Musicologie Médiévale

Resources for medieval musicology and liturgy

Dear friends,

I would be very grateful to your collective wisdom if anyone may let me know of any use of the Antiphon Laudem dicite Deo nostro, omnes sancti eius, et qui timetis Deum, pusilli et magni; quoniam regnabit Dominus Deus noster omnipotens; gaudeamus et exsultemus, et demus gloriam ei (CAO 3590) other than in the All Saints Office. In particular, for the localisation of a fragment of an early XII-century antiphoner, it would be very important to be aware if the antiphon has ever been used for a fest falling between the mid of April and the beginning of May.

For the same purpose, it will be very useful to have notice of any concordance of the Antiphon Sed hec locutus sum vobis ut cum venerit hora eorum reminiscamini quia ego dixi vobis alleluia with the adversative at the begininng (and so different from CAO 3011) other then the six ones listed in the Cantus Database of Western University.

Thank you!
Daniele

Views: 238

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

D'après le catalogue de Madeleine Bernard on trouve l'antienne Laudem dicite Deo pour la fête de Saint Marie-Madeleine dans un manuscrit sans cote de la bibliothèque de la Compagnie Saint-Sulpice à Paris (Processional du XVème siècle)

Thank you very much, Dominique! Helas, I am afraid St May Magdalen on 22 July is too late a celebration to share light on our fragment (which collocates the antiphons on a 'spring' saint's celebrated before the saints Philip and James, 1 May).

  In the older manuscripts, the antiphons used for the feast of Philip and James are not assigned to this feast, but make part of the general series for saints in Easter time. I think it's very possible that a manuscript as the one of your fragment inserts an antiphon as Laudem dicite (which certainly has its origin at the All Saints feast) in the same series, since the text from the Apocalypse fits perfectly in Easter time. The position of the antiphon before those of Philip and James makes it almost sure that it belongs to this series and that it is not assigned to a particular feast. But is it fully clear from the fragment that it regards the antiphon and not a part of a responsory? It's more common that (a part of) the text of the antiphon appears also as a verse of a responsory. I think it would be useful if you would give a more detailed description of the contents of the fragment (or an image).
  The "Sed" at the beginning of Hæc locutus sum is a typical variant of Italian manuscripts. That it's also the reading of Toledo is certainly due to the rather strict relation between Toledo and Lucca. Therefore, it's quite sure that your fragment is italian.
  I think these remarks do not answer your question, but maybe they are somewhat helpful.    Frans Kok (Calithes)

Dear Frans,

Thank you very much for the news. I know of course of manuscripts that mix antiphons of the common of saint in Easter time with the Temporale, but the Pavia fragment I am talking about does not seems to belong to that kind of antiphoner. In fact the antiphon Laudem dicite at the beginning of the recto is followed immediately by the two antiphons (ad Magn. and ad Ben.) of the Dominica post Ascensionen Domini, by the Ant. and Magn. typical of the feast of saint Philip and James and finally by the ant. ad. Magn. in Vigilia Pentecostes (on the recto then there are the three usual Antiphons of the Matins and four out of five ant. of the Lauds of Pentecostes). As you can see, there are not (and seems to be no room for) responsories.

That the fragment comes from an Italian Antiphoner is then already out of question for paleographical as well as decorative reasons. My idea is that it is from Pavia itself (like Ivrea 106 and Monza 15-79, which share the same variant "sed"), but having an idea of the santoral use of the antiphon Laudate (which I suspect is for a precise feast, and not for the common of saints) would be very much helpful.

Thank you very much, anyway. Daniele

  With "the Ant. ad Magn. typical of the feast of saint Philip and James" do you mean Si manseritis? If so, and if the fragment does not indicate explicitly the days to which the antiphons are destinated, then it's more probable that all the antiphons on the recto, included Laudem dicite, are ad libitum for Ascension and the days up to Pentecost. But I have never seen Laudem dicite in such a list.

Yes, as for st. Philip and James' feast I ment Si manseritis. As you can see from the pic Dominique has kindly posted, however, the Temporale rubrics are very detailed and carefully placed. Add that Laudem dicite ends without any alleluia, and you got why I am so puzzled by the collocation of such an antiphon... 

Is there a rubric for Si manseritis saying that this antiphon is for the feast of Philip and James? I keep thinking that Laudem is the last of some ad libitum antiphons for Ascension (taken from the All Saints feast; the alleluia might just be forgotten). I am afraid I will not have further suggestions.

No, actually there are not rubrics for Philip and James, but as Si manseritis is written after the two antiphons for Sunday after Ascension and before the Vigilia Pentecostes (clearly rubricised as such), I find very difficult to believe that Laudem and Si manseritis are both extra antiphons for the Ascension (set apart in such a way). But I will think of it, of course. Thank you very much for all your kind suggestions!

  If there is no rubric indicating the feast, while there is one for the other days, and there is only one antiphon of the series, it seems me much more logic to presume that it regards an ad libitum antiphon for the Sunday after Ascension. See the ms. of Compiègne, which gives for the last Sunday after Easter Hæc locutus and Si manseritis!
  It seems to me also highly improbable that there can have been a feast between Ascension and Pentecost, since the last two are not on fixed dates. So a determinate feast would only occasionally occur in this week. Only the common series for saints in Easter time could be placed here, being the end of Easter time, but even that is rare (one of the few cases is Toledo 44.1).
  So I confirm that, at my opinion, Laudem can only be the last ad libitum antiphon for (the time after) Ascension; and Si manseritis should be an ad libitum for the Sunday after Ascension (so not for Ascension and set apart: I attributed both to Ascension before you informed me about the separated positions).

Buon lavoro!

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Partnership

and your logo here...

We need other partners :

© 2019   Created by Dominique Gatté.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service