The Premonstratensian Order, otherwise known as the Norbertine Order, was founded by St Norbert (c.1080–1134) in Prémontré, a village to the south of Laon (France) in 1121. The foundation of this Order should be considered in the context of the Gregorian reform, the aim of which was to drive back the influence of the laity on the clergy. Wrongs amongst the clergy themselves, such as simony, living in concubinage and living in unbridled luxury were also opposed. It was to this end that the Gregorian reform movement strived for a return to the basic principles of the first Christian community:Footnote 1 communal living in combination with apostolic service.Footnote 2 The rule of St Augustine made it possible for this ‘vita apostolica’ in particular to be put into practice and it therefore attracted a great deal of attention from the end of the eleventh century onwards.
In this article attention will be paid not so much to the rise and development of the Premonstratensian Order as to ‘Premonstratensian’ chant, whereby I restrict myself to chants sung during the Mass. In 1910 the Premonstratensian Order acquired its own Graduale, the Graduale ad usum canonici Praemonstratensis ordinis. Soon after the appearance of this Graduale its authenticity was questioned.Footnote 3 Even so, the Premonstratensians continue to hold onto their ‘own’ chant and to make use of the 1910 Graduale to this very day. In this article I will show that the Graduale is not a reconstruction of Premonstratensian chant of the first centuries of the Order. In doing so I will discuss the procedure used by the committee that put together the Graduale of 1910 and also enter into the development of the liturgical regulations within the Premonstratensian Order in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Finally I attempt to explain why the Premonstratensians undertook the search for their ‘own, authentic’ Premonstratensian chant.
Liturgical regulations
In the beginning, the new Order of Prémontré lived without rules or any other form of legislation. After a while Norbert, under the influence of the Gregorian reform movement, chose to adhere to the rule of St Augustine. St Augustine (354–430), who was bishop in North Africa, wrote a rule of life for the clergy in his diocese that has been handed down in nine different versions,Footnote 4 thus making it impossible to talk of the one and only rule of St Augustine. Of these nine different versions, two are significant with regard to the Premonstratensian Order.
Ordo Monasterii
The most widespread and generally accepted rule of St Augustine was the Regula tertia or Praeceptum. Besides this there is also the Regula secunda or Ordo Monasterii. This is not one of St Augustine's documents, although it was considered as such by some. Typical of the Ordo Monasterii is the unusual structure of the Office, manual labour, strict fasting and continuous silence.
Various documents show that Norbert had chosen to use the Ordo Monasterii.Footnote 5 Besides this, we also come across the Praeceptum in old writings of the Order.Footnote 6 It is not clear why and precisely when this was introduced and combined with the Ordo Monasterii.
The Ordo Monasterii gives us the first indication of the structure of the liturgy:
Qualiter autem nos oportet orare vel psallere describimus: id est, in matutinis dicantur psalmi tres: sexagesimus secundus, quintus et octogesimus nonus; ad tertiam prius psalmus unus ad respondendum dicatur deinde antiphonae duae, lectio et conpletorium; simili modo sexta et nona; ad lucernarium autem psalmus responsorius unus, antiphonae quattuor, item psalmus unus responsorius, lectio et conpletorium. Et tempore oportuno post lucernarium, omnibus sedentibus, legantur lectiones; post haec autem orationes mena, novembri, decembri, ianuario et februario, antiphonae duodecim, psalmi sex, lectiones tres; martio, aprili, septembri et octobri, antiphonae decem, psalmi quinque, lectiones tres; maio, iunio, iulio et augusto, antiphonae octo, psalmi quattuor, lectiones duae.
I shall describe how we should pray or recite the psalms: that is, for Matins, three psalms should be said, the sixty-second, the fifth, and the eighty-ninth. At Terce, one psalm should be said as far as its response, then two psalms recited antiphonally, a reading and the closing prayer; and so ought Sext and None to be said. But at Vespers say one psalm to its response, four antiphonal psalms, another psalm to its response, a reading and the closing prayer. At a suitable hour after Vespers, when all are seated, the lessons should be read; and after that there should be said the psalms customary before sleeping. The night prayers, during the months of November, December, January, and February, should consist of twelve antiphonal psalms, six psalms to their responses, and three lessons; in the months of March, April, September, and October, of ten antiphonal psalms, five to their responses, and three lessons; in the months of May, June, July, and August, of eight antiphonal psalms, four psalms to their responses, and two lessons.Footnote 7
It is obvious that these regulations were not enough to enable a complete structuring of the liturgy. After all, there is no indication of what exactly should be sung and read, nor do they include instructions for the celebration of Mass.
