The next point on which there is no dispute is the telephone
conversation which took place between the Defendant Göring and the
Defendant Ribbentrop on the 13th of March 1938, when this defendant was
still in London. The Tribunal will remember that that was dealt with
fully by my friend, Mr. Alderman. It was passing on what the Prosecution
submits is a completely false statement: that there was no ultimatum.
The facts of the ultimatum were explained by the earlier telephone
conversations with the Defendant Göring in Vienna. Defendant Göring then
passed that on to the Defendant Ribbentrop in London in order that he
might propagate the story of there being no ultimatum, in political
circles in London. That appears in the telephone conversation, which is
Exhibit Number USA-76, Document 2949-PS, and, as I say, it is fully
dealt with in the transcript on Page 582 (Volume II, Page 425).

The third action which this defendant took occurred after his return
from London. Although he had been appointed Foreign Minister in
February, he had gone back to London to clear up his business at the
embassy and he was still in London until after the Anschluss had
actually occurred, but his name appears as a signatory of the law making
Austria a province of the German Reich. That is Document 2307-PS, which
I now put in as Exhibit GB-133. And there is a reference in the
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, which is given. These were the actions of the
defendant with regard to Austria.

Then we come to Czechoslovakia, and there you have an almost perfect
example of aggression at work in its various ways. Again I simply remind
the Tribunal of the outstanding points with the greatest brevity. First,
there is the question of stirring up trouble inside the country against
which aggression is going to be set forth.

This Defendant, as Foreign Minister, was concerned with the stirring up
of the Sudeten Germans under Henlein, and the contacts between the
Foreign Office and Henlein are shown in Exhibit Numbers USA-93, 94, 95,
and 96. These are Documents 3060-PS, 2789-PS, 2788-PS, and 3059-PS. They
have all been read by my friend, Mr. Alderman, but I simply give to the
Tribunal their effect on them, which is the stirring up of the Sudeten
German movement in order to act with the Government of the Reich.

Then, after that, the Defendant Ribbentrop was present on the 28th of
May 1938 at the conference with Hitler, at which the latter gave the
necessary instructions to prepare the attack on Czechoslovakia. That was
dealt with previously on Page 742 of the transcript (Volume III, Page
42). And I want to put before the Tribunal Document 2360-PS, which is a
report of a speech of Hitler’s in the _Völkischer Beobachter_; and, if
the Tribunal would be good enough to look at it, it is a useful date to
fix with regard to the aggression against Czechoslovakia, because that
was the day on which Hitler, on his own proclamation, had decided that
aggression was to take place against Czechoslovakia. The extract which I
have taken is quite short and—if the Tribunal would look at the extract
which is on Page 1, columns 5 and 6, bottom—the important passage is:

    “On the basis of this unbearable provocation, which was still
    further emphasized by a truly infamous persecution and
    terrorizing of our Germans there, I have now decided to solve
    the Sudeten-German question in a final and radical manner.”

This was in January 1939. Then he goes on to say:

    “On 28 May . . . I gave the order for the preparation of
    military steps against this state, to be concluded by 2
    October. . . .”

The important point is that the 28th of May was the date when the Fall
Grün for Czechoslovakia was the subject of orders and it was thereafter
put into effect to come to fruition at the beginning of October. That is
the second stage: To lay well in advance your plans of aggression. The
third stage is to see that the neighboring states are not likely to
cause you trouble.

So we find that on the 18th of July 1938 this defendant had a
conversation with the Italian Ambassador Attolico, at which the attack
on Czechoslovakia was discussed. That is Exhibit Number USA-85, Document
2800-PS. And there were further discussions which are contained in
Exhibits USA-86 and 87, which are Documents 2791-PS and 2792-PS.

I think it is sufficient for me to say to the Tribunal that the effect
of these documents is that it was made clear to the Italian Government
that the German Government was going to move against Czechoslovakia.

The other country which was interested was Hungary, because Hungary had
certain territorial ideas with regard to parts of the Czechoslovakian
Republic.

So, on the 23rd and 25th of August, this defendant was present at the
discussions and had discussions himself with the Hungarian politicians
Imredy and Kania, and these are found in Exhibit Numbers USA-88 and 89,
Documents 2796-PS and 2797-PS.

This defendant endeavored to get assurances of Hungarian help, and the
Hungarian Government at the time was not too ready to commit itself to
action, although it was ready enough with sympathy. These are to be
found in the documents which I have mentioned. And, again, unless the
Tribunal desires, I shall not read any document that I summarize that
way.

Now I have already mentioned that there had been contact with the
Sudeten Germans. That was the long-term grievance that had to be
exploited. But the next stage was to have a short-term grievance and to
stir up trouble, preferably at the fountainhead. And so, between the
16th and 24th of September, we find the German Foreign Office, of which
this defendant was at the head, stirring up trouble in Prague; and that
is shown very clearly in Exhibits Numbers USA-97 to 101, which are
Documents 2858-PS, 2855-PS, 2854-PS, 2853-PS, and 2856-PS. I have read
them in order of date. And it would be interesting for the Tribunal to
look at these. They ought to follow quite shortly the document they have
just been looking at, beginning with Document PS-2858. You will see the
sort of thing of which I am reminding the Tribunal. Here you have the
document of the 19th of September coming from the Foreign Office to the
German Embassy in Prague:

    “Please inform Deputy Kundt at Conrad Henlein’s request to get
    in touch with the Slovaks at once and induce them to start their
    demands for autonomy during the next day.”

And the others deal with questions of arrest and the action that would
be taken against any Czechs in Germany in order to make the position
more difficult.

That was the contribution which this defendant made to the pre-Munich
crisis. After, as the Tribunal will remember, on the 29th of September
1938, the Munich Agreement was signed. That is GB-23, Document TC-23,
which I have already read to the Tribunal.

And, after that—I just remind the Tribunal of an interesting document
which shows the sort of action which the Wehrmacht expected and the
advice that the Wehrmacht expected from the Foreign Office.

You have, on the 1st of October, Document C-2, which is Exhibit Number
USA-90, and that is a long document putting forward an almost infinite
variety of breaches of international law, which were likely to arise or
might have arisen from the action in regard to Czechoslovakia; and on
all these points the opinion of the Foreign Office is sought. That, of
course, remained a hypothetical question at that time because no war
resulted.

Then, if the Tribunal please, we come to the second stage in the
acquiring of Czechoslovakia: That is, having obtained the Sudetenland,
arranging so that there would be a crisis in Czechoslovakia which would
give an excuse for taking the rest. The Tribunal will remember the
importance of this because it is the first time that the German
Government went outside its own statement about not going beyond German
blood.

On that point, again, this defendant was active. On the 13th of March,
as events were moving to a climax, he sent a telegram to the German
Minister in Prague, who was under him, telling him to “make a point of
not being available if the Government there wants to get in touch with
you in the next few days.” That is Exhibit Number USA-116, Document
2815-PS.

At the same time this defendant saw a delegation of pro-Nazi Slovaks in
Berlin. At a conference with Hitler, at which this defendant was
present, Tiso, one of the heads of the pro-Nazi Slovaks, was directed to
declare an independent Slovak State, in order to assist in the
disintegration of Czechoslovakia. That is Exhibit Number USA-117,
Document 2802-PS, and the Tribunal might care to compare it with a
previous meeting with another Slovak, Tuka, a month before, which is
shown in Document 2790-PS, Exhibit Number USA-110. So that this
defendant was assisting in the task, again, of supporting internal
trouble.

Then on the 14th of March 1939, the next day, Hacha, the President of
Czechoslovakia, was called to Berlin. This defendant was present at the
meeting and the Tribunal will remember the usual pressure and threats
which resulted in the aged President’s purposing to hand over the
Czechoslovak State to Hitler. The Tribunal will find that subject dealt
with on Page 911 of the transcript (Volume III, from Page 158), and the
relevant exhibit is Exhibit Number USA-118, Document 2798-PS, which is
the minutes of the meeting between Hitler and Hacha that this defendant
attended. You will also find it dealt with in Exhibit Number USA-126,
Document 3061-PS, which is the Czechoslovakian Government report.

That was the end of the Czech part of Czechoslovakia. The following week
this defendant signed a treaty with Slovakia which I now put in. It is
Document 1439-PS, and I put it in as Exhibit GB-135, and the important
part is Article 2, under which the German Government was given the right
to construct military posts and installations and keep them garrisoned
within Czechoslovakia. Again, I am not going to read it at length, but I
hope the Tribunal will stop me if there are any of these documents which
they would like read instead of summarized.

In that way this defendant by the terms of that treaty, after completely
finishing Bohemia and Moravia as an independent state, had got military
control in Slovakia.

Before I pass to Poland, there is one interesting little point on the
Northern Baltic which I put before the Tribunal to show how this
defendant could hardly keep his hands out of the internal affairs of
other countries, even when it did not seem a very important matter. The
Tribunal will remember that on the 3rd of April 1939, as shown in GB-4,
TC-53(a), Germany had occupied the Memelland. It would have appeared, as
far as the Baltic States were concerned, that the position was
satisfactory; but if the Tribunal will look at Document 2953-PS, which I
put in as Exhibit GB-136, and Document 2952-PS, which I put in as
GB-137, they will find that this defendant acted in close concert with
the conspirator Heydrich, who is dead, in stirring up trouble in
Lithuania with a group of pro-Nazi people called the “Woldemaras
supporters.” Document 2953-PS shows that Heydrich was passing to the
Defendant Ribbentrop the request for financial support for the . . .

THE PRESIDENT: You are going to read 2953?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, that is the one I was going to
read. That is a letter from Heydrich to the Defendant Ribbentrop and it
says:

    “Dear Party Comrade Von Ribbentrop:

    “Enclosed please find a further report about the ‘Woldemaras
    supporters.’ As already mentioned in the previous report the
    ‘Woldemaras supporters’ are still asking for help from the
    Reich. I therefore ask you to examine the question of financial
    support brought up again by the ‘Woldemaras supporters’ set
    forth on Page 4, Paragraph 2, of the enclosed report and to make
    a definite decision.

    “The request of the ‘Woldemaras supporters’ for financial
    support could, in my opinion, be granted. Deliveries of arms
    should not, however, be made under any circumstances.”

Then, 2952-PS, the next document, is a fuller report, and at the end of
that there is added in handwriting, “I support small regular payments,
e.g., 2,000 to 3,000 marks quarterly.” It is signed “W,” who I
understand to be the Secretary of State.

I merely quoted that to show the extraordinary interference, even with
comparatively unimportant countries.

