I will ferret out some literary references later this evening. For now, I should have to say that your 'lectionary form' is true responsorial psalmody, which is: Responsory by all, Verse(s) by cantor or choir, Responsory, Verse, Resp., Verse, Resp. This form is the one that, if my memory is correct, originated in the Roman west and was distinct from antiphonal psalmody (Antiphon by All, Verse(s) by group one, Verse by group two, Antiphon by all, etc.), which came from the east. These two forms plus in directum, in which all sing the verses straight through without an antiphon or responsory, constitute the three manners of chanting psalmody. The Tract is a venerable example of in directum psalmody. The Tracts are amongst the most ancient chants in the repertory.

The arrangement which you quote from the GS is new to me (I don't have the simplex) - I have never encountered it in any scholarly or liturgical source.

What is rather tiring is that many otherwise praiseworthy church musicians still cannot absorb the very real distinctions betwixt responsorial and antiphonal psalmody, and continue incorrectly to label responsories as antiphons, or, even worse, to label both of them as 'refrains' - chant literature is absent anything labeled a 'refrain'.

It is of further note that the responsorial psalm, contrary to widespread misinformation, is not an unfortunate imposition of Vatican II. It is a restoration of what the Gradual Responsory (a uniquely Roman form) was in early times before it became the truncated form which appears in GR and which we normally call the Gradual.

We have had this discussion before, several times, but it seems requisite that we go over it yet again from time to time.

The tenor of your question then, should be, not where did the so-called 'lectionary form' come from, but whence the 'simplex form'.

tomjaw -

Right you are! That 'as used in most Catholic churches... [it] could hardly be described as a highlight of the Roman Rite'. Far from it. As with so much else that issued from Vatican II, what was well conceived was botched, often deliberately, in the application thereof.

And, while I truly admire the gradual responsory as we have received it in the GR, I am not in the least without favour towards the responsorial psalm as it should be done with greater historical reference and liturgical artistry.

Ideally, it should consist of a brief and not too difficult chant-like responsory for the people, with newly composed chant verses sung by a skilled cantor - and when I say cantor I do not mean that species of singer who passes for a cantor or cantrix in most of our churches. Each of the cantor's (or SATB choral) verses should have its own chant (or choral) melody. Thusly would the ancient gradual responsory be given new life. It bears repeating that the gradual responsory as we know it in the GR is a vestige of such responsorial psalmody.

Interesting points, vanroode. I'll do some more review, but it seems to me that the abbreviated responsory as in your simplex may be a borrowing or adaptation from the responsories of the office. This bears further study and comparison.

As for the gradual as found in our GR, the form is responsory, verse. That's all. That's all that's left of what was once an extended responsorial form.

Thanks for bringing this up.

Is it simply explained as using the same form for the gradual as for the introit, offertory and communion?
Has anybody experience of doing the responsorial psalm the GS way? which includes that the 'entire congregation' should sing the response, does that work? How does the congregation get to know what to sing? Does your 'entire congregation' read music? (I am however not sure that DoL has faithfully translated the Latin caetus fidelium)

The responsorial Psalm in GS is most certainly based musically on the responsories, as many share the melody of the OT Compline responsory, In manus tuas.

Based on the Lectionary introduction, no. 20, the Psalm in the GS is correct:

In responsorial singing, which, as far as possible, is to be given preference, the psalmist, or cantor of the psalm, sings the psalm verse and the whole congregation joins in by singing the response.

I assume the Lectionary picked and chose which verses were sung for brevity and to avoid all those "psychological difficulties."

Edit: I do wonder why the verses are distributed between responds as they are. Seems a bit forced and invented, and frankly makes the Psalm into a song form, which also does damage to our understanding and appreciation of the Psalms.

I found some other interesting ideas about the reconstruction of the responsorial psalm in the 1960s. Nothing coherent, though.

First, while the 1967 instruction Musicam Sacram only refers to the "form of gradual or responsorial psalm" for the chant after the lessons, an earlier draft (January 13, 1965) is more specific:

"38. Peculiarem vim habent cantus post lectiones occurentes, in modum gradualis aut psalmi responsorii peractus. Natura sua est pars liturgiae verbi; proinde est proferendus omnibus sedentibus et auscultantibus, immo, quantum fieri potest, participantibus.
Forma igitur hunc cantum exequendi eligi potest praesertim aut iuxta melodias ornatiores in Graduali Romano extantes et a cantoribus proferandas, populo auscultante, aut, pro opportunitate, iuxta melodias Gradualis simplicis, psalmista praeeunte et populo respondente."

For the chant after the lessons, only the Graduale Romanum and the Graduale Simplex are given as options. The bold part was dropped in the final version of Musicam Sacram 33. It was thought to be too restrictive, leaving no room for other compositions (cf. E. Jaschinski, Musia sacra oder Musik im Gottesdienst? (1990), 280 and 397-99).

Second, another name came to my mind: Lucien Deiss. While Gelineau was only a consultor to the Consilium, Deiss was a member of Coetus XI, which worked on the reformed lectionary. In his writings, Deiss expressed a certain disdain for Gregorian chant, thinking it was not suitable for today's liturgy. Its rich melodies encouraged meditation and that, according to Deiss, didn't match the nature of the chants after the readings. I would like to see his article 'The Responsorial Psalm' in Notitiae 24 (1966), 365-72.

If you have access, you can also read McKinnon's "The Fourth-Century Origin of the Gradual" in Early Music History, Vol. 7 (1987), pp. 91-106, though he does not speculate the exact way in which this psalm was actually sung at mass. He dismisses the possibility it has any connection with Jewish psalm singing in synagogues, as there is no evidence psalms were sung in synagogues at the time.

The article by Deiss can be seen, or downloaded, here.

Frankly, this seems to me to be to musicology what the Neocatechumenal Way is to ancient liturgical scholarship.

Ah, yes, the Deiss who was responsible to help rewrite church music history along side of the towering VII periti but also including Gelineau and Bugnini.

“To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed…"

ye great Gelineau

some of the experts:

Father Yves Congar
Father John Courtney Murray, SJ.
Father Karl Rahner, SJ.
Father Joseph Ratzinger

[Were any of those four involved in the format of the responsorial psalm?
Please stick to the topic. --admin]