The fact that the Premonstratensians used the Ordo Monasterii on which to base the order of the Office provoked opposition. The division of the Office into three seasons was frowned upon in particular. Two letters, written between 1122 and 1126, convey these objections.Footnote 8 The first is a letter from Walter, bishop of Maguelonne, addressed to Seher, abbot of Chaumouzey. This monastery had joined the Order of Prémontré. In his letter the bishop criticised the new practices, especially the order of the liturgy:
Porro canonici officii mutationem […] sacris canonibus et ipsi beato Augustino obviare testamur. Si enim canonici vocamur et canonicam vitam professi sumus, a Romana ecclesia, matre nostra, canones nobis datos, a quibus etiam vocabulum sumpsimus, amplecti in omnibus et praecipue in ecclesiae officio imitari debemus, ita et ut haereticus approbetur qui contra eam falsas aut novas opiniones vel gignit vel sequitur.
Furthermore, we believe that alterations of the canonical Office […] are in breach of the sacred rules and Saint Augustine himself. Because if we are called canons and if we have accepted canonical life, then the church of Rome, our mother, which gave us rules, from which we have derived our name, expects us to accept and especially to follow the entire ecclesiastical Office in such a way that the one who either brings forth or follows untrue or new opinions against her, be assumed a heretic.
The second letter is from Pontius, abbot of St Ruf, to the same Seher. He also criticised the arrangement of the choral prayer:
Iam vero quid absurdius quidve enormius dici valeat quam illa diurni nocturnique officii discretio qua nec Romanum nec monachicum nec ecclesiasticum sequitur usum?
What deserves to be called more foolish or more beyond the rules than that distinction between the Office during the day and night that follows neither Roman nor monastic nor ecclesiastical tradition?
Pope Honorius II brought an end to this discussion, decreeing on 1 September 1126 or 1127 that the Office should no longer be arranged according to the Ordo Monasterii and that from then on it should be celebrated in accordance with the practices of the existing Orders:
Ceterum de psalmodia et de aliis officiis ecclesiasticis vobis mandamus ut ea, secundum aliorum regularium fratrum consuetudinem, celebretis.
With regard to the psalmody and other ecclesiastical devotions to duty, we instruct you to celebrate these in accordance with the practices of other regular friars.Footnote 9
It is not known whether or not this papal decree had a direct influence on the liturgy of Prémontré. Hugo van Fosses, Norbert's successor, started to draw up statutes directly after he had been appointed. These include a number of passages that concern the liturgy. However, these passages were missing from the second codification. This suggests that in the meantime a liturgical order had been formulated, although a Liber Ordinarius from the first half of the twelfth century has not been passed down.
Liber Ordinarius
A Liber Ordinarius, also referred to as an ‘ordinal’, is a book that includes instructions for the liturgy. It provides rubrics for the liturgy, in order of month: instructions with regard to the chants, readings, clothing, colours, possible processions and an indication of the class of the feasts concerned.
The first tradition of the Premonstratensian Liber Ordinarius can be found in the manuscript of Munich, Bavarian State Library, clm. 17174, f. 42v–96v.Footnote 10 This ordinal was laid down either in the last quarter of the twelfth century, or just after 1200.Footnote 11 From now on, I shall refer to this edition of the Liber Ordinarius as LO-1200. LO-1200 remained effective throughout the whole of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth centuries. Alterations and additions drawn up by the General Chapter or the pope were included in the manuscripts as glossaries or in corpora. A new version of the Liber Ordinarius came about in the fourteenth century: Novus Ordinarius Praemonstratensis, 1322–1379.Footnote 12
As has already been mentioned, an earlier version of the Liber Ordinarius is believed to have existed before LO-1200. Lefèvre speaks of Proto-Munich and presents three pieces of evidence to prove its existence:Footnote 13
1 The title of chapter XLVI of LO-1200 is: ‘About the Sundays following Pentecost, up till Advent.’ The following can be read in this chapter: ‘The book of Kings will be started on the following Sunday.’ Thus the title of the chapter suggests that ‘the following Sunday’ should be understood to mean the first Sunday after Pentecost. However, in the next chapter, XLVII (‘Quando incipiende sint historie’) it says: ‘The book of Kings is read from the first Sunday after the octave of Pentecost […].’ This comment must be considered as a correction of the comment made in chapter XLVI. The necessity of this correction can only be explained if we assume that chapter XLV, which deals with the feast of the Holy Trinity, was not yet included in Proto-Munich. In LO-1200 the feast of the Holy Trinity was added (chapter XLV). Since the feast of the Holy Trinity is celebrated on the first Sunday after Pentecost (the octave of Pentecost), the instruction in chapter XLVI had to be corrected.
2 There are four manuscripts that most definitely stem from Premonstratensian tradition and that must be dated from before LO-1200.Footnote 14 The prayers, chants and rituals in these manuscripts display many similarities with one another and the instructions in LO-1200. This is clearly an indication of the presence of liturgical regulations, even before LO-1200.
3 The first codification of the statutes (dating between 1135 and 1143) includes two passages concerning the liturgy. In view of the small number, these seem to function as a supplement to an already existing ordinal. This would mean that Hugo van Fosses drew up a Liber Ordinarius first, thus complying with the assignment given by pope Honorarius II, followed then by the statutes. The passages concerned from the statutes can be found literally in LO-1200.
