ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Teresa Vann, Dr. Matthew Heintzelman as well as the rest of the very helpful staff at the Hill Manscript Museum and Library at St. John’s University in Collegeville, Minnesota.

Dr. Susan Noakes and Dr. Diane C.W. Anderson at the Center for Medeival Studies at the University of Minnesota for providing me with hands-on research skills in medieval manuscript research through the collaborative annual Summer Workshop in Medieval Manuscripts. Additionally, I wish to express thanks to Dr. Diane C.W. Anderson for her insight and much needed corrections to my Latin translation of Laus Trinitati, informing me of standard core Latin authors and works in the late middle ages as well as her guidance through my preliminary paleographical studies;

Dr. Barbara Newman of Northwestern University for her insight, suggested sources and encouraging my research into primary sources;

Dr. Barbara Haggh-Huglo at University of Maryland, College Park for sharing with me some of her research in liturgical Mansucripts from the Low Countries;

Dr. Margot Fassler at Yale University and Jonathan H Juilfs for sharing insight into the Engelberg Codex 103 (aka the “Disibodenberg Antiphonal”);

Dr. Constant Mews of Monash University for clarifying issues regarding the relationship between liturgical practice and jurisdiction between distinct orders and diocese in the 12^th century and for devoting his precious time in patiently answering my questions.

Dr. Catherine Jeffreys for sharing her research and reflections on Dendermonde Codex 9;

Sr. Maura Zátonyi OSB from the Abbey of St. Hildegard and Dr. Wolfgang Podehl, Library Director at the Hessische Landesbibliothek Wiesbaden for permission and assistance in copies from the Riesencodex;

Roger De Coster from the Abdij St. Pieter & Paulus for bringing to light pertinent reference sources;

My advisor and advocate Dr. Donna Cardamone Jackson for introducing me to the exciting field of musicological research as well as for her encouragement and support throughout my academic career;

The rest of my examining committee: Dr. Peter Mercer-Taylor, Dr. Susan Noakes, and Dr. Rebecca Krug for their patience and finally…

DEDICATION

Dedicated to my wife, Krista Sandstrom and our children Soren and Birgitta for their continuing love, sacrifice, and support.

ABSTRACT

This thesis provides the first comparative analysis situating the chants of Hildegard von Bingen within the mid-12^th century Cistercian liturgical reform. In applying Cistercian theory, a clear distinction between the melodies written before and after Hildegard’s move to the Rupertsberg is exposed. In practice, her later chants demonstrate shared compositional strategies and motifs with the chants composed under the Cistercian reform, as evidenced by antiphonals from the third quarter of the 12^th century. Moreover, cross-referencing subjects represented within the Dendermonde Codex with those feasts added to the Cistercian calendar between 1150 and 1175 suggests that the liturgy celebrated at the Rupertsberg was Cistercian influenced. A review of Hildegard’s correspondence in her later years suggests that she intended the Cistercian liturgy to continue after her death.