Then we pass to the aggression against Poland, and again the Tribunal
has had that fully dealt with by my friend Colonel Griffith-Jones; but
again it might be useful if I just separated the various periods so that
the Tribunal would have these in mind. The first was what one might call
the Munich period, up to the end of September 1938; and at that time no
language was too good for Poland. The Tribunal will remember the point.

The important documents showing that aspect of the case are GB-30, which
is Document 2357-PS, Hitler’s Reichstag speech on the 20th of February
1938, and then GB-31, Document TC-76, which is the secret Foreign Office
memorandum of the 26th of August 1938, and GB-27, Document TC-73, Number
40. TC-73 is the Polish _White_ _Book_ and 40 is the number of the
document in the book. That is a conversation between M. Lipski, the
Polish Ambassador, and this defendant.

Finally in this group is TC-73, Number 42, Hitler’s speech at the
Sportpalast on the 26th of September 1938, in which he said that this
was the end of his territorial problems in Europe and expressed an
almost violent affection for the Poles.

Now the next stage was between Munich and the rape of Prague, and then
in the next stage—part of the German aggressions in Czechoslovakia
having been accomplished and parts still remaining to be done—there is
a slight change but still a friendly atmosphere. That begins with a
conversation between this defendant and M. Lipski, which is contained in
Exhibit GB-27, Document TC-73, Number 44.

There this defendant put forward very peaceful suggestions for the
settlement of the Danzig issue. The Polish reply is in GB-28, TC-73.

THE PRESIDENT: You did not give the date of those, did you?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord: The first one is 25 October 1938;
the Polish reply which says that it is unacceptable that Danzig should
return to the Reich, but making suggestions for a bilateral agreement,
is the 31st of October 1938. Between these dates, the Tribunal will
remember according to Document C-137, Exhibit GB-33, dated the 21st of
October the German Government had made its preparation to occupy Danzig
by surprise. But although these preparations were made, still some 2
months later, on the 5th of January 1939, while the rape of Prague had
not taken place, Hitler was suggesting to M. Beck, the Polish Foreign
Minister, a new solution. That is contained in Document TC-73,
Number-48, Exhibit GB-34, the interview of Hitler and Beck on the 5th of
January 1939.

Then this defendant saw M. Beck on the next day and said there was no
violent solution of Danzig, but a further building up of friendly
relations. That is contained in GB-35, Document TC-73, Number 49. Not
content with that, this defendant went to Warsaw on the 25th of January
and, according to the report of his speech contained in Document
2530-PS, GB-36, talked of the continued progress and consolidation of
friendly relations; and that was capped by Hitler’s Reichstag speech on
the 30th of January 1939, in the same sort of tone, contained in GB-37,
TC-73, Number 57. That was the second stage—the mention of Danzig in
honeyed words, because, of course, the rape of Prague had not been
attained.

Then one has to remember, as one comes to the summer, the meeting at the
Reich Chancellery on the 23rd of May 1939, which is reported in Document
L-79, Exhibit Number USA-27. It has been read many times to the
Tribunal, and I remind them of only this point: That that is the
document where Hitler makes it quite clear, and states in his own words,
that Danzig has nothing to do with the real Polish question. He had to
deal with Poland because he wanted Lebensraum in the East. That is the
effect of that portion of the document which has been read so often to
the Tribunal—that Danzig was merely an excuse.

It is important to have in mind, if I may respectfully suggest it, that
that meeting was on the 23rd of May 1939, because there is an
interesting corroboration of the attitude of mind—in showing how
clearly this Defendant Ribbentrop had adopted the attitude of mind of
Hitler—in the introduction to Count Ciano’s diary, which was put in as
Exhibit Number USA-166, Document 2987-PS; but I do not think this part
of the diary, the introduction, has been read before to the Court. It is
Document 2897-PS, and it comes two after L-79, which is the “Little
Schmundt” file, just after the Obersalzberg document. It is set out in
the trial brief, if the Tribunal will care to follow it there. Count
Ciano says:

    “In the summer of 1939 Germany advanced her claims against
    Poland, naturally without our knowledge; indeed, Ribbentrop had
    several times denied to our Ambassador that Germany had any
    intention of carrying the controversy to extremes. Despite these
    denials I remained unconvinced; I wanted to make sure for
    myself, and on August 11th I went to Salzburg. It was in his
    residence at Fuschl that Ribbentrop informed me, while we were
    waiting to eat, of the decision to start the fireworks, just as
    he might have told me about the most unimportant and commonplace
    administrative matter. ‘Well, Ribbentrop,’ I asked him, while we
    were walking in the garden, ‘What do you want? The Corridor or
    Danzig?’ ‘Not any more, . . .’ and he stared at me through those
    cold Musée Grevin eyes, ‘We want war.’”

I remind the Tribunal how closely that corroborates the statement that
Hitler had made at his Chancellery conference on the 23rd of May: That
it was no longer a question of Danzig or the Corridor, it was a question
of war to achieve Lebensraum in the East.

Then I remind the Tribunal, without citing it, that the Fall Weiss for
operation against Poland is dated the 3rd and 11th of April 1939, which
certainly shows that preparations were already in hand.

And then there is another reference in Count Ciano’s diary which also
has not been read and which makes this point quite clear. Again, if the
Tribunal will take it as set out in the trial brief, I will read it, as
it has not been read before:

    “I have collected the conference records of verbal transcripts
    of my conversations with Ribbentrop and Hitler. Here I shall
    note only some impressions of a general nature. Ribbentrop is
    evasive every time I ask him for particulars of the forthcoming
    German action. He has a guilty conscience. He has lied too many
    times about German intentions towards Poland not to feel
    embarrassment now over what he must tell me and what he is
    preparing to do.

    “The will to fight is unalterable. He rejects any solution which
    might satisfy Germany and prevent the struggle. I am certain
    that even if the Germans were given everything they demanded
    they would attack just the same, because they are possessed by
    the demon of destruction.

    “Our conversation sometimes takes a dramatic turn. I do not
    hesitate to speak my mind in the most brutal manner. But this
    doesn’t shake him in the least. I realize how little weight this
    view carries in German opinion.

    “The atmosphere is icy. And the cold feeling between us is
    reflected in our followers. During dinner we do not exchange a
    word. We distrust each other. But I at least have a clear
    conscience. He has not.”

Whatever other defects there may have been about Count Ciano, there
cannot be an appreciation of the situation which is more heavily
corroborated by supporting documents than his diagnosis of the situation
in the summer of 1939.

Then we come to the next stage in the German plan, which was sharp
pressure on the claim for Danzig shown immediately after Czechoslovakia
had been finally dealt with on the 15th of March. It is shown how
closely it followed the completion of the rape of Prague. The first
sharp raising of the claim was on the 21st of March, as shown in Exhibit
GB-38, Document TC-73, Number 61. And that developed, as the Tribunal
has heard from Colonel Griffith-Jones.

Then we come to the last days before the war, and one interesting side
light is that Herr Von Dirksen, the German Ambassador at the Court of
St. James, returned from London on the 18th of August 1939; and I put in
the extract from the interrogation of the Defendant Ribbentrop, which is
Document D-490. I put that in as GB-138.

I do not intend to read it to the Tribunal because it can be summarized
in this way: That the Defendant Ribbentrop has certainly no recollection
of ever having seen the German Ambassador to the Court of St. James
after his return. He thinks he would have remembered him if he had seen
him and he accepts the probability that he did not see him. And there is
the point, when it was well-known that war with Poland would involve
England and France, that either he was not sufficiently interested in
opinion in London to take the trouble to see his ambassador or else, as
he rather suggests, that he had appointed so weak and ordinary a career
diplomat to London that his opinion was not taken into account, either
by himself or by Hitler. In either case, he was completely uninterested
in anything which his ambassador might have to tell him of opinion in
London or the possibility of war. And I conceive myself speaking with
great moderation in putting it this way. That in the last days before
the 1st of September 1939 this defendant did whatever he could to avoid
peace with Poland and to avoid anything which might hinder the incursion
of the war which we know he wanted. He did that, well knowing that war
with Poland would involve Great Britain and France. These details were
given in full by Colonel Griffith-Jones; I am not going through them
again. But I have, for the convenience of the Tribunal, referred to the
transcript at Pages 1000 to 1059 (Volume III, Pages 219 to 261), and M.
Lipski summarized all that took place in his report of the 10th of
October 1939, which is Document TC-73, Number 147, which is Exhibit
GB-27.

Now these are the actions of this defendant in the Polish matter. I am
glad to inform the Tribunal that with regard to the other countries they
are very much shorter than with regard to Poland.

I now come to Norway and Denmark. I remind the Tribunal of the fact, if
it cares to take cognizance thereof, that on the 31st of May 1939 the
Defendant Ribbentrop, on behalf of Germany, signed a non-aggression pact
with Denmark which provided that “the German Reich and the Kingdom of
Denmark will under no circumstances go to war or employ force of any
other kind against one another.” This is Exhibit GB-77, Document TC-24.
And just to fix the date, the Tribunal will remember that on the 9th of
April 1940 the German Armed Forces invaded Denmark and at the same time
they invaded Norway.

With regard to Norway there are three documents which show that this
defendant was fully informed of the earlier preparations for that act of
aggression. The Tribunal will remember that my friend, Major Elwyn
Jones, did indicate with some particularity the relations between
Quisling and the Defendant Rosenberg. But Rosenberg in this case also
required the help of the Defendant Ribbentrop and, if the Tribunal would
be good enough to turn to Document 957-PS, which I am putting in as
GB-139, they will see the first of the documents which connect this
defendant with the earlier Quisling activities.

The first one, Document 957-PS, is a letter from Defendant Rosenberg to
this defendant and it begins:

    “Dear Party Comrade Von Ribbentrop:

    “Party Comrade Scheidt has returned and has made a detailed
    report to Geheimrat Von Grundherr, who will address you on this
    subject. We agreed the other day that 200,000 to 300,000
    Reichsmarks would be made immediately available for the said
    purpose. Now it turns out that . . . Grundherr states that the
    second instalment can be made available only after 8 days. But
    as it is necessary for Scheidt to go back immediately, I request
    you to make it possible that this second instalment be given to
    him at once. With a longer absence . . . the connection with
    your representatives would also be broken up, which just now,
    under certain circumstances, could be very unfavorable.

    “Therefore I think it is in everybody’s interest, if Party
    Comrade Scheidt goes back immediately.”

That was the 24th of February.

