¹ Benevento, Archivio Capitolare, MSS 38 and 40. Manuscripts of the chapter library of Benevento will be identified here without the Roman numerals which have been part of their shelf numbers in most of the literature to date. This accords with the practice of the new catalogue of Beneventan manuscripts: Mallet, J. and Thibaut, A., Les manuscrits en écriture bénéventaine de la Bibliothèque capitulaire de Bénévent, i: Manuscrits 1–18 (Paris, 1984).Google Scholar

² Hesbert, R.-J., ‘L' “Antiphonale missarum” de l'ancien rit bénéventain’, Ephemerides Liturgicae, 52 (1938), pp. 28–66, 141–58; 53 (1939), pp. 168–90; 59 (1945), pp. 69–95; 60 (1946), pp. 103–41; 61 (1947), pp. 153–210.Google Scholar

³ The term ‘Old Roman’, coined by Stäblein, B. (‘Alt- und Neurömischer Choral’, Kongress-Bericht: Gesellschaft für Musikforschung Lüneburg 1950, ed. Albrecht, H., Osthoff, H. and Wiora, W., Kassel and Basle, n.d., pp. 53–6)Google Scholar, refers to an archaic non-Gregorian musical repertory found in certain Roman manuscripts of the eleventh century and later. See Hucke, H., ‘Gregorian and Old Roman Chant’, The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Sadie, S., 20 vols. (London, 1980), viii, pp. 693–7.Google Scholar

⁴ The final flyleaf, fol. 202, of Benevento, Archivio Capitolare, MS 35, which preserves the end of the Christmas Mass and the beginning of one for St Stephen, may be a page from a lost Old Beneventan Gradual. A benedictional roll in the Archivio del Duomo of Bari may also be representative of the uncontaminated Old Beneventan liturgy; it preserves a Tract and an antiphon for the blessing of the font on Holy Saturday. Facsimiles in Cavallo, G., Rotoli di Exultet dell'Italia meridionale (Bari, 1973)Google Scholar, plates 13 and 14; and in Avery, M., The Exultet Rolls of South Italy (Princeton, 1936), II, plate xiii.Google Scholar

⁵ See the studies by Hesbert cited in note 2, and his essay in Paléographie Musicale, ser. i, 14 (Tournai, 1931), pp. 248–465. The Beneventan Mass for the Holy Twelve Brothers, whose relics came to Benevento in 760, is a collection of pure Old Beneventan music (Benevento 40, fols. 121^v–122). But the Beneventan Mass of St Bartholomew, whose remains came to Benevento in 838, and whose translation entered the calendar the following year, is modelled on Gregorian chant. See Borgia, S., Memorie istoriche della pontificia Città di Benevento, i (Rome, 1763), pp. 237, 336–7.Google Scholar The date of Bartholomew's translation is often given as 808 (cf. Paléographie Musicale, ser. i, 14, pp. 450–1; Baroffio, B., ‘Liturgie im beneventanischen Raum’, Geschichte der katholischen Kirchenmusik, ed. Fellerer, K. G., 2 vols., Kassel, 1972–1976, i, pp. 204–8).Google Scholar

⁶ The gradual MS Benevento, Archivio Capitolare 33, contains very little Old Beneventan chant, though thought by some to date from as early as the tenth century (Lowe/Brown – see below, note 8 – II, p. 21), and hence to antedate the main Beneventan sources of this chant. Recent opinion is that the manuscript is not demonstrably from Benevento (Mallet, and Thibaut, , Les manuscrits, pp. 76, n. 5, 90Google Scholar), and probably dates from the eleventh century; see the introduction, by J. Hourlier, to Paléographie Musicale. ser. I, 20 (Berne and Frankfurt, 1983), pp. 17*–18*.

⁷ Some recent studies dealing with the relationship of music writing to oral tradition include Hucke, H., ‘Toward a New Historical View of Gregorian Chant’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 33 (1980), pp. 437–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Treitler, L., ‘Homer and Gregory: the Transmission of Epic Poetry and Plainchant’, The Musical Quarterly, 60 (1974), pp. 333–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ Published as Loew, E. A.(sic), The Beneventan Script: a History of the South Italian Minuscule (Oxford, 1914)Google Scholar; 2nd, enlarged edition (= Lowe/Brown) by V. Brown, 2 vols. (Rome, 1980). The use of the word ‘Beneventan’ for south Italian writing is, of course, much older. See Lowe/Brown, i, pp. 37–40, 338.

