![Views from the Choir Loft](https://www.ccwatershed.org/wp-content/themes/carmel/images/blueheader.png")
“Where the best authorities differ so widely it would be absurd to pretend to offer a final solution.” — Fr. Adrian Fortescue (The Mass, 1912)
N THE ORDINARY FORM, there are Spoken Propers (for Masses without music) and Sung Propers. Sometimes they’re identical, sometimes not, and the same holds true for Latin hyphenation. There is “spoken” hyphenation (a.k.a. “written”) and “sung” hyphenation … and they’re not always the same.
Professor John F. Collins gives basic rules of syllabification in his Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin (CUA), but these are intended for “written” Latin. Even there, leeway exists, because ancient manuscripts divide words depending on spacing issues. Of course, going back even further, the words were all written together without any spaces!
For the Edmund Campion project (website), we spent hours studying hyphenation issues. I share some of our findings below. Fr. Xavier Lasance (†1946) is not always consistent. For instance, he sometimes writes FRU—CTÍFERA but in other places writes FRUC—TÍFERA. The following document explains what a “true error” is:
* * Notes about the Translations for the Campion Missal
LET US CONSIDER the Latin word omni. Latin grammarians say it should be broken as OM – NI. However, in 99% the Solesmes books, it is divided as O – MNI for “sung” Latin. Any time Solesmes has “OMN” they divide it this way, e.g. O – MNIS. Perhaps they do this to help singers pronounce it correctly. It doesn’t appear to be a “French thing” since the 1953 German Graduale follows suit, e.g. O – MNI – BUS. However, for “written” Latin, the Solesmes Liber Usualis uses OM – NES.
Moving on, let’s consider how words like “SANCTE” are broken:
Official 1962 Missale Romanum: SAN – CTE • SANC – TAM
Fr. Xavier Lasance: SANC – TA
1975 Missale Romanum of Paul VI: SANC – TAM
Solesmes Liber Usualis: SAN – CTUÁRIUM • SAN – CTUM • SAN – CTO
Pothier’s Liber Gradualis (1884): SAN – CTUS
You can see that each publisher follows his own policy. The most important thing is to be consistent. (You’ll notice the official 1962 Missal is not.) It would be fascinating to go through all the old books at the St. Jean de Lalande Library and see what different publishers did over the years. Feel free to add hyphenations from books you own in the combox. Here are some notable ones I found:
Fr. Lasance: COG – NÓSCO • Solesmes: CO – GNOVÍSTI 02 • 03
Fr. Lasance: FAC – TUM
Fr. Lasance: SUS – CÉPTOR
Fr. Lasance: PROP – TER
Fr. Lasance: ACCÉP – TAM
Solesmes 1903 Manuale: ACCÉ – PTA
Fr. Lasance: CHRIS – TUS
Solesmes books: EXSPÉ – CTANT
Most “sung” versions by the monks of Solesmes have OMNÍ – POT – ENS, yet the 1903 Solesmes Manuale has OMNÍPO – TENS
But others do not agree with Solesmes and write OMNI – PO – TENS
Similarly, the word potéstas is broken as POT – E – STAS not PO – TESTAS …… because they like to preserve TO BE (“estis”)
But for some reason, potéstas—normally broken as POT-E-STAS — in 1957 Solesmes does PO-TE-STAS which is remarkably inconsistent
Most written versions prefer NOS-TRIS, yet the Solesmes 1903 Manuale has NO – STRUM
Solesmes: ÉT – I – AM
Vatican Press: DI – GNERIS & BAPTÍ – SMI
