¹ Among the earliest Christian authors to employ natalitium in this way was Tertullian († c. 240): De corona militis 3 (PL 2, col. 78): ‘we make offerings for the dead, for their birthdays on the anniversary’ (‘oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis annua die facimus’).

² F. Bovon, ‘The Dossier of Stephen the First Martyr’, Harvard Theological Review, 96 (2003), pp. 279–315, at pp. 285–6; and Bonnie Blackburn and Leofranc Holford-Strevens, Oxford Companion to the Year (New York, 1999), pp. 532–5.

³ D. van Betteray, ‘Hic est vere Martyr, qui pro Christi nomine sanguinem suum fudit: Representations and Reflections of Violence and Suffering in the Responsoria Prolixa of Saints’ Offices in the “Codex Hartker”’, Plainsong and Medieval Music, 23 (2014), pp. 31–50, at p. 34.

⁴ See Table 4 below. The sermon was published as Ps.-Fulgentius, sermo 2, in PL 65, cols. 859–60 and as Ps.-Augustine, sermo 215 in PL 39, cols. 2145–6. Clemens Weidmann makes a convincing case for Augustine’s authorship in Augustine, Sermones selecti, ed. C. Weidmann (Berlin, 2015), pp. 163–75 (commentary) and pp. 176–85 (edition as sermo 319B). Ruth Steiner, ‘The Responsories and Prosa for St Stephen’s Day at Salisbury’, The Musical Quarterly, 56 (1970), pp. 162–82, notes the similarity of the text of Hesterna die to Fulgentius’s sermo 3 (on which more below). G. Baroffio and E. Kim, ‘Proposte liturgico-musicali occidentali di testi patristici latini e greci’, in Leggere i padre tra passato e presente, ed. M. Cortesi (Florence, 2010), pp. 65–126, at p. 95, correctly identify the literary source of the responsory, albeit in the pseudonymous versions published in PL. So too does CAO 4, p. 203. Throughout this article, I refer to the verbal texts of chants as ‘lyrics’ and their authors (or compilers) as ‘lyricists’ as a reminder that these texts were intended to be sung. In so doing, I follow E. Nowacki, ‘The Earliest Antiphons of the Roman Office’, in Chant, Liturgy and the Inheritance of Rome: Essays in Honour of Joseph Dyer, ed. D. DiCenso and R. Maloy (London, 2017), pp. 81–141.

⁵ Amalar, On the Liturgy, 4.36, pp. 562–5. The commentary includes excerpts from more than eighty patristic sources, both Greek and Latin: Amalar, On the Liturgy, Books 1–2, p. 495.

⁶ Given that Amalar typically acknowledged his quotations of Augustine, the fact that he makes no reference to that author in connection with Hesterna die suggests he did not recognise the verbal debt of the responsory to the sermon.

⁷ Rule of St Benedict, 9.8: P. Jeffery, ‘Monastic Reading and the Emerging Roman Chant Repertory’, in Western Plainchant in the First Millennium: Studies in the Medieval Liturgy and its Music, ed. S. Gallagher, J. Haar, J. Nádas and T. Striplin (Burlington, VT, 2003), pp. 45–103, at p. 70 (English translation) and p. 97, n. 137 (Latin). By contrast, monastic rules that were slightly earlier or contemporary with Benedict’s did not approve the recitation of non-biblical texts. For instance, the Rule of the Master prescribes two readings at matins and other hours of the Divine Office, one from the Letters of St Paul (lectio apostoli) and another from the Gospels (lectio evangelii): A. de Vogüé (ed.), La Règle du Maître, 3 vols., Sources chrétiennes, 105–7 (Paris, 1964–5), II, ch. 44, no. 4, p. 202 (in the winter) and ch. 44, no. 8, pp. 202–3 (in the summer), on which see J. Dyer, ‘Observations on the Divine Office in the Rule of the Master’, in The Divine Office in the Latin Middle Ages: Methodology and Source Studies, Regional Developments, Hagiography, Written in Honor of Professor Ruth Steiner, ed. M. Fassler and R. Baltzer (New York, 2000), pp. 74–98, at p. 82. The Regula monachorum of Caesarius of Arles similarly prescribes three lessons at matins on Saturdays, Sundays and feasts of twelve psalms, one from the Prophets (de prophetiis), another from the letters of St Paul (de apostolo) and a third from the Gospels (de evangelio): PL 57, col. 1033.

⁸ Jeffery, ‘Monastic Reading’, 70.

⁹ J. Billett, ‘Sermones ad diem pertinentes: Sermons and Homilies in the Liturgy of the Divine Office’, in Sermo doctorum: Compilers, Preachers and their Audiences in the Early Middle Ages, ed. M. Diesenberger, Y. Hen and M. Pollheimer (Turnhout, 2013), pp. 339–73, at pp. 358–65.

¹⁰ Giacomo and Kim, ‘Proposte liturgico-musicali’ provides an overview of such cases of literary borrowing with bibliography.

¹¹ R. Maloy, Inside the Offertory: Aspects of Chronology and Transmission (New York, 2010), pp. 49–57, and K. Levy, ‘Toledo, Rome and the Legacy of Gaul’, Early Music History, 4 (1984), pp. 49–99, on offertories in particular; J. McKinnon, The Advent Project: The Later Seventh-Century Creation of the Roman Mass Proper (Berkeley, 2000), pp. 13–14, 103–4, 215–20, 237–8, 266–9, on the Mass Proper in general; and Nowacki, ‘The Earliest Antiphons’ on antiphons for the Divine Office.

¹² While verbal adjustments in Franco-Roman chant have not generally been understood to function exegetically, they have been shown to work in this way in other chant traditions. For example, R. Maloy, Songs of Sacrifice: Chant, Identity and Christian Formation in Early Medieval Iberia (New York, 2020), p. 42, contrasts the Franco-Roman offertory with its Old Hispanic counterpart, the sacrificia, in which extensive modifications to its scriptural sources convey specific interpretations of the Bible (pp. 70–104).

¹³ Z. Guiliano, The Homiliary of Paul the Deacon: Religious and Cultural Reform in Carolingian Europe (Turnhout, 2021), p. 21, which adopts the definition in F. Dolbeau, ‘La transmission de la prédication antique de la langue altine’, in Preaching in the Patristic Era: Sermons, Preachers, and Audiences in the Latin West, ed. A. Dupont, S. Boodts, G. Partoens and J. Leemans, New History of the Sermon, 6 (Leiden, 2018), pp. 31–58, at p. 45.

¹⁴ Prominent examples include the work of Emma Hornby and Rebecca Maloy on Old Hispanic chant: Maloy, Songs of Sacrifice; E. Hornby, ‘Musical Values and Practice in Old Hispanic Chant’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 69 (2016), pp. 595–650; and E. Hornby and R. Maloy, ‘Biblical Commentary in the Old Hispanic Liturgy: A Passiontide Case Study’, Early Music, 44 (2016), pp. 383–94. On Franco-Roman chant, see inter alia W. Flynn, Medieval Music as Medieval Exegesis (Lanham, MD, 1999).

¹⁵ M. Fassler, ‘Sermons, Sacramentaries and Early Sources for the Office in the Latin West: The Example of Advent’, in The Divine Office in the Latin Middle Ages, pp. 15–47. Maloy, Songs of Sacrifice, pp. 65–8, provides another rare example of musicological scholarship that incorporates medieval homiliaries.

