• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

We’re a 501(c)3 public charity established in 2006. We have no endowment, no major donors, no savings, and run no advertisements. We exist solely by the generosity of small donors.

  • Donate
  • Our Team
    • Our Editorial Policy
    • Who We Are
    • How To Contact Us
    • Sainte Marie Bulletin Articles
  • Pew Resources
    • Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal
    • Jogues Illuminated Missal
    • KYRIALE • Saint Antoine Daniel
    • Campion Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Repository • “Spanish Music”
    • Ordinary Form Feasts (Sainte-Marie)
  • MUSICAL WEBSITES
    • René Goupil Gregorian Chant
    • Noël Chabanel Psalms
    • Nova Organi Harmonia (2,279 pages)
    • Roman Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Catechism of Gregorian Rhythm
    • Father Enemond Massé Manuscripts
    • Lalemant Polyphonic
  • Miscellaneous
    • Site Map
    • Secrets of the Conscientious Choirmaster
    • “Wedding March” for lazy organists
    • Emporium Kevin Allen
    • Saint Jean de Lalande Library
    • Sacred Music Symposium 2023
    • The Eight Gregorian Modes
    • Gradual by Pothier’s Protégé
    • Seven (7) Considerations
Views from the Choir Loft

“Gregorian Chant Rhythm Wars” • Ostrowski Vs. Williams

Jeff Ostrowski · November 1, 2022

M  Gregorian Rhythm Wars contains all
M  previous installments of our series.

HE UNITED STATES episcopal conference recently published what they deem “the principal books of music for the Eucharist,” and their document clearly affirms that the Editio Vaticana is still the Church’s official edition. Specifically, it says that “Gregorian chants of Mass parts and Propers” must be taken from the pre-Conciliar Graduale Romanum—more commonly referred to as the “Editio Vaticana.”

Ostrowski Vs. Williams • At the 2022 Symposium, the so-called “Chant Rhythm Wars” between Professor Weaver and myself proved very popular with the participants. Therefore, it makes sense to continue them. My colleague, Patrick Williams has agreed to enter into a “colloquy” or “argument” with me vis-à-vis Gregorian rhythm. I will put forward my ideas, then Mr. Williams will respond. If I have anything more to say, I’ll respond. And so forth. We believe this exchange will be of interest to readers. Who knows? Perhaps Professor Weaver might even be persuaded to join the conversation…

Legislation • From the standpoint of legislation, the question—in my opinion—is unambiguous. Pope Pius X published the Editio Vaticana (circa 1905-1913). In the words of Father Angelo De Santi, this edition was “given the force of law as a juridical code of sacred music.” Abbat Joseph Pothier (d. 1923) was named president of the Pontifical Commission on Gregorian Chant, which Pope Pius X referred to as his “special Roman Commission” in the MOTU PROPRIO dated 25 April 1904. This commission was to oversee the publication of the Editio Vaticana. Dom Mocquereau had ardently hoped his 1903 Liber Usualis would be adopted by Pope Pius X, but that did not happen. Dom Mocquereau then added his own markings to the official edition—perhaps attempting to “get even” with the commission that had “snubbed” his 1903 edition. In any event, regarding the modifications made to the official edition, Abbat Pothier declared Mocquereau’s additions erroneous and illicit in his famous “De Caetero” Letter of 1906. (I cannot add anything to what Pothier wrote; his words are lucid and explicit.) Furthermore, the Congregation of Sacred Rites under Pope Saint Pius X declared in 1910 that Catholics must use only the official rhythm. Under Venerable Pope Pius XII, on 3 September 1958, the condemnation of Editio Vaticana modifications was upheld in a forceful way. The Vatican was basically saying that using “counting” signs—in order to assist amateur singers—was permitted, but contradicting the Editio Vaticana rhythm was still prohibited. Consider the following example:

Dom Mocquereau’s modifications clearly do not “preserve the force and meaning of the notes” (which is what the legislation explicitly required).

Beyond Legislation • More knotty than legislation is the question of “authenticity.” When we sing from the Editio Vaticana, can we be certain we are singing in a style that’s historically accurate? Can we prove that we are singing the same way, broadly speaking, that Catholics have sung for centuries? The rest of my article will attempt to show that we can easily prove this.

Our Specimen • Let’s consider a single specimen, rather than trying to tackle all 40,000 pages of plainsong. Our specimen is a short excerpt from the INTROIT for the 22nd Sunday after Pentecost. [Ordinary Form: 28th Sunday in Ordinary Time.] By the way, you can see what an improvement the Editio Vaticana was—and why it was desperately needed—if you examine the 1865 version which had been in use prior to Pope Pius X.

