Last few antiphons needed for 2nd Vespers in Lent
  • Dan F.Dan F.
    Posts: 205
    I am beginning to prepare to sing vespers according to the Liturgy of the Hours for Lent and Palm Sunday. I have used the Ordo Cantus Officii to find all of the Latin antiphons chants except for 4. If anybody can point me to sources online, or even quickly scan them from a book you have, I would be most appreciative. I've checked the Liber Usualis, Antiphonale (1912), Antiphonarium (1923), and Vesperale Romanum (1913) from the CMAA site. Here are what I'm missing, with their source reference:

    Nos qui vivimus - Psalterium Monasticum 309
    Fidelia - Psalterium Monasticum 303
    Iucundus homo - CAO 3510
    Sicut exaltatus est serpens - CAO 4932
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 998
    Dan,

    I have all four of them, and I can typeset them if you want to. Right now, I'm heading off for work, but when I'm home again (in about 10 hours), I'm able to do this. Here's where they are:

    Nos qui vivimus (PM 309): AM2 75
    Fidelia (PM 303): AM2 51
    Iucundus homo (CAO 3510): AM3 435
    Sicut exaltatus est serpens (CAO 4932): TQ 204

    TQ: Vesperale
Liturgiæ
Horarum
in
Tempore
Quadragesimali
iuxta
usum
Ordinis
Prædicatorum (2009)
    AM2: Antiphonale Monasticum II (2006)
    AM3: Antiphonale Monasticum III (2007)

    I didn't check TQ for the other antiphons, but it is possible that they are there as well.

    Steven
  • dvalerio
    Posts: 341
    Nos qui vivimus - I know two forms of this antiphon, both of them from books of OP use: 1) found both in p. 93 and p. 230 of Fr. Thomson's Vesperale for Lent, mentioned above, and in p. 115 of Jandel's Antiphonarium vol. 1 (which is actually the source of the former); 2) found in p. 46 of Frühwirth's Vesperarum Liber. I have no idea about which is better from a scholarly point of view.

    Fidelia - Is this antiphon Fidelia omnia? I am not sure: the psalm does not match, since the 1983 OCO assigns Fidelia to psalm 115, while old sources assign Fidelia omnia to psalm 110. If someone knows this please let me know. But if it is you'll find Fidelia omnia in p. 113 of Jandel's Antiphonarium vol. 1 (see the link above; it appears also in vol. 2) and in p. 39 of Frühwirth's Vesperarum Liber (see the link above). The melody is the same save for one note. Fr. Thomson does not give this antiphon.

    Jucundus homo - See p. 161 of Fr. Thomson's Vesperale (see the link above).

    Sicut exaltatus - See p. 195 of Fr. Thomson's Vesperale (see the link above).
  • Dan F.Dan F.
    Posts: 205
    Wonderful! Thanks for your help. I'm planning to typeset them new. I'll post them here for anybody else who'd like to avoid the scavenger hunt.
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 998
    Sometimes, the antiphons in the new Antiphonale Monasticum are a little different from the ones in nineteenth and early twentieth century sources. So, I typeset the antiphons as I have them. Here they are:
    Antiphons.pdf
    627K
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    Sigh... this shouldn't be like this. We need a new Liber usualis!
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 998
    Fidelia - Is this antiphon Fidelia omnia? I am not sure: the psalm does not match, since the 1983 OCO assigns Fidelia to psalm 115, while old sources assign Fidelia omnia to psalm 110. If someone knows this please let me know.


    The Ordo Cantus Officii assigns the antiphon Fidelia to the second psalm of second vespers of the third Sunday of Lent. So, the antiphon is followed by Psalm 110, Confitebor Domino, just as it should be.
  • dvalerio
    Posts: 341
    > the antiphon Fidelia (...) is followed by Psalm 110

    Oops, my mistake when I checked that in the LH! I confess that I seldom pray Vespers.

    > Sometimes, the antiphons in the new Antiphonale Monasticum are a little different from the ones in nineteenth and early twentieth century sources

    Furthermore, Dominican sources lack neumatic signs like the quilisma (as Fr. Thomson explains somewhere in one of his posts on the subject either on his blog or on the NLM blog, I can't recall which).

    > We need a new Liber usualis!

    For the Office you now have Les Heures Grégoriennes, already mentioned in this forum here, here and here. I'm constantly bringing this up not because I have any monetary interest in the sales of that book (I don't!) but because it really seems to be a nice publication. (I say "seems" because I don't own it myself and have never seen one in my life---but people who bought it appear to be quite satisfied, or at least say so in this forum's discussions I linked to above.)
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 998
    Working on Sunday Lauds and Vespers myself (see this website for the progress so far), I noticed that Les Heures Grégoriennes doesn't follow the Ordo Cantus Officii most of the time. For example, I'm now working on Sanctae Familiae, where OCO has different antiphons for each hour, whereas First Vespers, Lauds and Second Vespers in Les Heures Grégoriennes all have the same antiphons (except for the Benedictus and Magnificat). The great thing about Les Heures Grégoriennes, however, is that you only need a single volume when singing the Liturgy of the Hours, and you don't have to turn pages very much.
  • Dan F.Dan F.
    Posts: 205
    smvanroode, Thanks for your setting of these antiphons.

    dvalerio, Yes, I'd like a copie of Les Heures Gregoriennes except the cost is too much for me. Also interesting that it doesn't follow the OCO.

    What just astounds me is that we have this list of all the chants for singing the office, and apparently NOBODY in the WHOLE WORLD in over 25 years has collected them together! Incredible.

    BTW, why is the Ordo Cantus Officii diferent from the text in the Liturgia Horarum? Is this another case of having "sung propers" different from the "spoken propers"?
  • Adam Bartlett
    Posts: 533
    smvanroode--

    I just have to say that your typesetting work is absolutely breathtaking! I almost can't believe how good this is!
  • Adam Bartlett
    Posts: 533
    BTW, why is the Ordo Cantus Officii diferent from the text in the Liturgia Horarum? Is this another case of having "sung propers" different from the "spoken propers"?


    I think it probably has more to do with the fact that the antiphons that were composed for Liturgia Horarum, typical edition, were not selected from the traditional antiphons that were sung, and therefore there are no melodies for them in the chant corpus. I suppose it is the same idea as the Missal vs. Graduale propers, isn't it? The whole thing really seems like such a tragedy.
  • dvalerio
    Posts: 341
    > Les Heures Grégoriennes doesn't follow the Ordo Cantus Officii most of the time

    I was unaware of the fact. From the presentation in their website, and from everything I have read, I just presumed it did. Actually, they got endorsed by the Congregation for Divine Worship, and are able to say it's an Editio Iuxta Typicam, so it never crossed my mind that it could not.

    > the cost is too much for me

    Yes, it really is very expensive!!!

    > see this website for the progress so far

    Fabulous! What an excellent job! I must thank you for putting all this excellent material online.
  • Dan F.Dan F.
    Posts: 205
    Here's my typesetting of the antiphons for II Vespers of Lent I, Year C Magnificat as listed in the Ordo Cantus Officii.
  • Dan F.Dan F.
    Posts: 205
    And here's the full booklet for Vespers II for the first Sunday in Lent. I'll make others available as I complete them.
  • Dan F.Dan F.
    Posts: 205
    Antiphons for 2nd Vespers of Lent I

    Full booklet for 2nd Vespsers of Lent I

    I'm thinking of switching to using the Dominican antiphons set by Fr. Thompson hosted at Dominican Litrugy. The texts are from the OCO, and it will save the time of fiddling with chant fonts.
Add a Comment