OW MUCH time does each of us have left on earth? When we were growing up, my father used to say: “Kids, we’re only on this floating rock for a very short time.” SAINT ALPHONSUS LIGUORI (who had become a master harpsichordist earlier in life) willingly took The Seraphic Vow, in which he vowed never waste a minute of his time on earth. Each of us should constantly strive to remember our final end. Once we breathe our last, we’ll be held accountable for how we spent every moment. Do we use our time wisely? Are we not frequently guilty of wasting time?
Some consider it a waste of time to argue about Gregorian Chant. In a certain sense, I agree—especially when those passionately engaged in the argument have never stood in front of a choir in real life. That being said, certain questions keep arising over and over again. Therefore, I have created (below) this “Basic Catechism of Gregorian Chant.”
Figure A • Below is an excerpt from ALLELUIA (“Senex púerum portábat”) sung on the Feast of the Purification, as it appears in the edition of Pope Saint Pius X known as the EDITIO VATICANA:
Figure B • Now we see the same excerpt—again from the EDITIO VATICANA—with rhythmic modifications by Dom Mocquereau, who added elongations where they don’t belong and took out elongations which are supposed to be observed:
Figure C • Finally, here’s the same excerpt as it appeared in Abbat Pothier’s 1883 Liber Gradualis. On 24 June 1905, Pope Saint Pius X declared that the official edition (a.k.a. “EDITIO VATICANA”) was to be based upon this marvelous production of Abbat Pothier:
Basic Catechism of Gregorian Chant
⚫ Question #1: The version with rhythmic modifications by Dom Mocquereau (“Fig. B”) is quite popular but looks rather messy and complicated. Should I be worried if I can’t make heads or tails of his modifications?
Answer #1: No one should fret over rhythmic modifications by Dom Mocquereau. The EDITIO VATICANA is still the Church’s official edition and has never contained any rhythmic signs. The EDITIO VATICANA began appearing in 1905 and was basically completed in 1913 (the year before Pope Saint Pius X went to his eternal reward). Since then, the exclusion of rhythmic signs has continued. For instance, when new chants were added after Vatican II, they excluded rhythmic signs. And when the GRADUALE SIMPLEX was published in the late 1960s, it also rejected rhythmic signs (as it was considered part of the official edition).
⚫ Question #2: Can you supply me with your strongest argument for singing the EDITIO VATICANA according to the official rhythm?
Answer #2: There will always be people who say: “Who cares what Pius X intended in the official edition? I’ll do as I please; my priest doesn’t care.” On the other hand, it seems eminently logical to sing the melodies found in the official edition in the manner its creators intended. Doing so makes sense on a number of levels: e.g. the breath marks are designed for those who use the official rhythm. Furthermore, nobody has been able to demonstrate anything “deficient” or “lacking” or “sub-par” about the official rhythm.
⚫ Question #3: Is it really true that Dom Mocquereau’s modifications were never approved? I read online that’s a personal “delusion” held only by Jeff Ostrowski.
Answer #3: In May of 1943, Dom Gregory Hügle—the preëminent USA supporter of Dom Mocquereau’s rhythmic modifications—admitted that “the rhythmic editions are neither condemned nor approved.” Indeed, when Dom Mocquereau first printed the official edition, he added his rhytmic symbols to 100,000 copies of the KYRIALE. On page 33, John Rayburn1 quotes Raphael Cardinal Merry Del Val (secretary of state under Pope Pius X) as saying:
“The official commendation attached to [Mocquereau’s edition] through a misunderstanding has been immediately withdrawn. In the circumstances the copies already in print need not be recalled, but the official stamp will not be affixed to any succeeding printings.”
The president of the Vatican Commission on Gregorian Chant confirmed this, writing in January of 1906:
“The CONCORDAT of the Sacred Congregation, bestowed at first through a real misunderstanding, was almost immediately withdrawn. […] Out of consideration, and in view of the special circumstances of the case, the editors have not been obliged to withdraw the copies already on sale.”
Professor Josef Gogniat2 wrote an entire book reminding people of the official status of the EDITIO VATICANA, and his book opened with a recommendation (13 August 1938) by Cardinal Pacelli.
⚫ Question #4: Did Pope Saint Pius X really care about the rhythm of plainsong, or is this a fabrication by Jeff Ostrowski?