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . 1

A Word about the Symphonia, . . . . . . 4

Background on the Cistercian Reform . . . . . 6

Life in Cistercian Communities . . . . . . 7

Origins Reconsidered . . . . . . . 8

Jurisdiction and Liturgy . . . . . . . 10

CHAPTER 1: Origins of Authority . . . . . . 11

Spiritual World of Hildegard . . . . . . 13

Hildegard’s Divine Authority . . . . . . 14

Authority of Virginity and Humility . . . . . 15

CHAPTER 2: The Devil in Mainz . . . . . . 18

Consolidating the Empire . . . . . . . 19

In the Grasp of the Devil . . . . . . . 24

CHAPTER 3: The Cistercian Plan . . . . . . 27

Enacting the Plan . . . . . . . . 29

Liber diuinorum operum . . . . . . . 29

Sanctioning Authority: The Myth of Authorization . . . 31

The Press-kit of Authority: The Dendermonde Codex . . . 34

Wien, Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Codex 1016 . . . 36

CHAPTER 4: Daily Worship . . . . . . . 40

The Divine Office . . . . . . . . 40

Antiphons and Responsories . . . . . . 41

The Cistercian Liturgical Reform . . . . . . 43

Development of the Cistercian Liturgy . . . . . 44

The First Recension Liturgy : Ambrosian Hyms and Metz Antiphonal . 45

The Second Recension Liturgy . . . . . . 47

Hildegard’s Cistercian Liturgy . . . . . . 50

CHAPTER 5: Cistercian Theory in Practice . . . . . 53

Modal Unity and Restricted Range . . . . . 53

Avoidance of B-flat . . . . . . . 56

Repetition and Reduction . . . . . . . 57

Cistercian Theory Applied to Hildegard . . . . . 60

Hildergard’s use of Cistercian Maneria . . . . . 62

Chronology of Hildegard’s Chant . . . . . . 63

CHAPTER 6: The Cistercian Chants to the Holy Spirit . . . 67

Textual relationships . . . . . . . 68

Spiritus sanctus uiuificans (text) . . . . . 68

Laus trinitiati (text) . . . . . . . 69

Karitas habundat (text) . . . . . . 70

Melodic Themes . . . . . . . . 71

Regarding St. Stephen . . . . . . 75

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . 78

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . 83

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . 102

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5-1: Chants which meet Cistercian criteria . . . . 64

Table 5-2: Chants which do not meet Cistercian criteria . . . 65

Appendix A: Manuscripts . . . . . . . 83

Appendix B-1: Cistercian maneria . . . . . . 84

Appendix C: Dendermonde Codex . . . . . . 85

Appendix D: Chants which meet Cistercian maneria according to Regula . 88

Appendix E: Chants which do not meet Cistercian criteria . . . 89

Appendix F: Pre-Rupertsberg Chants . . . . . . 90

Appendix G: Transcription Key . . . . . . 91

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 5-1: Cistercian Maneria . . . . . . 55

Figure 5-2: Surge propera amica mea (excerpt) . . . . 56

Figure 5-3: Filie iherusalem nuntiate (excerpt) . . . . 58

Figure 5-4: Preciosus athleta domini (excerpt) . . . . 59

Figure 5-5: O Ierusalem aurea (excerpt) . . . . . 61

Figure 5-6: O Ierusalem aurea (excerpt) . . . . . 61

Figure 5-7: O Ierusalem aurea (excerpt) . . . . . 62

Figure 5-8: Protus – ‘transposed’ . . . . . . 62

Figure 6-1: Karitas 7^th motif . . . . . . . 71

Figure 6-2: Spiritus 8^th motif . . . . . . . 72

Figure 6-3: Lapidabant iudei Stephanum motif . . . . . 72

Figure 6-4: Laus trinitati 7^th motif . . . . . . 73

Figure 6-5: Karitas habundat excerpt – super motif . . . . 73

Figure 6-6: Karitas habundat excerpt – super sidera . . . . 74

Figure 6-7: Domine Ihesu Criste . . . . . . 74

Figure 6-8: summo regi osculum pacis . . . . . 74

Figure B-2: Descriptive Nomenclature . . . . . 84

Appendix H: Transcription – Spiritus sanctus uiuificans . . . 95

Appendix I: Transcription – Karitas habundat . . . . 96

Appendix J: Transcription – Laus trinitati . . . . . 97

Appendix K: Transcription – Laus trinitati (mode 1 transposition) . . 98

Appendix L: Transcription – Filie iherusalem nuntiate . . . 99

Appendix M: Transcription – Preciosus athleta domini . . . 100

Appendix N: Transcription – Sancte dei pretiose (excerpts) . . . 101

Symphonia Caritatis: The Cistercian Chants of Hildegard von Bingen

…at God’s admonition I paid a visit to Mount St. Disibod…where I presented the following petition to all who dwelt there: I requested that our monastery, as well as the alms accruing therefrom, be free and clear from their jurisdiction, for the sake of the salvation of our souls and our concern for the strict observance of the Rule.[1] - Hildegard von Bingen to her congregation of nuns (ca. 1170)

For the past 20 years, the popular perception of Hildegard von Bingen in the United States has been one of New Age feminist prophet whose songs and visions shout out the virtues of 21^st century female empowerment from the desert of a medieval patriarchal society.[2] Even the more serious graduate studies which focus on her use of feminine imagery tend to exclude many significant contextual details by referring to the same limited core sources.[3] Although far from stating this is a bad thing, the lack of diversity in sources, methodology and the conclusions drawn from their analyses has served to uphold an unbalanced depiction of Hildegard among students and performers of her music.[4]

It was an article by Nico biographer, Richard Witts, appearing in Early Music which asked scholars and fans to mind the context of Hildegard within the scope of twelfth-century reform.[5] In this article, Witts created an intuitive argument citing, among other things, numerous coincidences and numerological conspiracy theories, to indicate that Hildegard may have been created by the Cistercians. While his argument was lacking in much concrete evidence, his intuition regarding a Cistercian connection is closer to the mark than has been previously acknowledged.