¹⁶ A. Martimort, Les lectures liturgiques et leurs livres, Typologie des sources du Moyen Âge occidental, 64 (Turnhout, 1992), pp. 83–6; and E. Palazzo, A History of Liturgical Books from the Beginning to the Thirteenth Century, trans. M. Beaumont (Collegeville, MN, 1993), pp. 153–4. See HLM, pp. 223–44, for commentary on and an inventory of V-CVbav San Pietro C105. A digital facsimile is available at ‘Manuscript - Arch.Cap.S.Pietro.C.105’, DigiVatLib, https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Arch.Cap.S.Pietro.C.105. While Martimort, Les lectures, p. 84, dates the manuscript to the beginning of the tenth century, HLM, p. 224 places it in the second half of the tenth century on the basis of its handwriting. The remaining descendants of the Roman homiliary are: (1) Homiliary of Alan of Farfa (†769 or 770) (HLM, pp. 127–88); (2) Homiliary of Eginon of Verona (796–99) (HLM, pp. 189–221); (3) Homiliary of Agimundus (early eighth century) (HML, pp. 343–92). The Homiliary of Agimundus was originally divided into three volumes, only the second and third of which survive. The first contained material from the beginning of Advent to the fifth week of Lent and thus Stephen’s feast. In general, the provisions for Stephen in V-CVbav San Pietro C105, the Homiliary of Alan of Farfa and the Homiliary of Eginon of Verona are identical. This article bases its discussion of the Roman homiliary on V-CVbav San Pietro C105 and provides references to the other two homiliaries only in cases where their contents diverge from that of the Vatican source. On the origins and development of the four monasteries associated with St Peter’s, see P. Jeffery, ‘The Early Liturgy of Saint Peter’s and the Roman Liturgical Year’, in Old Saint Peter’s, Rome, ed. R. McKitterick, J. Osborne, C. Richardson and J. Story (Cambridge, 2013), pp. 157–76, at pp. 157–67; G. Ferrari, Early Roman Monasteries: Notes for the History of the Monasteries and Convents at Rome from the V Through the X Century (Rome, 1957), pp. 366–9.

¹⁷ Ordo romanus XIIIA, a liturgical rule likely written in Rome in the first half of the eighth century, indicates that it was the prior of the religious community who decided when to conclude a lesson: M. Andrieu (ed.), Les Ordines romani du haut Moyen Âge, 5 vols., Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense, Études et documents, 11, 23–4, 28–9 (Louvain, 1931–61), II, p. 486, quoted in Billett, ‘Sermones ad diem pertinentes’, p. 346. The monastic customary CH-E 235 (tenth century), by contrast, assigned the division of lessons to the librarian: B. Albers (ed.), Consuetudines monasticae, 5 vols. (Stuttgart, 1900–12), V, p. 78, cited in M. Fassler, ‘The Office of the Cantor in Early Western Monastic Rules and Custom Rites: A Preliminary Investigation’, Early Music History, 5 (1985), pp. 29–51, at p. 42.

¹⁸ The version of Augustine’s sermo 317 in the Roman homiliary features a different ending from the one published in PL 38, cols. 1436–7. The alternative ending is edited in A. Wilmart, ‘Le morceau final du sermon 317 de saint Augustin pour la fête de S. Etienne’, Revue Bénédictine, 44 (1932), pp. 201–6, at pp. 202–3. Unless otherwise noted, quotations from the biblical and patristic texts in Table 1 derive from the edition in the third column.

¹⁹ V-CVbav San Pietro C105, fol. 91^v (HLM, no. 36, p. 232; Acts 6:8–8:4 for Stephen), fol. 109^v (HLM, no. 44, p. 233; Rev. 1:1–2:11 for John the Evangelist) and fol. 116^r (HLM, no. 47, p. 234; Rev. 6:9–11, 7:2–8:4 and 14:1–5 for Holy Innocents). With the exception of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary (BVM), the remaining feasts of the sanctorale are missing from the Vatican homiliary, which comprises the winter volume only. They can be reconstructed on the basis of the Homiliary of Alan of Farfa: Purification (HLM, nos. 47–50, pp. 151–2), John the Baptist (HLM, nos. 37–43, pp. 173–5), Sts Peter and Paul (HLM, nos. 46–58, pp. 175–7), St Lawrence (HLM, nos. 58–63, pp. 177–8), Nativity of the BVM (HLM, nos. 64–6, pp. 178–9), St Michael (HLM, nos. 72–5, p. 180), St Martin (HLM, nos. 76–8, pp. 180–1) and St Andrew (HLM, nos. 79–82, pp. 181–3). The provisions for Stephen’s feast in the Roman homiliary accord with Ordo romanus XIIIA (see n. 17 above), which prescribes the recitation of ‘lessons proper to that day, [ones] drawn from the Acts of the Apostles and from orthodox fathers’ (‘In natali sancti Stephani legunt actuum apostolorum et lect[iones] ortodoxorum partum ad ipsum diem pertinentes’): Andrieu (ed.), Les Ordines romani, II, p. 486. The second part of this direction in turn echoes the above quoted passage from Benedict’s Rule, which references expositions ‘by renowned and orthodox catholic fathers’ (‘nominatis et orthodoxis catholicis patribus’): ibid, p. 478; cf. n. 7 above.

²⁰ V-CVbav San Pietro C105, fols. 29^v–34^v (HLM, nos. 12–14, pp. 227–8): Isa. 9:1–10:10, Isa. 40:1–41:16, Isa. 52:1–54:14. Cf. the Liber Usualis (Tournai, 1961), pp. 375–7, which provides abbreviated pericopes: Isa. 9:1–6, Isa. 40:1–8, Isa. 52:1–6.

²¹ Acts 12:2 briefly refers to Herod’s execution of the Apostle James (the Greater) but otherwise recounts the martyrdoms of no other Christians. I borrow the term ‘Stephen pericope’ from S. Matthews, Perfect Martyr: The Stoning of Stephen and the Construction of Christian Identity (New York, 2010), e.g., p. 11.

²² On this internal discrepancy in Luke’s narrative, see Matthews, Perfect Martyr, p. 66. The length of the Stephen pericope in the Roman homiliary differs from that in Ordo romanus XIIIB, which is a direct descendent of Ordo romanus XIIIA, which was compiled in Francia in the late ninth century: Andrieu (ed.), Les Ordines romani, II, pp. 494–5. Unlike the older ordo, which was compiled in Rome, this newer one features incipits and explicits indicating the beginning and ending of readings. These would have aided Frankish communities seeking to adopt the Roman lectionary: J. Billett, The Divine Office in Anglo-Saxon England, 597–c. 1000 (London, 2014), p. 125, n. 171. Ordo romanus XIIIB fixes the beginning of the Stephen pericope at Acts 6:1, thereby including Stephen’s selection as a deacon. It places the end Acts 8:8, thus incorporating the account of Philip the Deacon’s mission to Samaria (Acts 8:5–8): Andrieu (ed.), Les Ordines romani, II, p. 501.

²³ Augustine, sermo 315.1, trans. in Augustine, Sermons (306–340A) on the Saints, trans. E. Hill, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, 3.9 (Hyde Park, NY, 1995), p. 129. Augustine likely delivered his sermon in 416 or 417: Augustine, Sermons (20–50) on the Old Testament, trans. E. Hill, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, 3.2 (Hyde Park, NY, 1990), p. 159. While scholars have traditionally dated Acts to the late first century, recent research has placed its origins in the 110s or 120s: Matthews, Perfect Martyr, pp. 5–6. Since the early nineteenth century, theologians have likewise presumed the historical accuracy of the Stephen pericope even while questioning other aspects of Acts: Matthews, Perfect Martyr, pp. 16–20. Only recently has Luke’s account of Stephen’s martyrdom elicited scrutiny along historical-critical lines, e.g., in Matthews, Perfect Martyr; T. Penner, In Praise of Christian Origins: Stephen and the Hellenists in Lukan Apologetic Historiography (New York, 2004).

