• 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 Third Response to Jeff” (19 Dec 2022)

Patrick Williams · December 19, 2022

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

LTHOUGH THE ARGUMENTS I HAVE PRESENTED may be new to most readers, you’ll find no new theories and hardly any original thought in what I’ve written, only a restatement of the rhythmic teaching of the medieval writers as presented by Vollaerts, Murray, and Van Biezen. It’s unlikely that you’ve studied any of those authors, even if you happen to be well-versed in the theories of Mocquereau, Gajard, or Cardine, and it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to pay attention to me if you don’t want to bother with Vollaerts, Murray, or Van Biezen—but at least I can try! Some people read my articles and are still confused, even after singing through the examples in modern notation, so let me state as clearly as possible the two key differences between what was handed down from the Fathers of the Church and later alterations: The original chant has strict rhythmic proportions, not merely expressive nuances, and also a steady beat.

Beginning or End? • A friend and colleague expressed reservations about my criticism of approaching chant as sung prayer rather than the proclamation of a sacred text. In my first Corpus Christi Watershed post, before the Gregorian Rhythm Wars series, I wrote about beginnings and ends. To apply some of the same ideas, I would like to propose considering prayer as the end of chant instead of the beginning. One of my favorite chant quotes comes from Dom Gajard: “Flexibility is only possible where all is exact, where every element is in its right place.” When singers have their notes, rhythm, Latin text, and vocal technique in order, they then have the freedom to make their song prayer. When they’re still stumbling and fumbling musically, the chant will be for them—and their hearers—more of a cross to bear than a means of prayer, and their artificial mental separation between prayer and performance will persist. We would rightly be shocked to hear a priest say something along the lines of “I wasn’t praying; I was celebrating Mass,” yet hardly anyone bats an eye when an ordinary layperson says, “I didn’t sing because I was praying,” even though it means that person has chosen to prioritize individual devotion, which can take place at any time and anywhere (admittedly perhaps not as fruitfully as in church), over communal vocal participation in the liturgy, which is an opportunity many Catholics have but once a week. As I wrote in that first post, “When we sing the Ordinary and Proper of the Mass, we are actually praying the liturgy on behalf of the whole Church, not merely amplifying or elaborating the prayers of the priest.” I suppose we also have the right to remain silent, but what a truly awesome opportunity so many Catholics choose to squander! In writing these lines, I don’t at all mean to minimize the importance of interior participation.

Total War • The title “Gregorian Rhythm Wars” was Jeff’s idea, not mine. I think he had in mind something quite civilized, where we would draw our swords and actually look each other in the eye, whereas I imagined blowing everything in sight to smithereens. Be that as it may, sometimes the most productive approach is simply to ask questions. My opponent has accused me of muddying the waters, while himself fixating on late sources that reveal nothing about the original rhythm. Why are we not focusing exclusively on the interpretation of the best ancient MSS? [Q#1] The barrage of later MS evidence contrasted with the oldest sources serves as proof of a rhythmic alteration by the mid-eleventh century at the latest, and he has unwittingly bolstered the arguments in favor of my position rather than his own.

Show Me! • Since Jeff has reiterated his request to see a “transitional” MS, let me repeat what I already wrote in my first response: “If Mr. Ostrowski wishes to see an intermediary semi-rhythmic manuscript ‘halfway’ between proportional and equal rhythm, then let him consult chapter 1 of Fr. Vollaerts’ Rhythmic Proportions in Early Ecclesiastical Chant for a classification of tenth- through twelfth-century manuscripts. I really have nothing to add to what has already been said there by Fr. Vollaerts.” If you’re not going to listen to Vollaerts, you’re not going to listen to me either! If, as Jeff claims, “there ought to be transitional manuscripts giving evidence of rhythmic decay,” shouldn’t there also be transitional, semi-rhythmic editions of all of the altered sixteenth-century psalm and chorale melodies? [Q#2] There are, in fact, “transitional” editions of Old Hundredth that are neither fully rhythmic nor fully isometric—the “rhythmic” version generally known to English speakers is already an alteration of the original Genevan Psalter version—but I would be curious to see such an edition of the other 124 Genevan psalm tunes, Passion Chorale (O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden), or Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott. What exactly does the existence of an extant “transitional” version of Old Hundredth prove? [Q#3] And more to the point for our current discussion, what does the absence of a similar version of Passion Chorale, Ein feste Burg, or any other tune prove (besides that we might as well keep looking)? [Q#4] And why ought there to be transitional chant manuscripts? [Q#5] Frankly, I find that to be a real whopper of a presupposition! Can Jeff furnish an example of a chant MS where only about half of the old Offertory verses are notated? [Q#6] Why or why not? [Q#7] I don’t think he can defend his absurd claims with solid evidence; otherwise, he would have already done so.

