolingian Europe.” In
The Making of Europe: Essays in Honour of Robert Bartlett
, edited by John Hudson and Sally Crumplin,
11
31
.
Leiden
:
Brill
,
2016
.
Marbach, Karl.
Carmina scripturarum scilicet antiphonas et responsoria
.
Strasbourg
:
Le Roux
,
1907
.
Maurer, Helmut, ed.
Die Abtei Reichenau: Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte und Kultur des Inselklosters
.
Sigmaringen, Germany
:
Jan Thorbecke
,
1974
.
McCarthy, Thomas J. H.
Music, Scholasticism and Reform: Salian Germany, 1024–1125
.
Manchester, UK
:
Manchester University Press
,
2009
.
McKinnon, James, ed.
The Early Christian Period and the Latin Middle Ages
. Vol. 2 of
Strunk's Source Readings in Music History
.
New York
:
W. W. Norton
,
1998
.
McKitterick, Rosamond. “Unity and Diversity in the Carolingian Church.” In
Unity and Diversity in the Church: Papers Read at the 1994 Summer Meeting and the 1995 Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society
, edited by R. N. Swanson,
59
82
.
Oxford
:
Blackwell
,
1996
.
Möller, Hartmut, ed.
Antiphonarium: Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Aug. perg. 60
. Codices illuminati medii aevi 37.
Munich
:
Helga Lengenfelder
,
1995
.
Möller, Hartmut.
Das Quedlinburger Antiphonar (Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz Mus. ms. 40047)
.
3
vols. Mainzer Studien zur Musikwissenschaft 25.
Tutzing
:
Hans Schneider
,
1990
.
Möller, Hartmut.
“Zur Reichenauer Offiziumstradition der Jahrtausendwende.”
Studia musicologica Academiae scientiarum hungaricae
29
(
1987
):
35
61
.
Moore, R. I.
The First European Revolution, c. 970–1215
.
Oxford
:
Blackwell
,
2000
.
Moore, R. I.
The Origins of European Dissent
.
London
:
Allen Lane
,
1977
.
Morin, Germain.
“Un critique en liturgie au XIIe siècle: le traité inédit d'Hervé de Bourgdieu De correctione quarundam lectionum.”
Revue bénédictine
24
(
1907
):
36
61
.
Morrison, Karl F. “‘Know Thyself’: Music in the Carolingian Renaissance.” In
Committenti e produzione artistico-letteraria nell'alto Medioevo occidentale
, with an introduction by Ovidio Capitani,
369
479
.
Spoleto
:
[Centro Italiano di Studi sull'Alto Medioevo]
,
1992
.
Oesch, Hans.
Berno und Hermann von Reichenau als Musiktheoretiker
.
Bern
:
Paul Haupt
,
1961
.
Parkes, Henry.
The Making of Liturgy in the Ottonian Church: Books, Music and Ritual in Mainz, 950–1050
. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 100.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
,
2015
.
Pesce, Dolores.
The Affinities and Medieval Transposition
.
Bloomington and Indianapolis
:
Indiana University Press
,
1987
.
Rankin, Susan. “Beyond the Boundaries of Roman-Frankish Chant: Alcuin's De laude Dei and Other Early Medieval Sources of Office Chants.” In
City, Chant, and the Topography of Early Music: Essays in Honor of Thomas Forrest Kelly
, edited by Michael Scott Cuthbert, Sean Gallagher, and Christoph Wolff,
229
62
.
Cambridge, MA
:
Harvard University Department of Music
,
2013
.
Rankin, Susan.
“From Memory to Record: Musical Notations in Manuscripts from Exeter.”
Anglo-Saxon England
13
(
1984
):
97
112
.
Rankin, Susan.
“The Making of Carolingian Mass Chant Books.”
In
“Quomodo cantabimus canticum?”: Studies in Honor of Edward H. Roesner
, edited by David Butler Cannata, Gabriela Ilnitchi Currie, Rena Charnin Mueller, and John Louis Nádas,
37
63
.
Middleton, WI
:
American Institute of Musicology
,
2008
.
Rankin, Susan. “To Speak Well and to Sing Wisely: Liturgical Chant and Carolingian correctio.” In
Music in the Carolingian World: Witnesses to a Metadiscipline
, edited by Graeme M. Boone.
Columbus, OH
:
Ohio State University Press
, forthcoming.
Rankin, Susan. “Ways of Telling Stories.” In
Essays on Medieval Music in Honor of David G. Hughes
, edited by Graeme M. Boone,
371
94
.
Cambridge, MA
:
Harvard University Department of Music
,
1995
.