The argument of a Cistercian connection especially in regard to Hildegard’s music has fallen short due to the perpetuation of such assumptions as: one, Hildegard maintained the Disibodenberg liturgy when she established her own communities at the Rupertsberg and Eibingen; two, Cistercian liturgical theory was already fully developed and strictly practiced in the Rhineland during Hildegard’s lifetime; and three, Hildegard wrote only for her community for the sake of educating her nuns.[6] Mention of the Cistercians is relegated to the footnote as Hildegard scholars cite trends and tendencies on a universal level rather than examining the particulars of individual works. Never has there been a serious comparative analysis between Hildegard’s chant with contemporary Cistercian theory and, more importantly, practice.

What I attempt here is a re-evaluation of sources with a redirected focus on the last decade of her life beginning around 1170 and concluding with her death in 1179. It is my intent to build upon Witts’ argument and present a case for a shared Cistercian liturgical practice between Hildegard and individual Cistercian communities. At the core of my argument is the assumption that Hildegard, acting with foresight was concerned for the spiritual care of her community in the years after her death. She feared that without her intervention, the corrupting influences of her parent monastery at Disibodenberg and the lax clergy within her archdiocese of Mainz would lead her daughters away from salvation. To counter, she and her provost Volmar established a “Cistercian plan” sometime around 1170. The objective of this plan was to establish political, theological and liturgical ties with trusted communities who might intercede on behalf of Hildegard’s two houses at Rupertsberg and Eibingen.

The effect of their Cistercian plan is reflected musically in comparative analyses between Hildegard’s chants with those found in contemporary Cistercian antiphonals composed for liturgical practice. This approach will uncover a general trend of compositional refinement in Hildegard’s chants toward the Cistercian aesthetic.[7] My research demonstrates that the chants written prior to her move to the Rupertsberg in 1150 clearly extend beyond Cistercian liturgical theory. Conversely it finds that those perceived to have been written in her later years do indeed conform to the principles of the Cistercian liturgy. To be clear, this is not to say that all of her chants are Cistercian and therefore acceptable by all Cistercian communities, but there is enough compounding evidence to support the argument that within her lifetime, the specific Cistercian community of Villers found the practice of her chants acceptable. Moreover, the evidence uncovered supports Witts’ hypothesis that the liturgy practiced at the Rupertsberg was Cistercian.

The sources considered for this study include Hildegard’s extensive body of correspondence in order to provide the political context which is lacking in her Vita, her last and most vivid treatise, the Liber diuinorum operum which reflects her latest theological writings, and finally provide comparative analyses by using Hildegard’s chants as found in the Dendermonde Codex and those found in contemporary 12^th century manuscripts of Cistercian and Benedictine provenance.

In support of my argument three fronts shall be addressed. First, the political climate including contextual background into the Cistercian reform, the view of Hildegard’s spiritual authority, as well as her strained relationships with her superiors in the archdiocese of Mainz. These together serve as the catalyst for her Cistercian plan. The second front provides an overview of the Divine Office within the monastic cursus. Attention will be focused on the hour of Matins with a description of its two most prevalent chant types, antiphons and responsories. Understanding the Divine Office is crucial in establishing the context and ideology behind the Cistercian liturgical reform. The third front provides detail of the main principles of the reform. From here examples will be drawn from chants composed by the Cistercian reformers in the mid-12^th century in order to demonstrate instances where they broke from their own theory. In the following chapter Cistercian theory is applied to all of the chants which appear in the Dendermonde Codex. Cross-referencing these chants with those known to have been composed earlier, confirms the trend of refinement in Hildegard’s melodies. The final chapter focuses on three of those chants, Spiritus sanctus uiuificans, Karitas habundat, and Laus trinitati in relation to Cistercian theory as well as in Hildegard’s own compositional sensibilities.

A Word about Symphonia

Referring to the chants contained within the Dendermonde Codex (ca. 1175) and the Riesencodex (ca. 1180) as the Symphonia armoniae celestium revelationum, has served to perpetuate the myth that all of her chants were conceived as a cycle, not that they were in fact a collection of chants written over Hildegard’s compositional lifetime. The term has been commonly used due to its appearance in the introduction of Hildegard’s Liber Vitae Meritorum.[8] I contend that what Hildegard knew as the Symphonia is actually a smaller number, approximated by those twenty-six chants whose texts appear in what Barbara Newman describes as the miscellany.[9] Those, along with chants determined to have been written at the request of other communities, and those written prior to her move to the Rupertsberg, had been collected within the supplemental antiphonal we know today as the Dendermonde Codex and the Riesencodex (Henceforth D and R).