⁹ An exception is the supplement to Lucca, Biblioteca Capitolare, MS 606 (fols. 150^v–156^v), containing a series of Holy Week pieces which includes Old Beneventan chants; the manuscript is written in ordinary minuscule, though the musical notation is Beneventan. See the facsimiles in Paléographie Musicale, ser. i, 14, plates xxxiv–xliii.

¹⁰ Their provenance is unfortunately far from certain; see Mallet, and Thibaut, , Les manuscrits, introduction, pp. 7–104, especially pp. 67–94.Google Scholar

¹¹ See Boe, J., ‘Old Beneventan Chant at Monte Cassino: Gloriosus Confessor Domini Benedictus’, Acta Musiologica, 55 (1983), pp. 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² Music for Holy Saturday survives on a single fragmentary leaf (Farfa, Biblioteca dell’Abbazia, MS ab. f. Musica xi). See Paléographie Musicale, ser. i, 14, plates xxvi and xxvii, there erroneously listed as ‘Cava’.

¹³ See above, note 4.

¹⁴ In MS 606 of the Biblioteca Capitolare. See above, note 9.

¹³ The music for Holy Week is studied, and some of the sources identified, in Hesbert's introduction to Paléographie Musicale, ser. i, 14, pp. 248–446.

¹⁶ See note 33 and the discussion on pp. 72–4.

¹⁷ See Boe, J., ‘A New Source for Old Beneventan Chant: the Santa Sophia Maundy in MS Ottoboni lat. 145’, Acta Muskologica, 52 (1980), pp. 122–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ In the absence of the long-awaited publication of H. Bloch's Montecassino in the Middle Ages, discussions of the history of Montecassino during this period may be found in Lowe, , The Beneventan Script, pp. 1–21Google Scholar; Bloch, H., ‘Monte Cassino, Byzantium, and the West in the Earlier Middle Ages’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 3 (1946), pp. 163–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar and plates 217–58: Caspar, E., Petrus diaconus und die Monte Cassineser Fäalschungen (Berlin, 1909), pp. 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The standard work is Gattola, E., Historia abbatiae Casinensis, 2 vols. (Venice, 1733)Google Scholar, with his Ad historiam abbatiae Casinensis accessiones, 2 vols. (Venice, 1734).Google Scholar There is also a history by Tosti, L., Storia della badia di Monte-Cassino (Naples, 1842; 2nd edn, Rome, 1891).Google Scholar The earlier history of Montecassino is studied in Falco, G., ‘Lineamenti di storia cassinese nei secoli VIII e IX’, Casinensia, 1 (Montecassino, 1929), pp. 457–548Google Scholar; and in Citarella, A. and Willard, H., The Ninth-century Treasure of Monte Cassino in the Context of Political and Economic Developments in South Italy, Miscellanea Cassinese 50 (Montecassino, 1983), esp. pp. 51–82.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Boe, ‘Old Beneventan Chant at Monte Cassino’.

²⁰ The manuscript is described, its contents inventoried and relevant bibliography listed, in Avitabile, L., De Marco, F., Di Franco, M. C. and Jemolo, V., ‘Censimento dei codici dei secoli X–XII’, Studi Medievali, ser. III 12 (1970), pp. 1037–8Google Scholar; and in Lowe/Brown, II, pp. 127–8. The first volume of a modern catalogue has appeared, but it does not include this manuscript: Vichi, A. M. Giorgetti and Mottironi, S., Catalogo dei manoscritti della Biblioteca Vallicelliana, I, Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, Indici e Cataloghi. nuova serie, 7 (Rome. 1961).Google Scholar The three-volume handwritten catalogue available in the library contains a table of contents for the manuscript: (Vincenzo Vettori), ‘Inventarium Omnium Codicum Manuscriptorum Graccorum et Latinorum Bibliothecae Vallicellanae Digestum Anno Domini mdccxliv. Pars I. Continet priores xxvi Tomos Itemque alios codices a litera A. ad F. inclusive.’

²¹ The manuscript and its Old Beneventan contents have been considered and described in detail in Kelly, T. F., ‘Palimpsest Evidence of an Old-Beneventan Gradual’, Kirchen-musikalisches Jahrbuch. 67 (1983), forthcoming.Google Scholar

²² See Boe, ‘A New Source for Old Beneventan Chant’. We know of several Offertories and Communions in the repertory that survive with a variety of liturgical functions; a list is in T. F. Kelly, ‘Une nouvelle source pour l’office vieux-bénéventain’, Études Grégoriennes (in press). But nowhere else do Ingressae serve also for occasional use as processional antiphons or the like.