Ratio generalis de initio adventus domini secundum auctoritatem Hilarii episcopi
. In PL, vol.
142
, cols. 1085–88.
Rausch, Alexander. “Bern, von Reichenau.” In
Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart
, 2nd ed., edited by Ludwig Finscher, Personenteil
2
:
1356
59
.
Kassel
:
Bärenreiter
,
1999
.
Rausch, Alexander.
Die Musiktraktate des Abtes Bern von Reichenau: Edition und Interpretation
. Musica mediaevalis Europae occidentalis 5.
Tutzing
:
Hans Schneider
,
1999
.
Riemann, Hugo.
Geschichte der Musiktheorie im IX.–XIX. Jahrhundert
.
Leipzig
:
Max Hesse
,
1898
.
Robert, Michel.
“Les adieux à l'alleluia.”
Études grégoriennes
7
(
1967
):
41
51
.
Rose, Els.
Ritual Memory: The Apocryphal Acts and Liturgical Commemoration in the Early Medieval West (c. 500–1215)
. Mittellateinische Studien und Texte 40.
Leiden
:
Brill
,
2009
.
Schmale, Franz-Josef, ed. “Zu den Briefen Berns von Reichenau.”
Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte
68
(
1957
):
69
95
.
Smalley, Beryl.
The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages
. 3rd ed.
Oxford
:
Blackwell
,
1983
.
Solesmes, Monks of.
Le graduel romain: Édition critique par les moines de Solesmes
.
[Solesmes]
:
Abbaye Saint-Pierre
,
1957–
.
Stäblein, Bruno. “‘Gregorius Praesul,’ der Prolog zum römischen Antiphonale.” In
Musik und Verlag: Karl Vötterle zum 65. Geburtstag am 12. April 1968
, edited by Richard Baum and Wolfgang Rehm,
537
61
.
Kassel
:
Bärenreiter
,
1968
.
Steinberg, Leo.
“‘How Shall This Be?’: Reflections on Filippo Lippi's ‘Annunciation’ in London, Part I.”
Artibus et historiae
8
, no.
16
(
1987
):
25
44
.
Stenzl, Jürg.
Der Klang des Hohen Liedes: Vertonungen des “Canticum canticorum” vom 9. bis zum Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts
.
2
vols.
Würzburg
:
Königshausen & Neumann
,
2008
.
Stock, Brian.
The Implications of Literacy: Written Language and Models of Interpretation in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries
.
Princeton
:
Princeton University Press
,
1983
.
Stotz, Peter. “Verleugnung der Wortkunst als Bekenntnis: zu den drei confutatio-Gedichten Ekkeharts IV. von St. Gallen.” In
Ekkehart IV. von St. Gallen
, edited by Norbert Kössinger, Elke Krotz, and Stephan Müller,
393
419
.
Berlin
:
De Gruyter
,
2015
.
Taylor, Daniel Scott.
“Bernold of Constance, Canonist and Liturgist of the Gregorian Reform: An Analysis of the Sources in the ‘Micrologus de ecclesiasticis observationibus.’”
PhD diss.,
University of Toronto
,
1995
.
Treitler, Leo.
“Homer and Gregory: The Transmission of Epic Poetry and Plainchant.”
Musical Quarterly
60
(
1974
):
333
72
.
Treitler, Leo.
“Reading and Singing: On the Genesis of Occidental Music-Writing.”
Early Music History
4
(
1984
):
135
208
.
Versteigerung der Musikbibliothek des Herrn Dr. Werner Wolffheim
.
2
vols.
Berlin
,
1928–29
.
Waddell, Chrysogonus. “The Origin and Early Evolution of the Cistercian Antiphonary: Reflections on Two Cistercian Chant Reforms.” In
The Cistercian Spirit: A Symposium in Memory of Thomas Merton
, edited by M. Basil Pennington,
190
223
.
Spencer, MA
:
Cistercian Publications
,
1970
.
Walahfrid Strabo.
Libellus de exordiis et incrementis quarundam in observationibus ecclesiasticis rerum
. Edited and translated by Alice L. Harting-Correa.
Leiden
:
Brill
,
1996
.
Williams, Hannah.
“Taming the Muse: Monastic Discipline and Christian Poetry in Hermann of Reichenau's On the Eight Principal Vices.”
Studies in Church History
43
(
2007
):
130
43
.
Williram of Ebersberg
.
The “Expositio in Cantica canticorum” of Williram, Abbot of Ebersberg, 1048–85
. Edited by Erminnie Hollis Bartelmez.
Philadelphia, PA
:
American Philosophical Society
,
1967
.