²⁴ V-CVbav San Pietro C105, fol. 94^r (HLM, no. 37, p. 232): ‘Incipiunt sermones sancti Augustini episcopi de natale sancti Stephani primi martyris.’ Cf. the Homiliary of Eginon of Verona (HLM, no. 25, p. 197), ‘Incipiunt sermones sancti Augustini de natale sancti Stephani martyris’ and the Homiliary of Alan of Farfa (HLM, no. 17, p. 144), ‘Sancti Augustini’.

²⁵ V-CVbav San Pietro C105, fol. 34^v (HLM, no. 37, p. 15): ‘In Christi nomine incipiunt sermones sancti Augustini episcopi die natalis domini.’ Cf. the Homiliary of Alan of Farfa (HLM, no. 2, p. 139): ‘Incipiunt sermones sancti Augustini in natale Domini.’ The Homiliary of Eginon of Verona, by contrast, features no introductory rubric for the sermons assigned to Christmas: HLM, no. 25, p. 197.

²⁶ V-CVbav San Pietro C105, fol. 111^r (HLM, no. 45, p. 233; John the Evangelist) and fol. 117^r (HLM, no. 48, p. 234; Holy Innocents).

²⁷ Pseudonymous sermons associated with Augustine and other patristic authors remain an understudied field of research: see C. Weidmann, ‘Discovering Augustine’s Words in Pseudo-Augustinian Sermons’, in Tractatio Scripturarum: Philological, Exegetical, Rhetorical and Theological Studies on Augustine’s Sermons, ed. A. Dupont, G. Partoens and M. Lamberigts (Turnhout, 2012), pp. 41–58.

²⁸ Bovon, ‘The Dossier’, pp. 287–90. The late development of Stephen’s cult likely reflects the relative obscurity of Acts itself prior to the late second century: C. Mount, Pauline Christianity: Luke-Acts and the Legacy of Paul (Leiden, 2002), pp. 11–44.

²⁹ A. Bastiaensen, ‘Augustine on the Deacon-Preacher-Martyr Stephen’, Augustiniana 54 (2004), pp. 103–27, at pp. 103–7.

³⁰ M. Humphries, ‘Rufinus’s Eusebius: Translation, Continuation and Edition in the Latin Ecclesiastical History’, Journal of Early Christian Studies, 16 (2008), pp. 143–64 with bibliography.

³¹ A. Kotzé, ‘Augustine and the Remaking of Martyrdom’, in The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Christian Martyrdom, ed. P. Middleton (Chichester, 2020), pp. 135–50, at pp. 144–5.

³² Sermones 314–19A–B concern Stephen’s life and death, sermones 320–4 his post-mortem miracles. With the exception of sermones 314 and 319B, all the sermons can be securely dated between 415 and 426: Augustine, Sermons (1–19), pp. 158–9.

³³ Sermo 317.1, trans. Augustine, Sermons (306–340A), p. 142.

³⁴ On the Christocentrism of Augustine’s martyrology, see Kotzé, ‘Augustine’, p. 137. On his use of classical rhetoric in his sermons, see M. Pellegrino’s introduction to Augustine, Sermons (1–19), pp. 111–12 and M. Barry, ‘St Augustine, the Orator: A Study of the Rhetorical Qualities of St Augustine’s Sermones ad Populum’ (PhD diss., The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., 1924).

³⁵ Barry, ‘St Augustine’, pp. 182–6.

³⁶ Augustine, sermo 314.1, trans. Augustine, Sermons (306–340A), p. 127, on the exordium of which see C. Mayer, ‘“Attende Stephanum conservum tuum” (Serm. 317, 2, 3): Sinn und Wert der Märtyrerverehrung nach den Stephanuspredigten Augustins’, in Fructus centesimus: Mélanges offerts à Gerard J.M. Bartelink à l’occasion de son soixante-cinquième anniversaire, ed. A. Bastiaensen, A. Hilhorst and C. Kneepkens (Turnhout: 1989), pp. 217–37, at p. 229; Dupont, ‘Imitatio Christi’, pp. 38–9; Bastiaensen, ‘Augustine’, pp. 123–4.

³⁷ See Table 4 below. On the similarity between sermones 314.1 and 319B.1, see Augustine, Sermones selecti, pp. 166–7.

³⁸ Sermo 319B.1, Augustine, Sermones selecti, p. 176: ‘Therefor the Lord was born so that he might die for his servant, lest his servant be afraid of dying for his Lord’ (‘Et ideo natus est dominus, ut moreretur pro servo, ne servus timeret mori pro domino’). On Augustine’s description of Stephen as Christ’s servant or ‘fellow servant’ (conservus), see Dupont, ‘Imitatio Christi’, p. 44; Bastiaensen, ‘Augustine’, p. 114–15. Kotzé, ‘Augustine’, p. 137, likewise notes the frequency with which Augustine referred to martyrs in general as ‘conservi’, translating the term as ‘fellow slave’.

³⁹ Fulgentius, sermo 3.1: ‘Fratres karissimi, hesterna die celebravimus temporalem regis nostri natalem; hodie celebramus triumphalem militis passionem.’ Trans. after W. Renwick (ed.), The Sarum Rite: Sarum Breviary Noted. Scholarly Edition (Hamilton, Ontario, 2018), vol. B, pt. 7, p. 301. Fulgentius likewise uses verbal parallelism to underscore the similarity of a saint to Jesus in his sermo 58 on Susanna: C. Tzacz, ‘Susanna Victrix, Christus Victor: Lenten Sermons, Typology and the Lectionary’, in Speculum Sermonis: Interdisciplinary Reflections on the Medieval Sermon, eds. G. Donavin, C. Nederman and R. Utz (Turnhout, 2004), pp. 55–79, at p. 64.

⁴⁰ Ps.-Maximus, sermo 85: ‘Hesterno die natalem habuimus Domini Salvatoris; hodie summae devotionis veneramur sancti martyris Stephani passionem.’ Underlining indicates key words common to Fulgentius, sermo 3.1: ‘Hesterna die, fratres carissimi, celebravimus temporalem sempiterni regis nostri natalem; hodie celebramus triumphalem militis passionem.’

⁴¹ See especially Matthews, Perfect Martyr, pp. 99–130, which situates the dying prayer within the broader rhetorical objectives of Acts.

⁴² Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Books 1–5, Loeb Classical Library 153, trans. K. Lake (Cambridge, MA, 1926), bk. 5, ch. 3, no. 5, pp. 440–1, writes about Stephen’s prayer in connection with the martyrs of Vienne and Lyon: ‘and they prayed for those who had inflicted torture, even as Stephen, the perfect martyr, “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge”’, on which see Matthews, Perfect Martyr, pp. 78–9.

⁴³ Augustine, sermo 319.4, trans. Augustine, Sermons (306–340A), p. 153. On Augustine’s treatment of Stephen’s dying prayer in general, see Dupont, ‘Imitatio Christi’, pp. 47–8 and Mayer, ‘‘Attende Stephanum’,’ pp. 229–31. Ambrose, Exposition on the Christian Faith (De fide ad Gratianum) 3.17, quoted in Bastiaensen, ‘Augustine’, p. 107, likewise notes the similarity of Stephen’s dying prayer to Jesus’s but to different interpretive ends, namely in support of his argument in favour of the equality between the God the Father and the Son. D. Moessner, ‘“The Christ Must Suffer”: New Light on the Jesus–Peter, Stephen, Paul Parallels in Luke-Acts, Novum Testamentum 28 (1986), pp. 220–56, at p. 234, and C. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts (Missoula, 1974), pp. 96–7, situate Stephen’s dying prayer within broader parallels between his life and that of Jesus as recounted by Luke.

⁴⁴ Augustine, sermo 317.3. This is one of many examples in which Augustine urged his congregation to imitate martyrs not through heroic acts of self-sacrifice but in their everyday lives: Kotzé, ‘Augustine’, pp. 140–3.

