Hello, I'm a new member of this forum, bringing this old thread back to life with a few questions.

I am currently developing the house style-sheet/editing rules for vocal music for a new publishing house specialising in authoritative editions of early music. Among the various issues I have to address are hyphenation and capitalisation in liturgical texts (both Latin and Greek), and I am seeking the opinions of specialists in sacred vocal music on these points.

When writing style-sheets, we are often faced with two seemingly contradictory necessities. For instance: Typographic rules in most languages for hyphenation are based upon spelling conventions for the most part, but also on visual/graphic considerations (such as a general prohibition to hyphenate one- or two-letter syllables at the end of a line, because (a) it looks bad in a column of type, and (b) it usually doesn't make enough difference in filling the line to be worth the trouble.

On the other hand, rules for vocal texts must be based on pronunciation as sung. So when I, or one of my editors, encounter inconsistent hyphenation in a 300-year-old first edition, there is a need for a standard which will enable us to make editing decisions that will (a) preserve the composer's intent, and (b) make that intent clear to singers of today who do not necessarily speak or understand ancient Latin or Greek very well (if at all).

An example of this conundrum:

In a set of six motets, we find the word 'Asperges' hyphenated in the source edition as 'As-per-ges' in one motet, while in a second motet we find the Greek word 'Agios' hyphenated as 'A-gi-os'. In line with the basic choral rule of keeping vowels open at the ends of syllables, especially in melismatic passages, the hyphenation of the first example would seem to be incorrect. (I suppose no choral director would want to have his choir singing 'Assssssssssss-per-ges'!)

As for capitalisation, I would be interested in the opinions of choral directors who work with this type of music, as to what they consider the 'best practise' for dealing with the often-inconsistent capitalisation found in old manuscripts and printed editions. There are a number of issues to resolve. Among them:

1. Latin did not originally include the concept of lower-case letters at all, so any rules for capitalisation in Latin must be necessarily based upon later conventions, such as capitalising the first word of each line of verse in a psalm or poem.

2. In striving to preserve the composer's intent (which, in urtext editions, is considered primordial), we need to be mindful of the sub-conscious impact that a capital letter at the beginning of a word might have on a singer. We do not want to 'correct' capitalisation in a manner that would lead singers to place undue emphasis on any particular word. If the composer set the text as, 'Asperges me asperges me asperges me asperges me hyssopo et mundabor', do we want to capitalise the word 'Asperges' every time it appears, or not? In one sense, since 'Asperges' is the first word of the original verse, we do; but in another sense it would not be good to cause the choir to deliver a Lullian thump on that word every time it appears in the score just because it was printed with a capital letter.

3. It is tempting to use modern English rules for capitalisation--such as capitalising proper nouns, honourific titles (such as 'Deus' or 'Theos') when used as part of a title rather than as an adjective ('Sanctus Deus'; as opposed to 'sanctus fortis'), but this can be a slippery slope, especially when regarded in light of the (often very different) capitalisation rules for languages such as French or German.

In other words, 'At what price do we buy consistency?'

Opinions? Comments? Criticisms?

Thanks.

I don't know if I will have much to say of value, but this is definitely a topic I appreciate; I know what you mean about inconsistencies from my own ranging about among the Gregorian chant books of the last ~150 years or so.

I would think that if you are making a new urtext edition from a single original source, your best bet would always be to try to leave everything as in the original.

A thing to remember is that it is always possible that what seem to be inconsistencies only appear that way because of a lack of understanding of the original parameters and circumstances.

When I encounter things like this, I suppose that I try to see if there is even the slightest excuse for why things are the way they are.

What I am more likely to consider correcting is if something odd can be disproved by the exact same thing occurring in multiple other agreeing instances; things that pretty much have to be typos, and whatnot.

In a critical edition, there is the advantage that footnotes are rather an expected feature, even when a correction is rather obvious.

It is also interesting to think: was my original edition well proofread, or not?

Sometimes, I find that a multiplicity of sources confuses things, and the question is not "how do I harmonize these", but rather "which of these is germane to what I am trying to represent"; if it is only one source that is relevant, it is likely a simple matter of reproducing it exactly, and then saying that I have done so.

Vale in Domino,
Jonathan

Hmmm. Sorry, all. I don't know what happened in my previous post. I attempted to insert a couple of illustrations in the text of my reply to Michael Dickson, and something went haywire with the html coding. My apologies....

Some brief replies:

(1) When repeating a capitalized word, it's not necessary to capitalize it again:
"Asperges me, Domine, asperges me...." is just fine.