What We Consider • Below are Dom Mocquereau’s markings. He believed that by adding such markings we obtain the “truly traditional reading” (Pierre Combe’s Restoration of Gregorian Chant, page 249).

Are Those ‘Authentic’ Markings? • Why were those elongations added by Dom Mocquereau to our specimen? We have already seen legislation forbids them—but what about musicology? When we employ Mocquereau’s modifications, are we singing in a more ‘authentic’ manner? We will see that it is lunacy to add such markings to the Editio Vaticana, which is a CENTO. As Francis Henry Burgess (d. 1948) wrote:

M “The Vatican Edition is no mere
M reproduction of a local or partial tradition,
M  but a CENTO resulting from an extended
M study and comparison of a host of
M manuscripts gathered from many places.”

Applying individual nuances from an ancient manuscript to a CENTO is comparable to ‘transferring’ pedal markings from a work by Johannes Brahms to a work by Franz Liszt.

1513AD Manuscript • Let’s first consider 034braga|1513, a manuscript created (perhaps) circa 1513AD. This manuscript contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations:

1393AD Manuscript • Now let’s go back 100+ years and consider a manuscript from Soest Germany, created (perhaps) circa 1393AD. Notice that it lacks Mocquereau’s elongations:

1299AD Manuscript • Well, maybe those manuscripts were just flukes. Let’s go back 100 years earlier, to Cologne1001b|1299, a manuscript created (perhaps) circa 1299AD. We notice how—just like the previous examples—this manuscript contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations:

1119AD Manuscript • Let’s go back 200 years earlier. And don’t forget: 200 years is a long time. That would be like us traveling back to 1820, when Napoleon Bonaparte was still alive and inventions such as the light bulb were still about 50 years in the future. Consider 3823auvergne|1119, which was (perhaps) created around the year 1119AD, and written (some people believe) for the town of Sauxillanges. This manuscript also contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations:

1085AD Manuscript • Let’s go back even further, examining 1132Limoges|1085, a manuscript created (perhaps) circa 1085AD. This manuscript was copied by Dom Pothier in 1868, according to Dom Pierre Combe. In other words, Pothier would copy entire manuscripts (!) by hand as a young monk. Supposedly, Pothier once upbraided his student, Dom Mocquereau, for his heavy dependency on photograph reproductions of the manuscripts, rather than copying each by hand. Pothier was trying to make clear that a musician learns a great deal by the process of copying entire manuscripts by hand. Getting back to our specimen, we see that 1132Limoges|1085 also contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations:

1020AD Manuscript • When we examine GradualDenis|1020, which was created (perhaps) circa 1020AD, we see that it contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations:

957AD Manuscript • Let’s go back even further, to 47chartres|957. This manuscript was created (perhaps) circa 957AD. We see that—just as the others—this manuscript contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations:

What’s Going On Here?
What on earth is going on here? If Dom Mocquereau gave us the “truly traditional reading,” why does every manuscript we’ve examined so far—spanning more than 600 years—contradict those special modifications by Mocquereau? I will try to explain.

Moc’s Fantastic Four • Dom Mocquereau had a handful of favorite manuscripts. In this article, I call them MOC’S FANTASTIC FOUR. Broadly speaking, Dom Mocquereau had a predilection for: 121einsie|961, and 339sanGall|1039 and 359sanGall|877 and Bamberg6lit|905. These manuscripts are very clean, very complete, very ancient, and stunningly gorgeous.

Capricious Freedom? • When manuscripts contradict Moc’s Fantastic Four, he says they are “decadent,” accuses the scribe of being “capricious,” or says the authors wrote their musical notes “in a haphazard way and with little understanding of their meaning.” Dom Cardine—when certain examples contradict his theories—blithely attributes such contradiction to “freedom” or “elasticity.” Looking back, it seems incredible that people like André Mocquereau, Eugène Cardine, Ewald Jammers, Curt Sachs, and Jan Vollaerts pretended they could understand the ‘true’ rhythm, while the monastic scribes (spanning 800 years) were muttonheads who just wrecked everything. Nevertheless, such cockiness was consonant with the zeitgeist. More importantly, they subscribed to a particular theory of mass hallucination.