Now the next document, 004-PS, is a report from Rosenberg to Hitler, and
if the Tribunal will be good enough to turn to Page 4—this is on the
Quisling activities—they will find that that passage is sufficient to
show how this defendant was connected with it. This is a report from
Rosenberg to Hitler:

    “Next to a financial support which was paid by the Reich in
    foreign currency, Quisling, as further help, was at the same
    time promised deliveries of goods which were urgently needed by
    Norway, such as coal and sugar. The shipments were to be
    conducted under cover of a new trade company, to be established
    in Germany, or through specially selected existing firms while
    Hagelin was to act as consignee in Norway. Hagelin had already
    conferred with the respective Ministers of the Nygaardsvold
    Government, as, for instance, the Minister of Supply and
    Commerce, and had been assured permission for the import of
    coal. At the same time the coal transports were to serve
    possibly to supply the technical means necessary to launch
    Quisling’s political action in Oslo with German help. It was
    Quisling’s plan to send a number of selected, particularly
    reliable men to Germany for a brief military training course in
    a completely isolated camp. They were then to be detailed as
    area and language specialists to German special troops, who were
    to be taken to Oslo on the coal barges to accomplish a political
    action. Thus Quisling planned to get hold of his leading
    opponents in Norway, including the King, and to prevent all
    military resistance from the very beginning. Immediately
    following this political action and upon an official request of
    Quisling to the Government of the German Reich, the military
    occupation of Norway was to take place. All military
    preparations were to be completed previously. Though this plan
    contained the great advantage of surprise, it also contained a
    great number of dangers which could possibly cause its failure.
    For this reason it received a quite dilatory treatment, while at
    the same time it was not disapproved as far as the Norwegians
    were concerned.

    “In February, after a conference with General Field Marshal
    Göring, Reichsleiter Rosenberg informed the Ministerial Director
    in the office of the Four Year Plan, Wohlthat, only of the
    intention to prepare coal shipments to Norway to the named
    confidant Hagelin. Further details were discussed in a
    conference between Wohlthat, Staff Director Schickedanz, and
    Hagelin. Since Wohlthat received no further instructions from
    the General Field Marshal, Foreign Minister Von
    Ribbentrop—after a consultation with Reichsleiter
    Rosenberg—consented to expedite these shipments through his
    office. Based on a report of Reichsleiter Rosenberg to the
    Führer it was also arranged at this conference to pay Quisling
    through Scheidt as liaison 10,000 English pounds per month for
    the next 3 months, commencing on the 15th of March, to support
    his work.”

This was paid through Scheidt, the man who was mentioned before.

Now the other document, D-629, is a letter from Defendant Keitel to the
Defendant Ribbentrop, dated the 3rd of April 1940. I need trouble the
Tribunal only with the first paragraph. The Defendant Keitel says:

    “Dear Herr Von Ribbentrop:

    “The military occupation of Denmark and Norway has been, by
    command of the Führer, long in preparation by the High Command
    of the Wehrmacht. The High Command of the Wehrmacht has
    therefore had ample time to occupy itself with all the questions
    connected with the carrying out of this operation. The time at
    your disposal for the political preparation of this operation
    is, on the contrary, very much shorter. I believe myself,
    therefore, to be acting in accordance with your ideas in
    transmitting to you herewith, not only these wishes of the
    Wehrmacht which would have to be fulfilled by the Governments in
    Oslo, Copenhagen and Stockholm for purely military reasons, but
    also I include a series of requests which certainly concern the
    Wehrmacht only indirectly but which are, however, of the
    greatest importance for the fulfillment of its task.”

Then he proceeds to ask that the Foreign Office get in touch with
certain commanders. The important point for which I read it to the
Tribunal—as far as I know, for the first time—is that there we have
the Defendant Keitel saying quite clearly that the military occupation
of Denmark and Norway has been long in preparation. And it is
interesting when one looks back to the official life of Ribbentrop,
which, is contained in the archives and is Document D-472. I am quoting
a sentence only because of the interesting contrast:

    “With the occupation of Denmark and Norway on the 9th of April
    1940 only a few hours before the landing of British troops in
    these territories, the battle began against the Western Powers.”

Then it goes on to Holland and Belgium.

It is quite clear that, whoever else had knowledge or whoever else was
ignorant, this Defendant Ribbentrop had been up to his neck in the
Quisling plottings, and it is made clear to him well a week before the
invasion started, that the Wehrmacht and the Defendant Keitel had long
been preparing this particular act of aggression.

I think, My Lord, that is really all the evidence on the aggression
against Norway because, again, the story was put forward fully by my
friend, Major Elwyn Jones.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

     [_The Tribunal adjourned until 9 January 1946 at 1000 hours._]

                           TRANSCRIBER NOTES

Punctuation and spelling has been maintained except where obvious
printer errors have occurred such as missing periods or commas for
periods. English and American spellings occur throughout the document;
however, American spellings are the rule, hence, 'Defense' versus
'Defence'. Unlike prior Blue Series volumes I and II, all German and
eastern European names and terms include accents and umlauts: hence
Führer and Göring, etc. throughout; and Himmler's speech in 'Weselsburg'
has been corrected to the town's name of 'Wezelsburg'.

Although some sentences may appear to have incorrect spellings or verb
tenses, the original text has been maintained as it represents what the
tribunal read into the record and reflects the actual translations
between the German, English, Russian and French documents presented in
the trial.

An attempt has been made to produce this eBook in a format as close as
possible to the original document's presentation and layout.

[The end of _Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International
Military Tribunal: Nuremberg 14 November 1945- 1 October 1946 (Vol. 4)_,
by Various.]


Produced by Colin Bell, Stephen Hutcheson, Joseph Cooper,
The Internet Archive (used for illustrations) and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net

                               ST. GREGORY
                                 AND THE
                             GREGORIAN MUSIC

                                   BY
                             E. G. P. WYATT

         [Illustration: THE PLAINSONG AND MEDIÆVAL MUSIC SOCIETY]

                            PUBLISHED FOR THE
                   PLAINSONG & MEDIÆVAL MUSIC SOCIETY.
                                  1904.

                     PRINTED BY SPRAGUE & CO., LTD.,
              4 & 5 EAST HARDING STREET, FETTER LANE, E.C.,
                                 LONDON.

                                PREFACE.

The original conception of this little book was due to the Rev. W. H.
Frere, and it could not have been carried out at all without his help and
advice, which have been ungrudgingly given.

But he is not responsible for any part of the book, except the notes on
the tropes and the third and fourth portraits of St. Gregory. Whatever
else in the book is of any value has been compiled from the following
sources:--

    Morin.--"Les véritables origines du Chant Grégorien." Maredsous,
          1890.
    Morin.--"Revue Bénédictine," for May, 1890. Maredsous.
    Wagner.--"Einführung in die Gregorianischen Melodien," Pt. 1.
          Freiburg, 1901.
    Frere.--"Graduale Sarisburiense." Plainsong and Mediæval Music
          Society, London, 1894.
    "Paléographie Musicale," Vols. v. and vi. Solesmes, 1896.
    "Rassegna Gregoriana," for March-April, June, and July, 1903. Rome.

                                                         E. G. P. WYATT.

               [Illustration: St. Gregory and his Parents]

                       IMAGINES.AD.VIVVM.EXPRESSAE
                        EX.ÆDICVLA.SANCTI.ANDREÆ
                  PROPE.BEATI.GREGORII.MAGNI.ECCLESIAM
                  NECNON.EX.VITA.EIVSDEM.BEATI.GREGORII
              A.IOANNE.DIACONO.LIB.IV.CAP.LXXXIII.ET.LXXXIV
                               CONSCRIPTA
                                                             _Fol. 368._

_Hieronymus Rossi sculp. Romæ_

_GORDIANVS.S.GREGORII.PATER_ _S.GREGORIVS.MAGNVS_ _SILVIA.S.GREGORII.MATER_

                              INTRODUCTION.

The Great Pope, the thirteen hundredth anniversary of whose death is
commemorated on March the 12th, 1904, was born at Rome, probably about
the year 540. His father, Gordianus, was a wealthy man of senatorial
rank; his mother, Silvia, was renowned for her virtues. He received from
his parents an excellent liberal and religious education. He further
applied himself to the study of law, and--probably at about the age of
30--was made prætor of Rome by the Emperor Justin II. But he became
dissatisfied with his mode of life, and retiring to the monastery of St.
Andrew, which he had founded on the Coelian hill, lived there as monk and
as abbot. He had long been an ardent admirer of St. Bennet (who had been
dead little more than thirty years), and on his father's death had made
use of his patrimony to found six other monasteries in Sicily. He was
not, however, allowed to enjoy his retirement at St. Andrew's for long,
for Pope Benedict I. ordained him deacon, and sent him to Constantinople
as his apocrisiarius or confidential agent. Pelagius II. continued him in
this office, making use of him especially to appeal to the Emperor for
aid against the Lombards, who, while settling in North Italy, were
wandering southwards, devastating the country as they went.

When he was at length recalled to Rome, he begged to be allowed to return
to his monastery. The Pope allowed him to do this, but employed him as
his secretary. It was either now, or just before he went to
Constantinople, that there occurred the famous incident in the slave
market, when, struck by the beauty of some lads exposed for sale, he
asked what was the name of their nation. On being told, "Angles," he
exclaimed, "Good, for they have the faces of angels, and ought to be
fellow-heirs of the angels in heaven." In reply to his inquiry as to the
name of their native province, he was told that its inhabitants were
called Deiri. He answered, "Good; snatched from the wrath, and called to
the mercy of Christ." What was the name of the king of that province? The
answer was "Ælia." Then said he, "Alleluia! the praise of God ought to be
sung in those parts." He passed on, but did not forget the incident, for
he wrung permission from the Pope to go himself on a mission to convert
the Angles; but no sooner had he started than the Romans clamoured to
have him recalled, and he had to return. He did not, however, forget his
interest in the nation, and when he was Pope he was able to carry out
those plans which earned him the affectionate titles of "Gregory our
Father," and "The Apostle of the English," from those who owed so much to
him.

                          DEPRECAMUR TE DOMINE

                  [Illustration: Deprecamur te domine]

      De-pre-ca-mur Te, Do-mi-ne,
      in om-ni mi-se-ri-cor-di-a tu-a,
      ut au-fe-ra-tur fu-ror tu-us et i-ra tu-a
      a ci-vi-ta-te is-ta,
      et de do-mo san-cta tu-a;
      quo-ni-am pec-ca-vi-mus:
      Al-le-lu-ya.

