AMBROSIANO, CANTO. – This is the chant currently used in the Ambrosian liturgy. In ancient times its range was much more extensive, reaching as far as Benevento and Montecassino, although a. was always synonymous with Milanese. It cannot in fact be asserted that the chant, any more than the liturgical arrangement itself, is the work of s. Ambrogio; nevertheless, in the psalmody, hymnody, and other parts, he certainly exercised personal direction. Everything, however, leads us to believe that by at least the sixth century, chant and liturgy had a physiognomy of their own, different from that which Pope s. Gregorio established for Rome. As for its origin, although many details are still imprecise, it is believed that, without excluding Oriental influences and some Gallican orientation, it corresponded to a more or less Latin tradition; thus it may be said that there was a Roman musical tradition, which was stylized differently in Rome and Milan, perhaps also because of the differing importance of the two centres. As regards rhythm, it is certain that the tradition was the same; indeed, the oldest a. musical manuscripts use, so to speak, the same North Italian notation, which displays great affinity with the Sangallese notation used at Bobbio, as well as the same additional rhythmic signs. In its modal aspect, c. a. bears witness to ancient theory even more than Gregorian chant, before that theory was revised and systematized in the Middle Ages; it is more consonant with the Latin genius, with free rhythm, and with the ancient theories of Hellenic harmony. The two chants, a. and Gregorian, although they may be said to constitute one and the same musical liturgy, each have their own style and formulas. In a., the melismas are generally more prolonged, composed of more closely connected intervals, and more similar in form to the Byzantine. The manuscripts on which a critical edition of this chant could be established are relatively numerous and date from the ninth and tenth centuries. The script developed from its primitive form until it assumed Gothic forms; today it has quite legitimately been presented according to the common Latin neumatic tradition. In the modality of c. a., the absence of any numerical indication of the modes at the beginning of the melody is noteworthy; this corresponds more closely to its primitive character. The psalmody has no melody proper to the mediant, and as the dominant for the singing of the psalm it logically chooses the note that has predominated most in the antiphon, with which it must form a harmonious and liturgical whole. As for its aesthetics, there is, more than in Gregorian chant, a great diversity of formulas for the various liturgical moments. Its expression, although at times extraordinarily simple, is at other times more intense, more deeply felt, and more daring; hence the appellation « hard chant » applied to it in a period when the true c. a. was unknown is entirely false. On the whole, it is a more primitive, more spontaneous, and less elaborate musical expression than the Gregorian.
Gregorio M. Suñol