²³ These problems, along with matters relating to Beneventan Lenten and Holy Week practices, and questions of content raised by the manuscript's layout, are considered more fully in Kelly, ‘Palimpsest Evidence’ (forthcoming: see note 21).

²⁴ The musical notation is similar to that of Benevento 40. De Nonno, M. (‘Contribute alla tradizione di Prisciano in area beneventano-cassinese: il “Vallicell. C. 9”’, Revue d'Histoire des Textes, 9 (1979), p. 129)Google Scholar argues for the Beneventan origin of a portion of the manuscript – though not the portion under consideration here. Mallet, and Thibaut, (Les manuscrits, p. 16, n. 3)Google Scholar note that the rich holdings of manuscripts in Beneventan script at the Biblioteca Vallicelliana may come in part from Baronio, who in 1599 received the benefice of Santa Maria in Venticano, some 20 km south-east of Benevento. Historian and hagiographer, Baronio was a member (and later praepositus generalis) of the Congregation of the Oratorio. The hagiographical tomi of the Biblioteca Vallicelliana, many of them in Beneventan script (see Lowe/Brown, ii, pp. 130–2), may have been collected by him for his Annales ecclesiastici. On Baronio see A Cesare Baronio: scritti cari (Sora, 1963)Google Scholar, esp. Vaccaro, E., ‘Vita di Cesare Baronio’, pp. 11–29.Google Scholar

²⁵ The manuscript is described in Vatasso, M. and Carusi, H., Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codices mam scripti recensiti: Codices Vaticani latini, Codices 10301–10700 (Rome, 1920), pp. 614–29.Google Scholar The upper script is edited in Petrucci, A., Codice diplomatico del monastero benedettino di S. Maria di Tremiti (1005–1237), 3 vols. (Rome, 1960).Google Scholar

²⁶ Vadit propitiator, which is used as the Gradual of the Beneventan Maundy Thursday Mass in Benevento 40, is a translation from the Greek of Romanos; versions of this text are used in the Ambrosian, Old Roman and Gregorian liturgies, almost always on Good Friday. (See Hesbert, , ‘L' “Antiphonale missarum” de l'ancien rit bénéventain’, Ephemerides Liturgicae, 59, 1945, pp. 73–8).Google Scholar

Quis te supplantavit, clearly a movable piece, is used for both Palm Sunday and Maundy Thursday in Benevento 38 and 40; it is an address to Judas, who has already received the punishment for his betrayal of Jesus – a text more suited to Good Friday than to either of the preceding days.

²⁷ See Meyvaert, P., ‘The Autographs of Peter the Deacon’, Bulletin of The John Rylands Library, 38 (Manchester, 1955), pp. 114–38.Google Scholar

²⁸ V. Brown, in her Handlist of Beneventan Mss. which appears as vol. II of her second edition of Loew, E. A. (recte Lowe), The Beneventan Script (Rome, 1980)Google Scholar, says that this writing ‘is by a Beneventan scribe trying to write ordinary minuscule’ (p. 84).

²⁹ For a full list of the contents, with other palaeographic information and bibliography, see Inguanez, D. M., Codicum Casinensium manuscriptorum catalogus, II, Pars II (Montecassino, 1934), pp. 208–12.Google Scholar The volume in its present form represents only about a third of the original manuscript, whose structure has been largely reconstructed in Bloch, H., ‘Der Autor der “Graphia aureae urbis Romae”’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters, 40 (1984), pp. 105–27.Google Scholar

³⁰ On the subject of Peter the Deacon and his falsifications, see Bloch, , ‘Der Autor’, pp. 61–6Google Scholar; Meyvaert, op. cit.; Caspar, , Petrus diaconus, esp. pp. 19–21Google Scholar; and the introduction to Rodgers, R. H., Petri Diaconi Ortus et vita iustorum cenobii casinensis (Berkeley, 1972).Google Scholar

³¹ Montecassino 361 has recently been restored and rebound, making the physical make-up difficult to determine. The leaves measure approximately 24.3 cm high by 16.5 cm wide. Single pages from an earlier manuscript were detached and (usually) turned sideways and folded to form bifolia for the newer and smaller book. The older book was written in two columns each about 9 cm wide, with a separation of about 1 cm between columns: the writing space was thus about 19 cm wide. Side margins were generous, with the result that the complete writing width is nowhere visible within the 24.3 cm height of the new manuscript. Lines in the older book were scored about 2 cm apart; there were at least fourteen lines per page (as can be seen on the present pages 105–6).

