Mass formularies’ history
  • It's often said informally that the Mass formularies, as in the Liber, with their assignments such as “For Double Feasts, 3” are not normative.

    On the other hand Paschal and Requiem Masses are strongly associated with certain melodies: almost normative.

    Is there any history to read about how the 18 (?) (or 16?) formularies in the Liber came to be assembled, and more to the point, the background and traditions of assigning particular ordinary chants to Masses and seasons?
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,726
    Here is the first or at least earlier draft of the the Solesmes Kyriale,
    Here is the Sarum Kyriale, notice how it is set out differently to the modern books,
    In the Gradual or Notated Missal, They have a 'Proper' Ordinary for some feasts so it would note in the Proper the Ordinary to be used.

    This could be an interesting history, I wonder if anything has been published?
  • See the comments here:

    The first part of the Guillou article was also published in German in Beiträge zur Gregorianik 34/35.
  • My feeble understanding, based on vague recollections, leads me to surmize that the arrangement of mass ordinaries in LU was compiled by the monks of Solesmes in the later 19th c. as part of a systematization intended to provide a common practice throughout the Roman church. Its predecessor, the 1871 Putstet Graduale shares some commonalities but also considerable divergences. Putstet has 13 settings whereas LU has 18. I imagine that in the Solesmes researches they decided to add more settings to reflect the wide range of their available source material. What is different about Sarum, and probably other medieval liturgies is, as Andrew points out, that the ordinaries are not grouped by feast type; rather, all the kyries are given first, then the glorias, etc. with rubrics indicating when each chant is to be used. It would be a great study for some keen graduate student!
    Thanked by 2WGS tomjaw