ULTON J. SHEEN was once instructing a convert. The time arrived to speak about the Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Bishop Sheen said: “When I’m finished explaining the Trinity, you won’t understand it. It’s a mystery.” After about 45 minutes, the lesson being over, the convert exclaimed: “Thanks to your excellent explanation, I understand the Trinity perfectly.” Fulton J. Sheen replied: “Then I didn’t explain it correctly. It should be a mystery.”
Insufficient Response • My friend and colleague, Dr. Charles Weaver, published an article on 5 February 2024. In large part, it was a response to certain challenges by yours truly. His article is quite lengthy, touching upon a number of subjects. Fulton J. Sheen told the convert: “When I’m finished, you won’t understand it.” Similarly, I’m unable to respond in a thorough way to Dr. Weaver. At the same time, it would be rude to completely ignore what he’s written. Therefore, as a type of compromise, I respond to three items below. [To use Watergate jargon, I provide a “modified limited hangout.”]
Harkening Back To Hartker: Dr. Weaver wrote on 5 February 2024: The rhythmic signs of Hartker are part of our liturgical patrimony and worthy of our full attention and study. Such a statement seems hugely problematic. (a) If versions by Hartker contradict 2,000 other manuscripts, what then? What specifically is “deficient” or “defective” or “corrupt” about those other 2,000 manuscripts? Does it make sense to focus excessively on a particular manuscript by Hartker and ignore the preponderance of Gregorian manuscripts? Why should just one manuscript arrest our full (Dr. Weaver’s word) attention? Or do I misunderstand the definition of the word full? If there are 300 manuscripts that are ancient, authentic, and important, shouldn’t Hartker’s receive 1/300th of our attention? (b) Let’s assume arguendo that Hartker’s versions were particularly important or significant. Why are they contradicted by so many excellent and venerable manuscripts? Are we more ‘enlightened’ than the scribes who lived immediately after Hartker? Is it logical to prefer our suppositions to the written documents of scribes contemporaneous with (or roughly coeval with) Hartker? (c) If we posit arguendo that Hartker’s rhythmic markings—assuming we can divine their correct interpretation (something not at all certain)—are of crucial importance, how can we explain their careful and intentional exclusion by scribes who came immediately afterwards? (d) Bearing in mind the stupendously breathtaking one-to-one correspondence between the versions reproduced by Hartker and all the manuscripts produced later, isn’t it more logical to assume those unique markings (studiously ignored by later scribes) were subtle nuances intended for a particular cantor, monastic community, locality, or time period?
False Duality: Dr. Weaver has suggested several times over the last few years that there’s something called “Jeff Ostrowski’s Interpretation” of the EDITIO VATICANA. This seems to be an attempt to provide cover for Dom Mocquereau’s rhythmic contradictions of the official rhythm by creating a duality: viz. “Pothier Rhythm” Vs. “Jeff Ostrowski.” Taking note [pardon the pun] of some early Pothier writings, Dr. Weaver presents an interpretation based upon them. Specifically, Dr. Weaver writes:
“Pothier often adds subtle time at the ends of words and neume groups beyond what the rules of the Vatican edition preface would suggest. We must either conclude that Pothier contradicted the ‘official rhythm’ or that the interpretation of chant according to the Pothier style is much more complex and free than a restrictive reading of the rules allows.”
False Duality (1 of 2) • It doesn’t seem fair to assume everything Dom Pothier wrote about CARMEN GREGORIANUM holds true forever without any development. Consider an 1855 statement by Dom Prosper Guéranger:
A comparison of all the manuscripts of the Middle Ages with the Gothic editions of plainchant leads us to the conclusion that in earlier times there was no concern at all for short syllables in ecclesiastical chant, and that there was no problem whatsoever about elaborating them with several notes, often a great number. A fortunate change, which has the force of law today, has modified this usage of the weak penultimates, and it would be a barbarous archaism to adopt this ancient custom in our time.
Isn’t it plausible—or at least within the realm of possibility—to deduce that Dom Guéranger may have changed his opinion with the passage of time? Similarly, can we not assume Abbat Pothier’s views may (perhaps) have changed or developed as the decades rolled on? Is it not logical, for example, to take into consideration editions by Dom Lucien David, who was Pothier’s personal secretary, biographer, “bulldog,” and protégé?
False Duality (2 of 2) • Dr. Weaver has suggested that the “Jeff Ostrowski Interpretation” is not the true interpretation of the EDITIO VATICANA. (I believe his main point is that I ignore some of the earlier statements by Dom Pothier, such as a slight rallentando at the ending of words.) But there’s an enormous problem with such an assertion: all the other “pure Vaticana” editors agree with me. For example:
Flor Peeters; Father Xavier Mathias (who in 1913 founded the Saint Leo Institute for Sacred Music at Strasburg Cathedral); Professor Max Springer (student of Antonín Dvořák); Most Rev’d H. Laurent Janssens; Marcel Dupré; Monsignor Franz Nekes (called “The German Palestrina”); Alfons Desmet; Aloysius Desmet; Oscar De Puydt; Father Karl Weinmann; the Wiltberger brothers; Professor Amédée Gastoué; Abbat Urbanus Bomm; Joseph Gogniat; Monsignor Jules Van Nuffel; Monsignor Jules Vyverman; Marinus de Jong; Gustaaf Nees; Henri Durieux; Edgard de Laet; Monsignor Johannes Overath; Monsignor Francis P. Schmitt; Dr. Karl Gustav Fellerer; and Dom Lucien David.