Mass Hallucination • We are told that, at some unspecified point, Catholics across Europe suffered a type of mass hallucination, in which they all forgot the ‘true’ rhythm of plainsong. Specifically, Dom Mocquereau claims the “primitive and universal rhythmic tradition” was lost due to this mass hallucination. Dom Cardine—considered Dom Mocquereau’s successor—likewise gives no explanation for how all the scribes forgot the ‘true’ rhythm. Cardine simply says “the finesse of the notation gradually disappeared,” and offers no explanation for his astonishing theory. Dom Cardine believes the scribes (somehow) transmitted the notes with blue-ribbon accuracy, yet all of them completely messed up the ‘true’ rhythm—and none of them got it right even accidentally. Dom Gregory Murray says the ‘true’ rhythm of Gregorian chant was “lost and forgotten” (his words) and suggests all later scribes “misunderstood” (his word) the ‘true’ rhythm. Like Dom Cardine, Dom Gregory Murray sees no need to explain why all the scribes magically forgot the ‘true’ rhythm yet (somehow) transmitted the pitches with blue-ribbon accuracy.

Not Even By Accident? • In Bill Watterson’s Calvin and Hobbes comic strip, Calvin famously replies to his father: “Why isn’t the world ever unfair in my favor?” You see, there’s a huge problem with Dom Mocquereau’s theory. The “errors” and the “decadence” and “capriciousness” and “freedom” are always on one side. Never do we see—even by accident—an “error” which corroborates Dom Mocquereau’s elongations. To put it another way:

M If the scribes are truly as
M incompetent as we’re told,
M why don’t their errors ever
M corroborate the supposed
M ‘true’ rhythm of plainsong?

Manuscript from 1040AD • Let’s examine more manuscripts, just in case the examples I gave above are flukes. A very important manuscript called Yrieix|1040, created (perhaps) around the year 1040AD, contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations:

If Dom Mocquereau is correct that the scribes wrote “in a haphazard way,” why do their blunders never corroborate the ‘true’ rhythm?

Manuscript from 1066AD • Let’s examine yet another manuscript, viz. 1066nimes|1066, which was created (perhaps) circa 1066AD:

If Dom Mocquereau is correct that later scribes wrote “capriciously,” why do their errors never betray the ‘true’ rhythm?

Once again, Mocquereau’s elongations are missing! We are told the “capricious” scribes—due to mass hallucination—unanimously forgot the ‘true’ rhythm (at some unspecified point in history). Yet, these same “capricious” scribes transmitted the melodies with blue-ribbon accuracy. Could any musician believe this? If the scribes were so incompetent, why did their errors never betray the ‘true’ rhythm?

Eleven More Examples:

*  Circa 1031AD • Our Specimen
—75cambrai|1031 contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations.
*  Circa 965AD • Our Specimen
—Renaud|965 contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations.
*  Circa 1128AD • Our Specimen
—4951steven|1128 contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations.
*  Circa 1225AD • Our Specimen
—CistercienseHeidelberg|1225 contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations.
*  Circa 1143AD • Our Specimen
—Portugal|1143 contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations.
*  Circa 1047AD • Our Specimen
—Albi|1047 contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations.
*  Circa 1077AD • Our Specimen
—18010corbie|1077 contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations.
*  Circa 1023AD • Our Specimen
—123angelica|1023 contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations.
*  Circa 1079AD • Our Specimen
—StMaur|1079 contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations.
*  Circa 1087AD • Our Specimen
—1087cluniacensem|1087 contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations.
*  Circa 1057AD • Our Specimen
—857noyon|1057 contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations.

We Have Certitude • You might not be an expert in reading these different manuscripts, but anyone can see they contradict Mocquereau’s elongations. For instance, simply look at the first word (“iniquitátes”) and notice how the flex is identical to the neumes we have been examining. (This is the case in 1087cluniacensem|1087 and in StMaur|1079 and in 123angelica|1023). If you still have doubts, you can find that flex all over the place in the same manuscript, written by the same scribe. For instance, in 857noyon|1057 look on the same page (viz. Alleluia: Qui pósuit fínes) and take note of the “fí” of fínes, the “di” of ádipe, and the “at” of sátiat where the identical flex is employed.

“T” Symbol Missing • A manuscript that demands one’s attention is 9434Tours|1028:

This manuscript contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations, which we see clearly by comparing the flex on “ver” of the word “observáveris” to the neumes we’ve been considering. Furthermore, the scribe does not add the letter “T” which means “tarditas” or “trahere” or “tenere” or “tene”—basically a ritardando. The scribe employs that letter “T” during the Introit (cf. “quía ápud te”), but not where Dom Mocquereau added his ritardando markings.