Twelve single folios from the earlier manuscript, folded to receive new text, can be identified as bifolia in Montecassino 361 (pp. 103–6; 125–6 with 135–6; 143–4 with 149–50; 157–8 with 167–8; 159–60 with 165–6; 161–4; 175–6 with 189–90; 177–8with 187–8; 179– 80 with 185–6: 197–8 with 207–8; 199–200 with 205–6; 201–4); all of them contained Old Beneventan chant, of which sometimes only fragments can still be read. Two other palimpsest leaves also contain fragmentary remains of Old Beneventan music (pp. 139– 40: 193–4).

³² Pages 115–16; 119–20; 123–4; 129–32 (a bifolium); 137–8; 141–2:145–8 (a bifolium); 151– 2: 153–4 with 169–70; 174–5.

³³ See the Chronica monasterii casinensis (abbreviated Chron. mon. cas.), of Marsicanus, Leo and others, ed. Hoffmann, H., Monumenta Germaniae Historica (abbreviated MGH), Scrip-tores 34 (Hanover, 1980), i, 9.Google Scholar See also Belting, H., ‘Studien zum beneventanischen Hof im 8. Jahrhundert’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 16 (1962), pp. 156–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁴ Alfanus i, monk of Montecassino and later archbishop of Salerno in the Desiderian period. is the author of a thousand-line ‘Metrum heroicum domni Alfani Salernitani arciepiscopi in honore sanctorum duodecim fratrum’, edited from Cassinese manuscripts in Lentini, A. and Avagliano, F., eds., I carmi di Alfano I, arcivescovo di Salerno, Miscellanea Cassinese 38 (Montecassino, 1974), pp. 97–126.Google Scholar

³⁵ See above, note 4.

³⁶ See Carusi, E., ‘Intorno al Commemoratorium dell'abate Teobaldo (a. 1019–22)’. Bullettino dell'Istituto Storico Italiano, 47 (1932), p. 182.Google Scholar

³⁷ The document is Montecassino, Archivio della Badia, Aula II, capsula cifasc. 1, no. 1. It will receive a new number when it is catalogued by Dom Faustino Avagliano for I regesti dell'archivio (see note 54). A complete facsimile and transcription are provided in Carusi, , ‘Intorno al Commemoratorium dell'abate Teobaldo’, pp. 173–90, with plate.Google Scholar

³⁸ These aspects of Theobald's life are described in Chron. mon. cas., ii, 12, 42, 52, 56–8. See also Bloch, , ‘Monte Cassino, Byzantium, and the West’, pp. 166–77Google Scholar; idem, ‘Monte Cassino's Teachers and Library in the High Middle Ages’, in La scuola nell'occidente latino dell'alto medioevo, Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull'Alto Medioevo 19, ii (Spoleto, 1972), pp. 577–8; and Gay, J., L'ltalie méridionale et l'empire byzantin, Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 90 (Paris, 1904), pp. 423–5, 438–41.Google Scholar

³⁹ The order of these lines is not entirely clear. It appears, from the ink of the lowest line, which is now darker than those above it, and from the capital D aligned not only with the lines above but also with a line to the left, that the bottom line, ‘Duo pluviali ….’, comes first, moving up to ‘ unum antifonarium ….’, with, last of all. the words ‘ unum ingressarium’ squeezed between the two lines. See Carusi, p. 187.

⁴⁰ We should not forget the curious page of Ambrosian chant preserved in an eleventh-century hand from Montecassino: the flyleaf from Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Ottob. lat. 3, which contains music for the Ambrosian office of the Tuesday and Wednesday of the second week of Lent. It is reproduced in Paléographie Musicale, ser. i, 14, plates xxxii–xxxiii and in Bannister, H. M., Monumenta vaticana di paleografia musicale latina, ii (Leipzig, 1913), plate 72.Google Scholar It is not inconceivable that Theobald‘s ‘Ingressarium‘ was in fact a book of Milanese chant.

⁴¹ On the Cassinese connection of Vat. lat. 10673, see below. For the survival of books prepared under Theobald's direction, see Bloch, , ‘Monte Cassino's Teachers and Library’, pp. 577–8Google Scholar; Lowe/Brown, p. 50; Lowe, E. A., Scriptura beneventana, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1929), plates 56–62.Google Scholar

⁴² See Boe, ‘A New Source for Old Beneventan Chant’.