This doesn’t mean their editions are identical in every single instance. Indeed, I agree with Dr. Weaver when he says the EDITIO VATICANA doesn’t demand “a restrictive reading.” In other words, Abbat Pothier—in a very wise move—allowed choirmasters in each country and monastery a certain degree of freedom. For instance, editions by Max Springer (broadly speaking, a representative of Beuron Abbey) frequently add subtle “distinctions” which aren’t found in the official edition:
In other words, the items mentioned by Dr. Weaver—such as “a slight rallentando at the end of a word” or a slight “distinction” between melismatic neumes—are not the same thing as outright contradiction of the official rhythm, such as we observe in the enormously scandalous and criminally illicit Gregorian editions of Dom André Mocquereau.1
Secret Permission: Dr. Weaver wrote on 5 February 2024: As far as I can tell, the only way Jeff can get around the obvious liceity of the signs is by suggesting that Mocquereau either misled the pope during this conversation or misrepresented what the permission meant afterwards. Such a claim requires evidence (not supposition), which is completely lacking. The permission given to Mocquereau predates the supposed official rhythm. It’s difficult for me to understand why Dr. Weaver refers to “obvious liceity” (!) in light of documents like the MARTINELLI LETTER (18 February 1910) and the so-called “De Caetero” Letter (January 1906). However, let’s delve deeper.
Secret Permission (1 of 5) • Dom Pierre Combe was a fervent Mocquereau enthusiast. If his book is any indication, Combe’s superabundant love for Mocquereau resulted in his hatred for Dom Pothier—a hatred which at times approached derangement. But even Dom Pierre Combe admitted there is no evidence vis-à-vis the “permission” Pope Pius X allegedly gave Dom Mocquereau to distort the official edition. Specifically, Dom Pierre Combe wrote:
“This concession was not the subject of a written document, but it was tacitly understood, so to speak, in the document given to the Pope by Dom Noetinger and his companions.”
Secret Permission (2 of 5) • Father de Santi claimed such a promise was made. But that’s hardly evidence! After all, Father de Santi’s ability to misunderstand, change his mind, and misrepresent important items vis-à-vis Gregorian Chant was legendary. Perhaps this is why Pope Saint Pius X lost confidence in Father de Santi. Indeed, on 26 June 1905, Father de Santi wrote: “The confidence that [Pope Pius X] had in me is lost, and I can no longer do anything directly.” Father de Santi again wrote (21 September 1905): “I remained determined not to speak to the Holy Father any more about chant matters. I clearly told Msgr. Bressan: Since the Holy Father no longer has the confidence he once had in me, it is not up to me to broach the subject…”
Secret Permission (3 of 5) • Did Dr. Weaver accurately characterize my argument? I believe he did. The precise way he phrased it, however, struck me as somewhat derogatory. In other words, Dr. Weaver’s summary of my argument made it seem like my explanation for an obvious contradiction was “far-fetched” or “contrived” or “absurd”—as if I were grasping at straws.
Secret Permission (4 of 5) • As human beings, we realize that misunderstandings occur constantly. Next time you see two people argue, approach each afterwards. In all likelihood, both will characterize the discussion they just had differently. I would respectfully ask Dr. Weaver to consider the typical papal audience; is it usually quite rushed? Is there usually ample time for full discussion? I never claimed I was physically present alongside Dom Mocquereau, Dom Noetinger, Father de Santi, and Pope Pius X on 23 March 1904. I can only tell you that I find it highly unlikely Dom Mocquereau meticulously explained to the Holy Father that he intended for his rhythmic signs to contradict in thousands of instances the official edition (which wouldn’t appear in its entirety for another eight years). As I’ve already said, I doubt Dom Mocquereau himself even knew this would be the case. Let’s not forget: this was long before Mocquereau’s attampted coup d’état against Abbat Pothier. More than a year later, on 23 June 1905, Father de Santi would write in his private journal:
“The Holy Father is unhappy at the fact that, after we were all in agreement with Dom Pothier, now we have declared war on him.”
Secret Permission (5 of 5) • I’ve been present during meetings with bishops and cardinals. I find it impossible to imagine that Dom Mocquereau—during the brief papal audience on 23 March 1904—told the Holy Father he intended to contradict (in thousands of instances) the official rhythm. Moreover, I’m convinced that had such an event taken place there would be some record of it. I find it much easier to believe they simply told Pope Pius X something like: “For a few years, we have been using some rhythmic markings to help the singers. When the official edition appears, would there be any objection to us adding those?” We’ve already seen how Dom Mocquereau’s staunchest supporter admitted this purported agreement was “tacitly understood, so to speak” (his words). If Dom Combe were still alive, I have a magnificent bridge I’d like to sell him…
1 When it comes to the 1958 Schwann edition of the GRADUALE ROMANUM edited by Monsignor Johannes Overath, Abbat Urbanus Bomm, and Karl Gustav Fellerer, I admit their heavy-handed and intemperate “editorial suggestions” push the limits of lawful freedom almost to the breaking point. Indeed, they frequently tell singers to ignore clear instances of the mora vocis. Moreover, the Preface by the Publishers muddies the waters, inasmuch as it seems to imply that the breves (“hook signs”) do not completely annihilate the mora vocis. Rather, it seems to indicate such symbols mean the mora vocis prolongation shouldn’t be—in their words—“a longer drawing out.” Perhaps a “shorter” (!) drawing out is called for? Such a case could certainly be made, although page XVI of the book’s interior seems to contradict it. Such confused statements are more evidence that by 1958 the whole concept of melismatic morae vocis had been largely forgotten in many quarters.