Since Proto-Munich has not been passed down, as the oldest text of the Liber Ordinarius, LO-1200 is the basis on which research is carried out into the development of the liturgy of the Premonstratensian Order.
LO-1200 includes seventy-one chapters of varying lengths. There is no logic to the order of the subjects. Yet the content can be divided into nine sections,Footnote 15 whereby some groups are obviously a whole and others are made up more of separate elements:
1 Chapters 1–2: general rules concerning respectful behaviour in church, the decoration of the altar, lighting and clothing.
2 Chapters 3–5: Ordinary of Mass (morning Mass after Prime and High Mass after Terce or Sext).
3 Chapters 6–10: special rubrics of Mass: Gloria, collect, sequence, Creed and preface.
4 Chapters 11–12: regulations for the conventual during Mass.
5 Chapters 13–15: rites for the blessing of salt and water, processions on Sundays and feast days, prayers during the canonical Hours (Divine Office).
6 Chapters 16–58: ordinal for the rites of the ecclesiastical year, starting with Advent. The feasts of the sanctorale are included in the temporale. Incipits of prayers and chants are mentioned.
7 Chapters 59–62: details for the celebration of feasts, classed under four categories: duplex, celeber, novem lectionum and trium lectionum. A list is also provided of the saints that belong in the first three categories.
8 Chapters 63–64: list including the incipits of the alleluia verses of the temporale and the sanctorale. Chants for the missae familiares (votive Masses, Masses for a particular intention or a particular devotion, among others: in times of war, the plea for rain, in honour of the Holy Trinity or the Holy Cross).
9 Chapters 65–71: regulations for a funeral service and burial.
The process of unification
In the previous section liturgical regulations were discussed, as these have been passed down in written sources dating from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The question now is what influence these regulations had on practices. To what extent were these rules put into practice and can we speak of uniformity in the Premonstratensian liturgy?
Uniformity in the liturgy in the days of Norbert
Following his appointment as archbishop of Magdeburg in 1126, Norbert permitted those in the abbeys of Magdeburg and Gottesgnaden to wear a black cassock and to celebrate the Office according to the traditions of the secular canons. Thus in a chronicle from the above-mentioned abbey we read:
omnem eis regularium consuetudinem secundum traditionem beati Augustini, exceptis paucis specialibus, sicut et in Magdeborch fecerat indulsit […] tenorem autem cantandi et in horis canonicis juxta consuetudinem majoris ecclesie in Magdeborch et secularium clericorum, secundum quam ipse primum apud Xantum informatus erat, observarent.
He permitted them every practice of the regulars in accordance with the tradition of St Augustine, with the exception of a few details, just as he had done in Magdeburg […] and that they did, however, stick to the tenor of singing in the canonical Hours, too, in line with the practices of the cathedral in Magdeburg and the secular clergy, in accordance with which he himself had originally been educated in Xanten.Footnote 16
Jules Borremans, Norbertine of the abbey of Tongerlo, considered this to be evidence that there was unification in the liturgy during the time of Norbert. If not there would not have been a concession.Footnote 17 Wolfgang Roscher, who wrote a thesis on Premonstratensian chant, concluded from this text that there must have been a rule that prescribed unification in the liturgy and song for every monastery.Footnote 18 Both conclusions seem to me to be wrong. A regulation for unification in the liturgy would not have been possible because legislation in the way of statutes or a Liber Ordinarius did not yet exist round 1130. Moreover, it would be impossible for the manuscripts used at Prémontré, which were probably considered as the norm by other abbeys, to become spread throughout the whole of Europe within a period of ten years. Evidence also shows that many existing abbeys continued to make use of the manuscripts they already possessed, even after they had switched to the Premonstratensian Order. New abbeys adopted the manuscripts and customs of the region.Footnote 19 The tolerance mentioned above that Norbert showed to the abbeys of Magdeburg and Gottesgnaden appears to me to symbolise recognition of these practices.Footnote 20
Statutes and the papal bulls
In spite of this, the unification in the liturgy of the Order was considered to be an important issue, as can be seen in the first codification of the statutes (1135–1143):
Quos libros non liceat habere diverse
Missale, textus, epistolare, collectaneum, graduale, antiphonarium, imnarium, psalterium, lectionarium, regula, kalendarium ubique uniformiter habeantur.
The books between which there may be no differences
Missal, text, epistolary, collectar, gradual, antiphoner, hymnary, psalter, lectionary, Rule, calendar must be the same everywhere.Footnote 21
The later codifications of the statutes adopt this regulation, albeit with slight variations.