⁴⁵ Ps.-Augustine, sermo 382.3; V-CVbav San Pietro C105, fol. 95^v: ‘Diaconus erat, evangelia legebat, que legis vel audis et tu. Ibi invenit scriptum: “Diligite inimicos vestros.” Didicit legendo, perfecit implendo.’ This echoes a passage in Augustine, sermo 319.3, which cites Christ’s words, ‘where I am, there also shall my minister be’ (Jn 12:26). In the original Greek, Augustine explains, we find ‘deacon’ rather than ‘minister’, which in turn presages Christ’s reception of Stephen into heaven. Thus, he concludes, ‘his deacon said very appropriately, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit [Acts 7:58].” You promised, I read the gospel, I preached the gospel. Where I am there too shall my deacon be’ (Augustine, sermo 319.3, trans. Augustine, Sermons (306–340A), p. 152).

⁴⁶ See above, n. 39.

⁴⁷ Fulgentius, sermo 3.2: ‘Magnum quippe donativum suis militibus attulit, quo eos non solum copiose ditavit sed etiam ad certandum invictissime confortavit.’

⁴⁸ E.g., Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, Volume 1: Julius; Augustus; Tiberius; Gaius; Caligula, trans. J. Rolfe, Loeb Classical Library, 131, rev. edn (Cambridge, MA, 1998), no. 46, pp. 486–7: ‘Then promising the soldiers [“militi”] a gratuity [“donativo”] of a hundred denarii each, as if he [Caligula] had shown unprecedent liberality, he said, “Go your way happy; go your way rich.”’ For this and additional examples, see C. Lewis and C. Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1879), s.v. ‘donativum’.

⁴⁹ Fulgentius, sermo 3.6, trans. Renwick, The Sarum Rite, vol. B, pt. 7, p. 304: ‘Caritas est igitur omnium fons et origo bonorum, munimen egregium, via quae ducit ad caelum.’

⁵⁰ Caesarius, sermo 219.2: ‘Imitemur ergo in aliquo, dilectissimi fraters, tanti magistri fidem, tam praeclari martyris caritatem.’ Trans. in Caesarius of Arles, Sermons, Vol. 3 (187–238), trans. M. Mueller, Fathers of the Church, 66 (Washington, D.C., 1956), p. 129.

⁵¹ Table 2 below indicates the division of the Stephen pericope and sermons into lessons with the marginalia, ‘ł. I, ł. II, etc.’ (i.e., M-Lx1, M-Lx2) in V-CVbav San Pietro C105. The marginal addition, ‘in festo sancti Stephani’ (fol. 94^v) indicates that Ps.-Augustine’s sermo 382 was assigned to Stephen’s feast. The interlinear addition, ‘iste sermo legitur in octava’, assigns Fulgentius’s sermo 3 to his octave (fol. 96^v). The marginal addition, ‘secundum nostrum ordinem in octava sancti Stephani vii, viii et nona lectio fiant de natale domine’ (fol. 99^r), refers to the Roman practice of drawing both chants and readings of the third nocturn of matins from the Nativity on saints’ feast during Christmastide, on which see below, n. 53.

⁵² See ‘Manuscript - Arch.Cap.S.Pietro.B.79’, DigiVatLib, https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Arch.Cap.S.Pietro.B.79, and G. Baroffio and E. Kim, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, Archivio S. Pietro B 79: Antifonario della Basilica di S. Pietro (sec. XII) (Rome, 1995) for digital and print facsimiles respectively. On the canonry of St Peter’s, see Ferrari, Early Roman Monasteries, pp. 368–9.

⁵³ V-CVbav San Pietro B79, fol. 31^r: ‘On the feast of the saints that come between the Nativity of the Lord and Epiphany, we do the first and second nocturn for the saints but the third entirely for the Nativity of the Lord. But we say lauds for the saints with a commemoration for the Nativity of the Lord and blessed Mary. [We say] prime and sext for the Nativity, terce and none for the saints. But [we say] vespers for the Nativity of the Lord with a commemoration of the saints and of blessed Mary (‘In festivitate sanctorum quem veniunt a nativitate domini usque ad epyphaniam, primum et secundum nocturnum facimus de sanctis, tertium vero nocturnum totum de nativitate domini. Sed laudes de sanctis dicimus cum conme[mo]ratione natalis domini et beate Marie. Prima et sextam de nativitate, tertiam et nonam de sanctis. Vesperam vero de nativitate domini cum conmemoratione sanctorum et beate Marie’).

⁵⁴ V-CVbav San Pietro B79, fol. 32^r: ‘In the second nocturn [we sing] the antiphons and psalms [beginning with] Filii hominum’ (‘In secondo nocturno cum suis antiphonis et psalmis Filii hominum cum suis’). Filii hominum is the first of three antiphons assigned to the Common of Multiple Martyrs in the antiphoner (fol. 178^r).

⁵⁵ Amalar, Liber de ordine antiphonarii, prologue 6–7, ed. J. Hanssens, Amalarii Episcopi Opera liturgica omnia, 3 vols. (Vatican City, 1950), III, p. 14: ‘I asked whether the teachers of the Romans recited anything in the space between nocturns and lauds. He [the Roman archdeacon, Theodore] replied to me, “Nothing; rather, after the nocturnal office they say immediately, Deus in adiutorium meum intende [the opening versicle of lauds].”’ Trans. Billett, The Divine Office, pp. 34–5. The fusion of matins and lauds resulted in the division of the Divine Office into seven rather than eight hours and was a hallmark of the Roman liturgy: ibid., pp. 32–6

⁵⁶ Medieval antiphoners often include more chants than is necessary for a given office. At St Peter’s, these ‘surplus items’ may have been sung at other liturgical occasions such as the procession before Mass (in the case of the responsory) or the little hours of terce and none (in that of the antiphons): see L. Dobszay, ‘Reading an Office Book’, in The Divine Office in the Latin Middle Ages, pp. 48–60, at pp. 52–4.

⁵⁷ V-CVbav San Pietro B79 and the other ‘Old Roman’ manuscripts are widely regarded as preserving a melodic tradition that continued to develop by oral transmission through the eleventh century: D. Hiley, Western Plainchant: A Handbook (New York, 1993), pp. 525–40.

⁵⁸ Walter Frere, Graduale Sarisburiense: A Reproduction in Facsimile of a Manuscript of the Thirteenth Century (London, 1894; repr. Farnborough, 1966), p. x.

⁵⁹ D. DiCenso, ‘Revisiting the Admonitio generalis’, in Chant, Liturgy, and the Inheritance of Rome, 315–71, at pp. 315, 317–21, summarizes the musicological consensus that views Gregorian chant as the result of the ‘Carolingian “Romanization” project’. DiCenso’s re-evaluation of one of the foundations of this consensus, chapter 80 of Charlemagne’s Admonitio generalis (789), suggests, inter alia, that the Frankish assimilation of Roman chant was a more complicated and prolonged process than traditionally believed, one that may have extended into the ninth century (pp. 319 and 364–5).

⁶⁰ Patefacte sunt ianue (M-R7) is transmitted in all twelve CAO sources except G, while Video celos apertos (M-R3) is transmitted in C, M and L.

⁶¹ Its earliest copy, F-ME 351, dates from c. 869 but is based on an archetype compiled c. 825–55, making it the oldest tonary to survive intact: M. Huglo, Les tonaires: Inventaire, analyse, comparaison (Paris, 1971), pp. 30–1; W. Lipphardt, Der karolingische Tonar von Metz (Münster, 1965), pp. 200–1.