Give Us Answers! • For some of the following questions, this is now my third time of asking:

  • Is MS age important? [Q#8]
  • What are the sources for your MS dates? [Q#9]
  • Is there a scholarly consensus as to which MSS are the oldest? [Q#10]
  • Are those same MSS for the most part legible and clear in their rhythmic indications? [Q#11]
  • Is it reasonable to judge later MSS and editions in light of the oldest sources? [Q#12]
  • Is it reasonable to judge the oldest MSS in light of later or less authoritative sources? [Q#13]
  • Do the oldest MSS bear witness to elements of performance that disappeared in later centuries? [Q#14]
  • Is it reasonable to suppose that the melismatic Offertory verses and syllabic Communion psalm verses were only sung in certain monasteries in the tenth and eleventh centuries, not all across Europe? [Q#15]
  • Is it reasonable to view the general disappearance of those verses from later MSS as evidence that the chants were no longer sung as they used to be? [Q#16]
  • Is it reasonable to suppose that the tenth-century rhythmic indications were only intended to represent nuances from a particular monastery? [Q#17]
  • Is it reasonable to view the general disappearance of those rhythmic indications as evidence that the chants were no longer sung as they used to be? [Q#18]
  • How do you address the proportional rhythm doctrine of the medieval writers? [Q#19] Give us more than “We don’t know what a long time means.”
  • Why should it seem incredible that a rhythmic deterioration and equalization occurred in Gregorian chant, when we can demonstrate conclusively that exactly the same thing occurred in many Reformation-era chorale and psalm tunes? [Q#20]
  • What do you make of the isometric variants of 16th-century chorale and psalm tunes? [Q#21] Are they the result of mass hallucination, capricious publishers, or nothing more than the tendency of religious music to slow down and even out rhythmically over time? [Q#22]
  • In the introit Si iniquitates, is there evidence of a long (doubled) note at the end of est from any MS (besides Lagal)? [Q#23]
  • Why are the notes before bar lines interpreted as double the normal note value? [Q#24] What is the basis or source for that interpretation? [Q#25] Please make your own argument and don’t quote Dom Pothier.
  • Where do the morae vocis of the Vatican edition come from? [Q#26]
  • Is a clivis plus climacus followed by another clivis rhythmically identical to a virga followed by a succession of two cursive torculi? [Q#27] What is the significance of the break after the virga? [Q#28] Between the torculi? [Q#29]

Example from the Gradual Tecum principium for Christmas Midnight Mass
top: Düsseldorf MS-D-12; middle: hypothetical edition (unpublished) for comparison; bottom: Vatican edition (Schwann)

  • Likewise, is a porrectus subbipunctis plus two climaci rhythmically identical to the combination of virga, two cursive torculi, and pes subbipunctis? [Q#30] What is the significance of the break after the virga? [Q#31] After each of the torculi? [Q#32]

Example from the Gradual Eripe me for Passion Sunday
top: Düsseldorf MS-D-12; middle: hypothetical edition (unpublished) for comparison; bottom: Vatican edition

  • How would you notate your equalist rendition of the introit Si iniquitates using the Messine (Laon) and St. Gall neumes? [Q#33] Give us a triplex edition!
  • Does the Catholic Church give us objective principles to determine what constitutes a prayerful aesthetic? [Q#34] If so, are there different standards for the Latin and Eastern rites? [Q#35]
  • What is the mind of the Church today regarding chant interpretation? [Q#36]
  • If the inherent or implied rhythm of the 1908 Vatican edition is adequate, why is it not actually used in the Vatican? [Q#37] (And is there any evidence that it was ever actually used in the Vatican? [Q#38])
  • If the 1908 Vatican edition is adequate, why did Vatican II call for a “more critical edition” of the chant books? [Q#39]
  • Why had Solesmes already started working on a critical edition in the late 1940s? [Q#40]
  • What sources should serve at the basis for the more critical edition, and why? [Q#41]