⁴³ See Boe, ‘Old Beneventan Chant at Monte Cassino’.

⁴⁴ For general histories of Montecassino and Benevento in this period, see the works cited in note 18; also Wickham, C., Early Medieval Italy (London and Totowa, N.J., 1981), pp. 146–67Google Scholar, and the extensive bibliography; still important is Gay, L'Italie mèridionale.

⁴⁵ On Paul the Deacon's activities at Benevento, see Chron. mon. cas., i, 15; Westerbergh, U., ed., Chronicon salernitanum, Studia Latina Stockholmensia 3 (Lund. 1956), pp. 10–13, 22, 24–5Google Scholar; Belting, , ‘Studien zum beneventanischen Hof,’ pp. 164–9Google Scholar; Bloch, , ‘Monte Cassino's Teachers’, pp. 567–72.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ ‘Studien zum beneventanischen Hof’, pp. 182–8.

⁴⁷ See Chron. mon. cas., i, 9; the Translatio duodecim martyrum in MGH, Scriptores rerun Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. VI–IX (abbreviated MGH SS Lang) (Hanover, 1878), pp. 574–6Google Scholar; Belting, , ‘Studien zum beneventanischen Hof’, pp. 156–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ ‘[Arichis] Infra Beneventi autem moeniam templum Domino opulentissimum ac decen-tissimum condidit. quod Greco vocabulo Agian Sophian, id est sanctam sapientiam, nominavit; dotatumque amplissimis prediis et variis opibus sanctimoniale coenobium statuens, idque sub iure beati Benedicti in perpetuum reddidit permanendum.’ MGH SS Lang. p. 236.

⁴⁹ The passage is quoted, in fact, through intermediary – an addition to the Chronica sancti Benedicti Casinensis in Montecassino, Archivio della Badia, MS 363, printed in MGH SS Lang. p. 488.

⁵⁰ ‘De isto Arichis, ita refert domnus Herchempertus, in historia quam de Langobardorum gente post Paulum diaconum composuit.… Hic intra menia Beneventi templum Domino opulentissimum ac decentissimum condidit, quod Greco vocabulo AΓHAN CωρHAN. idest sanctam sapientiam nominavit. Ditatumque amplissimis prediis, et variis opibus, ac sanctimonialium cenobium statuens, id sub iure beati Benedicti in monte Casino tradidit inperpetuum permansuram.’ Chron. mon. cas., i, 9. Quoted here is the version of Munich, Bayerischc Staatsbibliothek. MS Clm 4623 (Hoffmann's MS a), a manuscript prepared under the supervision of Leo and preserving the earliest version of the chronicle. A marginal addition in this manuscript, inserted after the word ‘statuens’, reads: ‘german-amque suam ibidem abbatissam efficiens, cum omnibus omnino pertinentiis et possession-ibus eius’ (‘establishing his sister there as abbess, with all of" its appurtenances and possessions’).

⁵¹ ‘Iste Gisulfus cepit edificare ecclesiam sancte Sophie in Benevento. Quam cum morte preventus explere non posset, Arichis qui ei successit mirifice illam perfecit, ibique sanctimonialium cenobium statuens, monasterio sancti Benedicti hic in Casino concessit, sicut in sequentibus ostendemus.’ Chron. mon. cas., 1. 6. The founding of Santa Sofia by Gisulph, and its completion by Arichis, are chronicled also in the Annales Beneventani; see Bertolini, O., ‘Gli Annales Beneventani,’ Bullettino dell'Islituto Storico Italiano, 42 (1923), pp. 110, 111.Google Scholar Belting argues that the church was built entirely by Arichis; see ‘Studien zum beneventanischen Hof’, pp. 180–2; this article is of primary importance for Santa Sofia in the context of eighth-century Benevento.

⁵² Chron. mon. cas., i, 12.

