Gregorian Rhythm Wars contains all previous installments of our series.
ROWING UP DURING the 1990s, my siblings would sometimes play a game called CLUE. To win this game, one player would stand up and say something like: “I accuse Colonel Mustard in the library with the lead pipe.” My dear Mr. Williams, today I have the solemn duty of accusing you! I accuse you of muddying the waters by broaching way too many topics, instead of—with restraint—responding meticulously to the specific issues in a straightforward way. (Needless to say, readers will judge the veracity of my accusation.) The saintly Father Valentine Young gently criticized newly-ordained priests: “When they get up to preach, they feel like they have to recite everything they’ve ever learned.” I urge you not to succumb to the same temptation! Let us proceed slowly. The readers will appreciate that.
Some Good News • It may not seem like it, but we’ve made some progress. I have assembled a list—albeit a short one—indicating items we agree upon. Because we already agree on those, we no longer need to argue about them. Whenever I notice more items, I’ll add them to the list. I refuse to pursue the numerous rabbit holes you’ve broached, because doing so would ruin our series. For instance, on 30 November 2022 you made a statement (“for the traditional Latin Mass […] chant renditions in the style of Eugène Cardine or Marcel Pérès are acceptable”) and explicitly said your statement is “a fact, not an opinion.” I could demonstrate your statement is erroneous; indeed, several reasons are provided here. But all those rabbit holes will have to wait.
The Point of My Article Today • I promised that—whenever feasible—I would respond to your specific charges. In your recent article, you attempted to show that I made erroneous statements. As a matter of fact, my assertions were were right on the money. Today, I will conclusively prove this, so we can advance to what you promised. Remember, you promised to give evidence showing I “misread” (your word) elongations in the famous 47CHARTRES|957 manuscript. [To jog your memory, click here and scroll down to the paragraph called “11 November B.”]
Setting the Stage • We both agree that plainsong was sung—broadly speaking—the same way for many centuries: let’s say (roughly) from 975AD to 1550AD and from 1880AD until Vatican II. At this point, I am neither admitting nor denying that plainsong was sung “with longs and shorts” before 975AD. For the sake of argument, let’s just assume your view is correct. Below, I painstakingly demonstrate that virtually all the manuscript evidence contradicts this, yet those same manuscripts (somehow?) managed to transmit the pitches with astounding accuracy. Even more importantly, the scribes never betray the ‘true’ rhythm—even by accident! Needless to say, the handful of manuscripts which I have labelled lightheartedly as “MOC’S FANTASTIC FOUR” are exceptions. Those are the group of manuscripts generally thought to be slightly older than the rest. Dom Mocquereau and you, Mr. Williams, share a special predilection for these manuscripts. Indeed, in your view, all the other manuscripts are utterly worthless when it comes to rhythm. You look upon these thousands of manuscripts in much the same way that I view the plainsong editions of Guillaume-Gabriel Nivers.
“Specimen” Reminder • In my inaugural article, I declared that my “specimen” was going to be the INTROIT for the 22nd Sunday after Pentecost [Ordinary Form: 28th Sunday in Ordinary Time]. Dom Mocquereau claims we obtain the “truly traditional reading” if we contradict the official edition by adding episemata shown in the following graphic:
Mr. Patrick Mocquereau? • By choosing this specimen, my dear Mr. Patrick Williams, I was not claiming that you embrace, adopt, or endorse everything Dom Mocquereau says. I readily acknowledge that you don’t (although you do cite him as an expert). The reality is, for 100+ years people have been told that adding Mocquereau’s signs makes the chant “more authentic.” You realize how pervasive the editions of Dom Mocquereau are, Mr. Williams. More importantly, you—like Dom Mocquereau—subscribe to the general theory or belief that the ‘true’ rhythm of plainsong was “lost” or “abandoned” or “forgotten” or “discarded” sometime around 950AD. Therefore, the specimen I chose strikes me as eminently fair to discuss—and you have done precisely that in subsequent articles … so don’t stop now!
