Communio "Benedicite omnes Angeli"
  • doneill
    Posts: 203
    The communio for both September 29 and October 2 has the citation in the Graduale Romanum as being Daniel 3:58, but in the Nova Vulgata it is actually Daniel 3:59. Is this is a mistake in the GR, and if so, does that mean that the numbering for the verses is also off by one?
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 1,124
    It seems the Graduale Romanum quotes the Vulgata Clementina. The difference between the Clementina and the Nova Vulgata is that verses 58 and 59 have been reversed.
    Thanked by 4CHGiffen doneill Incardination Paul F. Ford
  • doneill
    Posts: 203
    Thanks for the great answer. I guess that makes sense if the Nova Vulgata wasn't promulgated until 1979.
  • GregoryWeber
    Posts: 62
    I think it's a clerical error (of omission to update the verse number).

    According to the GR 1974 Praenotanda, #22:

    "Psalmorum versiculorumque numeri sumuntur ex editione appellata 'nova Vulgata' (typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1969). Hi versiculi ac versiculorum partes disponuntur ut in libro Liturgiae horarum (Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1971)."

    (The numbers of the psalm verses are taken from the edition called 'nova Vulgata' ....)

    As for the Nova Vulgata being promulgated in 1979, isn't that the second edition (editio typica altera) , which was Datum Romae, ..., anno MCMLXXIX?


  • GregoryWeber
    Posts: 62
    I have a couple of other questions about this chant.

    1. The verses are given as "Cant. Danielis 3, 57. 60a-61a. 62a-63a. 64a-65a. 83. 84a-85a. 86a-87a."

    These are as follows, bracketing off the parts that seem to be excluded by the above instruction (61b, 63b, etc.):

    57 Benedicite, omnia opera Domini, Domino,
    laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula.

    60 Benedicite, aquae omnes, quae super caelos sunt, Domino,
    laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula.
    61 Benedicat omnis virtus Domino,
    [laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula.]

    62 Benedicite, sol et luna, Domino,
    laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula.
    63 Benedicite, stellae caeli, Domino,
    [laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula.]

    64 Benedicite, omnis imber et ros, Domino,
    laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula.
    65 Benedicite, omnes venti, Domino,
    [laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula.]

    83 Benedic, Israel, Domino,
    laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula.

    84 Benedicite, sacerdotes Domini, Domino,
    laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula.
    85 Benedicite, servi Domini, Domino,
    [laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula.]

    86 Benedicite, spiritus et animae iustorum, Domino,
    laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula.
    87 Benedicite, sancti et humiles corde, Domino,
    [laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula.]

    The exclusion of the bracketed parts (the repetitions of "praise and exalt him above all forever") makes no sense to me, either textually or musically. What should I think of this?

    3. After the list of verses, it adds: "Ad libitum, psalmodia IV toni." I understand this to mean the psalmody (the verses) may be sung in Tone IV, although the antiphon itself is in Tone III. And this seems musically fitting, although strange. Yes?
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 3,023
    I would read the instruction "60a-61a" as

    Benedicite, aquae omnes, quae super caelos sunt, Domino, *
    Benedicat omnis virtus Domino.
    Thanked by 1GregoryWeber
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,800
    although the antiphon itself is in Tone III. And this seems musically fitting, although strange. Yes?

    I think that singing the verses in tone IV is ad lib., as you interpret it.

    Or it’s ambiguous but modal assignment is arbitrary anyway. You also have the problem that for ancient chants such as the introit Deus in loco sancto suo there’s no disagreement about the mode, but the psalm tone in the manuscripts is associated with another mode (in this case, the chant is mode V, but the psalmody is for mode VII). A few other chants, namely communion chants have somewhat wonky assignments in the Solesmes book from the 1950s. Whatever musically makes more sense is sensible.
    Thanked by 1GregoryWeber
  • GregoryWeber
    Posts: 62
    Richard Mix: That's an interesting interpretation of "60a-61a" , and it makes at least a little more sense than the way I understood it at first. Maybe it will make a lot of sense when I think about it more. However I would expect that to be notated as "60a, 61a" or perhaps "60a and 61a". On the other hand, the GR certainly does use punctuation for psalm verses that is different from what we are accustomed to in English!
  • GregoryWeber
    Posts: 62
    Or rather, "60a et 61a." Cf. "Ps. 102, 10 et 78, 8 et 9" , for the Tract for Feria Quarta Cinerum, p. 64.
  • GregoryWeber
    Posts: 62
    For Domine, quis habitabit (pp. 102-103) they explicitly include 5a by writing "4c-5ab", where I would have written "4c-5b"; so I think Richard's interpretation is right!
  • Charles_Weaver
    Posts: 259
    The exclusion of the bracketed parts (the repetitions of "praise and exalt him above all forever") makes no sense to me, either textually or musically. What should I think of this?


    There was a related thread on here not too long ago:

    https://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/23347/why-isn039t-the-canticum-trium-puerorum-strictly-scriptural#Item_13

    The omissions you cite have a really long tradition in the west when reciting this canticle liturgically in the office. That's probably why it was laid out this way when it is used to supply communion verses. See, for instance, this blog post: https://chantblog.blogspot.com/2019/06/benedicite-omnia-opera-domini-lauds.html
    Thanked by 1GregoryWeber
Add a Comment