A number of successive papal bulls show that in practice it took some time to realise unification.Footnote 22 In 1131 and 1134, respectively, the pope ruled that the religious life of the whole Order should be structured according to the example of Prémontré. In 1146 the pope compelled the abbots to meet annually in Prémontré, in order to monitor and encourage unification within the Order. In 1177 Alexander III wrote the following:
ut ordo canonicus, quemadmodum in Praemonstratensi Ecclesia secundum beati Augustini regulam et dispositionem recolendae memoriae Norberti quondam Praemonstratensis ordinis Institutoris, et successorum suorum in candido habitu institutus esse dignoscitur, per omnes eiusdem Ecclesias, perpetuis temporibus inviolabiter observetur, et eaedem penitus observantiae, iidem quoque libri, qui ad divinum officium pertinent, ab omnibus eiusdem ordinis Ecclesiis, uniformiter teneantur.
that the canonical Order, as defined in the church of Prémontré in accordance with the rule of St Augustine and in accordance with the rule of Norbert, blessed memory, once the founder of the Premonstratensian Order, and his followers, be distinguished, because it is instituted with a white habit, inviolably be observed by all churches of the same (Order), for eternity, and that with the same absolute devotion, the books themselves, which concern the divine Office, be kept uniform by all churches of the same Order.
This decree was made no less than eight times: in 1183 by Lucius III, in 1187 by Urban III, in 1198 by Clement III, in 1198 by Innocent III, in 1217 by Honorarius III, in 1227 by Gregory IX, in 1249 by Innocent IV and finally in 1256 by Alexander IV. The last bull includes a small addition:
Volumus et mandamus, ut uniformitas librorum tam in cantu quam in lectionibus et regularibus institutis ubique servetur.
We request and order that the uniformity of the books in song as well as in the readings and the regulations introduced be observed in all places.
This stream of papal bulls can be considered as proof that there was no uniformity in the liturgy during the first 100 to 150 years of the Order of Prémontré. The fact that J. Borremans concluded the opposite is remarkable.Footnote 23 It seems to me that the continually repeated instruction to maintain unification is an indication that there was not yet unification at the time. For that matter, Pl. Lefèvre and W. Roscher assumed that the process of unification had reached completion round 1250.Footnote 24 This hypothesis would have to be verified by meticulously comparing a large number of manuscripts from the second half of the thirteenth century.
Abbot Emo
The absence of unification in the liturgical books in the twelfth and first half of the thirteenth centuries is also clear from the account of Abbot Emo (c.1175–1237), abbot of the Premonstratensian monastery of Bloemhof at Wittewierum (Friesland). Emo was irritated by the fact that the contents of the books varied so much in the different monasteries. We read in the chronicles:
Aderat pro huius mutabilitatis medicina carus amicus et huiuscemodi sollicitudinis medicus, scolasticus frater Frethericus […]. Ipse ore et manu, verbis et stilo instillabat auribus eius, ut libros ordinis suis laboribus de ipso gremio matris ecclesie transferret et novam plantam novo potu rigaret.
Et exclusa varietate cepit textum librorum musicorum conscribere, quem aput fontem facile posset corrigere, et notis quasi scaturigine prima aspergere.
He was greatly supported in the cure of all those differing practices by his good friend and doctor for that concern, namely the school teacher brother Frederick. […] He impressed upon him with word and deed, both in words and in writing, that it was through his own efforts that he was to deliver the books of the Order from the bosom of the mother convent and feed the young plant with fresh water.
And without including variations, Emo began to finish the text of the chant books; it would be easy for him to improve these at their basis and to water them with musical notes as one would with fresh spring water.Footnote 25
In 1214 Emo travelled together with brother Thitard to Prémontré and completed the assignment he had given himself. He was given a letter to take with him by Gervasius, the abbot of Prémontré, from which I would also like to quote a passage:
Sane dilectus in Christo Emo Floridi Orti provisor nuper veniens Premonstratum, multo sategit studio, multa curavit instantia, ut in ecclesia sua, que adhuc nova est, libri ecclesiastici haberentur secundum usum omnino et ordinem, quo ipsa ecclesia Premonstratensis utitur, tam in littera, quam in cantu. Ordinarium quoque ad exemplum nostri et institutiones conscripsit et quas in scriptis non invenit expressas. […] attentius in Domino commendamus, precipientes districtius in virtute spiritus sancti et sub pena excommunicationis, quatinus usus legendi pariter et cantandi, quem ad uniformitatem ordinis conservandum secum tulit a nobis, in ecclesia Floridi Orti perpetuo modi omnibus habeatur, nec patri abbati, nec alicui nostri ordinis professori aliquatenus liceat omnium eorum, que notavit aut scripsit, iota unum vel unum apicem immutare.
Recently Emo, our beloved brother in Christ, the temporary abbot of Bloemhof, came to Prémontré and has with great effort and persistence ensured that ecclesiastical books are available in his relatively young monastery that fully correspond to the practices and order adhered to by Prémontré Abbey, with regard to the text as well as to the music. He also completed the Ordinarius in line with the example of our own and in addition also the monastery regulations, including those of which he was unable to find any written notes. […] We therefore stipulate in the name of the Lord, through the power of the Holy Spirit and under penalty of excommunication that practices with regard to texts and song, which he has derived from us in order to maintain unification within the same Order, must be observed in all respects at the monastery of Bloemhof for eternity and that neither the father abbot nor any other monastic of our Order has the right to change a single dot on anything he has recorded or written.