Your readers deserve answers! All of my questions merit your response, but I am not going to let you off the hook for the five underlined in bold above. I have answered your questions, and you have already pussyfooted around long enough. In the new year, perhaps you would consider recording a chant from the Proper of the Mass (and why not Si iniquitates?) in proportional rhythm with an ensemble in order to demonstrate that you fully understand my position, because right now I’m not at all convinced that you do.

Rhythmic or Nonrhythmic? • Of what use to this discussion is the example from the Limoges MS, dated to approximately 1085, which is already fifteen years after Aribo said that the idea of composing and singing proportionally had “already been dead for a long time, even buried”? [Q#42] Why should we be at all surprised that it doesn’t reproduce the rhythm from a century earlier? [Q#43] Is there something mysterious here that I’m missing? [Q#44] I already expressed twice “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 that “we are already talking past each other with continued discussion of such sources.” I wish to withdraw from further analysis of those sources and allow the other contributors to have their say, as the later MSS don’t affect my arguments at all. Mont Renaud and Montpellier H. 159 are the only MSS that Jeff dates to the tenth century and also includes as specimens in his previous post—and he does not bother to present the actual Montpellier MS, only a transcription if it. In those two sources, the same form of the clivis is used at the end of Israel (iſrahel) as at the other places he highlights as examples. Following his line of argumentation to its logical conclusion and basing our interpretation only on the evidence of the MSS themselves, we would need to sing that neume as two short notes, the same as in- of iniquitates, -ve- of observaveris, -sti- of sustinebit, and pro- and -pi- of propitiatio. (If you want to discuss unnoted performance practice, we can do that later, but please stick to the MSS themselves for now.) As I said in my first response, “A good initial test of the rhythmic reliability of a given manuscript is whether or not it differentiates between short and long forms of the clivis and pes.” What does the long form of the clivis actually look like in Mont Renaud? [Q#45] What does the long form of the clivis actually look like in Montpellier H. 159? [Q#46] Are you willing to answer these questions, [Q#47] or shall we declare a ceasefire just in time for Christmas? [Q#48] And have I been obnoxious enough yet?? [Q#49] Despite his continued insistence that he has proved something by his example in part 1, I already refuted Jeff’s misreading of Chartres 47 in my first and second responses and don’t need to repeat myself here.

Interchangeable Markings • Although this post is written primarily in response to Jeff Ostrowski, I do wish to say a few words in reply to Charles Weaver’s latest post, in which he labels the assertion of “equivalence of the various signs that affect the rhythm: the episema, the Romanian letters, the non-cursive forms, the neumatic break, and the various combinations of these things that occur in the manuscripts” as an “interpretive leap.” In Si iniquitates, Bamberg 6 writes the letter t at -sti- of sustinebit, above a cursive clivis. In E, the episema is used there instead, and in L and Chartres, a non-cursive neume is written. I have no idea why the Bamberg scribe chose to add a t there instead of an episema. Among the oldest St. Gall MSS, that is the only t I see for the chant in question. As for the neumatic break, there is one after the first note of sustinebit in L, which I discussed in my first response, and in both L and E at -a- of ­propitiatio, at est, and after the first note of -us. I have already given my interpretation of this chant, so I encourage the reader to draw conclusions from comparing the oldest sources. If the note before the neumatic break is already written long, does the break make it even longer? Does answering no really require much of a leap? My statement, “We now have a much better understanding of how our chants were originally conceived than anyone had 110 years ago,” was an acknowledgement of all of the scholarship in the intervening years, not only what has come from (or reinforced) a proportionalist or mensuralist perspective. Other participants in this conversation might downplay the contributions of Mocquereau, Gajard, Cardine, Agustoni, or Göschl, but it is not by any means my intention to do so. We still have a long way to go, however, when people who have studied chant for decades, even at a postgraduate level, have zero familiarity with the interpretation of Vollaerts, Murray, and Van Biezen, possibly having avoided it because the aforementioned Mocquereau et al., associated with either the Solesmes method or semiology, said that mensuralism was wrong.