⁵³ MGH, Diplomats Karolinorum 1 (Berlin, 1956), no. 158, pp. 213–16. On the falsifications in this diploma see Caspar, E., ‘Echte und gefälschte Karolingerurkunde für Montecassino’, Neues Archiv, 33 (1908), pp. 53–73.Google Scholar See also Hoffmann, H., ‘Chronik und Urkunde in Montecassino’ (abbreviated PDR), Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, 51 (1971), no. 108, p. 105; and p. 174.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See Kehr, P. F., Italia pontificia (abbreviated IP), viii (Berlin. 1935), p. 125, no. 33.Google Scholar An eleventh-century copy of such a document is in Montecassino, Archivio della Badia, Aula in, capsula vii, no. 6; see Leccisotti, T., Abbazia di Montecassino: i regesti dell'archivio, I, Ministero dell'Interno, Pubblicazioni degli Archivi di Stato 54 (Rome, 1964), pp. 223–4.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ IP, viii, p. 126, no. 37.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ A document of 923 (Benevento, Archivio Storico Provinciale, Fondo Santa Sofia viii. 33) mentions ‘Antipertus presbiter et prepositus monasterii aecclesiae vocabulo Sanctae Sophiae’ (see Galasso, E., ‘Caratteri paleografici e diplomatici dell'atto privato a Capua e a Benevento prima del secolo XI’, Il contributo dell'archidiocesi di Capua alla vita religiosa e culturale del Meridione: atti del Convegno nazionale dalla Società di storia patria di Terra di Lavoro, 26–31 ottobre 1966 (Rome, 1967), p. 308)Google Scholar; Chron. mon. cas., i, 39, names Pergolfus and Criscio. An early twelfth-century hand, now very faint, has added the names of several abbesses, abbots and praepositi to the annales in Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. lat. 4939. Among these are ‘Criscius prepositus erat’ (868) and ‘Hoc tempore erat Criscius prepositus’ (878), both on fol. 11; ‘Iohannes prepositus’ (945), fol. 11^v. See Bertolini, , ‘Gli Annales Beneventani’, pp. 116, 117, 121.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Chron. mon. cas., I, 44.

⁵⁸ Chron. mon. cas., i, 49; PDR, no. 136, p. 1061Google Scholar; ed. in Leccisotti, T., ‘Le colonie cassinese in Capitanata, 3’, Miscellanea Cassinese, 19 (1940), pp. 31–3Google Scholar; and in Trinchera, F., Syllabus graecarum membranarum (Naples, 1865), no. iii, pp. 2–3Google Scholar. See Gay, , L'Italie méridionale, pp. 147–9.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Rodelgarda is mentioned in documents of 923 (see Bertolini, O.. ‘I documenti trascritti nel “Liber preceptorum beneventani monasterii s. Sophiae” (“Chronicon s. Sophiae”)’, Studie di storia napoletana in onore di Michelangelo Schipa (Naples, 1926), p. 36, no. 139Google Scholar), and in the Annales beneventani for the year 938 (Vat. lat. 4939, fol. 11^v; Bertolini, , ‘Gli Annales Beneventani’, p. 121).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ ‘Leo abbas’ is added to that year in Vat. lat. 4939, fol. 12; see Bertolini, , ‘Gli Annales Beneventani’, p. 122.Google Scholar

⁶¹ See note 56.

⁶² ‘Iudicabimus … ut amodo et deinceps perpetuis temporibus partem prephati cenovii sancte Sofie semper libera consistat cum suis pertinentiis et rebus hab omni condicione et subiectione atque dominatione a parte iamdicti monasterii sancti Benedicti.….’ The document is transcribed (with a facsimile as plates 5 and 6) in Galasso, , ‘Caratteri paleografici’, pp. 309–12.Google Scholar

⁶³ We know of Abbot John's renewal from the charters of popes Benedict viii in 1022 and Leo IX in 1052 (see notes 72 and 74).

⁶⁴ The original document, in Benevento, Archivio Storico Provinciale, Fondo Santa Sofia ii. 1, is reproduced and transcribed in Galasso, , ‘Caratteri paleografici’, plate 10 and pp. 126–8.Google Scholar From the copy in Vat. lat. 4939, fols. 126^v–128, it is printed in MGH, Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae (Hanover, 1879–1884), i, no. 408, pp. 554–6.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ MGH, Diplomalum regum et imperatorum Germaniae, ii (Hanover, 1888), no. 264. pp. 306–7.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Ibid., no. 310, pp. 736–7.

⁶⁷ Bloch, , ‘Monte Cassino. Byzantium, and the West’, pp. 170–3.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Chron. mon. cas., i, 58.

⁶⁹ See IP, viii, pp. 128–9Google Scholar; PDR, no. 11, p. 98Google Scholar, and, on its forgery, p. 194: see also Böhmer, J. F.. Regesta imperii, ii: Sächsische Zeit, 5. Abteilung: Papstregesten 911–1024. ed. Zimmermann, H.. no. 203, p. 76.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ PDR, no. 207. p. 114.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Gay, , L'ltalie méeridionale, pp. 417–20Google Scholar; Chron. mon. cas., ii, 38.