Answer #4: Anyone interested in this subject should read the Martinelli Letter. Sebastiano Cardinal Martinelli (d. 1918) served as PREFECT of the Congregation of Rites under Pope Saint Pius X. His words about the official rhythm are straightforward, explicit, and unambiguous. Speaking on behalf of Pius X, Cardinal Martinelli makes clear that “all” (his word) are supposed to abide by the official rhythm. Several times in that letter, Cardinal Martinelli explicitly insists that singers must not only adhere to the the official melodies, “but also with regard to the rhythm” (paragraph 3). In that letter, the PREFECT of the Congregation of Rites leaves absolutely no wiggle room, stating: “The approbation which the Sacred Congregation of Rites bestowed upon the ROMAN GRADUAL by order of the Holy Father extends not only to all the particular rules by which the Vatican edition has been made up, but includes also the rhythmical form of the melodies, which, consequently, is inseparable from the edition itself.” Toward the end of the letter, we read these unambiguous words:
“It has always been and still is
absolutely foreign to the mind
of the Holy Father and of the
Sacred Congregation of Rites
to leave to the discretion of
individuals such an important
& essential element as the rhythm
of the melodies of the Church.”
Anyone serious about Gregorian Chant should—at a minimum—understand how to sing the rhythm of the official edition in the manner intended by its creators. Or am I wrong?
⚫ Question #5: But the Martinelli letter is from 1910, when Pius X was still alive. Do you have specific legislation after Pius X went to his eternal reward?
Answer #5: Even as late 1958, more than fifty years after the EDITIO VATICANA first appeared, the Congregation of Rites reaffirmed that rhythmic signs contradicting the official rhythm are not permitted. (Examples of contradicting the official edition’s “force and meaning” would be adding elongations where they don’t belong and eliminating required elongations.) Dom Mocquereau often adds excessive elongations even in the simplest of pieces, severely distorting3 the piece and causing it to become heavy and plodding. Consider what Mocquereau did to this brief little antiphon:
⚫ Question #6: But don’t you agree Dom Mocquereau was simply correcting (and thereby improving) the official edition?
Answer #6: Dom Mocquereau was not “correcting” the official edition. The EDITIO VATICANA is a cento. In other words, it’s an edition which takes into consideration the entire manuscript tradition, not just 2-3 manuscripts for which Mocquereau felt a strong affinity. To illustrate my point, let’s suppose someone decides 239Laon|927 is the “best” manuscript and reproduces the “authentic” plainsong with perfect accuracy. Even if such an idea were true, that wouldn’t justify messing with the EDITIO VATICANA because it’s a cento. Only a fool would “correct” a cheetah by stretching out its neck to be like a giraffe. By being a cento, the EDITIO VATICANA is being exactly what it was intended to be.
If someone attempts to justify adding an elongation to the EDITIO VATICANA by claiming it can be found in such-and-such a manuscript, the correct answer would be: “So what?” The president (appointed by Pius X) of the Vatican Commission on Gregorian Chant explained the matter succinctly in a letter dated 16 January 1906:
Even were these signs (of Saint Gall)
faithfully represented, inasmuch as they
belonged to a particular school, they
would have no right to impose their
special ideas on the universal practice
in a typical and official edition.
It would be difficult to imagine a more straightforward statement!
⚫ Question #7: But aren’t the modifications by Dom Mocquereau based on rhythmic indications found in the best manuscripts?
Answer #7: It’s erroneous to speak of the “best” plainsong manuscripts. That’s because the so-called “authentic-source” theory is no longer accepted by serious scholars (at least as far as I know). Different MSS reflect different schools, different nuances, different approaches, and different styles of singing. Plainsong wasn’t sung the same way in every country: local variations abounded … and still do! One who chases after the “best” plainsong manuscript is seeking a phantom.
⚫ Question #8: Won’t you at least concede that Dom Mocquereau—and those who followed in his footsteps—correctly transplanted very ancient rhythmic markings to the EDITIO VATICANA?
Answer #8: The precise agogic indications in the early manuscripts are (to say the least) hotly debated by competent scholars. There are innumerable theories, but little certainty. While we do possess one letter attributed to Notker Balbulus which “explains” the various letters found in some ancient manuscripts, it leaves us with more questions than answers … which is precisely what we’d expect from a brief, 10th-century document dealing with the highly-nuanced and subjective art of music. In the same letter of 16 January 1906, the president made clear that just because certain folks claim to be reproducing the “truly authentic” rhythm, that doesn’t make it so: “These supplementary signs,” he wrote “do not have any exact relation with the well-known Romanian signs of the Saint Gall manuscripts of which they profess to be a reproduction.”
⚫ Question #9: What other evidence can you produce which supports your somewhat dismissive attitude towards those who attempt to correct the EDITIO VATICANA?
Answer #9: As a matter of fact, Dom Mocquereau—and those who seek to follow his footsteps—pretend to ‘correct’ pieces written in the 19th century. My father used to say: “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” Such actions are reprehensible and unserious. No serious person would “correct” a work of Frédéric Chopin using a score by François Couperin. Nor would any serious person “correct” a score by Claude Debussy using a composition by Machaut.
