• 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
    • 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

“Solesmes Method” • Where was it developed?

Jeff Ostrowski · January 5, 2023

ENERALLY SPEAKING, when people make reference to the Solesmes Method they mean the method of rhythm developed by Dom André Mocquereau (d. 1930), who served as PRIOR—from 12 April 1902 until 18 June 1908—of Saint Peter’s Abbey, near the town of Solesmes. This method, heavily promoted by the LIBER USUALIS, is also known as the Classical Solesmes Method. Strictly speaking, the “OLD SOLESMES METHOD” is the method promoted by Dom Pothier, a.k.a. “ORATORICAL RHYTHM.” According to Dom Lucien David, secretary to the Editio Vaticana editor, both methods are expressions of the Benedictine Method of Rhythm. You can see for yourself by reading Dom David’s famous letter:

*  PDF Download • LETTER (20 December 1906)
—Dom David’s response to Caspar P. Koch’s Letter (11 October 1906).

Nuns Next Door • The Abbey of Sainte-Cécile is a group of Benedictine nuns just a few hundred yards away from Saint Peter’s Abbey. Dom Mocquereau’s sister, who served as organist there, had been a cloistered nun at the Abbey of Sainte-Cécile since 1873. The Abbey of Sainte-Cécile had been founded in 1866 by Dom Guéranger and Cécile Bruyère. Later on, the nuns would be exiled to England. Indeed, that’s the origin of Saint Cecilia’s Benedictine Abbey in Ryde, on the Isle of Wight (England).

When Mocquereau Arrived • When André Mocquereau entered the novitiate on 22 July 1875, Abbat Prosper Guéranger was no longer there. [Dom Guéranger had died on 30 January 1875.] By that time, Dom Pothier’s LIBER GRADUALIS had already been finished for 6 years, since it was completed in 1868—four years after the end of the American Civil War!—although it was not published until 1883.

When Pothier Left • In April 1893, Dom Pothier took leave of the (banished) Solesmes community to become Prior of Ligugé Abbey, which had become the “first foundation” (daughter house?) of the Solesmes congregation in 1853. Dom Pothier had served as SUB-PRIOR of the Abbey of Solesmes from 1862–1863 and from 1866–1893. Then he was appointed superior of Saint Martin’s Abbey in Ligugé. Finally, in 1898, Pothier became Abbat of Saint Wandrille in Normandy (a monastery founded in 649AD, which Pothier had revived in 1895). With regard to a particular quote—“Solesmes had rid themselves of Pothier by giving him an abbey”—please see this article. On 9 April 1885, Dom Mocquereau had called Dom Pothier “one of the glories of Solesmes.” Father Ralph March (d. 2016) wrote: “If any single man could deserve the title father of the renewed chant it would be Dom Joseph Pothier.” Dom Ildephonse Guépin, Abbat of Silos, said of Dom Pothier: “Here is a man who, in his modesty, is the author of the happiest and most lasting revolution that has occurred in the Church.”

First Exile (15 years) • Dom Pothier produced his wonderful publications while the Solesmes monastery was banished and exiled for fifteen years due to the French government’s anti-clerical persecution. Although the monks were “exiled” they were allowed to live in the town of Solesmes “scattered in various houses throughout the village.” They were eventually permitted to assemble in the Abbey of Sainte-Cécile to sing their daily offices. Here’s how Dom Combe describes it:

“The year 1880—when Dom Pothier’s Les mélodies grégoriennes, d’après la tradition was published—was marked by the forced physical expulsion of the monks from their Abbey, on 8 November 1880. This expulsion was to last fifteen years, with the exception of a few months when the monks believed that they could return to their home. They were evicted once again in March 1882, and could not return this time until 1895. At first, the expelled monks were divided into various groups, forming a number of small monasteries in the town of Solesmes and vicinity. Dom Mocquereau was among those who took refuge in Chesnaies, in the Mayenne region. There, they lived at the home of the Due de Chaulnes, where the students were gathered. [Although a priest, Dom Mocquereau had not completed his theology studies in keeping with the usual course followed in the Congregation.] The Abbey’s presses had been brought to Chesnaies, whence the Imprimerie Saint-Pierre (the monastery press), which was to render such great service in spreading traditional Gregorian chant, would soon be transferred to Solesmes itself. In June 1881, the students returned to Solesmes. They resided at La Rose, the monastery’s hostelry, since only the conventual buildings, strictly speaking, were off limits to their rightful owners. Little by little, nearly the entire community had gathered in Solesmes, albeit scattered in various houses in the village. The entire community congregated in various places at various times: all the monks gathered at the parish church or at Sainte-Cécile for the Offices, for meals at the common refectory (although not right away) in an outbuilding of the monastery, and for Chapter in the attic of the Presbytery.”