Therefore, when referring to these chants, I will use the term coined by Catherine Jeffreys cantus cum melodia (chant with melody), which appears to have been the preferred term used by Hildegard’s secretary and biographers rather than to perpetuate the term Symphonia .[10]

Background on the Cistercian Reform

The traditional account regarding the origin of the Cistercian movement begins with its founding by Robert of Molesme (c. 1027-1110) who led a small band of companions to establish a new monastery at Citeaux in 1098. The driving force behind this move was the desire to return to an authentic practice of monasticism and devote themselves to the practice of caritas.[11] In order achieve this they removed themselves from the secular activities which they believed had so cluttered and corrupted the established Benedictine traditions epitomized in the late 11^th century by Cluny.

The spread of the Cistercian order began under the abbots Alberic (1099-1109) and Stephen Harding (1109-1133). It was through their guidance that reform to pre-Benedictine ways sought measures which imitated Christ in poverty and in evangelism. In 1112 Bernard of Clairvaux and twenty-nine of his followers joined the abbey at Citeaux, doubling its size. Within a year, the Cistercian movement was well underway, and soon after Bernard became abbot of his own abbey at Clairvaux in 1115. Bernard’s charismatic influence led to the establishment of no fewer than 327 Cistercian foundations in France, Britain, Spain, Italy and well into Eastern Europe between the years 1125 and 1151.[12] There were 160 affiliated daughter houses to Bernard’s abbey alone. To ensure unity of purpose, practice and matters of governance among these many houses, the Cistercian abbots met annually in General Chapters.[13]

The attraction to the Cistercian movement by so many however made it difficult for the monks of Citeaux and Clairvaux to remain removed from the secular world. It also made it difficult to enforce uniform practice among the new houses. Nevertheless, through continual recruitment from lesser nobility, as is the case of Bernard of Clairvaux and his family, and land donations from the likes of Theobold of Blois, Henry of Troyes and Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, the Cistercians became economically prosperous.[14] Moreover, between 1137 and 1147 Bernard’s fame kept him fully embroiled in the affairs of Church and State including his role as intermediary between Louis VII and Thibault, Count of Champagne.[15] Through Bernard’s influence, the Cistercian order gained a considerable political foundation which culminated in the election of the first Cistercian Pope, Eugenius III (1145-1153). Coupled with their evangelistic attitude, the Cistercians preached out against the Cathar heresy and became dominating forces for the Second, Third and Fourth Crusades.[16]

Life in Cistercian Communities

In their drive toward authenticity, the Cistercians modeled their community on the ideal monk, St. Benedict of Nursia (480-547) and therefore strove to live in strict observance of the Rule of St. Benedict. Their zeal for authentic practice did not end there for they also re-examined the works of those authors which were likely known by St. Benedict. The greatest impact from this train of thought is noted in the reform of liturgical practice. Initially they adopted what they believed were the “original” chants of Pope Gregory I (540-604) supplemented with hymns composed by St. Ambrose of Milan (ca 337-397). A detailed account regarding the liturgical reform is in Chapter 4.

Aside from the devotion to caritas and strict observation to the Rule of St. Benedict, which included the wearing of a white habit (ergo their appellation “white monks”), all Cistercian houses venerated the Virgin Mary.[17] Their stated reason was because their founders came to Citeaux from the church of Molesme which was itself dedicated in honor of the blessed Mary.[18] They decreed therefore that all succeeding churches be founded in dedication to the Queen of Heaven and Earth, establishing a relationship of “mother – daughter” houses.[19] In keeping with the Song of Songs metaphor, popular especially through Bernard’s famous sermons on the subject, the soul of a Cistercian monk was the ideal “Bride of Christ” and “Daughter of Zion.”[20]

Origins Reconsidered

It is generally acknowledged today that many of the Cistercian communities did not start from scratch, that is they did not all begin with a small band of monks settling in the wilderness. Rather the large number of houses amassed in the short period was due to the adoption and ultimate conversion of Cistercian practices in existing communities. In a conversation with Constant Mews, he clarified that “It was not unusual for communities once reformed by Hirsau to be taken over by Cistercians. The process was beginning even by the mid 12th century.”[21] Supporting this process is that Hildegard’s own parent community at Disibodenberg, which itself fell under the Hirsau reform in the late 11^th century, became Cistercian in 1259 as a colony of Otterberg.[22]

Further, making the distinction between what constitutes a full fledged Cistercian community and those communities adopting Cistercian practice in the 12^th century is not always clear. It had been previously believed that there were no Cistercian communities for women in the 12^th century.