Here are some more examples commonly found in “sung” Latin (as opposed to “written” Latin):
RED – EM – PTOR — not re-dem-ptor
O – MNES — not om-nes
Ó – MNI – A — not om-nia
SOL – E – MNI – TATEM — not so- LEM – nitatem solemnitatem
SIC – UT — not si-cut
NO – STRIS — not nos-tris
NO – STER — not nos-ter
NO – STRÓRUM — not NOS – trórum
PRO – PTER — not prop-ter
A – GNO — not ag-no
SAN – CTO — not sanc-to
Ó – PTI – ME — not óp-time
PENTECÓ – STES — not Pentecos-tes
SE – CUS — not sec-us
Á – SPERO — not ás – pe – ro
EX – ÉR – CITUS — not e-xercitus
OB – UMBRÁBIT — not o – bumbrabit
RED – EM – PTIÓNEM — not Re-demp-ti-onem
RED – ÉMIT — not re-demit
yet Solesmes has RE – DEMIT and RE – DEMIT
AD – ORÉMUS — a-doremus
SEMET – Í – PSUM — not seme-tip-sum
PROTE – CTÓ – REM — not protec-to-rem
RE – CTAE — not rec-tae
RED-IMENDUM not Re-Di-Men-Dum
NO – CTÚR – NO — not noc-túr-no
TE – STA – MÉNTUM — not tes-ta-mentum
IN – I – QUITÁTES — not i-niquitates but Solesmes & NOH like I – NI – micítias
SE – PTE – NÁRIUM — not sep-tenárium
POT – ENTÁTUI — not po-tentatui
CONSPÉ – CTU — not conspec-tu
SO – MNUM — not som – num
DI – GNISSIMA — not dig-nissima
CO – GNOVI — (but written is usually cog-novi)
RESPE – XIT — not respex-it (but one book has “e-xultavit”)
I – PSÍ – US — not ip-sius
GÉ – NITRIX — not Gen-i-trix
Í – PSE — not íp – se
CAE – LE – STIS — not caeles-tis
SUS – CIPE — not su-scipe — see also Suscepísti
TEM – PLO — not temp-lo
VEL – UT — not ve-lut
E – STO — not es-to
E – RIT — not er-it
VE – XIL – LA — not vex-il-la
PA – TER — not Pat-er
PRO – PTÉ – REA — not prop-terea
BENEDÍ – XIT — not benedix-it
MANSU – E – TÚDINEM — not mansu-et-udinem
DEX – TERA — not de-xtera
PERMAN – SÍ – STI — not perman-sis-ti
NO – VÍS – SIME — not nov-issime
DI – É – BUS — not di-eb-us
FE – LIX — not fel-ix
BASILI – SCUM — not ba – si – lis – cum ??
CRUCIFÍ – XUS — not crucifix-us
EX – ÉR – CITUS — not e-xer-citus
SCRI – BÉN – TIS — not scribe-ntis
JU – STUM — not jus-tum
ERU – CTÁVIT — (but written is usually eruc-tavit)
RE – GNUM — (but written is usually reg-num)
DI – XIT — not dix-it
ACCÉ – PTAM — (but written is usually accep-tam)
MINI – STRÓ – RUM — not minis-trorum
As you can see, sometimes numerous ways of syllabification are acceptable in Latin.
Finally, watch out for “compound” word that have actual Latin words in them, like:
IN – I – MI – CUS — not i-ni-micus
and PER – I – BUNT — not pe-ri-bunt
Yet we saw how “noster” was treated …
By the way, look how “victoriam” is treated:
Why do they do I – nimícis but at the same time IN – íquo :
NA – SCE –TUR not NAS – CE – TUR ——— and RE – GNUM not REG – NUM :
HO- SPES not HOS – PES
SOLESMES MONASTERY is inconsistent, when you look at the word ENUTRIET :
OBLIVISCERIS is broken as obli – vi – scé -ris :
SUSCIPE is done SUS – CI – PE not su – SCI – pe as shown by Solesmes 1957:
This one has many remarkable hyphenations for Latin words:
How would you break “obliviscáris” ?
(1) O – BLI – VI – SCA – RIS ? or: (2) OB – LI – VI – SCA – RIS ?
The second one is the correct one. Ob is a preposition and therefore not separated. SC always goes together, e.g. in scientia, etc. Cf. Introit for Sexagesima Sunday in Liber: ob-li-vi-sce-ris.
Look how different folks treat “vespertinum” :
SUSCIPE:
For Adorate it is “AD—O—RATE” not a—do—rate
Transíbunt (“transibunt”) is done TRANS—i not TRAN—SI
