Medieval Salve Regina

After my posting about the availability of downloadable files for the Antiphonarium for the Liturgy of the Hours in Dominican chant, which I decorated with the page for the Salve Regina from the Poissy Antiphonal, a reader reminded me that the text in that manuscript does not match the version of the Salve Regina in use in the Dominican Order or in the Roman Church today. And I thought some comments on this might be of interest to readers since the Salve Regina is perhaps the most beloved chant of the Dominican Order and much loved by all Catholics.

To the right you can see the folio 935v of the Poissy Antiphonal. This manuscript is accessible on line at Latrobe University in Australia. This manuscript belonged to a convent of Dominican nuns in France. It was transcribed in the period 1335-1345 and is a "certified" Dominican Antiphonal. That means that it was not only written by the medieval Dominican method of painting the neumes using an authorized stencil, but that the music was sung through by two friars or sisters using the "new" book against two other friars or sisters using an older "certified" book. This made sure that all medieval Dominican chant books were absolutely identical. No other medieval chant books of any other musical tradition were so perfectly identical. I have reviewed this so that you can all be sure that this is music is exactly as the medieval Dominicans chanted it.

Even a non-paleographer can see that in the first line of the Salve of this manuscript the modern version's word "Mater" is absent. This is the original form of the Salve Regina, as found in all the medieval chant and manuscript traditions. The word "Mater" was only added in the sixteenth century. Those who know the polyphonic music of Orlande de Lassus (ca, 1532-1594) may have sung his setting of the Salve, where this word is missing. You will notice how smoothly the chant moves from "regina" to "misericordiae." The original form, very medieval in piety, was thus: "Hail Queen of Mercy."

At the right, we see the next page of the manuscript, folio 936r. Here you can see another place were the medieval version differs from both the modern Roman and the Dominican versions. The word "Virgo" is absent, and so the last line of the antiphon reads simply: O dulcis Maria. The immediate focus on the Holy Name is also very medieval. The alleluia, which has exactly the same chant as the version sung by modern Dominicans during Easter Time, follows. This addition of "Virgo" to the original chant of the Salve seems to have appeared in the thirteenth century, but, again, the Dominicans, typically traditional about chant and text, did not add it until much later. In fact, this manuscript, where as you can seen in faint addition on the previous page's left margin has "Mater" and the altered music added in a sixteenth-century hand, does not have any suggestion that "Virgo" should be added at this point. A comprehensive study of the manuscripts and early printed editions of the Dominican Salve would have to be done, but I suspect that the medieval version of the Dominican Salve did not receive these textual and musicial changes until the 1600s. Perhaps during the Romanizing reforms of 1604.

A PDF file with this medieval version of the Salve may be downloaded here. I would wonder if Dominican readers think that we should restore, at least for occasional use, the Salve as it was sung from the time of Humbert's standardization of the liturgy in 1254 until the Post-Reformation period, which was also the way that St. Thomas, St. Catherine, and St. Vincent Ferrer, and probably Our Holy Father Dominic actually sang it?

Ways of Singing the Salve Regina

A recent comment in the section of this blog that concerns how to sing Dominican Chant raised a good point that is worth commenting on in the public venue. The author is obviously a friar or was once in formation in a Dominican commuity. Here is the coment:

Re. the Salve Regina not being sung by alternate choirs, I was once told that there was a time when this was done, and one of the brothers I knew (now dead) used to sing it that way while everyone else used to sing it all together. I don't recall who told me about the old way.

In fact, that is how it is usually sung at the Angelicum in Rome. There seem to have been diverse traditions on how to sing this antiphon. For example, the 1933 Gillet Antiphonal, p. 133 (reproduced in the original posting), indicates that the Antiphon is to be sung straight through, because there are only single bars. But the 1949 Suarez Processional, p. 90, shows the double bars indicating the alternation between the semi-choirs. The same use of double bars is found in the 1863 Jandel Antiphonal, vol. 1, p. 138, as in the earlier 1909 Cormier Processional, p. 89. But the edition of our music found in the Jandel Antiphonal is very untrustworthy and seems to have been heavily influcenced by Roman practice and represents what was going on in the early modern period in our chant.

Perhaps the best place text to consult on this (which is easily available) is the electronic text of the 14th-century Dominican Poissy Antiphonal at LaTrobe Univ. in Australia. It shows medieval practice and is a "certified" MS--that means that was approved as matching the Humbert exemplar. It has no double bars in the text and, in fact, uses quarter and half bars where the modern books have the double or single bars. So it supports the 1933 Antiphonal, something that does not surprise me as that book was carefully corrected against the medieval music.

I might also add that the version of the O Lumen in the Antiphonal and the Processionals does not match that in that in the Compline books! The Compline books do not have a quater bar after the "men" of Lumen--so there should be no holding of that clivis. And, in fact, the tune found in the Compline books seems to be the more common one in current Dominican use. Probably because most friars learned to sing the O Lumen using the Completorium. This is not a trivial matter: at the Angelicum there is a perpetual war over whether hold that clivis: about half the community does and half does not. This clash used to drive me nuts.

Is there a "correct way" to sing the Salve? Probably not. As in so many matters there seem to be local traditions. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that the Gillet Antiphonal is to be preferred because it matches the medieval text. The alternating between choirs for this Antiphon (and for the O Lumen) probably reflects a Romanization of the way of executing the chant introduced in the early modern period, something that the Gillet Antiphonal was removing. For me, it also makes more sense to sing straight though: these texts are antiphons, not hymns or responsories. But then I am probably influenced by the practice of was formed in. The same is the case for the hold on the clivis in the O Lumen. I dislike it, not so much because I don't find it in Poissy, but because that is how I learned to sing it. I might add that the Mass ordinary is sometimes sung with alternations in ways that don't match the 1950 Gradual either. Sigh.

I can sympathize with those older friars who didn't like the change. This things seem so minor -- unless you are singing the pieces very day and suddenly find yourself in a house that does it differently. Then you understand why Humbert was commissioned to standardize the Office.