In the second part of the chronicles of the abbey of Bloemhof, written by Abbot Menko (abbot from 1243–1276), it is again clearly described why Emo visited Prémontré: ‘because the books of the Order were nowhere to be found in Germany’.Footnote 26
The beginning of the process of unification
Yet, or better said, indeed, the regulations of Prémontré, the General Chapter and the popes had some influence. This is obvious, among others, from manuscripts that were used for the Graduale of 1910. In his study on the Premonstratensian Graduale, J. Borremans provided a list of manuscripts that were used during the reconstruction of this chant book.Footnote 27 However, not all the manuscripts are of Premonstratensian origin. This is because of the so-called affiliatio, whereby existing monasteries or chapters of canons switched to the Premonstratensian way of life. In order to be able to celebrate the liturgy, existing manuscripts were either used or copied for newly founded abbeys. Manuscripts from the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth centuries often include corrections and supplements – sometimes many, sometimes few – in a later hand, the aim of which was to adapt them to the liturgical regulations of the Order. Borremans mentioned that the adaptations were made in line with the Liber Ordinarius (Proto-Munich and/or LO-1200).Footnote 28 In doing so he implied that only the rubrics and the order of chants were altered and supplemented. Thus there was still diversity in the melodies.
The corrections and supplements are evidence that liturgical unification began to take place after the realisation of Proto-Munich in the second quarter of the twelfth century. The influence Proto-Munich had is even more obvious in the manuscripts that are of Premonstratensian origin. A comparison of the collectionarium of Leffe (first half of the twelfth century) and the missal of Paris (second half of the twelfth century)Footnote 29 with LO-1200 makes it very obvious that the process of unification was progressing. The collectionarium still allows for a significant amount of freedom as far as the choice of prayers is concerned. On the other hand, the regulations in the missal are much more detailed and coincide to a great extent with those in LO-1200. Therefore, to sum up it may be said that the liturgical regulations, as drawn up by Prémontré, were considered the standard for the whole Order, but that these were not followed equally meticulously in every monastery. In particular, the abbeys at which there was already an established liturgical tradition (affiliatio) either could not or did not want to let go of this tradition completely.Footnote 30
For that matter, it is not only the affiliatio that can be seen as an inhibiting factor in the process of unification. Another significant factor is that it was impossible to produce authentic Premonstratensian manuscripts at the same pace as the rapid development of the Order during the first century after its foundation. During the period up till 1150, approximately 250 abbeys or priories were founded.Footnote 31 Assuming a (hypothetical) number of two manuscripts per foundation were produced (one gradual and one antiphoner), this would amount to a production of 500 manuscripts within a period of thirty years!Footnote 32 A third factor that held back the process of unification was the absence of a model manuscript, as had been created within the Cistercian Order.Footnote 33
The Graduale of 1910
In 1902 the General Chapter decided that it was necessary to compile a new edition of the Premonstratensian chant books.Footnote 34 The aim was, following among others the Benedictines of Solesmes,Footnote 35 the CisterciansFootnote 36 and the Dominicans,Footnote 37 to retrieve the oldest official chant tradition and to reintroduce it.Footnote 38 In 1903, a committee was put together that included L. Wendelen (Tongerlo Abbey), N. Perreu (Frigolet Abbey), M. van Waefelghem and R. van Waefelghem (both of whom were from Park Abbey at Heverlee, Louvain), to execute this task.
In order to realise a justifiable publication, the committee collected twenty manuscripts together at Park Abbey. First these manuscripts were copied onto large pieces of paper (46 x 36 cm), on both sides of which were printed fifteen staves of four lines. The chant according to the Graduale of Solesmes was placed on the first staff,Footnote 39 then the same chant was placed on the following staves, each according to a different manuscript. In order to be able to put the text and notes beneath one another, thus making it easier to compare them, thirty-eight vertical lines were drawn in red. This resulted in tables that clearly illustrated the similarities and differences between the manuscripts.Footnote 40
When the members of the committee compared the manuscripts, they discovered that there were a great number of differences between them, but they could not understand why. Wendelen writes:
However, numerous documents proved that the Premonstratensians had an official musical text that was obligatory everywhere from the twelfth century onwards.Footnote 41
Neither could the committee understand why some manuscripts included so many alterations in the text and regulations. It was thought that this might be related to a renewal of the liturgy.
I have suggested above that a great many appeals to maintain unification in the liturgy should in fact be considered as an indication of the absence of unification. It has also become clear that during the first centuries after their foundation, the Premonstratensians frequently made use of manuscripts that were originally from other traditions. It was this latter aspect in particular that the committee failed to see through: the majority of the manuscripts used in the 1910 edition are not of Premonstratensian origin!
The most important manuscripts used by the committee are mentioned in the Appendix.Footnote 42 It is on the basis of this overview and secondary literature that we are able to come to the following conclusions with regard to the manuscripts used.