They were allowed to return to their monastery on 25 August 1895. Again, their exile meant the Solesmes monks were “at the very doors of the Abbey.” It’s difficult to imagine how exactly a monastery could function in such circumstances. It’s also difficult to understand why the French government allowed them to sing their office in the Abbey of Sainte-Cécile, yet they were forbidden from doing the same thing in their monastery, located a few hundred yards away.

Writing in May of 1943, Dom Gregory Hügle explained the matter as follows:

Solesmes [Abbey] had been dissolved by the French Govemment no less than four times. In 1880, 1882, and 1883 the monks were ejected by force but, receiving hospitality in the neighborhood, succeeded each time in re-entermg their abbey. At the final expulsion in 1903 they were, like all other religious of France, obliged to leave the country.

Second Exile (20 years) • The French “laws on associations” meant another exile for the monks of Solesmes, this time for 20 years. In August of 1901 they left France for England. Specifically, they went to Appuldurcombe, on the Isle of Wight. [The Divine Office was last celebrated at Saint Peter’s Abbey on 20 September 1901.] In 1908, the monks of Solesmes took up residence at QUARR ABBEY (also on the Isle of Wight). Dom Paul Bellot had built a monastery and a magnificent church there. From what I can tell, the monks returned to France in 1922.

My Question • My question is rather simple. During the years 1875-1922, Dom Mocquereau was a monk of Solesmes. [I’m not considering here the eight years before his death, when he was elderly.] During those forty-seven (47) years, Dom Mocquereau was exiled for thirty-five (35) years! Where, therefore, was the CLASSICAL SOLESMES METHOD developed? Having used the Mocquereau’s method for 25 years, I have discovered that much of it doesn’t work very well in the real world. Could this be due to the fact that Dom Mocquereau had a very limited time to test his theories? Indeed, Dom Mocquereau’s rhythmic editions seem to have appeared, broadly speaking, between 1897 and 1902. By that time, how long had he been singing in a non-exiled community? Unless my math is flawed, only two (2) years! I suppose some would also count the years between 1875 and 1880 … but even still, this point strikes me as not insignificant.

* This article includes excerpts from: HISTOIRE DE LA RESTAURATION DU CHANT GRÉGORIEN D’APRES DES DOCUMENTS INEDITES: SOLESMES ET L’EDITION VATICANE published in 1969 by Dom Pierre Combe of Solesmes Abbey. The Catholic University Press published an English edition in 2003, translated by Dr. Theodore Marier and finished by a former student of his (since Dr. Marier had died before the work could be completed). Someone very close to Dr. Marier told me that he found the work of translation tedious, and would exclaim: “Well, I guess I’d better go subtract a few years off Purgatory by translating Combe!” The 2003 version is called: “The Restoration of Gregorian Chant: Solesmes and the Vatican Edition.” Broadly speaking, the 1969 book by Dom Combe is a collection of journal articles. Many of the Italian sections in the 2003 version were translated by Monsignor Robert Skeris.

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

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Abbat Joseph Pothier, Classical Solesmes Method, Dom Guéranger, Dom Mocquereau, French Anti-Clerical Law of Associations, Mocquereau Rhythmic Signs, Old Solesmes Method, Oratorical Rhythm Solesmes, Solesmes Abbey Exiled, Solesmes Method Last Updated: October 9, 2024