In 590 Pope Pelagius died. It was a time of great misery at Rome; there
was famine and a pestilence in the city, the Tiber overflowed its banks,
and the Lombards threatened invasion. The Popes were virtually the rulers
of Rome at this time, and all the inhabitants turned to Gregory as their
only hope. His proved abilities and high character were known to all, and
he was unanimously elected by the clergy and the people. He shrank,
however, from the office, and even petitioned the Emperor Maurice to
withhold his confirmation of the election. While waiting for the
Emperor's answer, Gregory employed the occasion in preaching to the
people, calling them to repentance. A Litany was sung through the streets
of the city by seven companies of the clergy and people, starting from
different churches and meeting at the Basilica of St. Maria Maggiore.
From this litany, perhaps, was taken the processional antiphon,
"Deprecamur Te Domine," which was sung by Augustine and his companions on
entering Canterbury at the outset of their English mission. At length the
confirmation of his election arrived from the Emperor, and though Gregory
still tried to avoid the office, he was eventually obliged to take it,
and was consecrated September the 3rd, 590.

During the thirteen years of his popedom, Gregory had full scope for his
talents as administrator, as well as ruler. The Roman Church had by this
time become possessed of a great "patrimony," and Gregory found time in
the midst of his work of reforming the clergy and purifying the morals of
the Church, to attend to even the smallest details in the management of
these great estates. His letters give us the most vivid picture of his
work and of his character. In them he is constantly giving directions and
making arrangements that no injustice should be done to even the meanest
peasant or serf on these estates; that their rents should be fixed, and
no capricious exactions demanded of them, nor surcharges added to the
payments legally due from them. He showed to the Jews a toleration and
consideration which he did not always extend to schismatics, heretics,
and heathen. He seems to have reserved his most violent language for
Lombards and Patriarchs of Constantinople. He called worldly or negligent
bishops to order, and in particular took vigorous measures to root out
simony, which was very prevalent. He sent Augustine and his companions to
England, and wrote them letters of exhortation and instruction; he found
time to send them also church furniture, vessels and vestments, and a
number of books.

He also became engaged in a controversy with John the Faster, the
Patriarch of Constantinople, about the title of "Universal Bishop," which
was arrogated to the latter by himself and those about him. It was not a
novelty, but Gregory seems to have seen the danger involved in its
continued usage to the power which he claimed for the See of Rome. A
whole series of his letters are consequently taken up with his vehement,
not to say violent, protests against John's use of the title. It is
probably in connection with the fact that the Emperor Maurice had
supported the Patriarch John in his claim of equality with the Pope of
Rome, that the explanation is to be sought of a circumstance which
remains the chief blot on Gregory's fame. Maurice had given him little
help against the Lombards, and had in various ways seemed to oppose or
actually opposed Gregory in some of his reforms. When, therefore, Phocas
murdered Maurice and usurped his throne, the Pope wrote him a fulsome
letter of congratulation. He may not have been fully acquainted with the
infamous character of Phocas, nor have fully known of the atrocious
manner in which he had murdered the Emperor and his family, yet he must
have known, at least, that he was a traitor, a murderer, and an usurper.
Nothing can excuse him--knowing this--for writing in such a strain,
saying "Glory to God in the highest," and "Let the heavens rejoice and
let the earth be glad," at the hopes aroused by the piety of the new
Emperor.

He attached great importance to preaching, and many of his sermons remain
to this day. He also wrote "Liber Pastoralis Curæ," a treatise on the
responsibilities and duties of Bishops. This book had immense influence;
it was circulated in Spain; the Emperor had it translated into Greek; it
was an authoritative text-book in Gaul for centuries; and it was
translated into Anglo-Saxon by King Alfred, and was widely disseminated
in England. But it is in the services and service-books of the Church
that he set his mark most conspicuously. He organized and enriched them,
even the Canon of the Mass in which he added to the prayer of oblation
the words "Diesque nostras in tua pace disponas." The work which has been
traditionally ascribed to him in the department of Church Music we shall
enter into more fully.

From his monastic life onwards Gregory seems to have suffered from bad
health, due in part, probably, to his extreme asceticism while living in
his monastery. During the last few years of his life he was in continual
pain from gout, which makes his activity and his achievements still more
astonishing. For long he was confined to his bed altogether. He died on
March 12th, 604. In contrast to the enthusiasm with which his accession
to the Papacy was greeted, he was now accused by the fickle population of
having caused the famine, which was then raging, by his lavish
expenditure, though the latter was largely due to the charitable relief
which he habitually gave to alleviate the distress which prevailed all
the time that he filled the Papal chair. But he was canonized after his
death by universal consent in the West, and the Council of Cloveshoo, in
747, fixed the 12th of March for his veneration: "That the birthday of
the blessed Pope Gregory, and also the day of the burial of St. Augustine
the Archbishop and Confessor (who being sent to the English by the said
Pope, our father Gregory, first brought the knowledge of the Faith, the
sacrament of Baptism, and the notice of the Heavenly Country), which is
the 26th of May, be honourably observed by all: so that each day be kept
with a cessation from labour, by ecclesiastics and monastics; and that
the name of our blessed father and doctor Augustine be always mentioned
in singing the Litany after the invocation of St. Gregory."

   [Illustration: St. Gregory, from Antiphoner of Hartker of St. Gall]

                                   THE
                          GREGORIAN TRADITION.

The tradition that St. Gregory reformed the Plainsong of his day,
especially that of the Antiphonale Missarum, seems to have been held
universally till 1675, when Pierre Gussanville brought out an edition of
Gregory's works, in which he threw doubts on the tradition. He was
followed in 1729 by George, Baron d' Eckhart, a friend of Leibnitz, who
put forward the theory that it was Gregory II., and not Gregory I., who
had done this work. In 1772, at Venice, a new edition of Gregory's works
was published by Gallicciolli; and in this were reproduced the arguments
of Eckhart, leaving the question open for future investigation. Nothing
more was heard of the theory till 1882, when, at the Congress of Arezzo,
some speakers reproduced the doubts of Eckhart and Gallicciolli.

This did not attract much attention at the time, and the question was
again reopened in 1890 by M. Gevaert in a lecture given in the presence
of the Académie and of the King of the Belgians. The earlier "doubters"
had argued the question from a purely historical standpoint: M. Gevaert
lays stress especially on the musical side of the question. Theirs was
chiefly negative; he proposes a theory of his own. He wishes to
substitute Gregory II. or III. for Gregory I. The traditional view has
been upheld against him by Dom Morin, Dr. Peter Wagner, and Rev. W. H.
Frere.

_The Historical Evidence_ may be summarized as follows, working backwards
from a time when the Gregorian tradition was in existence beyond all
question:--

  I.--John the Deacon (_c._ 872), _Vita St. Gregorii, lib._ II., _cap._
  vi., _Antiphonarium Centonizans, Cantorum Constituit Scholam_. "In the
  house of the Lord, like a most wise Solomon, knowing the compunction
  which the sweetness of music inspires, he compiled for the sake of the
  singers the collection called 'Antiphoner,' which is of so great
  usefulness. He founded also the School of Singers who to this day
  perform the sacred chant in the Holy Roman Church according to
  instructions received from him. He assigned to it several estates, and
  had two houses built for it, one situated at the foot of the steps of
  the Church of the Apostle St. Peter, the other in the neighbourhood of
  the buildings of the patriarchal palace of the Lateran. There to-day
  are still shown the couch on which he reposed while giving his singing
  lessons; and the whip with which he threatened the boys is still
  preserved and venerated as a relic, as well as his authentic
  Antiphoner. By a clause inserted in his deed of gift, he laid down
  under pain of anathema that these estates should be divided between the
  two portions of the School in payment for the daily service."--(_Patr.
  Lat._, lxxv., 90.)

This extract may be taken to prove that--

  1. In 872 at Rome Gregory I. was believed to be the author of the
  Antiphoner which bears his name.

  2. The Schola Cantorum looked upon Gregory I. as its founder and
  endower.

  3. The Schola was still believed to possess his "authenticum
  Antiphonarium" and certain other objects connected in the popular mind
  with the memory of what Gregory had done for the cause of the
  ecclesiastical chant.

It is certainly an important point that the Schola itself attributed its
foundation to Gregory I. Such a tradition would be carefully preserved in
an important corporation like this.

A further witness to the existence of St. Gregory's couch is to be found
in _Notitia Ecclesiarum Urbis Romæ_, an itinerary assigned by de Rossi to
the seventh century, (de Rossi, _Rom. Sot._, _vol._ i., _pp._ 138-143.)

  II.--Pope Leo IV. (847-855) to the Abbot Honoratus, _Ex registro Leonis
  IIII_. "There is something quite incredible, the sound of which has
  reached our ears: a thing which, if true, tends rather to diminish our
  consideration than to give it honour, to obscure it rather than to give
  it lustre. It appears in short that you feel nothing but aversion for
  the beautiful chant of St. Gregory, and for the manner of singing and
  reading laid down and taught by him in the Church, so that you are in
  disagreement on this point not only with the Holy See, which is near to
  you, but also with almost the whole Western Church, with all who use
  Latin to offer their praises to the Eternal King and pay Him the
  tribute of harmonious sounds.

  "All these Churches have received with so much eagerness and ardent
  affection this tradition of Gregory, and after having received it
  unreservedly they find so much pleasure in it, that even now they apply
  to us for more of it, thinking that perhaps something more which they
  do not know of, may have been preserved among us. This Holy Pope
  Gregory, a servant of God and a famous preacher and a wise pastor, who
  did so much for the welfare of mankind, he it was who also composed
  this chant, which we sing in the Church and everywhere, with great
  pains and with a complete knowledge of the musical art. He wished by
  this means to act more powerfully upon men's hearts in order to arouse
  and touch them; and in fact the sound of his sweet melodies has
  gathered in the Churches not merely spiritual men, but also those who
  are less cultivated and sensitive.

  "I pray you not to allow yourself to remain in disagreement either with
  this Church, which is the chief head of religion, and from which no one
  wishes to stray, or with all those Churches of which we have spoken, if
  you love to live in complete peace and concord with the Universal
  Church. For if--which we do not believe--your aversion for our
  instruction and for the tradition of our holy Pontiff is such that you
  are not willing to conform in every point to our rite, both in chants
  and lessons, know that we will repel you from our communion; for it is
  fitting and healthful for you to follow the usages for which the Roman
  Church, mother of all and mistress of you, shows such great love and
  invincible attachment. For this reason we order you, under pain of
  excommunication, to conform in the Churches both in singing and reading
  exclusively to the order instituted by the Holy Pope Gregory and
  followed by us, and without fail to practise and sing it in future with
  the utmost zeal. For if--which we cannot believe--anyone shall attempt
  by any means whatever to turn you from the right path by leading you to
  a tradition other than that which we have just prescribed to you for
  the present and the future, we not only order that he be deprived of
  partaking of the Holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, but in
  virtue of our proper authority and that of all our predecessors, we
  decree that in punishment of his audacity and presumption he remain
  under a perpetual anathema."--(_Cod. Brit. Mus._, _add._ 8873, _fol._
  168.)