⁶² For the diverse opinions on the origin and destination of F-Pn lat. 17436, which is inventoried in CAO as source ‘C’, see most recently M. Huglo, ‘Observations codicologiques sur l’antiphonaire de Compiègne (Paris, B. N., lat. 17436)’, in De Musica et Cantu: Studien zur Geschichte der Kirchenmusik und der Oper: Helmut Hucke zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. P. Cahn and A. Heimer (Hildesheim, 1993), pp. 117–30, at pp. 127–9. On the origins and dating of F-AI 44, see J. Emerson, Albi, Bibliothèque Municipale Rochegude, Manuscript 44: A Complete Ninth-Century Gradual and Antiphoner from Southern France, ed. L. Collamore (Ottawa, 2002), p. lxvi. A digital facsimile of F-Pn lat. 17436 is available at ‘Graduale (1–30^v) et antiphonarium (31^v–107^v) [Antiphonaire de Charles le Chauve]’, Gallica, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8426787t.

⁶³ The Tonary of Metz also lists Impetum fecerunt (CAO 6885) and Impii super iustum iacturam (CAO 6887), which are not transmitted in V-CVbav San Pietro B79: Lipphardt, Der Karolingische Tonar, p. 196.

⁶⁴ F-Pn lat. 17436 combines Stephanus autem plenus gratia with the verse Stephanus vidit celos (CAO 7702a).

⁶⁵ E.g., the CAO sources B, E, M, V, H, R and L. The Cantus Index lists fifty-three sources that transmit at least one of the three antiphons: Cantus Index: Online Catalogue for Mass and Office Chants, s.v. ‘003036’, ‘004468’ and ‘004363’, accessed 1 January 2021, http://cantusindex.org/id/003036, http://cantusindex.org/id/004468, http://cantusindex.org/id/004363. Forty-four include all three chants and identify them as the first, second and third antiphons for matins either on Stephen’s feast (thirty-nine sources) or his octave (five sources). These forty-four include the CAO source H (CH-SGs 390) and V-CVbav San Pietro B79. One source (Engelberg, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 103, fol. 87^r; early thirteenth century, from Disibodenberg or Sponheim), assigns them to prime, terce and compline respectively. Three sources in the Cantus Index transmit only two of the antiphons, while five transmit only one of them. Similarly, one CAO source (F) transmits only one antiphon.

⁶⁶ F-Pn lat. 17436 draws the matins antiphons for Stephen’s feast exclusively from the Common of One Confessor, an eccentric choice given that he was a martyr, not a confessor. F-AI 44, fol. 65^v (ed. Emerson, Albi, 157), features the rubric, ‘Antiphonas super nocturnas easdemque et in hunius [sic] martyris de sancto Stephano.’ If ‘easdemque’ (‘the same’) modifies ‘antiphonas’ rather than ‘nocturnas’, the rubric could mean that the antiphons came from matins on the preceding day, i.e., Christmas. This finds a precedent in the aforementioned Roman practice of drawing the antiphons and responsories of the third nocturn of matins from the Nativity.

⁶⁷ F-Pn lat. 17436 includes eight supplemental antiphons for the Benedictus, while F-AI 44 includes five, an overabundance typical of both antiphoners: R. Jacobson, ‘The Antiphoner of Compiègne: Paris, BNF lat. 17436’, in The Divine Office in the Latin Middle Ages, pp. 147–78, at p. 149; and Emerson, Albi, p. lvii.

⁶⁸ This paragraph and the subsequent draw on E. Nowacki, ‘The Gregorian Antiphons and the Comparative Method’, The Journal of Musicology, 4 (1983–4), pp. 243–75, at pp. 252–3, 256. On the dating of Amalar’s commentary, see W. Steck, Der Liturgiker Amalarius: Eine quellenkritische Untersuchung zu Leben und Werk eines Theologen der Karolingerzeit (St. Ottilien, 2000), p. 162.

⁶⁹ In his prologue to the commentary, Amalar identifies his Roman source as a four-volume antiphoner that had been brought from Rome to the monastery of Corbie by Abbot Wala (†836). He goes on to write, ‘judging from its contents, I discovered that one volume of the aforementioned antiphoners had been arranged in earlier times by Pope Hadrian. I understood that our volumes were somewhat older than that volume from the city of Rome’ (‘Inveni in uno volumine memoratorum antiphonariorum ex his quae infra continebantur, esse illud ordinatum prisco tempore ab Adriano apostolico; cognovi nostra volumina antiquiora esse aliquanto tempore volumine illo Romanae urbis’): Amalar, Prologus de ordine antiphonarii, 4, ed. Hanssens, Amalarii Opera liturgica, I, 361. Later in the prologue, Amalar clarifies that ‘our volumes’ mean the antiphoners that followed the older tradition of Metz: ‘where something written in the Roman antiphoner struck me as better ordered than in ours, I have written an R in the margin [of my revised antiphoner] on account of the city of Rome; and where it seemed better ordered in ours, I have written an M for the city of Metz’ (‘ubi ordinabilius visum est michi scriptum haberi in antiphonario romano quam in nostro, ibi scripsi in margine R, proper nomen urbis Romae; et ubi in nostro, M, proper Metensem civitatem’): Amalar, Prologus de ordine antiphonarii, 8, ed. Hanssens, Amalarii Opera liturgica, I, 362. Paul the Deacon reports the adoption of Roman plainsong under Chrodegang in his Gesta episcoporum Mettensium (783), ed. G. H. Perz, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, 2 (Hanover, 1829), pp. 260–70, at p. 268.

⁷⁰ Amalar, Liber de ordine antiphonarii, 28.6, ed. Hanssens, Amalarii Opera liturgica, III, p. 64: ‘I inserted many saints’ offices in our antiphoner from the Roman one, offices that the Messine antiphoner does not have. I thought, “why should I omit them when they are supported by the same authority that supports those things that we find written in the Messine antiphoner, namely the authority of our holy mother church of Rome?”’ (‘Multa officia sanctorum indidi in nostro antiphonario ex romano, quae non habet metensis antiphonario. Cogitavi cur ea omitterem, cum eadem auctoritate fulciantur, qua et illa quae scripta invenimus in metensi antiphonario, scilicet sanctae matris nostrae Romanae ecclesiae’). Amalar, Liber de ordine antiphonarii 63.1, ed. Hanssens, Amalarii Opera liturgica, III, p. 98: ‘I included more proper responsories and antiphons for the saints from the Roman antiphoner, ones that I did not find in the Messine antiphoner’ (‘Responsorios et antiphonas proprias sanctorum plures scripsi de antiphonario romano, quas non inveni in metensi antiphonario’).

⁷¹ Amalar, Liber de ordine antiphonarii, 17.3, ed. Hanssens, Amalarii Opera liturgica, III, p. 54: ‘Antiphonae quas solemus canere in nocturnali officio in festivitatibus sanctorum, et [quae] habent initium in antiphona, “In lege Domini fuit voluntas eius dies ac nocte”, excerptae [or exceptae] sunt, ut reor, a modernis de multitudine antiphonarum quas habemus scriptas in nostro antiphonario de romano. Si quis voluerit eas legere, reperiet eas non a principio ita esse statutas, ut cantatur apud nos.’ The sole surviving source for De ordine antiphonarii, M. Hittorp, De divinis Catholicae Ecclesiae officiis ac ministeriis (Cologne, 1568), p. 281, reads ‘exceptae’ (from excipere), which Hanssens emends to ‘excerptae’ (from excerpere). In his commentary, Amalar always uses excipere to indicate chants that he has excluded from his antiphoner or sections of it. See, for instance, the antiphons for lauds during Lent: ‘Sol et luna has been omitted [here] and reserved for this history of Joseph,’ i.e., the third Sunday of Lent (‘Excipitur Sol et luna, quae reservantur ad historiam Joseph’): Liber de ordine antiphonarii, 36.3, ed. Hanssens, Amalarii Opera liturgica, III, p. 73. By contrast, Amalar uses excerpere only when referring to the biblical sources for plainchant lyrics, e.g., De ordine antiphonarii, 59.1, ed. Hanssens, Amalarii Opera liturgica, III, p. 95: ‘on the present feast [of St. John the Baptist] the antiphons, which are excerpted from the prophet Isaiah, are appropriate for Jesus Christ in particular’ (‘antiphonae quae excerptae sunt in praesenti festivitate de Esaia propheta, Christi Jesu propriae personae convenient’). That Amalar makes no reference to the biblical source of In lege domini strongly suggests excipere is the correct reading. Nowacki, ‘The Gregorian Antiphons,’ p. 256, follows Hanssens’s emendation but translates excerpere as ‘to omit’, thereby arriving at the same interpretation of the passage advanced here.