Consider Johannes Berchmans Göschl, a student of Dom Eugène Cardine, who was part of a project called the GRADUALE NOVUM. In 2008, Göschl showed his lack of knowledge by declaring: “It is the case that Dom Pothier employed only a few manuscripts as the basis for his reconstruction of the Gregorian chants.” That’s quite a foolish statement.4 In any event, Göschl’s cadre claims that the basis for their work of restitution “was the adiastematic manuscripts from the 10th century.” They seem unaware they were ‘correcting’ (!!!) a piece composed in 1925:
⚫ Question #10: In the era of the Vatican Commission on Gregorian Chant, those who opposed Dom Mocquereau labelled his cadre as the “archaeology and nothing else” club. Do you think there’s any truth to such a designation?
Answer #10: To be honest, “archaeology and nothing else” does seem to fit Dom Mocquereau’s cadre rather well. Pope Saint Pius X had declared in his 25 April 1904 MOTU PROPRIO:
“The Gregorian melodies are to be restored in their completeness and true nature, according to the testimony of the more ancient manuscripts, taking into consideration not only the legitimate tradition of intervening centuries, but also the common practices of present-day liturgy.”
A faction arose5 in opposition to Abbat Pothier—attempting to distort those words. In response, Raphael Cardinal Merry Del Val reiterated that principle on 3 April 1905:
“It will not be against the intention of His Holiness that the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican Edition of Gregorian liturgical books should give preference to some less ancient compositions, provided that they have the true character of Gregorian music. In fact, it cannot be demonstrated that the most ancient chant is necessarily and always the best for practical adaptation.”
But on 28 March 1905, Dom Mocquereau accidentally said the quiet part out loud, declaring that a legitimate tradition is that which “does not contradict the source from which it comes.” (On this, see page 316 of Dom Pierre Combe’s The Restoration of Gregorian Chant, published in 2003 by CUA.) But his argument doesn’t make sense, because if Mocquereau’s view were correct, there would have been no need to “take into consideration the legitimate tradition of intervening centuries” as Pope Pius X had demanded (see above). This was one reason Dom Mocquereau was condemned by members of the Vatican Commission on Gregorian Chant as “intransigent.”
⚫ Question #11: Okay, I agree Dom Mocquereau was wrong to say a melody can develop, evolve, and change by staying the same as it always was. I agree that’s illogical; but so what? Who cares if Dom Mocquereau was intransigent? What possible relevance could that have for us today?
Answer #11: Even today, we find “intransigence” among some who profess to be plainsong experts. They decide that one particular manuscript is “king,” dismissing all others as worthless garbage: corrupt and without value. Some decide that Bamberg6lit|905 is “king.” Others cast their lot with 239Laon|927. Still others make the determination that 359sanGall|877 is the only manuscript that matters, dismissing all the rest. Some try to argue that such-and-such a manuscript is a few years older than others—but that’s a fool’s errand for three reasons: (1) We can only guess at when the most ancient MSS were created; (2) Several of the ancient MSS have no precise date of creation because they required decades to create; (3) Even if Manuscript A is a few years more ancient than Manuscript B, that’s not of great significance because we’re dealing with a repertoire that’s existed for more than 1,500 years.
⚫ Question #12: You often talk about a number, saying: “there has to be a number.” What on earth are you talking about?
Answer #12: At the end of the day, there has to be a number. Let’s say somebody’s become convinced that 239Laon|927 is the only manuscript that counts. Would that person continue to hold this belief if shown 1,000 other important manuscripts which are also very ancient? How about 10,000? What about 700,000? There’s got to be a number. Does it really make sense to claim that every manuscript (except for one’s favorite) is worthless? Over the last twenty years, thousands of ancient manuscripts have been made available on the internet … and that number grows daily. Abbat Joseph Pothier was insistent that the entire Gregorian repertoire be taken into consideration. Every time a new Gregorian manuscript is uploaded, his wisdom shines that much brighter! It’s no wonder Father Angelo De Santi called Dom Pothier “master of us all.” And Auguste Pécoul (whom Dom Guéranger referred to as his spiritual son) had this to say:
“To forestall any confusion, let us remember that there is just one Gregorian notation: that restored, according to the ancient manuscripts, by the eminent Abbot of Saint-Wandrille, Dom Pothier.”
⚫ Question #13: I thought I was a decent musician, but sometimes those who consider themselves plainchant ‘experts’ begin throwing around ultra-technical terms which make me feel ignorant. They seem so smart when they use these mysterious terms. Am I correct to feel intimidated?
