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

Corpus Christi Watershed

Pope Saint Paul VI (3 April 1969): “Although the text of the Roman Gradual—at least that which concerns the singing—has not been changed, the Entrance antiphons and Communions antiphons have been revised for Masses without singing.”

  • Donate
  • Our Team
    • Our Editorial Policy
    • Who We Are
    • How To Contact Us
    • Sainte Marie Bulletin Articles
    • Jeff’s Mom Joins Fundraiser
  • Pew Resources
    • Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal
    • Jogues Illuminated Missal
    • Repository • “Spanish Music”
    • KYRIALE • Saint Antoine Daniel
    • Campion Missal, 3rd Edition
  • 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
    • Feasts Website
  • 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 Rhythm Wars • “Patrick’s Second Response to Jeff” (16 Nov 2022)

Patrick Williams · November 16, 2022

Gregorian Rhythm Wars contains all previous installments of our series.
Please refer to our Chant Glossary for definitions of unfamiliar terms.

E ARE IN AGREEMENT that there is an official edition, with its own rhythm, which is more or less how chant was sung for many centuries, and I said so directly in part 3 of this series. Why belabor a point that hasn’t been disputed? I stated my thesis as clearly as possible at the beginning of part 2: “I will defend the position that these chants [of the Proper of the Mass] are composed with a combination of long and short notes in 2:1 proportion.” In part 8, Professor Weaver accurately summarized the essential difference in the approaches advocated by myself and Mr. Ostrowski: “Williams prefers the signs of the ninth and tenth centuries, while Ostrowski (like Pothier) takes a view that encompasses more and later sources.” To put it another way, and in practical terms: Mr. Ostrowski wants the episemata (long marks) of the Solesmes editions to be disregarded, whereas I want more long notes to be observed than are marked in those editions—and as double proportions, not slight nuances. I am interested in singing chant with the same rhythm it had at the time of the oldest extant MSS, prior to the rhythmic deterioration mentioned by the medieval writers, which Mr. Ostrowski trivializes by continuing to level the unfounded charge of belief in mass hallucination. He quoted and addressed the first two sentences of my paragraph with the heading “Unnecessary Magical Thinking” (part 2) but ignored the rest of what I wrote there. Our readers deserve to see the real issue dealt with fairly and honestly, according to the evidence.

Take Another Look! • How anyone can consider the form of the clivis (flex) at iniquitates to be identical with the two at propitiatio in 1087cluniacensem|1087, StMaur|1079, and 857noyon|1057 (here I reproduce the style of labeling used by Mr. Ostrowski) is beyond comprehension. Note that iniquitates, not observaveris, was the specific example addressed in my Facebook comment—Mr. Ostrowski’s backtracking notwithstanding. I am admittedly not as tech savvy as Mr. Ostrowski, but here is a clumsy side-by-side comparison of the clivis at iniquitates with the second one at propitiatio for each of those three MSS. Do the two neumes look identical to you?

  • Cluniacensem:
  • StMaur:
  • Noyon:

Anyone can see that none of those three MSS uses the same neume at both words. Nowhere did I claim that the second form is long in those three sources, only that the two forms are not identical, as demonstrated above.

The Long and Short of It • As for Auvergne and Limoges, I am admittedly no expert on those two MSS, but I see what appears to be a cephalicus, corresponding to a cursive clivis, at -ser- of observaveris, and also at the end of apud. At least in Limoges, the last syllable of Israel (israhel) is written with exactly the same form of the clivis as the two at propitiatio (propiciacio), with no written indication of further lengthening, yet those notes at Israel are sung long (doubled):

I bring this example up only to point out the inconsistency with which the same sign is interpreted even in pure Vatican edition equalism, and not to make a further argument, but I believe this suffices to answer question 1 (“11 November A”) from part 6. As for Chartres 47, which was destroyed in World War II, the facsimile of the MS is illegible at the beginning of iniquitatem [sic]. Let’s compare -be-/-ve- of observaberis/observaveris instead:

They are not the same! Mr. Ostrowski asked for evidence demonstrating that he’s wrong, and there it is. In fact, I already covered precisely this example in part 2, under the paragraph heading “Comparing Other Sources.” Furthermore, he evidently still has me mistaken for a disciple of Dom Cardine, which is emphatically not the position I took in part 3.

