Dear Christopher,

I don’t have a direct answer to your question, but I will offer a few facts that may shed light on your question nonetheless.

If you look at the 1961 Graduale Romanum and compare it to the 1974 one, you will see that the wedding propers have changed. This is because the introit and communion given in the 1961 edition are neo-Gregorian; i.e. they are re-hashed versions of older chants or entirely new chants that antedate the “authentic” Gregorian repertoire substantially. There is an article on JSTOR about the “Deus Israël” introit’s origins.

A similar difference will be observed with the Corpus Christi communion.

Look at the sanctoral cycle in the 1974 Graduale. Relatively few of those have chants that are not “borrowed” from the Sunday repertoire.

I believe there is new chant contained in the Benedictine “Antiphonale Monasticum” that Solesmes is editing/publishing. There is also supposed to be, somewhere in the pipeline, a new edition of the Graduale Romanum coming that will take account of semiology (and, presumably, the 1986 Ordo Cantus Missæ).

I know that the beautiful vespers hymn for Pope Pius XI's Feast of Christ the King, Te Sæculorum Principem, was composed by the award-winning Latin poet Fr. Vittorio Genovesi, S.J. (1887-1967), Hymnographer of the Sacred Congregation of Rites.

The number of chants that are set with several different Latin texts, as well as the ones that have been (throughout history) 'adapted' to new texts would constitute an appreciable list. This renders rather shakey the contention that chants are wedded to Latin originals and cannot be artfully adapted to English as well as a variety of Latin texts.

MaryAnn -
Many thanks for your temperate rejoinder.
I will agree heartily with your observations a propos the dissimilarities of structure between Latin and English; and, the concommitant problems of adapting ANY music conceived in one language to a different one. Perhaps, where we would diverge in friendship, would be in the suggestion that, after consideration of all the difficulties and linguistic natures, it yet remains quite possible for a skilled cantor or schola beautifully and tellingly to sing an erstwhile Latin chant in English. I am an artist. There are many other artists on this forum. An artful rendition can, with poetic sensitivity be quite commendable in its comparison with the original - can fulfill quite exquisately its liturgical function without embarassment, or amusement of listeners who are earnestly listening for the artfully delivered message.

One does need to be very kind to the vowels of English and treat their diction with great care and love, just as one would Latin ones. English DOES have vowels, beautiful ones -they are just different, and those who know what they are doing can chant them as fairly as Latin ones. Anglicans have been doing this for ages upon ages. I wonder... if at least part of the fault found with Englished chant is the shock or novelty of actually comprehending what is being chanted. I do think that this enters in. No matter how artfully I or anyone else adapts a chant into English, there will be resistance to the mere fact that , eeek, we can understand it... maybe it's beautiful after all.

We do, indeed, share concerns and real problems of a literary nature, but I believe artistry resolves those problems, and you believe........?

The monks of Solesmes play the leading role in selecting chants for new feasts, though for new saints most of these come from the Commons. Re. the chants for the Assumption, I have heard D. Saulnier remark on a couple of occasions that the current chants for the feast were adapted from chants in the repertory shortly after the definition of the dogma by a monk of Solesmes who - at least last summer - was still living.

>> I wonder... if at least part of the fault found with Englished chant is the shock or novelty of actually comprehending what is being chanted.

I get that sense from the NLM crowd, sometimes. The Latin serves as a "veil" and blah blah. It's an argument that makes no sense considering that Latin was the (heh heh) Lingua Franca when it became the language used in liturgy, and also considering that most people who champion use of Latin in Mass also champion a wider dissemination of Latin comprehension (along with a classical education).

It seems to me that there are some people who prefer the EF (and OF in Latin done in a traditionalist way) because they find it more engaging, more communicative, more sensual, more Catholic, etc. (These are the people who have inspired me to learn more and more about liturgical traditionalism.) Then I think there are people who prefer those things largely because they want the liturgy to leave them alone. People who prefer Latin primarily BECAUSE it is not understood strike me as perhaps wanting the right thing for the wrong reason.

MACW
Totally agree, especially with American's phobia about non-English.
Heck, sometimes I think Americans are even phobic of English.

Germaine to the new direction of this thread, I had a professor who was pretty much left of Unitarian, but regularly attended the Polish Mass near her, despite not knowing Polish. She said something to the effect that she can just ignore the words and enjoy the beauty of it, without being bothered by all that Christian nonsense.

Take it as you will.

The new hymn for Matins of the Feast of the Assumption had its melody taken neumatim (okay, this is my Latinization for neume by neume) from "Ut queant laxis."

I eschewed this method when I tried to compose a hymn for my country's only two saint. Now I can't stop singing the hymns when I get to humming them.

I am no fan of Latin liturgies, to begin with. In the earlier centuries the Church, both western and eastern, insisted liturgy be in the language of the people. However, the liturgy was ossified and enshrined at Trent in the Latin form known to most of us. The good thing is that some of the most glorious music ever written came from the Latin period. The bad thing is that the vaunted universality ascribed to Latin, was never more than universal unintelligibility, or so it seems to me.

So, what do we do about that glorious music? Letting it all die is a terrible option, although it seems that is exactly what has happened in many places in the U.S. I have heard all the arguments about the impossibility of translating the Latin into English. That the florid Gregorian melodies (many created long after the death of St. Gregory so that link is tenuous) were too simplified when translated into English. I see that as a good thing, since those florid Gregorian chants had, for any practical purpose, become performance pieces reserved for choirs. Why we did not look to the Anglicans when moving to English after Vatican II is beyond me. They did a highly successful job of translating chants into English centuries ago. We should have used that as a model, but we all know that didn't happen. We ended up with Glory & Praise, not magnificent Anglican chant.

Granted, others may approach all this differently. We all have to deal with different cultures and situations in our parishes. In my parish, I use a Latin Ordinary during Lent and Advent, replaced by English at other times during the year. I try to use the "best of the best" Latin pieces as choir numbers, solos, or small ensemble pieces. These are loved by many in my congregation, and at least, the people who detest both Latin and chant are able to live with the compromise. I borrow heavily both chant and hymns from the Anglican tradition. It too, produced some glorious music. We offer the EF once per week on Sunday, so no one is forced to endure Latin exclusively. It is available for those who want it, and we offer dignified and reverent alternatives to it in the vernacular for all the other folks. I have seen several musicians in the area lose their jobs because they couldn't or wouldn't find a middle ground between the Latin and English camps. I preferred not to be one of them.