• 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

Sneaky “Salicus” Statements by Solesmes

Jeff Ostrowski · March 18, 2023

HE WORLD-FAMOUS 1961 edition of the LIBER USUALIS—having first reproduced the PREFACE of the official edition—makes this statement: “The place of honour in this Solesmes Edition of the Vatican Official text is given to the Vatican Preface. Its wise counsels and general Principles of interpretation are embodied, elucidated, and enlarged upon in the RULES given further on.” It gives me no pleasure to say it—and makes me rather uncomfortable—but this is a deceptive statement.

Deceptive Statement • Their rules do not “embody, elucidate, and enlarge upon” the Editio Vaticana rules. Rather, the monks of Solesmes obfuscate and contradict the Editio Vaticana rules. Let us consider the SALICUS. According to the official edition, the SALICUS is distinguished from the SCANDICUS by a (very narrow) blank space after the first note. The following is taken from the official edition:

Please note: It’s almost impossible to recognize a SALICUS in editions which are printed in tiny fonts. On the other hand, the SALICUS is incredibly rare the official edition.

At first, Dom Mocquereau adopted this “blank space” to differentiate the SALICUS from the SCANDICUS. Here is what Dom Mocquereau wrote in December of 1905, when they first released the “Solesmes version” of the Editio Vaticana KYRIALE:

The English version by Dom Mocquereau—which also appeared in December of 1905—says:

Observe the difference in the old notation between the SALICUS and the SCANDICUS. The first note of the SALICUS is separated from the next note, which means that the ictus is on the second note, not on the first, as in the SCANDICUS.
Prior André Mocquereau (December 1905)

To banish all doubt, Dom Mocquereau added a little note right before he signed his PREFACE:

N.B. Blank spaces in this edition never indicate morae vocis, but only the separation of groups, except the space after the first note of a SALICUS, whereby it is distinguished from the SCANDICUS.
Prior André Mocquereau (December 1905)

Deception Enters In • However, the Solesmes monks got in trouble with the Vatican for modifying the official edition. In an attempt to get in less trouble, Dom Mocquereau decided to ‘detach’ his rhythmical signs from the notes. But this caused a crisis when it came to the SALICUS, so Dom Mocquereau decided that—as far as he was concerned—the SALICUS would henceforth be differentiated by a vertical episema (“tick mark”). The 1961 LIBER USUALIS suggests that Dom Mocquereau would have preferred to use a horizontal episema—but that proved “too difficult to write,” as they explain in the introduction:

But Wait … There’s More! • Are you confused yet? Even more deception enters in. When the Solesmes monks printed their “rules” in 1921, they pretended there was extra “blank space” in the example they gave. In other words, they pretend like they are merely clarifying what is already a SALICUS in the official edition.

What they are doing is introducing a SALICUS where none exists. Indeed, they do this hundreds of times. The SALICUS is extremely rare in the official edition, but one would never know that if one uses Dom Mocquereau’s editions:

A Bizarre Aberration • We have seen how the 1961 LIBER USUALIS (most likely written by Dom Gajard) claimed that Dom Mocquereau would have preferred to have a horizontal episema for the SALICUS “but it was too difficult to write.” If one looks at the 2 February ALLELUIA, one will see this statement contradicted:

*  PDF Download • ALLELUIA (2 February)

Specifically, one sees horizontal episemata which constitute an anomaly:

I have often remarked that the Abbey of Solesmes never changed any of the ICTUS markings that Dom Mocquereau added in 1908, even in their most recent ICTUS publications (such as the 2014 Gregorian Missal). But if one examines that 2 February ALLELUIA, one notices that later on they added several instances of the SALICUS which Dom Mocquereau had not.

Patrick’s Assertion • In a recent article, my colleague Patrick Williams made the following assertion about your humble correspondent:

Below are the precise words of the document issued under Pope Pius XII (3 September 1958):

The signs, called rhythmica, which have been privately introduced into Gregorian chant, are permitted, provided that the force and meaning of the notes found in the Vatican books of liturgical chant are preserved.

Clear As Day • Is there anyone who would be willing to claim (publicly) that Dom Mocquereau’s modifications “preserve the force and meaning” of the notes of the official edition? Can this be maintained, for example, when it comes to the billions of illicit elongations in the February 2nd ALLELUIA we examined above? Oh, surely not!

To put it another way, making every other note twice as long (or three times as long) is clearly not preserving the “force and meaning” of the notes. Notes have a meaning. Were that not so, somebody could publish an edition like this:

Such an edition would certainly reproduce correctly the pitch of each note; but it would not have been viewed as “preserving the the force and meaning” of the notes of the official edition.

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

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: 1962 Liber Usualis Solesmes, blank space salicus scandicus, Gregorian Rhythm Wars, horizontal episema, vertical episema Last Updated: March 19, 2023

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

    Why A “Fugue” Here?
    I believe I know why this plainsong harmonizer created a tiny fugue as the INTRODUCTION to his accompaniment. Take a look (PDF) and tell me your thoughts about what he did on the feast of the Flight of Our Lord Jesus Christ into Egypt (17 February). And now I must go because “tempus fugit” as they say!
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    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

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

Had the Church never spoken on this matter, it would still be repugnant to our Catholic people’s sense of what is fit and proper in the holiest of places, that a priest should have to struggle through the prayers of the Holy Mass, because of such tunes as “Alice, where art thou?” the “Vacant Chair,” and others of more vulgar title, which, through the carelessness or bad judgment of organists, sometimes find their way into our choirs.

— Preface to a Roman Catholic Hymnal (1896)

Recent Posts

  • The Real Miracle of Gregorian Chant
  • Why A “Fugue” Here?
  • “Three Reasons To Shun Bad Hymns” • Daniel B. Marshall
  • “Puzzling Comment” • By A Respected FSSP Priest
  • New Bulletin Article • “12 October 2025”

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.