Answer #13: Certain parties try to disparage others for ignorance over technical terms like “torculus initio debilis” or “episematic pes subpunctis” or “virga subtripunctis” or “pes quassus” or “porrectus liquescens” or “climacus resupinus.” By doing so, they make fools of themselves. First of all, these terms were invented relatively recently. Abbat Pothier was the one who basically ‘codified’ the more common neume forms. If you time-traveled back to the year 950AD and initiated a conversation with a Benedictine monk about a “liquescent podatus,” he wouldn’t have the foggiest idea what you’re talking about.
But more importantly—and this is crucial to grasp—innumerable manuscripts were produced by monks over the centuries and all kinds of different neumes were employed. The type of neumes used by Graz807|1171 are radically different than those used by Helmst|1026. For that matter, GradualDenis|1020 is radically different from StMaur|1079, which is radically different from 1132Limoges|1085. The neumes used in Thomas391|1291 are different from 5319vaticanus|1105, which is radically different from Narbonne|1033, which is radically different from Cologne1001b|1299. The same goes for the stunning 9448prum|983, the majestic 340sanGall|1054, the sensational Yrieix|1040, the imposing 786admont|1151, the splendid 444colmar|1014, the gorgeous Düsseldorf-11|1393, the remarkable 4951steven|1128, and the magnificent 857noyon|1057. —— All of these are important manuscripts; only a fool would dismiss them.
⚫ Question #14: So you’re saying these “ultra-technical terms” have very little significance because there are tons of important manuscripts which don’t use a shared set of neumes?
Answer #14: That’s correct. Suppose somebody says to you: “I’m an expert in the neumes of such-and-such a manuscript. I’ve spent decades studying them.” The correct response would be: “Congrats! And that’s significant why?” By way of analogy, being fluent in Lithuanian (one language only) doesn’t mean you’re fluent in all the languages of Europe. I know people who have spent twenty years studying Bamberg6lit|905. For that matter, I know people who have spent thirty years studying 239Laon|927. Yet, the choirs those people conduct struggle when singing even a simple SATB hymn. The point is: examining a particular manuscript for an extended period of time is not a guarantee one will end up a great musician. Memorizing a name like “Pes Subbipunctus” doesn’t ipso facto make you a great musician. And (as I already explained) an 11th-century Benedictine monk wouldn’t have a clue what you’re talking about if you tried to speak to him using that terminology.
⚫ Question #15: You claim there were all kinds of scribes notating plainsong manuscripts in different ways. Does that damage the “stupefying unity” you always talk about vis-à-vis Gregorian Chant?
Answer #15: Not at all. For fifteen years on this blog, I’ve spoken of the breathtaking “one-to-one correspondence” of the musical notes of CARMEN GREGORIANUM. Somehow, this amazing one-to-one correspondence continued for many centuries—and no musicologist has ever been able to explain how such a thing was possible. It’s truly miraculous, truly astounding. The multifarious ways of forming neumes (by different monks in different localities during different centuries) makes this miracle more astonishing, not less so.
Origins Of This Article • Years ago, a young man asked me whether it was a mortal sin not to observe Dom Mocquereau’s rhythmic modifications. (This question was asked in person; not electronically.) I deeply respected his sincerity—although it indicated someone suffering from the cross of scrupulosity. That young man’s question was the impetus for writing this article. It took me years … but better late than never, right? 😀
A Franciscan priest hearing my confession once told me a story I’ll never forget. As a young monk, he’d suffered from the cross of scrupulosity. Using a broom without permission, he became convinced that he was guilty of theft. In his scrupulous mind, he had ‘stolen’ the broom. But his confessor consoled him, saying to him: “Listen, there’s nothing you could steal in this entire monastery that would be a mortal sin!”
1 A choirmaster based in New York City named Dr. John Rayburn on 1 February 1964 published (in book format) his doctoral dissertation, produced for Columbia University, under the title: “Gregorian Chant: A History of the Controversy Concerning Its Rhythm.”
2 JOSEF GOGNIAT was a professor at the following places: the Collège Saint-Michel (Fribourg, Switzerland); the Albertinum Seminary; the Conservatory of Fribourg; and the Conservatory of Lausanne. He also served as organist for the Kathedrale von Freiburg.
3 Dr. Katharine Ellis of Cambridge University discovered evidence suggesting the modifications were added for financial gain.
4 Indeed, Dr. Katharine Ellis rightly points out that research by scholars like Jean-Pierre Noiseux makes holding such a view impossible.
5 On 23 June 1905, Father Angelo De Santi wrote in his diary: “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.”