A Very Special Witness • Finally, we must examine a very special witness: Montpellier H. 159, also known as the “Rosetta Stone of Gregorian chant.” This manuscript was created circa 989AD and is bi-lingual. That is to say, above the adiastemmatic notation, an ancient scribe translated into letter names the names of the musical notes, leaving no room for speculation or conjecture:

Once again, we see that this ancient and unambiguous bi-lingual manuscript contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations.

Final Thoughts:
We are told that the scribes were incompetent, and that’s why they failed to transmit—even by accident—the ‘true’ rhythm of Gregorian chant. In the 40,000 pages of the plainsong repertoire, I’m not aware of a single instance where these ‘muttonhead’ scribes betray, corroborate, or even hint at the ‘true’ rhythm. Yet, somehow these same ‘dimwitted’ scribes transmitted the pitches with blue-ribbon accuracy. This is what we are told—but does it make sense?

Missing Link? • Sometimes atheists claim that one animal species evolved into another. Let’s pretend arguendo they assert that donkeys—over the centuries, little by little—evolved into eagles. A logical person would ask: “Where are the half-donkey half-eagle creatures?” In other words, evidence of an intermediary step (“missing link”) would be demanded—and rightfully so. In the same way a “miniature donkey with partially-developed wings” would be demanded, I demand to be shown plainsong manuscripts halfway between the ‘true’ rhythm and the manuscripts I’ve provided. Otherwise, I cannot take seriously the assertion that all the scribes suddenly “forgot” the authentic rhythm of Gregorian chant.

Moc’s Fantastic Four • I mentioned that Dom Mocquereau (and his followers) have a special predilection for certain manuscripts, which I’ve called Moc’s Fantastic Four. I owe it to the reader to show a few examples. Keep your eyes peeled for a symbol (“flex with episema”) that looks like this:

First of all, Bamberg6lit|905, created (perhaps) circa 905AD, does show a “flex with episema.” Another manuscript Dom Mocquereau really likes, 121einsie|961 was created (perhaps) circa 961AD, and it also shows a “flex with episema.” But other adiastemmatic manuscripts do not correspond. For instance, 339sanGall|1039—which comes (perhaps) from 1039AD—does not show a “flex with episema.” Another Saint Gall manuscript, 338sanGall|1058, also lacks a “flex with episema.” Yet another manuscript from Saint Gall is 340sanGall|1054, created (perhaps) circa 1054AD, and it does not have a “flex with episema.” I’m certainly not an expert in reading the notation of 239Laon|927, but—unless I’m mistaken—that manuscript contradicts the Mocquereau elongations, and that manuscripts dates (perhaps) from circa 927AD.

Mr. Patrick Williams • I know not how Mr. Patrick Williams will respond to my article, but I’d like to present him with a challenge. When it comes to the “flex with episema,” some scholars (such as Dom Mocquereau) believe it should be elongated. My question is simple: What evidence is there for such a conclusion? In other words, what concrete evidence shows it denoted an elongation? Please don’t say: “Because Dom Cardine says so.” I seek concrete evidence. I have my own suspicions about those signs. Briefly stated, many of them were variations without any deep significance, similar to “toward” and “towards” in English. They were also intimately bound up with signifying whether the pitch was to go higher or lower. (Indeed, I suspect many of the Romanian signs—what Notker referred to as litterae significative—were slight nuances, probably intended for individual cantors.)

My Conviction • In spite of what some have asserted, I have no animosity towards Dom Mocquereau. For more than twenty years, I sang from his editions. However, years of teaching choirs have demonstrated that—especially with a large group of singers—Mocquereau’s illicit modifications cause the chant to become fussy, plodding, and somewhat stagnant. It’s difficult for me to understand what is undesirable about singing from the Editio Vaticana as it was intended. This article has attempted to show that there is no great MYSTERY when it comes to plainsong rhythm; just follow the manuscript tradition! Furthermore, Dom Mocquereau (and his followers) were wrong to focus on just a handful of manuscripts, disregarding thousands of others. One should take into consideration the entire Gregorian repertoire.

Closing Quotation • Let us close with a quote from the PREFACE to the Editio Vaticana. This famous document is easy to find online, and the following translation can be compared to the original: 1

Therefore, when dealing with the manuscripts, one must always remember this: the fact that a manuscript might be older does not mean it must be accepted by reason of its age alone. The restoration of the Church’s song must not be based on paleography alone, but also must take into account history, the art of music (and especially chant), and experience in the laws of the sacred liturgy. Otherwise, even though it might be archaeologically correct, it might fall short in some of the other conditions, or offend against Catholic tradition by preventing certain periods from contributing to the heritage of the Church that which is good or even excellent.

1 Look for the paragraph beginning with the words: “In chirographis igitur versandis hoc primum quæ oculis est habitum…” and so forth.