Disclaimer • For the record, I reject the claim that the authentic traditional rhythm was lost or abandoned “around 950.” In my previous post, I said that “a change from proportional to equal rhythm is evident, which is known to have taken place during the eleventh century.” Cantus planus was the result of that rhythmic degeneration. Therefore, I also reject the claim that “plainsong was sung—broadly speaking—the same way from roughly 975AD to 1550AD.” Tell us, approximately what year—or century—does the first known use of the term cantus planus come from? [Q#50] My dear Mr. Ostrowski, kindly get the facts straight and quit putting words in my mouth!

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 23, 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 • “12 October 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 12 October 2025) talks about an ‘irony’ or ‘paradox’ regarding the 1960s switch to a wider use (amplior locus) of vernacular in the liturgy.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    “Reminder” — Month of October (2025)
    Those who don’t sign up for our free EMAIL NEWSLETTER miss important notifications. Last week, for example, I sent a message about this job opening for a music director paying $65,000 per year plus benefits (plus weddings & funerals). Notice the job description says: “our vision for sacred music is to move from singing at Mass to truly singing the Mass wherein … especially the propers, ordinaries, and dialogues are given their proper place.” Signing up couldn’t be easier: simply scroll to the bottom of any blog article and enter your email address.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    “Music List” • 27th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
    Readers have expressed interest in perusing the ORDER OF MUSIC I’ve prepared for 5 October 2025, which is the 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time (Year C). If such a thing interests you, feel free to download it as a PDF file. As always, the Responsorial Psalm, Gospel Acclamation, and Mass Propers for this Sunday are conveniently stored at the spectacular feasts website alongside the official texts in Latin. Readers will want to check out the ENTRANCE CHANT posted there, which has a haunting melody (in the DEUTERUS MODE) and extremely powerful text.
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Quick Thoughts

    “American Catholic Hymnal” (1991)
    The American Catholic Hymnal, with IMPRIMATUR granted (25 April 1991) by the Archdiocese of Chicago, is like a compendium of every horrible idea from the 1980s. Imagine being forced to stand all through Communion (even afterwards) when those self-same ‘enlightened’ liturgists moved the SEQUENCE before the Alleluia to make sure congregations wouldn’t have to stand during it. (Even worse, everything about the SEQUENCE—including its name—means it should follow the Alleluia.) And imagine endlessly repeating “Alleluia” during Holy Communion at every single Mass. It was all part of an effort to convince people that Holy Communion was historically a procession (which it wasn’t).
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    “Canonic” • Ralph Vaughan Williams
    Fifty years ago, Dr. Theodore Marier made available this clever arrangement (PDF) of “Come down, O love divine” by P. R. Dietterich. The melody was composed in 1906 by Ralph Vaughan Williams (d. 1958) and named in honor of of his birthplace: DOWN AMPNEY. The arrangement isn’t a strict canon, but it does remind one of a canon since the pipe organ employs “points of imitation.” The melody and text are #709 in the Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    Did they simplify these hymn harmonies?
    Choirs love to sing the famous & splendid tune called “INNSBRUCK.” Looking through a (Roman Catholic) German hymnal printed in 1952, I discovered what appears to be a simplified version of that hymn. In other words, their harmonization is much less complex than the version found in the Saint Jean de Brébeuf Hymnal (which is suitable for singing by SATB choir). Please download their 1952 harmonization (PDF) and let me know your thoughts. I really like the groovy Germanic INTRODUCTION they added.
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Random Quote

“I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant.”

— Statement by the Supreme Pontiff (Sacramentum Caritatis, 22-feb-2007)

Recent Posts

  • “Three Reasons To Shun Bad Hymns” • Daniel B. Marshall
  • “Puzzling Comment” • By A Respected FSSP Priest
  • New Bulletin Article • “12 October 2025”
  • “Reminder” — Month of October (2025)
  • “American Catholic Hymnal” (1991)

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.