Pope Leo, the author of this letter, had himself been a pupil at this
same monastery of St. Martin. From thence also the priest John, the
Precentor of St. Peter's, had set out 200 years before to teach the
English the system of chanting and reading followed at St. Peter's.

The above extract throws an important light on the progress of the
Gregorian reform of the ecclesiastical chant. In the latter half of the
ninth century a powerful monastery close to Rome had not yet adopted it.
Compare with this fact the presence of the Ambrosian chant in the
province of Capua in the middle of the eleventh century (Kienle, in
_Studien und Mittheilungen des Benedictiner und Cistercienser-Orden_,
1884, _p._ 346), and the Ambrosian rubrics of various books copied a
little later for churches at Rome itself (_Tomasi, Opp. vol._ vii., _pp._
9 _&_ 10), and it will be seen how gradually the Gregorian books attained
their universal supremacy.

  III.--Hildemar (between 833 and 850), author of a commentary on the
  Rule of St. Bennet, speaks of St. Gregory as the composer of the "Roman
  Office": "Beatus Gregorius qui dicitur Romanum Officium fecisse."
  (_Expositio Regula ab Hildemaro tradita_, _p._ 311, _Ratisbon_, 1880.)

  IV.--Walafrid Strabo (807-849). _De Ecclesiasticarum rerum exordiis et
  incrementis_ (composed about 840). "The tradition is that St. Gregory,
  just as he regulated the order of the masses and of consecrations
  [_i.e._, the Sacramentary and the Pontifical Rituale] so also had the
  greatest part in the arrangement of the liturgical chants, following
  the order which is observed to this day as the most fitting: as is
  commemorated at the head of the Antiphoner." (_Op. cit. c._ xxi.,
  _Patr. Lat._, cxiv., 948.)

      [Illustration: St. Gregory, from MS. of Coronation Services]

This refers, strictly speaking, to the Antiphonale Missarum. But the
following extract treats directly of the chants of the office contained
in the _Liber Responsorialis_, or corresponding volume for the hour
services.

  "As for the chants for use at the different hours, whether of the day
  or of the night, it is believed that it was St. Gregory who assigned to
  them their complete arrangement, just as he had already done, as we
  have said, for the Sacramentary." (_c._ xxv., 958.)

These two passages establish the fact that there was a tradition in the
middle of the ninth century that St. Gregory set in order the
ecclesiastical music. It seems also that there was an inscription at the
beginning of the Antiphoner stating as a fact that he had done this. The
following extract helps us to identify what this inscription was.

  V.--Agobard of Lyons (779-840). _Liber de Correctione Antiphonarii_,
  _c._ xv., _Patr. Lat._ civ., 336. "But because the inscription serving
  for title to the book in question [_i.e._, the Antiphoner] puts in the
  forefront the name of 'Gregorius Præsul,' thereupon some people imagine
  that the work was composed by the Blessed Gregory, Pope of Rome and
  illustrious doctor."

He is here defending the chant of Lyons against the ultramontane efforts
of Amalarius to introduce the Roman ways. He goes on to try to prove that
the Antiphoner defended by Amalarius cannot be St. Gregory's, because he
had forbidden the use of words not taken directly from Scripture.

VI.--Amalarius of Metz (815-835) is undoubtedly the person who played the
foremost part in the fusion of the Gallican element with the rest of the
Gregorian or Gelasian Liturgy, from which combination has come in
substance the Roman Liturgy in use to-day. He had travelled much, and had
been at Rome. He is a weighty authority in the present question. The
following extracts are taken from a supplementary chapter of his _De
Divinis Officiis_, published by Mabillon, in his _Vetera Analecta_
(_Paris_, 1723). He is speaking of the Pope Gregory who is the author of
the Dialogues, and who sent St. Augustine into England.

  "Amongst the monks who have been raised to the Supreme Pontificate can
  be cited Denys, and Gregory of incomparable memory. Now Gregory,
  amongst many other things by which he furthered the advantage of the
  Church, had the glory of being the chief organizer of the Office for
  clerical use." (_p._ 93.)

  "In the time of St. Bennet the whole order of psalmody had not yet been
  fixed with precision in the Psalter and the Antiphoner: it was the
  incomparable Pope Gregory of holy memory, himself a zealous observer of
  the rule of St. Bennet and an imitator of his monastic perfection, who
  afterwards regulated the arrangement of it under the direction of the
  Holy Spirit." (_pp._ 93-4.)

  "Far from blaming those who preserve the Gregorian usage, they should
  rather praise them." (_p._ 94.)

  "In the authentic model of St. Gregory, the _Alleluia_ and the _Gloria_
  are suppressed at the Mass for Innocents' Day, in order to express the
  grief of the mothers or of the Church." (_p._ 96.)

Amalarius was commissioned by Louis the Debonair to procure at Rome a
copy of the Antiphoner to serve as a model for an uniform use in place of
the varying uses then to be found. The Pope in answer to his request
replied, "I have no Antiphoner that I can send to my son and lord the
Emperor. Those which we had, were taken to France by Wala, Abbot of
Corbie, when he came here on a mission." On his return to France,
Amalarius went to Corbie, where he found the four volumes brought by
Wala. They contained an inscription saying that this collection was put
in order by Pope Adrian I. But he found that they differed from the books
at Metz, which were older still; so in despair he made a compilation of
his own, taking from each what seemed to him the best.

Now it has been argued that if these Antiphoners had either of them borne
the name of Gregory the Great, Amalarius would not have had the audacity
to alter them in this manner, nor would he if there had existed anywhere
in Gaul any bearing his name. But this idea has arisen from the confusion
attending the name "antiphoner." The book that Amalarius was dealing with
was not the Antiphoner for Mass, but the Antiphoner for Divine Service.
There were great variations in the latter in different localities down to
the reform by Pius V., far more than in the former. When the "famous
authentic model of Gregory" is spoken of, it is the Antiphonale Missarum
which is meant.

  VII.--Amalarius, Bishop of Trèves (809-814). _Liber Officiorum_, from a
  MS. at Trèves, quoted by Morin, _fol._ 6, _De Missa Innocentium_. "The
  Mass of the Innocents begins in the Diurnal with this Rubric: '_Gloria
  in Excelsis Deo_ is not sung, nor _Alleluia_, unless it be Sunday; this
  day is passed in a sort of sadness.' The Holy Pope Gregory, in whom
  dwelt in very truth the Holy Ghost, and to whom is due the composition
  of this office, means us to share the feelings of the pious women who
  bewailed and lamented the death of the Innocents. And if it is
  permitted to transgress the order of so great a Father, it would
  equally be lawful to chant Alleluia with the complete office of the day
  on Good Friday."

    It is a question here of the Antiphoner of the Mass.

  (_fol._ 7.) On the day of the Epiphany "we lose one of the chants which
  we have at Christmas, viz., the Invitatory. St. Gregory, the organizer
  of the offices, meant by this peculiarity to recall to our memory as
  strongly as he could what passed formerly at the time of the
  accomplishment of the mysteries which we honour. That is why we chant
  in the sixth place the psalm which we had avoided in the beginning. It
  is true that certain blunderers treat this with indifference and
  contempt, thinking it much better to follow the ordinary usage of each
  day. But, as we have already said, he wished by this to distinguish"
  &c., &c.

    This passage refers to the Antiphoner of the Office.

  (_fol._ 9-10.) "That is why Gregory, the author of our office, has
  placed Septuagesima.... However, Gregory the institutor of our
  office...."

    It is a question of the Antiphoner and of the Sacramentary.

  (_fol._ 39.) "The author of our office, who is none other than
  Gregory...."

    He is referring to a portion of the Antiphoner of the Mass.

In the following passage Amalarius distinguishes the work of the two
first Gregories as to the Thursdays in Lent.

  (_fol._ 102.) "The Holy Pope Gregory in arranging the offices of the
  year had left vacant the Thursdays of Lent.... A long time after him
  another Pope, Gregory the younger, ordained that these days should also
  be celebrated by Masses and Prayers, but with less solemnity, and he
  borrowed wherever he could material to form the offices of these
  Thursdays."

  VIII.--Pope Adrian I. (772-795). A MS. from Saint Martial de Limoges
  contains this passage (_Paris, Bibl. Nat., No._ 2400.) "Adrian II.,
  after the example of his predecessor of the same name, completed the
  Gregorian Antiphoner in several places. He also arranged a second
  prologue in hexameter verse to be chanted at High Mass on the first day
  of Advent. This prologue begins in the same way as another very short
  one composed by the first Adrian to be sung at all the Masses of this
  first Sunday in Advent, but that of Adrian II. is composed of a greater
  number of verses."

We have seen the passage in which Walafrid Strabo speaks of the
inscription at the beginning of the Antiphoner, ascribing its origin to
Gregory I., and again that in which Agobard of Lyons tells us that the
inscription contained the words "Gregorius Præsul." There are five forms
extant of the prologue in hexameter verse. The shortest, and therefore
the one probably composed by Adrian I., is as follows:--

      "Gregorius Præsul meritis et nomine dignus
      Unde genus ducit, summum ascendit honorem.
      Renovavit monumenta patrum priorum: tunc
      Composuit hunc libellum musicæ artis
      Scholæ cantorum anni circuli: Ad te levavi."

All the five forms begin with the same two first lines. Eckhart got
over the difficulty caused to his theory by these lines by supposing
that "Gregorius Præsul" meant not Gregory the Great, but Gregory II.
But he does not explain how "Unde genus ducit," &c., can refer to
the latter. But it fits Gregory I. in this way: Pope Felix was his
great-great-grandfather; so that, on succeeding to the papacy, he as
it were entered on a family inheritance.

This prologue proves that the Antiphoner was ascribed by tradition to St.
Gregory in the latter half of the eighth century.

IX.--Egbert, Archbishop of York (732-766), is a still more important
witness. Born about 678, he was ordained deacon at Rome, and received the
archiepiscopal pallium from Gregory III. in 735. He was the disciple and
friend of Bede, the confidant and benefactor of St. Boniface, and the
teacher of Alcuin. Shortly after he became archbishop he composed a work
addressed to his brother bishops, and called _De Institutione Catholica_.
The following extracts from it refer to the Ember-day Fasts.