The first conclusion concerns the method, the way in which manuscripts were compared. Contrary to the scientifically reliable procedure as was carried out by Solesmes, the adiastematic manuscripts were not compared with diastematic ones of the same origin, whilst this was very definitely done with the famous tableaux of Solesmes. Manuscripts from the same ‘family’ are put together. It is in this way only that the melody of the adiastematic manuscripts can be reconstructed. Moreover, notes that are absent from the diastematic manuscripts of a later date (e.g. the quilisma or the first note of the torculus initio debilis) can be restored. From a scientific perspective it is irresponsible to use relatively late manuscripts, such as the numbers 4 and 5 from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, respectively, for the reconstruction of twelfth-century chant without comparing these late manuscripts with older manuscripts from the same region.
A second conclusion concerns the numbers 9, 10 and 11. The committee believed that these manuscripts originally came from Schäftlarn Abbey. It has been proved that this is not the case with regard to the numbers 9 and 11, as will be discussed below. The issue now is that this abbey did not play a significant part in the development of the Order. The relatively large amount of attention paid to Schäftlarn in scientific publications of the twentieth century is probably because the oldest known statutes come from this abbey.Footnote 43
The third conclusion is the most significant: most of the manuscripts used by the committee for the compilation of the 1910 Graduale cannot be regarded as being authentic, whereby ‘authentic’ can be taken to mean written for a Premonstratensian abbey. For example, there is convincing evidence that a number of manuscripts are from non-Premonstratensian abbeys, but that the affiliatio, or other reasons, nevertheless resulted in them being used in a Premonstratensian abbey. I list the manuscripts in question.
• The committee was of the opinion that Laon, Municipal Library, 226 bis (no. 2/second half of the twelfth century) originated at the Premonstratensian abbey of Cuissy. However, Victor Leroquais believed that this manuscript came from the abbey of St Paul at Verdun. This was originally a Benedictine abbey that switched to the Order of the Premonstratensians in 1131. Later this manuscript ended up at the abbey of Cuissy.Footnote 44 The contents of the manuscript do not coincide with the liturgical practices of Prémontré, neither does it include any corrections or supplements. We can conclude that this missal, given its date and origin, is an example of the continuation of a local tradition, in the absence of good guidelines from Prémontré.
• Having studied Porrentruy (Switzerland), Collège de Porrentruy, 72 (no. 3/second half of the twelfth century), M. van Waefelghem came to the conclusion that the whole is unusual to the Order. The manuscript includes corrections in accordance with the Liber Ordinarius, but it also contains numerous deviations from Premonstratensian tradition. Moreover, the corrections never involve the melodies. In an article from 1914, the author, who himself was a member of the committee that compiled the 1910 Graduale, therefore came to the conclusion that this manuscript should not have been used.Footnote 45
• Schlägl (Austria), archive of the abbey of Schlägl, cpl. 47/1 (no. 6/1255–1264) was also examined thoroughly by M. van Waefelghem.Footnote 46 It is of German origin and there is much evidence to suggest that it comes from Cistercian tradition. This becomes clear when one considers that the abbey of Schlägl was inhabited by Cistercians (1208–1216) for a number of years. The Cistercians gave the abbey to the Premonstratensians (1218) and returned to their own monastery at Langheim. The margins contain numerous supplements in a later handwriting that were designed to bring the manuscript into line with the Liber Ordinarius. The manuscript is of no value for the restoration of Premonstratensian chant. This missal is proof that the process of unification was a very slow one: more than fifty years after the appearance of LO-1200, a different manuscript was adopted for use that was not in line with Premonstratensian liturgical tradition.
• Heverlee, archive of Park Abbey, 20 (no. 8/thirteenth century) cannot have originated from Premonstratensian tradition, since the feast of St Augustine (the father of the Rule) is not included in it. This should be on f. 185 where, however, there is not even a correction or reference in the margin.
• D. von Huebner has studied the calendar of Munich, Bavarian State Library, clm. 17019 (no. 9/twelfth century).Footnote 47 He comes to the conclusion that this is a missal of Benedictine origin, from the abbey of Innichen in the diocese of Salzburg. In 1140, bishop Otto I von Freising took this abbey away from the Benedictines. At the same time, the bishop founded the Premonstratensian abbey of Schäftlarn and it was probably during this period that he gave the Norbertines the missal from Innichen. The committee thought that the manuscript originally came from Schäftlarn. Huebner shows that the Premonstratensians at Schäftlarn sought to adapt the Benedictine calendar to suit the practices of their own Order.
