What is an ‘Oxford composer’? A working definition might be ‘a composer of some distinction associated for much of his or her career with the city or the university’. There are, however, other possible definitions, and our working definition might exclude some composers whose association, though brief, was decisive. Another familiar, but for our purposes less useful, definition is ‘a composer published by Oxford University Press’. As it happens, the Music Department of the Press operated from London, not Oxford, for much of its earlier life, but in any case it has never limited its scope to composers associated with Oxford. I have adopted the working definition above, but with a certain amount of flexibility. Finally, while some composers still living are mentioned, I have avoided all critical comment on their music.

Composition within the orbit of the twentieth-century University, like most of its activities, falls neatly into two almost equal halves divided by World War II, or rather by the end of that war in 1945. Before that date, the study of music was very largely based on composition. The reasons for this are historical. Oxford, with Cambridge, started to offer degrees in Music (B.Mus. and D.Mus.) at the end of the fifteenth century, and apart from a few very early cases they were awarded exclusively for composition. Typ-ically, the requirement at Oxford was for a Mass and an antiphon (a kind of motet) in five parts, together with evidence of the study of music for a period of time, usually ten years for a doctorate. While we know the names of composers who received the degree of Doctor or Bachelor of Music (or at any rate who were given permission to ‘supplicate’ for the degree) we do not know how their submissions were evaluated. It seems, in fact, that the proof of the pudding was in the eating: if the music was performable, it would pass muster.

The requirement for a composition (no longer, it need hardly be said, for a Mass and an antiphon), together with a period of study, was enshrined in the Laudian statutes of 1636, a successful submission entitling the holder to ‘lecture on any book of Boethius's De Musica’. The composition had to be performed in the Sheldonian Theatre, usually as part of the annual ‘Act’, but there is no mention of any examiners.

The ‘long eighteenth century’ (1688–1815) is perhaps not the most obvious time-frame for a survey of Catholic church music in Britain. Beginning with the ignominious flight of the Catholic James II and ending fourteen or so years before the ‘full’ emancipation of Catholics in 1829, it ushers in a period that to begin with is short on information and to all appearances lacking in significant musical activity, whereas the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries have already received a considerable amount of attention and might seem to merit little further study. During this time Catholics suffered severe disabilities, both civil and religious. Their civil disabilities, however, were not such as materially to affect religious life, and were similar in any case to those imposed on all women and on other groups including Protestant dissenters and Jews. As for the specifically religious restrictions, for example the embargo on public worship and on Catholic publications, the law was notionally severe but was only exceptionally enforced in all its rigour. The Acts of 1778 and 1791 introduced some elements of relief, but the road to the Act of 1829 was nevertheless beset with difficulties.

James II had created a full-scale Catholic Royal Chapel, parallel to the Anglican one, but his departure brought overt Catholic practice in England to an abrupt end. Charles II's widow, Catherine of Braganza, had moved to Somerset House in 1671, following the death of Henrietta Maria in 1669, although her chapel in St James's Palace (now part of Marlborough House) seems to have continued for a time in Catholic hands before being converted eventually to Anglican use. The practice of Catholicism, in London at least, then devolved on the chapels of the embassies of Catholic countries. As extra-territorial entities these could be frequented by English Catholics without penalty, although they were subject from time to time to mob violence.

The early history of the Catholic embassy chapels is not altogether clear. At first they will simply have been rooms within the embassy buildings themselves, and several remained so. From 1700 until 1708 the Portuguese had their embassy at Lincoln's Inn Fields. By 1715 a Sicilian embassy was established there, and this became the Sardinian embassy in 1720, when the Duke of Savoy exchanged his kingdom of Sicily (awarded at Utrecht in 1713) for Sardinia; the first reference to a ‘Sardinian’ chapel dates from 1722

The general observance of Salisbury customs throughout the islands of Britain and Ireland means that the occurrence of distinctive Insular Uses is somewhat restricted. The most widespread of the non-Sarum liturgies, observed throughout Europe, was that of the Benedictine monasteries, including in England the cathedral priories; these nevertheless often possessed their own individual customaries, as did other houses such as those of the Augustinian canons. The principal secular Uses, apart from that of Salisbury, were those of Hereford and York, although all dioceses had their local saints and minor differences. A full analysis of everything that was distinctive about diocesan usages in the provinces of Canterbury and York is beyond the scope of this chapter; instead, the focus is on a small range of comparable matter in the major Uses and in the variable customs of some other dioceses.