⁷² Lipphardt, Der karolingische Tonar, p. 124; V-CVbav San Pietro B79, fols. 179^r–180^r. The Vatican source exemplifies the organization of antiphoners and breviaries in so far as the Commune Sanctorum is its last major section: A. Hughes, Medieval Manuscripts for Mass and Office: A Guide to Their Organization and Terminology (Toronto, 1982), pp. 284–8.

⁷³ Amalar, Liber de ordine antiphonarii, 17.4, ed. Hanssens, Amalarii Opera liturgica, III, p. 54: ‘Responsorios ita ordinavi, ut ratio docuit historiae et gestorum ordo. Ubi verba mutavi de romano antiphonario, in margine eiusdem paginae et regione R posui.’

⁷⁴ Ensuring that responsories followed the order of the biblical narratives from which their lyrics derived was a hallmark of Amalar’s editorial approach: G. Ward, ‘The Order of History: Liturgical Time and the Rhythms of the Past in Amalarius of Metz’s De ordine antiphonarii’, in Writing in the Early Medieval West: Studies in Honour of Rosamond McKitterick, eds. E. Screen and C. West (Cambridge, 2018), pp. 98–112, at pp. 103–5.

⁷⁵ On the foundation and reform of St Stephen Major and Minor, see Jeffery, ‘The Early Liturgy’, 161–4. The remaining monasteries at St Peter’s were dedicated to Sts John and Paul and to St Martin.

⁷⁶ T. Snijders, ‘Celebrating with Dignity: The Purpose of Benedictine Matins Readings’, in Understanding Monastic Practices of Oral Communication, Tenth to Thirteenth Centuries, ed. S. Vanderputten (Turnhout, 2010), pp. 115–36, at pp. 121–4, documents this practice in hagiographic lectionaries from the Benedictine monasteries of Marchiennes and Saint-Vaast.

⁷⁷ The monks at the Abbey of Farfa likewise took this approach with the lessons recited on Trinity Sunday, which derived from a treatise spuriously ascribed to Ambrose and a homily by Bede: S. Boynton, Shaping a Monastic Identity: Liturgy and History at the Imperial Abby of Farfa, 1000–1125 (Ithaca, NY, 2006), pp. 71–80.

⁷⁸ E.g., the night office on the feast of St Donatus of Arezzo and on Trinity Sunday: B. Brand, Holy Treasure and Sacred Song: Relic Cults and Their Liturgies in Medieval Tuscany (New York, 2014), p. 228, and Boynton, Shaping a Monastic Identity, pp. 64–80, respectively. On the variability of the relationship of lessons and responsories on sanctoral feasts, see H. Parkes, ‘Theology and Teleology in the Festal Night Office: What Performance Directions Reveal about the Design and Experience of Historiae’, in Historiae: Liturgical Chant for Offices of the Satins in the Middle Ages, ed. D. Hiley, L. Zanoncelli, S. Rankin, R. Hankeln and M. Gozzi (Venice, 2020), pp. 45–66; idem, ‘The Composition of English Saints’ Offices in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries’, in Papers Read at the 15th Meeting of the IMS Study Group Cantus Planus (Dobogókő/Hungary, 2009, Aug. 23–29), 3 vols., ed. B. Haggh-Huglo and D. Lacoste (Lions Bay, 2013), III, pp. 629–47, at pp. 631–2. I borrow the term ‘musical postlude’ from P. Cutter, B. Maini, D. Moroney and J. Caldwell, ‘Responsory’, The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, online edition: www.oxfordmusiconline.com.

⁷⁹ Nowacki, ‘The Earliest Antiphons’, p. 83.

⁸⁰ C. Tietze, Hymn Introits for the Liturgical Year: The Origin and Early Development of the Latin Texts (Chicago, 2005), pp. 54–81, examines the chronological implications of dependence on the VL in the Introit, while Maloy, Inside the Offertory, pp. 73–9, and A. Pfisterer, Cantilena Romana: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des gregorianischen Chorals (Paderborn, 2002), pp. 221–32, do so for the Offertory. Wilhelm Blümer is preparing a critical edition of the Vetus latina Acts (henceforth Acts [VL]), to be published as the twentieth volume of Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel (Freiburg, 1949–). In the absence of such an edition, I have consulted GB-Ob Laud Gr. 35 (‘Laudian Acts’), which presents an Old Latin translation of Acts in parallel with the Greek text. Datable to c. 600 and likely copied in Sardinia or Rome, GB-Ob Laud Gr. 35 is one of the surviving witnesses to the Vetus latina Acts whose origins lie closest to Roman plainsong both chronologically and geographically: D. Mairhofer, Medieval Manuscripts from Würzburg in the Bodleian Library, Oxford: A Descriptive Catalogue (Chicago, 2015), pp. 120–2.

⁸¹ Acts 5:57–8 (VL): ‘Et lapidabant Stefanum invocantem et dicentem: Domine Ihesu accipe spiritum meum. Ponens autem genua clamavit voce magna: Domine ne statuas illis peccatum hoc’ (GB-Ob Laud Gr. 35, fol. 62^r–v).

⁸² On Moses as a model of the persecuted prophet and thus an important antecedent to Jesus and Stephen, see Matthews, Perfect Martyr, p. 68. Moessner, ‘“The Christ Must Suffer”’, p. 232, estimates that roughly 60% of Stephen’s speech concerns Moses.

⁸³ The conflation of Acts 7:59 and Lk 23:34 may have been a Roman variant, for it does not appear in the edition of sermo 382.2 in PL 39, col. 1685, which omits ‘qui nesciunt quid faciunt.’ This phrase finds a direct antecedent in Eccl 4:17: ‘For much better is obedience, than the victims of fools, who know not what evil they do’ (‘qui nesciunt quid faciunt mali’). In the context of sermo 382, however, it calls to mind Lk 23:34: ‘non enim sciunt quid faciunt’.

⁸⁴ Sermo 319B survives in three early medieval homiliaries not associated with the Roman homiletic tradition: the Homiliary of Pseudo-Fulgentius (fifth to sixth century; HLM, no. iii, p. 111); V-CVbav Vat. lat. 3828 (tenth century; HLM, no. 16) and A-Wn lat. 1616 (northern Italy, eighth to early ninth century; HLM, no. 6, p. 283). For a complete list of sources, see Augustine, Sermones selecti, pp. 174–5.

⁸⁵ Two of the twenty-five manuscripts on which Weidmann bases his edition of sermo 319B feature the variant ‘dominus’ rather than ‘Christus’ (Augustine, Sermones selecti, p. 176). Thus, the inclusion of ‘dominus’ in the chant text may have resulted from this minority reading rather than an intentional adjustment. Nowacki, ‘The Earliest Antiphons’, p. 84, identifies verbal clarity and musical balance as two of the chief reasons for verbal adjustments of biblical extracts in the Roman antiphons. Such concerns would have also shaped their approach to non-biblical extracts and to responsories.