• Munich, Bavarian State Library, clm. 23270 (no. 11/thirteenth century) is not of Premonstratensian origin, although it does include supplements and corrections in accordance with the Liber Ordinarius. M. van Waefelghem comments that the calendar includes indications for the chants,Footnote 48 which would not have been necessary if the manuscript was of Premonstratensian origin. Moreover, references are made to chants that cannot be found in the missal. St Augustine appears in the calendar but not in the Sanctoral. Van Waefelghem concludes that this missal dates from the ninth or the tenth century and that it has been adapted to Premonstratensian tradition through supplements and a new calendar. The committee was of the opinion that this missal was from the abbey of Schäftlarn. However, G. Beyssac believes that the manuscript came from the Benedictine abbey of St George in Prüfening, in the diocese of Regensburg.Footnote 49 The Benedictine origin is also obvious in the calendar: 21 March ‘Benedicti abbatis’ in capital letters/14 July ‘Commemoratio S.Benedicti abbatis’ is written spaced.Footnote 50
• G. Beyssac indicates that London, British Library, Add. 11862 (no.12/eleventh or twelfth century) was probably written for the diocese of Cologne and then used in a church in Liège. Later it came into the possession of the Premonstratensian Park Abbey in Heverlee (near Louvain). There is not a single trace of the Premonstratensian Ordo, either in the first version or in the corrections.Footnote 51 The committee was of the opinion that this missal came from Park Abbey.
Of the numbers 2 up to and including 12, those sources used most for the reconstruction of Premonstratensian chant, only three of the manuscripts are authentic, namely the numbers 4, 5 and 10, and although number 10 is authentic, it is very incomplete. The numbers 4 and 5 date from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and are therefore not of much use. The numbers 13 and 14 should have been considered more important, given that these are manuscripts that were written specifically for a Premonstratensian monastery. N. Weyns has proven, on the basis of rubrics for Palm Sunday and Good Friday, that Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, 11396 (no. 13/c.1300), is of Premonstratensian origin.Footnote 52 The rubrics for Good Friday differ slightly and are more similar to those from the Premonstratensian missal of Antwerp.Footnote 53 The alleluia verses correspond to LO-1200. It is not quite clear where this gradual comes from. There are rather a lot of saints from the diocese of Liège; this speaks against Tongerlo as being the place of origin, since it belonged to the diocese of Kamerijk.
I myself examined the gradual from Oosterhout, archive priory of Catharinadal, 94 (no. 14/fourteenth century). This manuscript is quite badly damaged. It is most likely an authentic Premonstratensian gradual; however, it was not discovered by the committee until the 1910 Graduale was almost finished. For this reason it has only been used in a few places. The gradual from Oosterhout is made up of various parts from different periods. The oldest section has to date from the first quarter of the fourteenth century. Besides the palaeographical features,Footnote 54 this is apparent from the following:
• Corpus Christi is already mentioned (p. 186). This feast was introduced into the Premonstratensian liturgy between 1311 and 1322.Footnote 55
• Conceptio Beatae Mariae Virginis is not yet included. This feast was included in the Premonstratensian calendar in 1317.Footnote 56
• Thomas Aquinas is not yet included. He was canonised in 1323.Footnote 57
However, other sections are clearly younger. This is obvious, among other things, from the fact that the feast of Visitatio Beatae Mariae Virginis is already included (p. 277). This feast was not introduced until 1379.Footnote 58 The gradual from Oosterhout was changed radically in the seventeenth century: in many places the staves have been painted over in white and rewritten according to the Medicaea edition, whereby the original notation was preserved in a few places only. For that matter, the committee believed that this manuscript came from Oosterhout. However, this is not possible because the Norbertine Sisters (the female branch of the Premonstratensian Order) did not establish themselves here until 1646. Before that they lived at Vroenhout (under Wouw, from 1271) and Breda (from 1295).
The balance
It is evident that the Graduale of 1910 does not include ‘authentic’ Premonstratensian chant. Despite the ‘profound faith’ of the committee that put together the 1910 Graduale in the belief of ‘pure, beautiful, Premonstratensian chant’,Footnote 59 there is no evidence that Prémontré issued anything other than liturgical regulations.Footnote 60 In cases in which LO-1200 was lacking, the Premonstratensians filled in the liturgy themselves, in line with the canonical tradition of the Order and the local tradition of the abbey concerned.Footnote 61
Therefore, the question is why did the General Chapter decide to publish its own Graduale in 1902 and why, despite problems during research and the absence of convincing uniformity in the tradition of manuscripts, did the committee continue to have faith in unique authentic Premonstratensian chant? The search for a unique liturgical–musical repertoire can probably be explained on the basis of the situation in which the Order found itself round 1900. After the French Revolution and the secularisation of monasteries, most Premonstratensian monasteries in Western Europe disappeared.Footnote 62 Restoration started from the second half of the nineteenth century. The Order flourished again in France from 1859. The Premonstratensians of the abbey of Berne (the Netherlands), who had for a long time been living in different presbyteries throughout North Brabant, were able to resume their conventual life from 1856.Footnote 63 In Belgium the monasteries reopened during the first half of the nineteenth century.Footnote 64 An important issue in the restoration of the Order was the position of the Abbot General. For some considerable time this position, which we may consider as being the safeguard for unification within the Order, could not be filled. It was not until 1883 that the abbots, who had gathered in Vienna thanks to the abbot of Tongerlo, under the chairmanship of the Viennese nuncio, were able to choose an Abbot General, who was then inducted in his position by Pope Leo XIII.Footnote 65
