N 2005, I BEGAN correspondence with Father Frédéric Peruta, secretary to the Abbot of Saint Wandrille Abbey. Without going into all the details, there were discussions about whether I could help digitize their archives. Not long afterwards, I ended up getting married and wasn’t able to take advantage of that unbelievable opportunity. Fast-forward twenty years, and I can now report that a friend and colleague of mine has—with close to 22,000 photographs (!)—finished the project. I’m told the treasures discovered are sensational beyond description. In particular, the correspondence between Dr. Peter Wagner (commissionis pontificiae gregorianae membrum) and Abbat Pothier is fascinating and quite extensive. Other letters reveal some unflattering things about familiar characters like Dom André Mocquereau (Prior of Solesmes Abbey) and Dame Laurentia McLachlan (Abbess of Stanbrook Abbey). My friend is finishing up his doctoral thesis, promising that “much will be revealed at the appropriate time.”
In The Context Of Our Discussion • I mention this as it’s related to something I’ve been giving much thought to: jealousy and hatred among church musicians. Specifically, I’m told many letters are between Abbat Joseph Pothier and his brother, DOM ALPHONSE POTHIER, who was a monk at Solesmes Abbey. From what I understand, the letters are quite edifying. Abbat Pothier urges his brother to trust in God and be at peace. Once these letters become available, I suspect they’ll help choirmasters like us in our journey towards holiness and union with God.
Taking The High Road • For example, I have in mind a particular individual. For over a decade, he’s been poaching my innovations and passing them off at his own. He’s acted in dishonest ways, attempting to undermine my work. Worst of all, he’s spread falsehoods about plainsong, “diluting the brand” with insipid imitations. Some have suggested I take him to court, but my father was the head of a law firm for 45 years—the last thing any sane person wants is legal battles. Others have told me I should publicly ‘shame’ this person on our website—but I’ve never done that because I consider it petty. I simply go about my work, imitating Abbat Pothier. But that doesn’t mean it’s always “easy” or “painless” or “pleasant” to take the high road. When I get discouraged, I try to remember people like Father Valentine Young (d. 2020), who selflessly and generously promoted the THESAURUS MUSICAE SACRAE.
Dr. Weaver’s Article (1 of 5) • Every single choirmaster in the world would claim to desire “unity” when it comes to church music—but difficulties arise once we begin getting specific. In the section marked “addendum” in Dr. Weaver’s article published on 5 February 2024, he says in bold letters (speaking of the various ways people sing plainsong): “I do not think this is a bad thing.” He goes on to say: “It is a bit untidy, and it undermines the uniformity and universality of the Vatican edition, but this seems okay to me.” Finally, Dr. Weaver declares: “There should be total freedom in our present ecclesial environment to create one’s own chant editions and rhythmic theories.” I would suggest the following:
(a) Catholic musicians must avoid being viewed as “esoteric freaks” who can’t agree on anything and spend their entire lives fighting about things nobody cares about. As I’ve already written a billion times on this blog, Catholic music is in a state of emergency. The choirmaster perceived as “rearranging chairs on the TITANIC” becomes an object of ridicule … and rightly so.
(b) On the other hand, we can’t adopt “absolute relativism”—saying every style of music at Mass is totally fine, every way of singing CARMEN GREGORIANUM is totally fine, and every performance at Mass (even if it’s horrifically out of tune with tons of wrong notes) is totally fine. I sang from the Dom Mocquereau editions for close to twenty years. I became increasingly uncomfortable with Mocquereau’s modifications … but I justified them by saying: “So many have adopted Dom Mocquereau’s edition, it would be too much work to change at this point.” But time just kept passing, and things got more and more uncomfortable. Dr. Katharine Ellis of Cambridge University discovered evidence the vandalism was done for financial gain. I saw that Mocquereau’s modifications flagrantly contradicted the ancient manuscripts. I saw that Mocquereau’s modifications disrupted even the simplest melodic line. I saw that Mocquereau’s modifications caused major breathing problems, whereas this is not the case if one sings the official edition as its created intended. I was completely devoted to Dom Mocquereau for decades, but I can never return to stuff like this.
Dr. Weaver’s Article (2 of 5) • How should we move forward? Not for one moment do I pretend to have a panacea. Nevertheless, the best course of action would seem to be sober, fact-based, calm dialogue. Therefore, I will now address Dr. Weaver’s recent article published on 16 March 2024, in which he says:
We can hardly have a decent exchange of ideas on the vexed question of the rhythm of Gregorian chant when one of the interlocutors claims to be promoting “the official rhythm of the Catholic Church.”