The Meaning of the Episema • In early MSS of the St. Gall family, the episema is used interchangeably with the letter t and corresponds to non-cursive writing in Laon and other sources, which is abundantly clear in the examples I posted in part 2. As Mr. Ostrowski explained in part 1, the letter t means tarditas, trahere, tenere, or tene, all of which signify lengthening (slow down, draw out, hold). Is that not evidence enough that those notes are indeed longer? Moreover, does the consistency with which long notes are marked in the oldest MSS (presented in part 2), from 300 miles apart, not point to a uniform rhythmic tradition in the tenth century? In the Solesmes editions, the significance of the episema is explained in the “Rules for Interpretation,” not the preface, but since the preface to the Vatican edition has been mentioned in parts 4, 7, 8, and Mr. Ostrowski’s previous post, I would like to note that its authorship by Wagner is not universally admitted. In Peter Jeffery’s very informative article on “The New Chantbooks from Solesmes,” he attributes the preface, including the rubrics,* to Pothier, not Wagner, in notes 39 and 103.

Backward Methodology • I have articulated my firm opinion that MSS from the second half of the eleventh century and later are, categorically, not reliable for discerning the original rhythm, and I fear we are already talking past each other with continued discussion of such sources. Does it make more sense to judge later MSS and editions in light of the oldest extant sources, or to judge the oldest sources in light of later MSS? Perhaps we can now move on from propitiatio to est. I already posed my challenge in part 2, but I reiterate it here: Show me a long note at the end of est from any MS—just not Lagal please! On what basis does the Vatican edition add a bar line after est? Does the neumatic sign there differ in any way from the one at the first syllable of quia?

Let’s Be Honest • Mr. Ostrowski seems to be developing a habit of reading unnecessary complications into things that are actually straightforward. In a recent article for another site, he cited a Church document in order to advocate a practice directly forbidden not only by that same document, but by the very paragraph he cited—namely, the singing of English hymns during High Mass in the traditional Latin rite. Now he is portraying the Pietras dubia and response as ambiguous, even though the mention of the so-called methods of Eugène Cardine and Marcel Pérès leave little doubt as to the scope of permissible (or at least tolerated) chant interpretations. Do Pérès or the semiologists sing according to the rhythm of either the pure Vatican or Solesmes editions? Emphatically not! Does Pérès even follow the notes of the Vatican edition? I’m not sure I’ve heard a single recording of his where there was not some deviation from the melody of the Vatican edition, but please correct me if such a recording exists. Now let’s look at the examples. In the interest of the brevity requested of me, I will let the comparison below speak for itself, without further comment.

*The 1908 Graduale Romanum included a rubric directing the Sanctus and Benedictus to be sung as a single movement, without separation, but only a year later, Sacred Congregation of Rites decree no. 4243 upheld the previous practice of singing the Benedictus, whether chant or polyphony, only after the Elevation of the Chalice. That decree was superseded by De musica sacra et sacra liturgia 27d (1958) and the revised rubrics printed in subsequent editions of the Graduale, both pre- and post-Conciliar, which require the Gregorian Sanctus and Benedictus to be sung without a break.