The psalter is the only book of the bible that survived more or less intact as a constituent part of late medieval breviaries and antiphonals. In the breviary, noted or otherwise, the other biblical books are more widely dispersed and much abbreviated; in the antiphonal, while a psalter usually came to be incorporated, the other books are not represented at all beyond the briefest passages. The integrity of the psalter is explained by the way it was used in the Divine Office, while the details of its arrangement and annotation were the result of an increasing concern for liturgical precision, particularly among the compilers of secular Uses.

The early history of the Latin psalter is a familiar one. It was a translation from the Greek, itself a translation of a Hebrew version that differed in some ways from what became the standard ‘Masoretic’ text. What is referred to as the ‘Hebrew’ numbering of the psalms is a product of the Masoretic arrangement, but it is not the numbering traditionally used in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity. According to Hilary of Poitiers, the Greeks were the first to number the psalms, and theirs is the numbering adopted in Greek and Latin psalters and bibles. Even when St Jerome translated the psalter directly from the Hebrew, he (or the manuscripts representing his translation) retained the Greek numbering.

The division of the psalms into verses is even more significant for performance. Again the Hebrew numbering, or rather the numbering derived from the Masoretic punctuation, differs from the arrangement of verses in the Greek and Latin translations. The Hebrew numbering has gained importance as a means of reference, but it is of no significance for the singing of the psalms in Greek or Latin. It was adopted in the Sixto/Clementine Latin bibles, although these latter retained the liturgical versification in their paragraphing; it is also the numbering found in modern (non-liturgical) editions of the Septuagint. The liturgical verses are not normally (if ever) numbered in medieval psalters, and not often in modern Latin ones. The traditional versification is foreshadowed in the early complete Greek bibles, where a single line was usually sufficient to represent what later became a complete verse, or one half, or one third of a verse.

In New Zealand, the relationship property and adult maintenance regimes on the breakdown of a marriage, civil union, or de facto relationship have long been dealt with under two discrete legislative regimes. Relationship property assets of the parties are divided pursuant to the detailed provisions of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (NZ) (‘PRA’), whereas the adult maintenance and future income needs of any one party are governed by the essentially discretionary provisions found in Part 6 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 (NZ) (‘FPA’). While the two regimes are clearly distinct, there is nevertheless an acknowledged complementarity in their policies. After all, both share the common goal of facilitating a fair resolution of financial problems ensuing from a failed relationship, and the legislative amendments in 2001 to both the PRA and the FPA were designed to'sit alongside ‘each other.

In 2016 the New Zealand Law Commission commenced a review of the PRA. This review provides an ideal opportunity to reflect on whether there could now be further integration of the two regimes and, indeed, whether the concept of separate adult maintenance even remains justifiable in principle at all. In particular, given the regime for property division in New Zealand encompasses compensation for relationship-derived economic disparities (though admittedly a little incongruously), it may be timely to reconsider the purpose and future of our so-called rehabilitative, needs-based maintenance. It may be time to think about fortifying the ‘clean break‘ principle.

The clean break principle is premised on the notion that the parties will use their respective shares of the relationship property to start afresh. Its purpose is to achieve financial finality and to assist the parties to self-determine and become self-sufficient. While no overt or implicit reference to this principle can be found in any of the specific provisions of the PRA, including in sections 1M and 1N which set out the purposes and principles of the PRA, there can be no doubt that the statutory regime as a whole is firmly grounded on the philosophy that ‘there should be a clean break between the parties as soon as practicable, with each able to take up their future life independently of the other’.