Dr. Weaver twice cites Dr. Katharine Ellis, whom he describes as “surely a neutral enough observer.” I’m quite familiar with the 2013 book by Dr. Ellis (The Politics of Plainchant in fin-de-siècle France). Indeed, I’ve read it six or seven times. I would like to draw Dr. Weaver’s attention to page 109, where Dr. Ellis specifically makes the same distinction I do. She refers to the EDITIO VATICANA rhythm as the “official” one, specifically contrasting it with Dom Mocquereau’s version. Indeed, on page 65 of Gregorian Chant: a History of the Controversy Concerning Its Rhythm (New York: Greenwood Press, 1964), John Rayburn says: “Rome has given official status to the equalist-accentualist theories of Dom Pothier.” I could be mistaken, but I believe Dr. Weaver is annoyed when I refer to the official rhythm. I suspect he might be making assumptions about my intent when I use that phrase. Therefore, let me make it clear: I have no ulterior motives. I’m simply adopting nomenclature from people like Dr. Katharine Ellis, John Rayburn, and Sebastiano Cardinal Martinelli.
Dr. Weaver’s Article (3 of 5) • Honesty is required for any fruitful exchange of ideas. Those who know Dr. Weaver realize he wouldn’t spend time responding to my articles if he doubted my sincerity. In light of this reality, I now solemnly reiterate:
In my view, Cardinal Martinelli’s 18 February 1910 letter is crystal clear and leaves no room for ambiguity. Nor does the 1906 “de cætero” letter from the president of the Vatican Commission on Gregorian Chant leave any room for misunderstanding.
Dr. Weaver’s recent article cites Dom Pierre Combe (although he technically cites Dr. Ellis, all she does is parrot Combe). I certainly realize that Dom Combe wrote: “In France, there has been a trend to view this [Martinelli] letter as a condemnation of the rhythmic editions of Solesmes.” He then calls such a view “contrary to the truth.” I hope Dr. Weaver will pardon my bluntness, but Father Combe’s opinion proves absolutely nothing. He was mainly a “librarian type.” That is, Combe was never a choir director; nor did he publish musicological articles. (By the way, I’m not attacking librarians; there’s nothing wrong with being a librarian!) My point is, DOM PIERRE COMBE was a Mocquereau sycophant who frequently made disparaging comments about Abbat Pothier. Several of Combe’s attacks were demonstrably absurd. Suppose John Doe assaults you. While he’s punching your stomach and face, he keeps saying: “I’m not hurting you! I’m not hurting you!” The reality is, he is hurting you. His words mean nothing. Similarly, the MARTINELLI LETTER means what it means. Just because Dom Combe (evidently) has difficulty with reading comprehension, that fact alone doesn’t change the letter’s import.
Dr. Weaver’s Article (4 of 5) • I am grateful for what Dr. Weaver wrote vis-à-vis the “permission” supposedly given by POPE SAINT PIUS X during a 23 March 1904 audience involving Dom Mocquereau, Dom Noetinger, and Father de Santi. I’ve likewise written an enormous amount about that same topic. Readers have access to both articles, so there’s no need to re-litigate all that today. Dr. Weaver enumerated a bunch of items he says we both agree on. One was: “The rhythm signs were eventually granted widespread toleration not as an integral part of the Vatican Edition but as something added and allowed for private use by particular choirs.” I hate to quibble, but that’s not quite accurate. In a 23 October 2023 article, I pointed out that—at least for those who who follow the “liturgical books of 1962”—the final word on this matter was given in DE MUSICA SACRA issued in 1958 under Venerable Pope Pius XII:
The context shows the phrase “force and meaning” refers to rhythm (not pitch). Notice how the paragraph begins: “The signs, called rhythmica…”
Dr. Weaver’s Article (5 of 5) • I know I risk beating a dead horse, but I must comment once more vis-à-vis the supposed “permission” granted to Dom Mocquereau. Having read Dr. Weaver’s articles over the years, I believe his position is:
Once Pope Pius X said whatever he said on 23 March 1904 [and even Combe admits there’s no written record of any of this] any future modifications were thereby “authorized,” even if they contradicted the official rhythm in 900,000 instances.
I’m known as a somewhat facetious person who likes to kid around, but I’m dead serious when I ask: Is that a reasonable position to hold? Because that’s pretty much what happened. With regard to Dr. Weaver suggesting to me that Dom Mocquereau “acted in good faith,” I’m not sure that’s relevant. My personal belief is that Dom Mocquereau was completely bowled over by certain manuscripts (along with certain theories he’d developed) because he was a human being. Sometimes human beings get carried away. But just because somebody gets carried away, that doesn’t make it acceptable to vandalize every single page of the official edition of the Church, thereby assuring nobody will be able to sing even a simple antiphon:
In all these discussions we’ve been having, I have yet to receive an answer to this question: “Why not sing the official edition as it was intended to be sung by those who created it?” I would encourage anyone interested in hearing what that sounds like to visit this website, which contains tons of examples.
Conclusion:
In one of his Gregorian Rhythm Wars articles, Dr. Weaver suggested there are “obstacles” or “difficulties” when it comes to singing the official rhythm. (I can’t remember the precise word he used, so please don’t quote me.) My intention today was to provide video demonstrations about “Trochee Trouble.” But my time has expired. Therefore, please stay tuned—there’s much more to come!