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

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Gregorian Rhythm Wars Last Updated: July 5, 2023

Subscribe

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

* indicates required

Primary Sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

President’s Corner

    New Bulletin Article • “21 September 2025”
    My pastor requested that I write short articles each week for our parish bulletin. Those responsible for preparing similar write-ups may find a bit of inspiration in these brief columns. The latest article (dated 21 September 2025) discusses some theological items—supported by certain verses in ancient Catholic hymns—and ends by explaining why certain folks become delirious with jealousy when they observe feats by Monsignor Ronald Knox.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    Cheap! Cheap! Cheap!
    It’s always amusing to see old diocesan newspapers—in huge capital letters—advertising the Cheapest Catholic Paper in the United States. The correspondent who sent this to me added: “I can think of certain composers, published by large companies in our own day, who could truthfully brag about the most tawdry compositions in the world!” I wonder what she could have meant by such a cryptic comment…
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    PDF Download • Dom Murray Harmonies
    Along with so many others, I have deep respect for Dom Gregory Gregory Murray, who produced this clever harmonization (PDF) of “O SANCTISSIMA.” It’s always amazed me that Dom Gregory—a truly inspired composer—was so confused when it came to GREGORIAN CHANT. Throughout his life, he published contradictory statements, veering back-and-forth like a weather vane. Toward the end of his life, he declared: “I see clearly that the need for reform in liturgical music arose, not in the 18th and 19th centuries, but a thousand years earlier—in the 8th and 9th centuries, or even before that. The abuses began, not with Mozart and Haydn, but with those over-enthusiastic medieval musicians who developed the elaborate and flamboyant Gregorian Chant.”
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Quick Thoughts

    Karl Keating • “Canonization Questions”
    We were sent an internet statement (screenshot) that’s garnered significant attention, in which KARL KEATING (founder of Catholic Answers) speaks about whether canonizations are infallible. Mr. Keating seems unaware that canonizations are—in the final analysis—a theological opinion. They are not infallible, as explained in this 2014 article by a priest (with a doctorate in theology) who worked for multiple popes. Mr. Keating says: “I’m unaware of such claims arising from any quarter until several recent popes disliked by these Traditionalists were canonized, including John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II. Usually Paul VI receives the most opprobrium.” Mr. Keating is incorrect; e.g. Father John Vianney, several centuries ago, taught clearly that canonizations are not infallible. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen would be another example, although clearly much more recent than Saint John Vianney.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    Vatican II Changed Wedding Propers?
    It’s often claimed that the wedding propers were changed after Vatican II. As a matter of fact, that is a false claim. The EDITIO VATICANA propers (Introit: Deus Israel) remained the same after Vatican II. However, a new set of propers (Introit: Ecce Deus) was provided for optional use. The same holds true for the feast of Pope Saint Gregory the Great on 3 September: the 1943 propers (Introit: Si díligis me) were provided for optional use, but the traditional PROPRIA MISSAE (Introit: Sacerdótes Dei) were retained; they weren’t gotten rid of. The Ordo Cantus Missae (1970) makes this crystal clear, as does the Missal itself. There was an effort made in the post-conciliar years to eliminate so-called “Neo-Gregorian” chants, but (contrary to popular belief) most were retained: cf. the feast of Christ the King, the feast of the Immaculate Conception, and so forth.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    Solemn “Salve Regina” (Chant)
    How many “S” words can you think of using alliteration? How about Schwann Solemn Salve Score? You can download the SOLEMN SALVE REGINA in Gregorian Chant. The notation follows the official rhythm (EDITIO VATICANA). Canon Jules Van Nuffel, choirmaster of the Cathedral of Saint Rumbold, composed this accompaniment for it (although some feel it isn’t his best work).
    —Corpus Christi Watershed

Random Quote

“Thus, by the celebration of a single Mass (in which he offers Jesus Christ in sacrifice), a priest gives greater honor to the Lord than if all men by dying for God offered to him the sacrifice of their lives. By a single Mass, he gives greater honor to God than all the angels and saints—along with the Blessed Virgin Mary—have given or shall give to him; for their worship cannot be of infinite value, like that which the priest celebrating on the altar offers to God.”

— Saint Alphonsus Liguori

Recent Posts

  • New Bulletin Article • “21 September 2025”
  • How do you pronounce this word in Latin?
  • Cheap! Cheap! Cheap!
  • Children’s Repertoire: “3 Recommendations”
  • PDF Download • Dom Murray Harmonies

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.