The Latin antiphon and the question of frequency of interpolation

Abstract

ABSTRACTThe theory that the antiphon is a kind of refrain and that its original purpose was to be inserted between all the verses of its respective psalm was articulated by Giuseppe Maria Tommasi in the seventeenth century and has been transmitted by liturgical historians with little criticism ever since that time. The present article examines the evidence on which that theory rests, with special attention to the writings of Amalar of Metz, and finds it to be inconclusive or positively contrary to the claims that have been built upon it. The article considers the evidence of antiphonal psalmody at Mass, as transmitted in Ordo Romanus I, and finds support there for the view that antiphons were normally performed only at the beginning and end of their respective psalms. After considering briefly the Liber Pontificalis and the tradition of psalmodic differentiae, the article turns to the treatment of antiphonal psalmody by the liturgical historians Guillaume Durand and Radulph de Rivo in the late Middle Ages and finds in their writings no evidence of a belief that frequent interpolation was the authentic primitive practice. The article concludes that two iterations of the antiphon, once at the beginning and once at the end of the psalm, suited its original thematic intent and that the theory of reiteration after every verse – effectively conflating antiphonal and responsorial psalmody – may be no older than the liturgical scholarship of Tommasi in the late seventeenth century.