  "As for us in the Church of England, we always observe the Fast of the
  First Month in the first week of Lent, relying on the authority of our
  teacher, St. Gregory, who has thus regulated it in the model which he
  has handed down to us in his Antiphoner and his Missal through the
  medium of our pedagogue the Blessed Augustine." (_Patr. Lat._ lxxxix.,
  441.)

  "As for the Fast of the Fourth Month, the same St. Gregory, by the same
  envoy, has prescribed in his Antiphoner and his Missal the week which
  follows Pentecost as that in which the Church of England ought to
  celebrate it. And this is attested not only by our own Antiphoners, but
  also by those which we have inspected with their corresponding missals
  in the Churches of St. Peter and St. Paul." (_Ibid._)

Egbert brings us back to the seventh century, but during that century
(the beginning of which saw the death of Gregory) we have no direct
evidence. There are some considerations, however, which may account for
this.

In the first place, we have very little light thrown on the history of
St. Gregory by the sources of the seventh century. Apart from his
Registrum there is little recorded that would by itself justify his
surname of the Great. In the _Liber Pontificalis_ there are only a few
lines about him, whilst the Hellenic Popes, who sat in the Papal chair
from 685 to 741, have detailed biographies, generally very laudatory. The
mission of Augustine for the conversion of England is undoubtedly one of
the most striking facts in Gregory's life; but the only chronicler of the
seventh century who mentions it is the Continuator of Prosper. Is it
surprising, then, that there is a still more profound silence on a fact
less calculated to attract outside attention, such as is the recasting of
the liturgical books peculiar to the Church at Rome?

In the second place, care must be taken not to apply the ideas of to-day
to another age. It must not be supposed that the Gregorian Reform was
promulgated throughout the Western Churches in the same manner, for
instance, as the Reform of Pius V. The modern system of centralization
did not then exist. When Gregory took the liturgical books in hand, he
had at first in view only the Papal chapel, and the churches at Rome
under his immediate supervision. It was their importation into England in
the lifetime of St. Augustine, and into the Frankish Empire two hundred
years after, under the pressure exerted by the first Carlovingians, which
gave the greatest impetus to their universal use. In Italy, on the
contrary, and even at Rome, it came about gradually only through the
insistence of such Popes as Leo IV. and Stephen X. that the Gregorian
Chant in the end completely supplanted that in use in early times in the
Peninsula. This explains why the first witnesses in favour of the
Gregorian tradition come to us from England and Carlovingian Gaul.

[Illustration: St. Gregory, from MS. of The Dialogues of St. Gregory
at the British Museum]

Again, one ought not to expect to find the chroniclers laying stress on
the Gregorian origin of the Roman books in the lifetime of those who were
contemporaries and disciples of the great Pope, and who had themselves
introduced the book from Rome. The fact would be taken as a matter of
course. It would not be till these had passed away that a tradition would
begin to form, and stress be laid on the fact; and this brings us to the
date of Archbishop Egbert.

Besides, who would have suspected the full importance of this Gregorian
form, and, in particular, have foreseen that it would put a limit to the
period of elaboration of the Western liturgy? So many Popes had already
taken the matter in hand. The great work of Gregory was to organize, set
in order, and fix. But only time can show what is really fixed. The
greatness of his work is only apparent after having remained unaltered
for centuries.

These considerations tend to show that there is no cause for surprise
that it should have taken so long for people to realize the greatness of
Gregory's work in setting in order the music of the Church.

                           INTERNAL EVIDENCE.

The oldest Antiphoners that we possess are some two hundred years later
than Gregory I. But they possess two peculiarities which raise a
presumption in favour of an origin at least as old as St. Gregory.

The first peculiarity lies in the version of Scripture from which are
taken the portions to which the music is set. This version is the old
Latin one known as "Itala." Now even if at the time of St. Gregory it had
not entirely given place to the Vulgate, yet from his time onwards the
latter prevailed universally (except for the Psalter, which was retained
at Rome till the time of Pius V., and is still used at St. Peter's), not
only in Rome, but in all the West; so much so, that St. Isidore of
Seville could assert in the first half of the seventh century, that St.
Jerome's version had already been taken into use by all the Churches as
preferable to the ancient one. It is natural to seek the explanation of
preserving an obsolete text of the words in the respect felt for the
melodies to which they were set. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude
that these melodies existed for the most part before the definite
abandonment of the Itala at Rome, that is to say before the middle of the
seventh century.

The second peculiarity which supports this conclusion is to be found in
the comparison of the Offices, known to have been added since the time of
St. Gregory, with the older portion of the Antiphoner. With very few, and
those very doubtful, exceptions, the materials for these are all taken
from older Offices. Sometimes both words and tunes are transferred
bodily; sometimes new words are set to the old melodies.

There are certain Masses of Saints, the chants for which were taken from
those which later were collected together to form the Common. For the
Feasts of the Annunciation, the Assumption, and the Nativity of the
Virgin, all the chants were taken from older Masses, _e.g._, from the
masses of Advent and of certain Virgins and Martyrs. The Procession of
the Purification, both words and melody, was borrowed from the Greeks by
Pope Sergius. For the Mass of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross all the
chants were taken from elsewhere, with the possible exception of the
Communion. The _Introit_ and the _Gradual_ were taken from Maundy
Thursday, the _Alleluia_ from Friday in Easter week, and the _Offertory_
from Maundy Thursday, or the Second Mass for Christmas-day. The _Introit_
for the Purification is borrowed from the Eighth Sunday after Trinity.

The compositions either in the Sanctorale or the Temporale of the Mass
that can be definitely dated as introduced after the death of St. Gregory
are very few, and may perhaps have been borrowed, with the Festivals
themselves, from outside by the Roman Church.

It is a reasonable conclusion to draw, then, that the addition of these
portions in the seventh century shows at least a great diminution of
musical productive power, and that the bulk of the Antiphoner of the Mass
must have been composed before this date. This inference is supported by
the conclusion which M. Gevaert draws from his examination of the
Antiphons of Divine Service (_La Melopée Antique_, _p._ 175), viz., that
the Golden Age for compositions of this class was the period 540-600. The
natural deduction from this is that the main settlement of the Antiphoner
of the Mass fell within the same period.

Still it may not have been wholly due to a cessation of musical activity
that new music for the Mass gradually ceased to be written in the course
of the seventh century, for a certain amount of music still continued to
be written for the Hour Services. It may have been due to a feeling that
the book was a closed and settled one after a final and authoritative
revision such as St. Gregory's is traditionally held to have been, and
that it was presumptuous to add to it. But whichever view is taken of
this, the Gregorian tradition is equally supported.

A further support to the claims of Gregory I. as against Gregory II. is
to be found in an examination of the Communions of the Masses of Lent.
These form a series taken from the Psalms in numerical order, I. to
XXVI., with the exception of five for which have been substituted texts
taken from the Gospel. The Thursdays in Lent, however, form an exception
to this scheme; they are interpolations breaking the order of it. Now we
know that they were added by Gregory II.; therefore the original scheme
of the Masses of Lent, at least, was drawn up before the time of Gregory
II. Of the twenty-four pieces contained in the masses for the first six
Thursdays in Lent, twenty-one appear in the Sundays after Trinity. It
seems certain that the Thursdays in Lent must have borrowed from the
Sundays after Trinity, and not _vice versa_; this is supported by the
fact that the Graduals and Offertories of the Thursdays in Lent are all
borrowed, and of the Sundays after Trinity hardly any. So this addition,
which we know to be of the date of Gregory II., was made to a scheme
already in existence, and both words and music were borrowed from other
parts of the Antiphonale Missarum.

As against the claims made for the Hellenic Popes of the seventh and
eighth centuries, it is worth while to examine the music which it is
probable was introduced by Hellenic influence during that time, and
compare it with the bulk of the "Gregorian." The tropes and the melodies
from which the sequences developed probably come under this head, and
some specimens of these may be seen in the _Winchester Troper_ (_Ed._
Rev. W. H. Frere, _H. Bradshaw Society_, 1894). An examination of these
melodies will show that their structure is entirely unlike the structure
of the Gregorian melodies, especially in the close with a rise from the
note below the final to the final, which continually occurs at the end of
the phrases. This will be very clear from the accompanying melody,
_Cithara_, from which the sequence _Rex Omnipotens_ was formed. This form
of close appears at the end of each of the first five sections, and again
at the end of the seventh and eighth. In the rest of the sequence, the
melody rises to a higher range, and the close appears a fifth higher in
the ninth and tenth sections, a fourth higher in the eleventh and
thirteenth, and a whole octave higher in the twelfth. This transposition
of the range of the melody is more developed here than in most sequence
melodies, but some such transposition is a prominent characteristic of
many of them. There is nothing at all like it in the genuine Roman chant.

                                 CITHARA

                         [Illustration: CITHARA]

              IN WHAT DID THE WORK OF ST. GREGORY CONSIST?

John the Deacon describes his Antiphoner as a "cento" (_Antiphonarium
Centonem compilavit_), and speaks of him, as we have seen, as
"Antiphonarium centonizans." "Cento" is a Low Latin word meaning
patchwork, combination, or compilation. "Antiphonarius cento" would
therefore mean an Antiphoner compiled from various sources. And this is
the character of the Gregorian Antiphoner of the Mass, even of the
nucleus which remains after omitting the parts known to have been added
since Gregory's time. Indeed the whole phrase quoted above has a ring of
truth about it, and makes the tradition which he reports of a more
genuine historical character, for if it had been a mere vague tradition
in glorification of St. Gregory, he would have been more likely to have
spoken of him as the composer of the Antiphoner, and not as a mere
compiler. The oldest part of the book is formed of the Feasts celebrated
in honour of events and saints spoken of in Scripture, and of the oldest
Roman Saints. The Masses for these are taken from Scripture, especially
from the Psalms. For Feasts of non-Roman origin, the text is taken from
the Church from which they are introduced; _e.g._, the Feast of St.
Agatha from the Sicilian Church, or the Feasts coming from the Greek
Church which were translated from the Greek. The want of uniformity in
the arrangement of the text is seen by comparing the different classes of
chants in _Codex St. Gall_, 329. As a rule, the words of one and the same
Mass are all of different origin. The most ancient part of the Masses is
the Graduals and Tracts, and all these (which are the most ancient solos
of the Mass) in the Gregorian nucleus are taken from Biblical sources.
This part of the "cento Antiphonarius" is put together in one system
after an established tradition. In the oldest Feasts there are
Psalm-graduals, but Introits taken from other books of the Bible. The
parts other than the Gradual and Tract were chosen on a different system,
a considerable number in fact have words not taken from the Bible at all.
The Communions, again, form a class by themselves, and were sometimes
chosen with special reference to the Gospel for the day, which is the
case with no other class of the texts of the chants.