⁷² Benedict viii: Vat. lat. 4939, fol. 139^v; see IP, ix (Berlin, 1962), p. 82, no. 2.Google Scholar Henrv ii: Vat. lat. 4939, fol. 132; MGH, Diplomata 3, no. 468, pp. 596–7; see Bertolini, . ‘Gli Annales Beneventani’ pp. 136–8.Google Scholar

⁷³ Gay, , L'Italie méridionale, p. 424Google Scholar; Chron. mon. cas., ii, 42; on Henry's intervention at Montecassino and Theobald's election, see Bloch, , ‘Monte Cassino, Byzantium, and the West’, pp. 173–5Google Scholar; Hirsch, S., Jahrbücher des deutschen Reichs unter Heinrich II., iii, ed. Bresslau, H. (Leipzig, 1875, repr. Berlin, 1975), pp. 198–210.Google Scholar Henry's charter to Montecassino is in MGH, Diplomata 3, pp. 603–4, no. 474.

⁷⁴ ‘liberum et immune ab omni subiectione ac iugo Casinensis monasterii’; Vat. lat. 4939, fol. 14P; IP, ix, p. 83, no. 5.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Chron. mon. cas., ii, 81–2, 84; Gay, pp. 477–90.

⁷⁶ ‘violenter a dicione huius loci subducta’; Chron. mon. cas., iv, 48.

⁷⁷ Chron. mon. cas., iii, 42; IP, viii, p. 147, no. 112.Google Scholar Gregory vii himself confirmed Santa Sofia's independence in 1084 (Vat. lat. 4939, fols. 142^v–145; IP, ix, p. 85, no. 12).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ PDR, no. 37, p. 100Google Scholar; ed. Gattola, , Historia, p. 54.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ These appeals are detailed by Leo in his breviatio; see Chron. mon. cas., iv, 7.

⁸⁰ Chron. mon. cas., iv, 48.

⁸¹ Chron. mon. cas., iv, 60.

⁸² On relations of Montecassino with Tremiti, see Leccisotti, T., ‘Le relazioni fra Montecassino e Tremiti e i possedimenti cassinesi a Foggia e Lucera’;, Benedictina, 9 (1949), pp. 203–15Google Scholar; Gay, J., ‘Le monastère de Tré;miti au XI^e; siècle d'aprèes un cartulaire inédit’, Mélanges d'Archéologie el d'Histoire, 17 (1897), pp. 387–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on confusion between Santa Maria and Sancti Jacobi see Leccisotti, , ‘Le relazioni’, p. 207Google Scholar, and Caspar, , Petrus diaconus, pp. 11–14.Google Scholar

⁸³ ‘Tremitensis coenobii, quod nobis antiquitus pertinuisse Romanorum quoque privilegia pleraque testantur’; Chron. mon. cas., III, 25.

⁸⁴ Chron. mon. cas., I, 15.

⁸⁵ IP. viii. p. 154, no. 141.Google Scholar See Caspar, , Petrus diaconus, p. 13Google Scholar; Leccisotti, , ‘Le relazioni’. pp. 206–7.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ MGH, Diplomata 5, p. 377, no. 272; Petrucci, , Codice diplomatico, ii, p. 68, no. 20.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ MGH, Diplomata 5, p. 441, no. 323; Petrucci, , Codice diplomatico), ii, p. 163, no. 52.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ IP, ix, p. 181, no. 1Google Scholar; Petrucci, , Codice diplomatico, ii, p. 156, no. 49.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Chron. mon. cos., ii, 86; see below, pp. 80–1 and note 95.

⁹⁰ Chron. mon. cas., iii, 6.