We Need Evidence! • As I explained in my inaugural article, it’s difficult to accept the assertion that plainsong’s ‘true’ rhythm was somehow forgotten. Firstly, there’s too much contradiction between the so-called “rhythmic” manuscripts. Secondly, contemporaneous musicians would have made reference to this supposed abandonment of the ‘true’ rhythm—and we have virtually no examples of that. [The quote attributed to ARIBO circa 1070AD hardly settles the question since it’s quite vague and never defines what “a long time” means.] Thirdly, if there truly was an enormous “rhythmic decay”—using Dom Gregory Murray’s term—of the ‘true’ tradition, there ought to be transitional manuscripts giving evidence of such a decay. Finally, it’s extremely difficult to accept the notion that thousands of later MSS transmitted the plainsong pitches with superb accuracy, yet completely wrecked the plainsong rhythm. It’s even harder to accept the assertion that all the diastematic notation “pristinely wrecked” the rhythm—that is to say, not once (!) ever wrecking the rhythm in such a way that the ‘true’ rhythm was betrayed, revealed, or hinted at … even by accident.
Jeff’s Evidence:
I have stated that—without a doubt—we can be certain the 30+ manuscripts I meticulously cited contradict Dom Mocquereau’s elongations because of internal evidence. In other words, one simply has to compare “apples-to-apples” (like observáveris or iniquitátes) and the truth is easily discerned. To my genuine surprise, Mr. Williams, you challenged this notion! Therefore, I will conclude my article by giving examples from the manuscripts themselves. If I had time, I would add all 30+ manuscripts. But I don’t have time for that—so what I’ve included (below) will have to suffice. I assure you, I could easily add another 40 examples to the below.
1085AD Manuscript • When we examine our specimen as shown in 1132Limoges|1085, a manuscript created (perhaps) circa 1085AD, we see that it contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations:
If there really was a ‘true’ rhythm, how come these (allegedly) “sloppy” and “capricious” scribes never betray such a thing unwittingly?
1020AD Manuscript • When we examine GradualDenis|1020, which was created (perhaps) circa 1020AD, we see that it contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations:
If there really was a ‘true’ rhythm, how come these (allegedly) “sloppy” and “capricious” scribes never betray such a thing accidentally?
1031AD Manuscript • When we examine 75cambrai|1031, which was created (perhaps) circa 1031AD, we see that it contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations:
If there really was a ‘true’ rhythm, how come these (allegedly) “sloppy” and “capricious” scribes never betray such a thing inadvertently?
965AD Manuscript • When we examine Renaud|965, which was created (perhaps) circa 965AD, we see that it contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations:
If there really was a ‘true’ rhythm, how come these (allegedly) “sloppy” and “capricious” scribes never betray such a thing on accident?
1039AD Manuscript • When we examine 339sanGall|1039, which was created (perhaps) circa 1039AD, we see that it contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations:
1057AD Manuscript • When we examine 857noyon|1057, which was created (perhaps) circa 1057AD, we see that it contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations:
1087AD Manuscript • When we examine 1087cluniacensem|1087, which was created (perhaps) circa 1087AD, we see that it contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations:
1079AD Manuscript • When we examine StMaur|1079, which was created (perhaps) circa 1079AD, we see that it contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations:
1023AD Manuscript • When we examine 123angelica|1023, which was created (perhaps) circa 1023AD, we see that it contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations:
1077AD Manuscript • When we examine 18010corbie|1077, which was created (perhaps) circa 1077AD, we see that it contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations:
1047AD Manuscript • When we examine Albi|1047, which was created (perhaps) circa 1047AD, we see that it contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations:
1040AD Manuscript • When we examine Yrieix|1040, which was created (perhaps) circa 1040AD, we see that it contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations:
1066AD Manuscript • When we examine 1066nimes|1066, which was created (perhaps) circa 1066AD, we see that it contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations:
989AD Manuscript • When we examine Montpellier H. 159, which was created (perhaps) circa 989AD, we see that it contradicts Mocquereau’s elongations:
We recall that Montpellier H. 159 is a very special witness, because it is a “bi-lingual” manuscript, meaning there is absolutely no doubt about each pitch—in spite of the fact that it comes from a (generally speaking) adiastematic period.