⁸⁶ Baroffio and Kim, ‘Proposte’, p. 96, note the dependence of Qui enim corpori (M-A2) but not Praesaepis angustia (M-A3) on Fulgentius, sermo 3.1. Similarly, they do not recognise that of Hesterna die (M-A1) on Augustine, sermo 319B.1. CAO, III, p. 248, p. 412 and p. 425 identifies the literary sources of all three chants.

⁸⁷ The third pair (not set to plainchant) is as follows: ‘Yesterday indeed our king, clothed in a robe of flesh, was pleased to visit the earth from the temple of the Virgin’s womb; today the solider emerging from the tabernacle of the body, departed triumphantly up to heaven’ (‘Heri enim rex noster, trabea carnis indutus, de aula uteri virginalis egrediens visitare dignatus est mundum; hodie miles de tabernaculo corporis exiens, triumphator migravit ad caelum’): Fulgentius, sermo 3.1, trans. Renwick, The Sarum Rite, vol. B, pt. 7, p. 301.

⁸⁸ Trans. Renwick, The Sarum Rite, vol. B, pt. 7, pp. 301–2.

⁸⁹ See n. 65 above.

⁹⁰ Augustine’s quotations from Acts accord with both the VL and Vulgate in all but one respect: ‘accipe spiritum meum’ follows the VL, not the Vulgate (see n. 81 above).

⁹¹ While the majority of sources collated by Weidmann feature the verb in the present tense (‘lapidatur’), the eleventh-century Italian homiliary, V-CVbav Vat. lat. 1267 (eleventh century) features it in the past tense (‘lapidata est’): Augustine, Sermones selecti, p. 179.

⁹² Augustine’s (and, by extension, Ps.-Augustine’s) quotations from Acts accord with both the VL and Vulgate in all but one respect: ‘ego sum Iesus Nazarenus’ follows the VL (GB-Ob Laud Gr. 35, fol. 72^v), not the Vulgate, which lacks ‘Nazarenus’. The quotation from Ps.-Augustine, sermo 382.4 derives from V-CVbav San Pietro C105, fols. 95^v–96^r.

⁹³ Dupont, ‘Imitatio Christi’, p. 37.

⁹⁴ C.f. Ps. 69:2,9: ‘Deus Deus meus ad te de luce vigilo sitivit in te anima mea quam multipliciter tibi caro mea … adhesit anima mea post te me suscepit dextera tua.’

⁹⁵ Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms 51–72, trans. M. Boulding, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21^st Century 3.17 (Hyde Park, NY, 2001), p. 243. Although Augustine does not use the word ‘caritas’ in sermo 319B, he nonetheless concludes its third section with another rhetorical question: ‘what sort of man proceeds to his friends who so loved his enemies?’ (‘qualis ibat ad amicos, qui sic diligebat inimicos?’) (Augustine, Sermones selecti, p. 181).

⁹⁶ Matthews, Perfect Martyr, pp. 8, 66; Moessner, ‘“The Christ Must Suffer”’, pp. 227–8.

⁹⁷ Weidmann outlines the verbal reminiscences between Augustine’s sermones 316.4–5, 317.6 and 319B.4 in his introduction and critical notes in Augustine, Sermones selecti, pp. 168–9, 181–5. On Augustine’s preoccupation with the relationship between Stephen and Saul/Paul in general, see Bastiaensen, ‘Augustine’, pp. 115–18; Dupont, ‘Imitatio Christi’, p. 51.

⁹⁸ The scriptural basis for such Augustine’s assertion was Acts 7:57: ‘And casting him forth without the city they stoned him and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man whose name was Saul.’ In sermo 319B.4, ed. Augustine, Sermones selecti, p. 181, Augustine writes, ‘while St Stephen was being stoned, [Saul] was holding the garments of those who were hurling the stones, just as if [Saul] was seen to have hurled the stones with the hands of all of them’ (‘qui cum sanctus Stephanus lapidaretur et ab ipso omnium lapidantium vestimenta servarentur, ut tamquam in manibus omnium ipse lapidare videretur’). Ps.-Augustine, sermo 314.4 features nearly identical language: ‘qui, cum sanctus Stephanus lapidaretur, omnium vestimenta servabat et tanquam manibus omnium lapidabat’ (V-CVbav San Pietro C105, fol. 95^v). For similar formulations in other sermons by Augustine, see Weidmann’s critical notes in Augustine, Sermones selecti, pp. 181–2; Bastiaensen, ‘Augustine’, p. 117.

⁹⁹ Sermo 319B.4, ed. Augustine, Sermones selecti, p. 181: ‘Nam ut noverit sanctitas vestra, quantum valuerit oratio sancti Stephani martyris, recurrite nobiscum ad illum adolescentem persecutorem, nomine Saulum.’ C.f. Ps.-Augustine, sermo 382.4; V-CVbav San Pietro C105, fol. 95^v: ‘Denique, fratres, ut noveritis quantum valuerit oratio sancti martyris, recurrite nobiscum ad illum adolescentem nomine Saulum.’

¹⁰⁰ Augustine, sermo 319B.4, ed. Augustine, Sermones selecti, p. 182: ‘Et quia frustra insanisti contra nomen meum, ego te faciam servum meum.’

¹⁰¹ Nowacki, ‘The Earliest Antiphons’, p. 83, identifies these and other sorts of lyrical adjustments typical of Roman antiphons. Some may have judged the double insertion of both ‘dominum’ and ‘domine’ as redundant, which would explain why ‘domine’ is omitted in the version of the antiphon preserved in F-Pn lat. 17436 as shown in brackets in Table 6.

¹⁰² V-CVbav San Pietro B79, fols. 33^r (St Stephen), 179^r (Common of Multiple Martyrs) and 180^r (Common of One Martyr). ‘Adhaesit anima - - - lapidata’, Antiphonale Synopticum, http://gregorianik.uni-regensburg.de/an/#id/214, accessed 21 November 2020, identifies the literary source of Adhesit anima mea as Ps. 62:2,9, while Nowacki, ‘The Earliest Antiphons’, p. 101, identifies it as Ps. 62:9.

¹⁰³ Lipphardt, Der Karolingische Tonar, p. 120, is the only study of which I am aware to correctly identify the sermon as Augustine’s sermo 319B. He names the author as Pseudo-Fulgentius following the edition in PL 65, cols. 905–9, while incorrectly citing the volume number as 69.

¹⁰⁴ L-A4 is a variant of the chant inventoried as CAO 5027 and preserved in F-Pn lat. 17436, fol. 39^r: ‘Stephanus servus Dei quem lapidabant Iudaei, vidit caelos apertos, vidit et introivit: beatus homo cui caeli patebunt.’

¹⁰⁵ ‘Saule quid persequeris’, Antiphonale Synopticum, http://gregorianik.uni-regensburg.de/an/#id/211, accessed 21 November 2020, identifies Acts 9:4 as the literary source for the chant text.

¹⁰⁶ On the diverse audiences for Augustine’s sermons, see M. Pellegrino, introduction to Augustine, Sermons (1–19), pp. 84–93.

¹⁰⁷ See, for instance, the tribute to Christ’s compassion for his persecutors at the beginning of M-Lx6, which derives from Ps.-Augustine, sermo 382.2, V-CVbav San Pietro C105, fol. 95^r: ‘consider, brothers and sisters, such great mercy’ (‘Attendite, fratres, magna pietas’). On the translation of ‘fratres’ as ‘brothers and sisters’, see M. Pellegrino, introduction to Augustine, Sermons (1–19), pp. 104–5.