(2) The capitalization style in the modern Missale Romanum seems suitable for Latin and not excessive. It includes:

-- the first word of a sentence
-- proper nouns (such as place names, names of saints)
-- nouns referring to God (e.g., "Verbum", "Princeps", etc.)
-- adjectives referring to God only when they function as titles (e.g., "Unigeniti Filii")
-- nouns referring to the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph (e.g., "Deiparae Virgini Sponsus")
-- nouns referring to angels (e.g., "Seraphim")

(3) I agree with Ben's comment about the familiarity of conventional hyphenation. It's not ideal, but breaking it wouldn't necessarily be an improvement.

Is there any consideration for derivation of words (e.g., "adoro" is "ad-oro"). See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?redirect=true&lang=Latin
Its a great resource!

Regarding the syllabification of "Asperges", I would tentatively suggest that it should be divided as a-sper-ges because "a" is a prefix and "spergo" is the root word.

I am grateful to everyone who has replied to my questions so far, and particularly to chonak for having reposted my initial comments and questions in this new thread. Let me see if I can address each of your comments in sequential order:

@BenYanke:

I have always seen situations like this written as As-per-ges, and it would seem quite odd to my eyes to see it the other way.

From the literary point of view I can't help but agree; it would seem odd to see 'Asperges' hyphenated as 'A-sper-ges'. However, I need to settle upon a rule which will be satisfy both musicologists (who can be rather unbending about 'correcting' such things) as well as modern choral directors (who often grumble when we don't correct them).

@chonak:

When repeating a capitalized word, it's not necessary to capitalize it again:
"Asperges me, Domine, asperges me...." is just fine.

I would tend to agree, however, this raises the additional question of whether or not to insert editorial punctuation. In the specific example I used to illustrate this issue, the first edition contains little if any punctuation, and there are numerous instances of repeated words of phrases that are not separated by commas, periods, or anything else. So: Do we create a style rule which adds bracketed commas between repeated phrases or words, and if so, are we possibly negating a composer's intent for those repeated phrases to be sung without the infinitessimal pause or hesitation that might result from the visual 'stop' implied by that added punctuation mark? A reading of the music itself at each instance is essential, of course, but is is possible, in your view, to create a general rule for this sort of thing?

(2) The capitalization style in the modern Missale Romanum seems suitable for Latin and not excessive.

This is the sort of reference that can be extremely useful in developing authoritative style rules. Do you happen to know if anyone has codified the style used in that missal?

@tomjaw:

1. Some chant engravers moved the clef so as to fit the neumes more easily on the stave, this is confusing if it changes several times see here, (https://archive.org/stream/lesprosestexteet00adam#page/282/mode/2up) I always change this so the clef does not move.

Changing clefs or clef positions is mostly about avoiding ledger-lines, but can also be a convenient way to allow musicians to transpose on sight. However, because today no one but viola players (and some cellists, gambists, and bassoonists) can read C-clefs worth a hoot, my editorial policy is to transcribe to modern G and F clefs. We print an incipit with the original clef and the ambitus at the start of the first system, followed by the modern clef (at the appropriate octave), and then we stick with it, using ledger lines as necessary. I quite agree with you that having to track clef changes within a part, especially when that occurs at the end of a system, is not 'user-friendly'. ;o)

ae / oe / æ / œ

Those ligatures are used frequently in high-quality typography, even in English (in which such fine distinctions as the diaresis in 'coöperative' are rapidly disappearing) , but according to 'old-school' rules those ligatures are obligatory in some other languages, particularly French. We routinely use those ligatures in all our editions. In Renaissance and Baroque-era editions, it is unusual to find spellings that do not use them.

J vs I do we write Jesu or Iesu / ejus or eius, Well I prefer the L.U. that uses the non-latin J. The Latin Mass Society uses the I in its new typesetting of the chant.

In most cases, I tend to agree. However, as late as the early 18th century, 'I' for 'J' was still occasionally used even in English (for instance, both John Walsh and Joseph Hare, are sometimes identified as 'I. Walsh' and 'I. Hare' on the cover sheets of their musical editions). Where that usage occurs in first editions being used as sources, we retain it verbatim. If necessary for clarity, a note to that effect can be included in the critical report.

Mistakes in books / manuscripts, oh dear, do we correct? Can we find them? are they really mistakes?

This sort of thing is always an editorial decision, and cannot be addressed by a set of style rules. As you mention, in many cases the error is patently obvious (as in a measure which contains too many or two few beats) and it is corrected in the score without cluttering it up with ossia or brackets. An appropriate note is placed in the errors and corrections section of the critical report for each instance. Where there is doubt as to the composer's intention, the editor may offer an alternative reading but must make it plain that it is simply that.

Differences in word order / text, this is very common in Hymns / Sequences, which version is the ideal or authoritative edition?