It is in this context of revival, restoration and the quest for unification within the Order, outlined here with only a few facts, that we can perhaps situate the pursuit of its own chant books. Since the seventeenth century, the liturgy of the Premonstratensians had been adapted to the Roman liturgy in accordance with the editions that had appeared after the Council of Trent. True, the Order had published its own liturgical books, but these were to a great extent ‘Romanised’.Footnote 66 It seems as though during the revival and restoration of the Order in the nineteenth century the aim was to strengthen the Premonstratensian identity by consciously seeking alliance with its own tradition, as it could be traced back to St Norbert himself. Eric Hobsbawm refers to this as the ‘invention of tradition’, meaning that tradition is employed in order to realise what is considered of importance in the present (namely, unification and identity).Footnote 67 This method of dealing with the past is aptly illustrated by Jules Borremans in his book about the Graduale, when he goes into the question as to why the Order had not adopted the Editio Vaticana:
One should consider the appearance of our edition merely as a simple but genuine monument of childlike piety towards our founder Saint Norbert and our forefathers. It is therefore simply love for this valuable family treasure, that is called ‘tradition’, that makes us divert from the Editio Vaticana, – just as, for that matter, other great religious Orders have done before us, – without in any way undermining the respect that it commands and rightfully deserves.Footnote 68
In addition, the concept ‘tradition’ was very broadly interpreted by the committee that compiled the 1910 Graduale. It was realised that the twelfth-century manuscripts that had been used for research for the purpose of the Graduale of 1910 did not represent authentic Premonstratensian chant. But it was wondered whether the chants that have been used to sing the praises of God in the abbeys for a number of centuries could be referred to as being ‘alien’? Wendelen writes:
Have not those chants, which our Forefathers … used, become for us a sacred inheritance? And would using that sacred inheritance for our new Graduale contribute something that is unfamiliar to us? And has, in this case, the loss of the term ‘traditional chant’ not been amply made up for by the purity and soundness of the melodies of our Forefathers?Footnote 69
The restoration of this ‘sacred inheritance’, the melodies of the forefathers, has in any case had an effect: the Premonstratensians are still proud of their own chant.Footnote 70
Appendix
The manuscripts that were used for the compilation of the Graduale of 1910 as these appear on the tables of the proprium de tempore. See also Borremans, Le chant liturgique, 8–9.
1 Gradual of Solesmes
2 Laon, Municipal Library, 226 bis.Footnote 71
missal
origin: St Paul in Verdun
dated: second half of the twelfth century
music notation: in campo aperto, type Metz
3 Porrentruy (Switzerland), Collège de Porrentruy, 72Footnote 72
gradual
origin: Bellelay (Switzerland)
dated: second half of the twelfth century
music notation: on staff
4 Averbode, archive Averbode Abbey, IV, 419
gradual
origin: Averbode
dated: fifteenth century
music notation: on stave
5 Tongerlo, archive Tongerlo Abbey, V nr. 326 or 327
gradual
origin: Herentals
dated: 1559
music notation: on staff
6 Schlägl (Austria), archive Schlägl Abbey, cpl. 47/1
missal
origin: Schlägl
dated: 1255–1264
music notation: in campo aperto, type Sankt-Gallen
7 Heverlee, archive Park Abbey
fragments (from missal or gradual)
origin: Park Abbey
dated: fourteenth or fifteenth century
music notation: on staff
The following is often used under number 7:
Mondaye (France), abbey archive
processional, printed
origin: unknown
dated: 1574
music notation: on staff
8 Heverlee, archive Park Abbey, 20
missal
origin: LierFootnote 73
dated: thirteenth century
music notation: on staff
This manuscript includes numerous corrections and supplements. Moreover, a number of signatures were added or replaced in the fourteenth or fifteenth century.
9 Munich, Bavarian State Library, clm. 17019
missal
origin: Innichen
dated: twelfth century
music notation: in campo aperto, type Sankt-Gallen
10 Munich, Bavarian State Library, clm. 17013
missal (incomplete; includes Advent up to and including the third Sunday after Pentecost)
origin: Schäftlarn Abbey (Bavaria)
dated: thirteenth century
music notation: on staff
11 Munich, Bavarian State Library, clm. 23270
missal
origin: St Georges in Prüfening
dated: thirteenth or ninth–tenth centuries
music notation: in campo aperto, type Sankt-Gallen
12 London, British Library, Add. 11862
missal
origin: diocese of Cologne
dated: eleventh or twelfth century
music notation: in campo aperto, type Sankt-Gallen
In addition to the manuscripts mentioned above, the following three graduals were used now and then:
13 Brussels, Royal Library, 11396
gradual
origin: Tongerlo Abbey (?)
dated: last quarter of the thirteenth–first quarter of the fourteenth centuries (before 1317)
music notation: on staff
14 Oosterhout, archive Catharinadal priory, 94
gradual
dated: fourteenth century
music notation: on staff
15 The Hague, Royal Library, 78 A 33
gradual
origin: Berne
dated: probably just after 1537Footnote 74
music notation: on staff
Use was also made of three processionals and an unspecified manuscript from 1610 that is now in Prague.