⁹¹ In his capacity as apostolic vicar for all of southern Italy under Nicholas ii, Desiderius was ultimately charged by Alexander ii in 1071 (IP, ix, p. 185, no. 5Google Scholar) to proceed to the reform of the monastery at Tremiti. He deposed abbot Adam and appointed the Cassinese monk Trasmundus; against this outsider the monks revolted, and were repressed with ruthless violence; Desiderius was forced to recall and depose his appointee. For some time relations were suspended between Desiderius and Ferro, whom Trasmundus had left in charge at Tremiti. Finally an appeal by Desiderius to the Norman Robert Guiscard resulted in a military occupation that sent Ferro away and turned the monastery over to Desiderius. Guiscard was willing to accept the fealty of the monks, but would not guarantee their independence from Montecassino; to rule Tremiti he appointed first three monks of Montecassino, later replaced by a single overseer. This last also rebelled against Desiderius, and he too was ultimately deposed and returned to his abbot. An attempt to make Tremiti subject to the abbot of Terra Maggiora (Torremaggiore) failed at the latter's death. The ultimate solution, approved by Pope Gregory vii, who recognised Desiderius as ‘tutor et defensor’ of Tremiti (IP, ix, pp. 183–4, no. 6Google Scholar), was to entrust the government of Tremiti to Ferro, who in turn would be responsible to Desiderius during the latter's lifetime, but thereafter only to the Pope (see Chron. mon. cas., iii, 25; Gay, , ‘Le monastere de Trémiti’, pp. 387–405Google Scholar; Petrucci, , Codice diplomatico, i, pp. xi–xlixGoogle Scholar).

Thus Montecassino ultimately failed to gain control of Tremiti. Indeed, in 1081 (or 1082: see Petrucci, , Codice diplomatico, ii, p. 251Google Scholar), Desiderius himself relinquished all authority over Tremiti, giving full liberty to the monastery and to its abbot Ungrellus. The document detailing this event is copied onto fol. 9 of Vat. lat. 10657, the cartulary made in part from an Old Beneventan gradual. The document is printed in Petrucci, , Codice diplomatico, ii, pp. 250–3Google Scholar; from Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, MS xiv a 3, it is printed in Gay, , ‘Le monastère de Trémiti’, pp. 406–7Google Scholar; see Leccisotti, , ‘Le relazioni’, p. 206.Google Scholar

⁹² ‘Tunc etiam et Ambrosianum cantum in ecclesia ista cantari penitus interdixit.’ Chron. mon. cas., ii, 94.

⁹³ Among the manuscript descriptions of Beneventan chant as ‘Ambrosian’ are the following:

Vat. lat. 10673: ‘officium sexta feria in Parasceben secundum Ambrosianum’ (fol. 33); ‘antifonas grecas latinasque ante crucem sicut in ambrosiano scripte sunt’ (fol. 33).

Lucca 606: ‘Deinde Responsorium ambrosianum’ (fol. 153).

Benevento 33: ‘Officium in parasceve secundum ambrosianum’ (fol. 68).

Benevento 38: ‘Tractus ambrosianus’ is used four times for the Beneventan Tracts Domine audivi, Cantabo, Attende and Sicut cervus (fols. 44–6; the last is palimpsest).

Vatican, Ottob. lat. 145: ‘Item quando non canimus ipse antiphone secundum romano quo modo supra scripte sunt canimus secundum ambrosiano hoc modo.’ See Boe, ‘A New Source for Old Beneventan Chant’.

‘Solesmes flyleaves’, eight anonymously owned eleventh-century leaves from an anti-phoner mixing Gregorian and Old Beneventan chant: ‘vig. s. iohis bapt. [ant.] ambro. ad vesp’. See Kelly, ‘Une nouvelle source pour l'office vieux-bènèventain’.

⁹⁴ See Boe. ‘Old Beneventan Chant at Monte Cassino’. Remember also the Cassinese connection of the ‘Ambrosian’ antiphons in Ottob. lat. 145. See above, p. 80 and note 93.

⁹⁵ Chron. mon. cas., II, 86; Leccisotti, , ‘Le relazioni’, p. 204.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Richerius was appointed by the Emperor Conrad ii at the request of the community to reestablish imperial protection from Pandulf of Capua who, supported by the Byzantine empire, had imprisoned Theobald and imposed his own servant as abbot of Montecassino. See Chron. mon. cas.. ii. 56–65; Amatus, of Montecassino, Storia de’ Normanni, ed. de Bartholomaeis, V., Fonti per la Storia d'Italia 76 (Rome, 1935), ii, p. 5Google Scholar; Desiderius, , Dialogi de miraculis sancti Benedicti. MGH, Scriptores 30, i, p. 9Google Scholar; Bloch, , ‘Monte Cassino, Byzantium, and the West’, pp. 187–8.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ The dramatic story of this election is told in Chron. mon. cas., ii, 88–93.

⁹⁸ Fuller discussions of Frederick's career and the events leading to his election as abbot and Pope can be found in Bloch, , ‘Monte Cassino, Byzantium, and the West’, pp. 189–93Google Scholar; Gay, , L'Italie mèridionale, pp. 509–51.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Chron. mon. cas., iii, 6.