¹⁰⁸ On the private character of the medieval night office, see Brand, Holy Treasure, pp. 192–9. Nevertheless, the presence of the laity at matins cannot be excluded, particularly in Rome. As Amalar discovered in the course of his research for his revised antiphoner, the Romans observed two night offices on Christmas. The first was celebrated the previous evening at Santa Maria Maggiore by the pope and his entourage, the second at the traditional hour before dawn at St Peter’s by the resident monks. Only the second office featured the invitatory psalm because it was the only one at which the populace was present: Amalar, Liber de ordine antiphonarii, 15.3, ed. Hanssens, Amalarii Opera liturgica, III, p. 50. Amalar reports that the Romans celebrated such ‘double offices’ on the feast of seven saints including Stephen but does not mention the laity in such cases: ibid., 17.2, pp. 53–4. It seems likely that fewer laypeople would have attended the second, nocturnal office on Stephen’s feast than on Christmas owing to the proximity of the feasts – it would have been tiring indeed to attend matins two days in a row! – and to the lesser solemnity of the former feast compared to the latter. Ordo Romanus XII (after 772) provides an earlier description of the double offices on Christmas and sanctorale feasts in Rome but does not refer to the laity: Andrieu (ed.), Les Ordines romani, II, pp. 460–1 and 465–6. On the Roman tradition of double offices in general, see J. Dyer, ‘The Double Office at St Peter’s Basilica on Dominica de Gaudete’, in Music in Medieval Europe: Studies in Honour of Bryan Gillingham, eds. A. Santosuosso and T. Bailey (Routledge, 2007), pp. 200–19.

¹⁰⁹ While scholars have traditionally dated the homiliary to 786, Guiliano, The Homiliary, pp. 118–22, argues that Paul compiled it in 797–8.

¹¹⁰ Translation after Guiliano, The Homiliary, p. 257. The remainder of this paragraph and entirety of the subsequent one draw broadly and extensively on idem, The Homiliary, Chapter 1 (pp. 45–66), Chapter 3 (pp. 91–122), Chapter 4 (pp. 123–62) and Appendix 5 (pp. 263–99, esp. pp. 269–74), which offer important correctives to the scholarly consensus on Paul’s homiliary, summarized in Martimort, Les lectures liturgiques, pp. 87–98; Palazzo, A History of Liturgical Books, pp. 154–6.

¹¹¹ For a particularly prominent case of its influence, see R. Etaix, ‘Le lectionnaire de l’office à Cluny’, Recherches Augustiennes, 11 (1976), pp. 91–159, at pp. 154–5, repr. in idem, Homélaires patristiques latins: Recueil d’études de manuscrits médiévaux (Paris, 1994), pp. 200–1.

¹¹² For the case of the Sundays of Advent, see Fassler, ‘Sermons’, pp. 35–6. Paul’s inclusion of Gospel commentaries also marked a decisive break with the continuous reading of scripture and related commentary (lectio continua) that had previously characterised the night office: Billett, ‘Sermones ad diem pertinentes’, p. 345.

¹¹³ The earliest surviving Roman capitulary assigns Mt 23:34–9 to Stephen’s feast, as do two of its descendants: T. Klauser, Das römische Capitulare evangeliorum (Münster, 1935), p. 13 (Type Π, c. 645), p. 58 (Type Δ, c. 740) and p. 102 (Type Σ, c. 755).

¹¹⁴ Paul attributes sermo 3 to Fulgentius, sermo 219 to Maximus, the Gospel homily to Jerome and the excerpt from City of God to Augustine: HLM, nos. 27–30, p. 325.

¹¹⁵ F-AI 44, fol. 66^v (ed. Emerson, Albi, p. 157).

¹¹⁶ Cantus Index: Online Catalogue for Mass and Office Chants, s.v. ‘003479’, accessed 18 January 2021, http://cantusindex.org/id/003479. The CAO sources are F and S.

¹¹⁷ The melodic assignment of Ierusalem Ierusalem in V-CVbav San Pietro B79 strengthens this hypothesis. There it shares its second-mode melody type with only two other antiphons, Quem vidistis pastores (Christmas, L-A1; fol. 29^v) and Exiit sermo (John the Evangelist, L-Ab[3]; fol. 35^r). On the basis of musical evidence, Nowacki, ‘The Gregorian Antiphons’, pp. 266–8, and idem. ‘Studies in the Office Antiphons of the Old Roman Manuscripts’ (PhD diss., Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, 1981), 224–7, convincingly argues that this melody type was original to Quem vidistis pastores and was only later adapted to Ierusalem Ierusalem. The scenario by which Ierusalem Ierusalem originated in Francia and was only later transmitted to Rome provides a plausible context for this adaptation.

¹¹⁸ The Veterm hominem antiphons for the octave of the Epiphany provide a prominent precedent for the scenario outlined here. Adapted from Byzantine hymns by the Franks in the first half of the ninth century, they were later adopted in Rome, as evidenced by their inclusion in V-CVbav San Pietro B79, fols. 42^v–43^r: E. Nowacki, ‘Constantinople-Aachen-Rome: The Transmission of Veterem hominem’ in De musica et cantu: Studien zur Geschichte der Kirchenmusik und der Oper: Helmut Hucke zum 60. Geburtstag, eds. P. Cahn and A. Heimer (Hildesheim, 1993), pp. 95–115.

¹¹⁹ Fulgentius, sermo, 3.1: ‘Heri enim rex noster, trabea carnis indutus, de aula uteri virginalis egrediens visitare dignatus est mundum.’ Trans. Renwick, The Sarum Rite, vol. B, pt. 7, p. 301. C.f. F-AI 44, fol. 66^r–v (ed. Emerson, Albi, p. 157).

¹²⁰ Seven CAO sources (C, B, E, M, V, H and R) and forty-eight sources in CANTUS favour Stephanus vidit celos. The remaining five CAO sources (G, D, F, S and L) and thirty-nine sources in CANTUS favour Heri enim rex. See Cantus Index: Online Catalogue for Mass and Office Chants, s.v. ‘006810a’ and ‘006810b’, accessed 14 December 2020, http://cantusindex.org/id/006810b and http://cantusindex.org/id/006810b.

¹²¹ On the development of the office lectionary and breviary, see Palazzo, A History of Liturgical Books, pp. 158–9, 169–72 respectively.

¹²² Palazzo, A History of Liturgical Books, p. 159.

¹²³ R. Étaix, ‘Le lectionnaire’, p. 97, nos. 23–5, repr. in idem, Homélaires patristiques, pp. 142–3.

¹²⁴ See, for instance, I-Ac 693 (first half of the thirteenth century), fols. 20^r–22^r, which misattributes Fulgentius’s sermon to Augustine and omits Jerome’s commentary on Mt 23:39. I-Ac 693 is one of the earliest witnesses to the Franciscan breviary: A. Mitchell, ‘The Chant of the Earliest Franciscan Office’ (PhD diss., University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 2003), pp. 77–81, with bibliography.

¹²⁵ See, for instance, the GB-Lbl Stowe 12 (‘Stowe Breviary’) (1322–5), in which the first six lessons derive from Fulgentius, sermo 3.1–3 (fols. 20^v–21^v) and the last three from Jerome’s commentary on Mt 23:34–5/6 (fols. 21^v–22^v). GB-Lbl Add. 52359 (‘Penwortham Breviary’) (1300–19) similarly draws the first six lessons from Fulgentius, sermo, 3.1–2 (fols. 38^r–40^r) but the last three from a homily on the Gospel ascribed to Bede (fols. 40^v–41^r). The latter scheme accords with the later printed editions of the Sarum Breviary, e.g., Breviarium Sarisburiense (Paris, 1516), fols. 33^v–36^r, which feature longer lessons that include the sermon and homily in their entirety.

¹²⁶ Billett, ‘Sermones ad diem pertinentes’, 345.