Now this editing of the texts must have implied the editing of the music
also. In the middle ages the choir played a more important part than they
do to-day in the Roman Church. For now the Service is complete without
their part, as the priest says the whole Service whether the choir is
there or not. But formerly it was different; all listened or took part,
including the celebrant, while the choir sang. The latter had a very
definite share in the liturgical order, which was incomplete without
them; in particular, the soloists had full scope for their talents in the
chants between the Epistle and Gospel. In view of this intimate relation
between the choir and the altar, a revision of the text must almost
necessarily have implied a revision of the music. And this is probably
the chief part of his musical reform; in the saying about him, ascribed
to Pope Adrian II., "Ipse Patrum monumenta _sequens renovavit_ et auxit."

What was the musical material on which he had to work, which he had to
put into shape, and to which he added new pieces? It is probably
substantially represented by the Ambrosian chant as we find it in the
oldest MSS. It seems most likely that it is the musical counterpart of
the primitive liturgy organized, as is supposed, about the epoch of Pope
Damasus, of which the Ambrosian, Gallican, Mozarabic, and Celtic are so
many variations, due to national characteristics. Documentary proof of
this is but scanty, but a study of the Lessons used at Mass supports the
theory as far as the text is concerned. It is further recorded that at
Monte Cassino the Ambrosian chant was fused with the Gregorian by order
of Pope Stephen IX. (1057-8). Here the Pre-Gregorian chant is simply
called Ambrosian.

                                ANTIPHON

            [Illustration: Antiphon, Gregorian and Ambrosian]

    Gregorian
          O Sa-pi-en-ti-a, quae ex o-re Al-tis-sim-i
          pro-di-is-ti at-tin-gens a fi-ne
          us-que ad fi-nem, for-ti-ter su-a-vi-ter-que
          dis-po-nens om-ni-a: ve-ni ad do-cen-dum nos
          vi-am pru-den-ti-ae.

    Ambrosian
          O Sa-pi-en-ti-a, quae ex o-re Al-tis-sim-i
          pro-ces-si-sti at-tin-gis a fi-ne
          us-que ad fi-nem, for-ti-ter su-a-vi-ter
          dis-po-nens que om-ni-a: ve-ni ad do-cen-dum nos
          vi-am sci-en-ti-ae.

                                 INTROIT

            [Illustration: Introit, Gregorian and Ambrosian]

    Gregorian
          Gau-de-a-mus om-nes in Do-mi-no,
          di-em fes-tum ce-le-bran-tes in ho-no-re
          A-ga-thae mar-ty-ris: de cu-jus pas-si-o-ne
          gau-dent an-ge-li, et col-lau-dant
          Fi-li-um De-i.

    Ambrosian
          Lae-te-mur om-nes in Do-mi-no,
          di-em fes-tum ce-le-bran-tes ob ho-no-rem
          A-ga-thae mar-ty-ris: de cu-jus tro-phae-o
          gau-dent an-ge-li, et col-lau-dant
          Fi-li-um De-i.

                                 GRADUAL

            [Illustration: Gradual, Gregorian and Ambrosian]

                   [Illustration: Gradual, continued]

    Gregorian
          Ex Si-on spe-ci-es de-co-ris e-jus:
          De-us ma-ni-fe-ste ve-ni-et.
        V. Con-gre-ga-te il-li sanc-tos e-jus,
          qui or-di-na-ve-runt
          te-sta-men-tum e-jus
          su-per sa-cri-fi-ci-a.

    Ambrosian
          Ex Si-on spe-ci-es de-co-ris e-jus:
          De-us ma-ni-fe-ste ve-ni-et.
        V. Con-gre-ga-te il-lic sanc-tos e-jus,
          qui or-di-na-ve-runt
          te-sta-men-tum e-jus
          su-per sa-cri-fi-ci-a.

The theory is further supported by a comparison of the most ancient MSS.
of the Milanese chant with the Gregorian Antiphoner. A considerable
number of melodies are practically identical with those in the Roman
books. The framework, so to speak, is the same, but the details and
embellishments often differ. The Ambrosian melodies are sometimes rather
bald, and often excessively florid; the extremely long neums which they
often contain appear to have been due to Greek influence. The Gregorian,
on the other hand, appear to have been in some places pruned, in others
expanded, with the result that they give the impression of being better
balanced; the different parts of the musical phrases are more justly
proportioned. In the Ambrosian melodies the B natural occurs very
constantly, and gives them a masculine flavour, sometimes amounting to
harshness.

The examples here given will enable some idea to be formed of the advance
made by the Gregorian version upon the Ambrosian, both in music and text.

But Pope Adrian II. says of St. Gregory not merely "renovavit," but
"auxit." He not only edited and adapted the old melodies, but provided
new ones for the new texts which he added to the cycle of liturgical
worship. What were these musical additions?

He extended the use of Alleluia to all Sundays and Festivals throughout
the year except in Septuagesima, and it is probable that he added new
melodies for the new Alleluias. It is significant that the Alleluias are
the least stable part of the Antiphoner. At all events, the Ambrosian
alleluiatic verses differ entirely from the Gregorian. The same
consideration applies to the tracts, the use of which he extended in
Septuagesima.

Another tendency of Gregory's reform was his marked desire to harmonize
the text of the Communions with that of the Gospel of the day. There are
a considerable number of these, hardly any traces of which are to be
found in the Ambrosian books. It is, then, reasonable to ascribe to St.
Gregory an important part in the composition of these chants.

The further important question arises, did Gregory carry out this musical
work himself, or was it done by others under his direction?

It is natural to think of his Schola Cantorum in this connection. The
foundation of this must have had a profound effect both on the standard
of the performance of the chant, and on the spread of the Gregorian
reform. Books were scarce in those days, and musical notation defective.
Teaching was chiefly by word of mouth. The Director of the Choir had his
manuscript to teach from, and his pupils had to learn the melodies by
heart. The chief singer also had his _liber cantatorius_ from which to
sing the solos, such as the Graduals and Tracts. The School was,
necessarily, not merely for teaching correct versions of the chant, but
for preserving the correct tradition of the method of performance. Most
of the seventh century popes were connected with the School or proceeded
from it.

The skilled musicians belonging to this School may have helped to carry
out the reform under Gregory's direction. But no tradition appears to
have been preserved to that effect, and the unity and uniform
characteristics seem to point to the work of one genius, even in the
smallest details; and the characteristics there displayed seem to fit in
with what we know from other sources of his character, in his writings
and in his actions.

In conclusion it is submitted that the evidence here put forward, though
in some respects rather scanty, yet, in the absence of any strong
evidence to the contrary, is quite sufficient to justify the tradition
that St. Gregory was the organiser, reformer, and to some extent the
author of the Antiphoner of the Mass. It is, of course, more difficult to
say definitely what his work actually was in these three divisions, but a
quite sufficient amount of certainty has been attained for us to realize
the extent and the nature of the debt which succeeding ages have owed to
the great Pope, and so far the attacks that have been made on the
tradition have only resulted in setting it on a firmer and more definite
basis.

                      THE PORTRAITS OF ST. GREGORY.

The oldest portrait of which we have a record is one of which a very full
description was given by John the Deacon, Gregory's biographer. This
likeness was to be seen in John's day (in the latter part of the ninth
century) in Gregory's house, which he had converted into a monastery, in
a small room behind the brethren's store-room or granary. It was
surrounded by a circular plaster frame. Probably the whole figure was not
represented; at all events, the following description which he gives
stops at the hands.

"His figure was of ordinary height, and was well made; his face was a
happy medium between the length of his father's and the roundness of his
mother's face, so that with a certain roundness it seemed to be of a very
comely length, his beard being like his father's, of a rather tawny
colour, and of moderate length. He was rather bald, so that in the middle
of his forehead he had two small neat curls, twisted towards the right;
the crown of his head was round and large, his darkish hair being nicely
curled and hanging down as far as the middle of his ear; his forehead was
high, his eyebrows long and elevated; his eyes had dark pupils, and
though not large were open, under full eyelids; his nose from the
starting-point of his curving eyebrows being thin and straight, broader
about the middle, slightly aquiline, and expanded at the nostrils; his
mouth was red, lips thick and sub-divided; his cheeks were well-shaped,
and his chin of a comely prominence from the confines of the jaws; his
colour was swarthy and ruddy, not, as it afterwards became, unhealthy
looking; his expression was kindly; he had beautiful hands, with tapering
fingers, well adapted for writing."

The description goes on to say that Gregory wore the _penula_ (cloak) of
chestnut colour, and over it the sacred pall, and that in his hands he
carried the book of the Gospel. We learn, further, that he did not have
the round nimbus, but a rectangular or square one, with which it was the
custom to adorn the heads of portraits of eminent people in their
life-time. John considers this a sure proof that the painting was
executed during the life of the saint; if it had been done after his
death, he would have been given a circular nimbus.

In the same monastery were portraits of his father and mother, Gordianus
and Silvia. But of course all have been destroyed.

The portrait (_frontispiece_) here reproduced is a reconstruction from
John the Deacon's description, made by Angelo Rocca, Bishop of Tagaste,
and a noted archæologist of his time (1597). He combined the three
portraits in one.

Another reconstruction from John the Deacon's description may be seen in
_Rassegna Gregoriana_ for June, 1903. This follows the description more
closely than does that of Rocca.

At a later date there grew up the custom of representing St. Gregory
always with a dove. According to John the Deacon it was already customary
in his day (_c._ 872). This is seen in our second illustration (_opposite
page_ 11), taken from the Antiphoner of the monk Hartker of St. Gall
(date between 986 and 1011). This illustration has the characteristics
found in the greater number of representations of Gregory; the dove (the
symbol of the Holy Ghost) is represented as inspiring him, and he is
dictating to the scribe, who is said to be the deacon Peter. The
veneration felt for his writings, and in particular those of the
ecclesiastical chant, was such that they were felt to be due directly to
the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Here the Pope is represented as
wearing an alb, a dalmatic, a _planeta_ and over it the sacred pall, and
on his left forearm, a maniple.

The third picture (_opposite page_ 16) is prefixed to two Coronation
Services in a miscellaneous volume formerly belonging to Christ Church,
Canterbury, on a page now numbered 8. The pages 9-18 comprise a
Coronation Service of the x./xi. century, and on pp. 19-29 there follows
another service of the xiiith century. On p. 30 is another picture,
probably of German workmanship, representing a man writing. Each seems to
be independent of its surrounding leaves; there seems no connection
between the two, unless it be that they depict the same person.