Opinions by blog authors do not necessarily represent the views of Corpus Christi Watershed.

Follow the Discussion on Facebook

Filed Under: Articles, Featured Tagged With: Gregorian Rhythm Wars, Gregorian Semiology, litterae significative, Notker, Pothier De Caetero 1906, Romanian Letters, Sémiologie grégorienne Last Updated: December 6, 2022

Subscribe

It greatly helps us if you subscribe to our mailing list!

* indicates required

About Jeff Ostrowski

Jeff Ostrowski holds his B.M. in Music Theory from the University of Kansas (2004). He resides with his wife and children in Michigan. —(Read full biography).

Primary Sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

President’s Corner

    Luis Martínez Must Go!
    Sevilla Cathedral (entry dated 13 December 1564): The chapter orders Luis Martínez, a cathedral chaplain, to stay away from the choirbook-stand when the rest of the singers gather around it to sing polyphony—the reason being that “he throws the others out of tune.” [Excerpt from “The Life of Father Francisco Guerrero.”]
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    Urgent! • We Desperately Need Funds!
    A few days ago, the president of Corpus Christi Watershed posted this urgent appeal for funds. Please help us make sure we’re never forced to place our content behind a paywall. We feel it’s crucial that 100% of our content remains free to everyone. We’re a tiny 501(c)3 public charity, entirely dependent upon the generosity of small donors. We have no endowment and no major donors. We run no advertisements and have no savings. We beg you to consider donating $4.00 per month. Thank you!
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    “Booklet of Eucharistic Hymns” (16 pages)
    I was asked to create a booklet for my parish to use during our CORPUS CHRISTI PROCESSION on 22 June 2025. Would you be willing to look over the DRAFT BOOKLET (16 pages) I came up with? I tried to include a variety of hymns: some have a refrain; some are in major, others in minor; some are metered, others are plainsong; some are in Spanish, some are in Latin, but most are in English. Normally, we’d use the Brébeuf Hymnal—but we can’t risk having our congregation carry those heavy books all over the city to various churches.
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Quick Thoughts

    Pope Pius XII Hymnal?
    Have you ever heard of the Pope Pius XII Hymnal? It’s a real book, published in the United States in 1959. Here’s a sample page so you can verify with your own eyes it existed.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    “Hybrid” Chant Notation?
    Over the years, many have tried to ‘simplify’ plainsong notation. The O’Fallon Propers attempted to simplify the notation—but ended up making matters worse. Dr. Karl Weinmann tried to do the same in the time of Pope Saint Pius X by replacing each porrectus. You can examine a specimen from his edition and see whether you agree he complicated matters. In particular, look at what he did with éxsules fílii Hévae.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    Antiphons Don’t Match?
    A reader wants to know why the Entrance and Communion antiphons in certain publications deviate from what’s prescribed by the GRADUALE ROMANUM published after Vatican II. Click here to read our answer. The short answer is: the Adalbert Propers were never intended to be sung. They were intended for private Masses only (or Masses without music). The “Graduale Parvum,” published by the John Henry Newman Institute of Liturgical Music in 2023, mostly uses the Adalbert Propers—but sometimes uses the GRADUALE text: e.g. Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul (29 June).
    —Corpus Christi Watershed

Random Quote

“It is very curious, rather barbarous, much too ornate, immeasurably less dignified than ours now, anything in the world rather than archaic or primitive.”

— Fr. Fortescue describing the “Sarum Use” in 1912

Recent Posts

  • Hidden Gem: Ascendit Deus (Dalitz)
  • PDF Download • Soprano Descant — “Hail, Holy Queen Enthroned Above”
  • “Dom Jausions had a skilled hand. His transcriptions are masterpieces of neatness & precision.”
  • Pope Leo XIV pays tribute to Palestrina
  • PDF Download • Palestrina’s “Ave Maria”

Subscribe

Subscribe

* indicates required

Copyright © 2025 Corpus Christi Watershed · Isaac Jogues on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Corpus Christi Watershed is a 501(c)3 public charity dedicated to exploring and embodying as our calling the relationship of religion, culture, and the arts. This non-profit organization employs the creative media in service of theology, the Church, and Christian culture for the enrichment and enjoyment of the public.

The election of Pope Leo XIV has been exciting, and we’re filled with hope for our apostolate’s future!

But we’re under pressure to transfer our website to a “subscription model.”

We don’t want to do that. We believe our website should remain free to all.

Our president has written the following letter:

President’s Message (dated 30 May 2025)

Are you able to support us?

clock.png

Time's up