ISCONCERTING. Dr. Katharine Ellis—professor of musicology at Cambridge University in England—uses the word “disconcerting” to describe the argument I’ve been putting forth in terms of Dom Mocquereau’s illicit befouling of the Church’s official edition of Gregorian Chant. The way I’ve described matters is: Dom Mocquereau takes into account the complete plainsong repertoire when it comes to pitches, but only a handful of manuscripts when it comes to rhythm. I have described this minuscule portion of manuscripts—for which he has a predilection—as “MOC’S FANTASTIC FOUR.” In other words, I’ve pointed out how Dom Mocquereau, looking over the entire collection of ancient Gregorian manuscripts, unabashedly declared almost every single one of them to be ‘garbage’ from the standpoint of rhythm (although he valued those same manuscripts highly vis-à-vis the pitches).
Snazzy Words • Describing this phenomenon, Dr. Katharine Ellis uses fancier words on page 112 of her book (The Politics of Plainchant in fin-de-siècle France, 2013). If you’re somebody who likes grandiloquence, you will prefer her description to mine. But the argument she’s putting forth is very similar to mine:
The scientific drive for statistical proof that characterizes Mocquereau’s work on pitch contour is replaced, in his work on rhythm and interpretation, by extrapolation from a minute body of comparative evidence and the making of creative leaps in its analysis. Dom Mocquereau provides no equivalent, for rhythm, of the huge body of raw data used in the Paléographie musicale to demonstrate Gregorian melodic unity via Justus ut palma. He cannot. Instead he does the opposite: he elaborates an aesthetically based theory of interpretation which he presents—distilled via carefully selected examples—as both general and normative.
I warned you that Dr. Ellis uses snazzier words than I do!
Numerous Reasons • Some have claimed that I embrace the official edition “because it comes from authority.” I suppose that’s one reason, but there are many! For instance, it just makes sense to sing an edition the way it was intended to be sung by those who created it. Moreover, I believe the illicit elongations by Dom Mocquereau destroy the melodic line (often fatally) and tend to make plainsong fussy and plodding. Furthermore, having examined the ancient manuscripts for more than twenty years, I haven’t been able to find any evidence supporting the rhythmic claims of Dom Mocquereau—or, for that matter, his disciple, Dom Eugène Cardine.1
Does It Matter? • Does any of this matter? Readers must decide for themselves. I invite you to consider the first antiphon for CHRISTMAS VESPERS:
* PDF Download • COMPARISON CHART
—Dom Mocquereau Vs. the Official Edition.
Looking at that chart, is there anything more to be said?
Famous Musicologist • A famous plainchant scholar approached me after one of our Christmas Masses last week. (This person is a university professor I’ve been following since the 1990s.) Coming forward, he shook my hand and said: “I want to thank you for supporting the official edition.”
1 I remain open to being convinced, if any readers are willing to point out such evidence.