The former of the two clearly depicts St. Gregory; it has been constantly
said on the strength of the legend above, "Dunstani Archiepiscopi," that
it represents St. Dunstan, but the dove points clearly to St. Gregory;
the legend is possibly a later addition, and if St. Dunstan is to be
found upon the page at all it is in the archiepiscopal figure kissing the
toe of the great figure. This act of homage suggests that the large
figure represents a Pope. Moreover, St. Dunstan is shown prostrate at the
feet of Christ in another picture, which may very possibly be from the
saint's own hand; it is, therefore, reasonable to identify him with the
figure below. Possibly also it may be suggested that this picture, too,
represents St. Dunstan's handiwork.

St. Gregory wears a pall over a yellow chasuble, and over this above is a
red fringe ornament which is probably a rational. The purple dalmatic
with scarlet border is very conspicuous under his chasuble; the
under-vestments are less distinct, but the ends of the stole show over a
very dark garment, which is, perhaps, a tunicle. The mitre is of very
early shape. The archiepiscopal figure below wears a similar mitre, a
pall over a light green chasuble; underneath a pink dalmatic and a purple
show at the arms, as well as below.

The monk who balances him is in a white habit, but the figure kneeling
below is in a black habit of the same pattern, ungirt, and with a cowl.

The colouring of the whole is crude, and the drawing lacks delicacy.

The fourth portrait (_opposite page_ 24) is taken from a MS. of _The
Dialogues of St. Gregory_ (_Harl._ 3011), at the British Museum, _f._ 69
v., at the end of the 3rd book. The background is bright green, with a
brown border round it. It is a brown-ink drawing, with some yellow wash.
The inscription above it is _Teodericus depinxit hanc imaginem Gregorium
patrem_. It exemplifies once again the symbol of the dove, which is here
evidently not connected specially with the musical work of St. Gregory,
but with his literary efforts as a whole.

               THE PLAINSONG AND MEDIAEVAL MUSIC SOCIETY.

                               PRESIDENT.

    The Right Hon. THE EARL OF DYSART.

                            VICE-PRESIDENTS.

    The Right Rev. THE BISHOP OF ARGYLL and THE ISLES.
    Sir HICKMAN B. BACON, Bart.
    Sir J. F. BRIDGE, Mus. Doc.
    The Right Hon. THE VISCOUNT HALIFAX.
    The Very Rev. VERNON STALEY.
    H. ELLIS WOOLDRIDGE, Esq.

                                COUNCIL.

    Rev. MAURICE BELL.
    W. J. BIRKBECK, Esq.
    Rev. A. E. BRIGGS.
    R. A. BRIGGS, Esq.
    SOMERS CLARKE, Esq.
    WAKELING DRY, Esq.
    Rev. W. HOWARD FRERE.
    A. HUGHES-HUGHES, Esq.
    J. T. MICKLETHWAITE, Esq.
    Rev. E. J. NORRIS.
    Rev. G. H. PALMER.
    A. H. D. PRENDERGAST, Esq.
    ATHELSTAN RILEY, Esq.
    J. RUSSELL, Esq.
    PERCY E. SANKEY, Esq.
    Rev. H. URLING SMITH.
    Rev. G. R. WOODWARD.
    E. G. P. WYATT, Esq.

                                AUDITORS.

    _MESSRS. GERARD VAN DE LINDE & SON._

                             HON. TREASURER.

    _E. G. P. WYATT, ESQ._

                             HON. SECRETARY.

    _PERCY. E. SANKEY, ESQ., 44 Russell Square, London. W.C._

                The Plainsong & Mediaeval Music Society.

The Society is founded for purely antiquarian purposes with the following
objects:--

  1. To be a centre of information in England for students of Plainsong
  and Mediaeval Music, and a means of communication between them and
  those of other countries.

  2. To publish fac-similes of important MSS., translations of foreign
  works on the subject, adaptations of the Plainsong to the English Use,
  and such other works as may be desirable.

  3. To form a catalogue of all Plainsong and Measured Music in England,
  dating not later than the middle of the sixteenth century.

  4. To form a throughly proficient Choir of limited numbers, with which
  to give illustrations of Plainsong and Mediaeval Music.

The subscription for Members is £1 per annum, entitling them to all
publications _gratis_. Clergymen and Organists are eligible for election
as Associates, at a Subscription of 2/6 per annum, which will entitle
them to the annual publications at a reduced price.

                                                 _______________ 190____

_Name_ ______________________________________________

_Address_ ___________________________________________

_requests to be admitted a Member (or Associate) of THE PLAINSONG &
MEDIAEVAL MUSIC SOCIETY._

_Proposed by_ _______________________________________

_Seconded by_ _______________________________________

To be sent to the Hon. Secretary, P. E. Sankey, Esq, 44 Russell Square,
London. W. C.

                      PUBLICATIONS OF THE SOCIETY.

                                                                  Price.

THE MUSICAL NOTATION OF THE MIDDLE AGES (_out of print_)              ...

SONGS & MADRIGALS OF THE 15th CENTURY, containing 14 specimens, with
  _fac-similes_ and rules for translating the music into modern notation
  (Quaritch)                                                        £1.6.

GRADUALE SARISBURIENSE, a _fac-simile_ of a 13th Century English Gradual,
  with an introduction giving a history of the development of the
  _Graduale_ from the _Antiphonale Missarum_ of St. Gregory, with
  elaborate Indexes to the Offices, Graduals, etc., and to works on
  Liturgiology. The volume contains 102 pages of Text and 293 pages of
  Collotypes, and represents the most important part of the
  Ecclesiastical Music of the Middle Ages (Quaritch)                £4.2.

ANTIPHONALE SARISBURIENSE, a _fac-simile_ of a 13th Century English
  Antiphoner. This work, when complete, will be uniform with the
  _Graduale Sarisburiense_, and will contain over 700 pages of
  Collotypes. It is being published in yearly parts. Parts I, II, III &
  IV, now ready with portfolio, price                               £4.2.

THE SARUM GRADUAL, being the introduction to the GRADUALE SARISBURIENSE
  with four _fac-simile pages_ (Quaritch)                            15/9

EARLY ENGLISH HARMONY, from the 10th to the 15th Century. Vol I.,
  containing 60 Collotype Plates of music by composers from St. Dunstan
  down to John Dunstable (Quaritch)                                 £1.6.

             _The above works are folio and on thick paper._

MADRIGALS OF THE 15th CENTURY, containing six Madrigals in modern
  notation, _quarto_ (Novello) (_out of print_)                       ...

BIBLIOTHECA MUSICO-LITURGICA, a descriptive hand-list of the Musical and
  Latin Liturgical MSS. of the middle Ages preserved in English
  libraries. _Fascicle_ I. and _Fascicle_ II., making Vol. I., _quarto_,
  164 pp. with 13 _facsimiles_ (Quaritch)                         £1.5.6.

S. GREGORY AND THE GREGORIAN MUSIC                                    2/8

THE ELEMENTS OF PLAINSONG, _édition de luxe_ (_out of print_)         ...

THE ORDINARY OF THE MASS, _édition de luxe_ (Quaritch)               7/10

PLAINSONG HYMN-MELODIES & SEQUENCES, _édition de luxe_ (Quaritch)    7/10

RECENT RESEARCH IN PLAINSONG, _édition de luxe_                       3/3

  _The above editions consist of numbered copies to which the issue is
                                limited._

THE ELEMENTS OF PLAINSONG, cloth,                                     3/9

A GENERAL OUTLINE OF PLAINSONG (being Chapter I. of above)          3_d._

*CHOIR RESPONSES                                                    3_d._

DEPRECAMUR TE (as sung by St. Augustine and his companions)         3_d._

THE INVITATORY PSALM (_Venite exultemus_), set to its Proper Melodies in
  the IIIrd, IVth, VIth and VIIth Modes                        each 3_d._

THE PASCHAL ANTHEMS (_Pascha nostrum_)                              3_d._

TE DEUM                                                             3_d._

MAGNIFICAT & BENEDICTUS set to the Peregrine Tone                   3_d._

THE CANTICLES                                                       5_d._

ADDITIONAL SETTINGS of certain of THE CANTICLES, being the four previous
  publications in one volume                                       10_d._

RESPONDS AT VESPERS for ADVENT, CHRISTMAS-TIDE, LENT, and COMMON OF
  SAINTS (Others in preparation)                                      2/3

*THE PSALM TONES & OFFICE RESPONSES                                 4_d._

THE SARUM PSALTER (Geo. Bell & Sons.).                               2/10

THE INTRODUCTION to ditto, with the Tone-table and Examples         8_d._

*THE LITANY &  SUFFRAGES                                      Bound 8_d._

THE ANTIPHONS TO MAGNIFICAT                                           4/4

*THE ORDINARY OF THE MASS (7 Masses in  English)           2/9, Cloth 3/9

*THE PLAINSONG OF THE HOLY COMMUNION, two easy melodies for the _Kyrie_,
  _Sanctus_, _Agnus_ & _Gloria in excelsis_, with the Creed & Choir
  Responses                                                         7_d._

MISSA REX SPLENDENS (Organ accompaniment by Dr. Pearce)               1/2

*THE MUSIC OF THE MASS FOR THE DEAD, adapted to the English Text from the
  Sarum Manuale                                                       1/8

VESPERS OF THE DEAD                                                 5_d._

THE ORDER OF THE BURIAL OF THE DEAD                                 4_d._

PLAINSONG REQUIEM SERVICES, being Vespers, Mass & Burial of the Dead  2/8

*PLAINSONG HYMN-MELODIES AND SEQUENCES                                2/9

The Words only of the Sequences together with sundry Eucharistic Hymns
  and Antiphons                                                     7_d._

A SELECTION OF INTROITS, GRAILS & ALLELUYAS                           2/4

EUCHARISTIC HYMNS & ANTIPHONS                                      10_d._

SALVE! FESTA DIES for 5 Great Festivals                             7_d._

RULED MUSIC PAPER, per quire                                        8_d._

            Organ accompaniments can be obtained in MS. from
              the Community of S. Mary the Virgin, Wantage.

                     *A reduction allowed to Choirs.
                 _Prepayment is necessary in all cases._

 _The above prices include the postage, and copies can be obtained upon
     application by letter with remittance of the Hon. Secretary_--

          Percy E. Sankey, Esq.
              44 Russell Square, London, W. C.

The Society has arranged for instruction in the correct rendering of
plainsong to be given to Clergy, Organists and others, also for a
Choirmaster to assist Choirs adopting the music. For particulars apply to
the Hon. Secretary.