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

    PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
    EARS BEFORE truly revolutionary changes were introduced by the post-conciliar reformers, Evelyn Waugh wrote (on 16 August 1964) to John Cardinal Heenan: “I think that a vociferous minority has imposed itself on the hierarchy and made them believe that a popular demand existed where there was in fact not even a preference.” We ask the kind reader— indeed, we beg you—to realize that those of us born in the 1940s and 1950s had no cognizance of Roman activities during the 1960s and 1970s. We were concerned with making sure we had the day’s bus fare, graduating from high school, taking care of our siblings, learning a trade, getting a job, courting a spouse. We questioned neither the nuns nor the Church.1 Do not believe for one instant any of us were following the liturgical machinations of Cardinal Lercaro or Father Bugnini in real time. Setting The Stage • To never question or resist Church authorities is praiseworthy. On the other hand, when a scandalous situation persists for decades, it must be brought into focus. Our series will do precisely that as we discuss the Lectionary Scandal from a variety of angles. We don’t do this to attack the Catholic Church. Our goal is bringing to light what’s been going on, so it can be fixed once and for all. Our subject is extremely knotty and difficult to navigate. Its complexity helps explain why the situation has persisted for such a long time.2 But if we immediately get “into the weeds” we’ll lose our audience. Therefore, it seems better to jump right in. So today, we’ll explore the legality of selling these texts. A Word On Copyright • Suppose Susie modifies a paragraph by Edgar Allan Poe. That doesn’t mean ipso facto she can assert copyright on it. If Susie takes a picture of a Corvette and uses Photoshop to color the tires blue, that doesn’t mean she henceforth “owns” all Corvettes in America. But when it comes to Responsorial Psalm translations, certain parties have been asserting copyright over them, selling them for a profit, and bullying publishers vis-à-vis hymnals and missals. Increasingly, Catholics are asking whether these translations are truly under copyright—because they are identical (or substantially identical) to other translations.3 Example After Example • Our series will provide copious examples supporting our claims. Sometimes we’ll rely on the readership for assistance, because—as we’ve stressed—our subject’s history couldn’t be more convoluted. There are countless manuscripts (in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin) we don’t have access to, so it would be foolish for us to claim that our observations are somehow the ‘final word’ on anything. Nevertheless, we demand accountability. Catholics in the pews are the ones who paid for all this. We demand to know who specifically made these decisions (which impact every English-speaking Catholic) and why specifically certain decisions were made. The Responsorial Psalms used in America are—broadly speaking—stolen from the hard work of others. In particular, they borrowed heavily from Father Cuthbert Lattey’s 1939 PSALTER TRANSLATION:
    *  PDF Download • COMPARISON CHART —We thank the CCW staff for technical assistance with this graph.
    Analysis • Although certain parties have been selling (!!!) that translation for decades, the chart demonstrates it’s not a candidate for copyright since it “borrows” or “steals” or “rearranges” so much material from other translations, especially the 1939 translation by Father Cuthbert Lattey. What this means in layman’s terms is that individuals have been selling a translation under false pretenses, a translation they don’t own (although they claim to). To make RESTITUTION, all that money will have to be returned. A few years ago, the head of ICEL gave a public speech in which he said they give some of “their” profits to the poor. While almsgiving is a good thing, it cannot justify theft. Our Constant Theme • Our series will be held together by one thread, which will be repeated constantly: “Who was responsible?” Since 1970, the conduct of those who made a profit by selling these sacred texts has been repugnant. Favoritism was shown toward certain entities—and we will document that with written proof. It is absolutely essential going forward that the faithful be told who is making these decisions. Moreover, vague justifications can no longer be accepted. If we’re told they are “making the translations better,” we must demand to know what specifically they’re doing and what specific criteria they’re following. Stay Tuned • If you’re wondering whether we’ll address the forthcoming (allegedly) Lectionary and the so-called ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES, have no fear. We’ll have much to say about both. Please stay tuned. We believe this will end up being the longest series of articles ever submitted to Corpus Christi Watershed. To be continued. ROBERT O’NEILL Former associate of Monsignor Francis “Frank” P. Schmitt at Boys Town in Nebraska JAMES ARNOLD Formerly associated w/ King’s College, Cambridge A convert to the Catholic Church, and distant relative of J. H. Arnold MARIA B. Currently serves as a musician in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte. Those aware of the situation in her diocese won’t be surprised she chose to withhold her last name.
    1 Even if we’d been able to obtain Roman journals such as NOTITIAE, none of them contained English translations. But such an idea would never have occurred to a high school student or a college student growing up in the 1960s. 2 A number of shell corporations claim to own the various biblical translations mandated for Roman Catholics. They’ve made millions of dollars selling (!) these indulgenced texts. If time permits, we hope to enumerate these various shell corporations and explain: which texts they claim to own; how much they bring in each year; who runs them; and so forth. It would also be good to explore the morality of selling these indulgenced texts for a profit. Furthermore, for the last fifty years these organizations have employed several tactics to manipulate and bully others. If time permits, we will expose those tactics (including written examples). Some of us—who have been working on this problem for three decades—have amassed written documentation we’ll be sharing that demonstrates behavior at best “shady” and at worst criminal. 3 Again, we are not yet examining the morality of selling (!) indulgenced texts to Catholics mandated to use those same translations.
    —Guest Author
    “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
    Some have expressed interest in perusing the ORDER OF MUSIC I prepared for the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time (27 July 2025). 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 the feasts website.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
    All of the chants for 27 July 2025 have been added to the feasts website, as usual under a convenient “drop down” menu. The COMMUNION ANTIPHON (both text and melody) are exceedingly beautiful and ancient.
    —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

“The Jesuits have spoiled the work of Christian antiquity, under pretext of restoring the hymns in accordance with the laws of metre and elegant language.”

— M. Ulysse Chevalier (1891)

Recent Posts

  • PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
  • “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
  • Flor Peeters In A Weird Mood?
  • Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
  • Jeff’s Mother Joins Our Fundraiser

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