I agree; it is quite common for a composer or librettist to change the order of words or phrases from that of the original poem or text. However, the composer's choice in such matters must be respected and preserved. I don't think anyone would seriously argue we need to re-write the text of a musical work to match exactly the literary work upon which it was based.

Deus / deus etc. I think we should capitalise references to Our Lord

Religious conventions can be a thorny issue because there are a myriad of different beliefs and traditions. Without wishing to offend anyone, I need to make it clear that we are music publishers and our editorial perspective must necessarily remain non-secular. That said, it is historical fact that much of the vocal music of the Renaissance and Baroque periods was heavily influenced by the predominant religions in Western Europe, and it is thus inevitable that the names/titles of the deities of those religions occur frequently in the texts used by the composers. In cultures and works derived from various Christian traditions, established convention is for the honourific titles and names of those deities to be capitalised, as you suggest. Our editorial policy already reflects those conventions for music based upon those traditions.

At the same time, responsible scholarship requires noting that some non-Christian religions not only do not capitalise the name of the deity, but abhor the very naming of the deity at all, and various euphemisms (such as 'master of the universe') are commonly used to avoid any such necessity. In translations of orthodox Jewish texts, for example, the name of the deity is generally written 'g-d'. Some Eastern religions hold that the deity has virtually innumerable names ('the nine billion names of god') and that if the deity is ever actually named, that act will provoke the end of the universe. Obviously, when editing music derived from those traditions, we use the standards and conventions that apply to them.

Would it be helpful if members of this forum gave their House style rules? and how should we tabulate the these rules?

That would be extremely useful to me, and I thank you for making the suggestion.

I see that there is a maximum length to a message and I've about used it up; I'll reply to other comments in another post.

Thanks for the clarification, and please accept my apologies for misinterpreting your post initially.

I believe there is a school of thought proposing an unofficial variant of Church Latin which I have seen called 'Choir Latin.' In fact, a post on that subject on this forum was what originally led me here (subsequent to a web-search for 'Latin Hyphenation Rules'). The discussion from which this discussion was split off contains that post, IIRC.

One pet peeve of mine is the use of a string of hyphens between syllables and long underscores after a word as the default in some typesetting software. One hyphen will do!

That bugs me too.

Julie is absolutely correct in pointing out that "asperges" should be hyphenated as "a-sper-ges" (split the prefix "a-" from the root "sperges"). This convention is widely followed in literary and scholarly circles, but often ignored by those who simply do not actually know (or care about) the structure of words which have more than one part (eg. a prefix or have compound parts).

For other examples, it might be edifying to look at:

http://www.ccwatershed.org/blog/2014/feb/13/how-hyphenate-latin-words/

@JulieColl--Thank you for those three illustrations. In addition, I am a bit of a 'grammar nut' by predisposition, so your point about breaking a prefix from a root word is well taken in that perspective.

What I am most concerned with, of course, is providing editions that GOOD choral directors will approve of. We can't hope to satisfy everyone, of course; human nature doesn't work like that. But we want to meet the expectations of people who actually care about the music and have taken the trouble to learn about how to perform it well.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, because there are indeed recognized norms and standards that, with too many of the new publishing houses, are often ignored. That makes it incumbent upon the serious music engraver and publisher to consult and digest, thoroughly, the established standards, as set forth comprehensively and authoritatively, in Elaine Gould's book, Behind Bars. For vocal music, chapter 15, Vocal Music (pp. 417-476 of the second part, "Idiomatic Notation") is a must read.

Speaking about hyphenation, Asperges should always be hyphenated A-sper-ges, since you could start a Latin or Greek word with sp; if no morphological reasons are speaking against that, this is the rule to follow in hyphenating a Latin word, put all the consonants to the next syllable unless you can't start a Latin or Greek word with it.

I cited it at the end of this thread.

Things might differ for an urtext edition, I'm not a musicologist. For a performing edition I would definitely follow the rules on the page I just referred to.

@bhcordova: Thanks for your input. I am not a brass player (although I DID play trombone for a short while in 6th grade, back in the 1950s), so that is something I didn't know off the top of my head. (This is why arrangers and editors keep manuals on orchestration on their bookshelf....) I played bassoon all through high school and college, so I learned to deal with tenor clef, even if I never got comfortable with it.

The point is, though, that most singers today don't read the various C-clefs easily, if at all. Producing a modern edition, even an urtext, in the original clefs would limit its usefulness severely for that reason. In addition, there is no reason to do so; transposing into another clef does not alter the composer's intention in any way.

Carl Faulmann, Das Buch der Schrift. I just noticed it is on archive.org. The section on Latin is page 211 (page 226 in the file).