This is my last will and testament.
If we consider as the subject of semiology all research which, beginning with the oldest and most differentiated neumatic signs, allows us to discover the truth about Gregorian chant, it is necessary to recognize as authentic semiologists certain Gregorian scholars who worked courageously along these lines for more than a century.

In an interesting article, Professor Hans Lonnendonker had the happy idea of putting in contact several German specialists, as a result of the work of Michael
Hermesdorff, organist at the Cathedral of Trier.

In Italy the outstanding personality was without a doubt the canon of Lucca, Raffaello Baralli. More or less quickly, everyone made contact with the monks of Solesmes, who began their research under the energetic leadership of the founder of the abbey, Dom Prosper Gueranger. Along with the two successive heads of the paleographic workshop of Solesmes, let us name those whose work is of special interest to us here: working with Dom Joseph Pothier was Dom Raphael Andoyer, and with Dom Andre Mocquereau, two monks whom I was fortunate enough to know at the end of their long careers: Dom Gabriel Bessac and Dom Armand Menager. Our gratitude and faithful prayers go to these pioneers in the restoration of Gregorian chant and to all the others who
preceded us and whose names I would not be able to mention.

Their work constitutes the point of departure for research which was greatly developed later. In 1950, my associate Dom Jacques Hourlier recognized the "intermediary science" which was introduced little by little between Gregorian paleography, a discipline where he himself excelled, and esthetics, where Dom Gajard prefered being placed. In 1954, Dom Guy Sixdenier proposed to call this new science semiology, a name that was immediately accepted.

Even before being called to Rome in January 1952, and to a much greater extent in the years that followed, by profession and by vocation, I dedicated myself to the study of neums, by following the path laid out by Dom Mocquereau, a path which always left me in awe. I believed in it from my first reading of his work, and I still believe in it today!

In the scholarly introduction to his Paleographie musicale (p.13), Dom Mocquereau presented the first manuscripts with notation in Gregorian chant in this
way: "They are not the ancient masters whose teachings we would like to hear, but the translation into writing of what those masters taught and executed; and from there, for those who know how to read and understand this writing, there is a most perfect expression of 'liturgical cantilenes.' Let us emphasize here the phrase "for those who know how to read and understand this writing." This is exactly what semiology consists of: to learn to read in order to understand what Gregorian chant is.

Happily, I was joined in this search by Dom Luigi Agustoni who edited and published the results of the first research. A little later a courageous cohort of students presented themselves. They agreed to work on subjects that were sometimes very dry, but their efforts usually resulted in significant research papers and doctoral dissertations. That precious collaboration enlarged the field of knowledge and assured its solidity.

At the same time and in a parallel fashion, a collection of outlines and notes was prepared for the classes at the Pontificio Istituto di Musica Sacra. Along with answers to questions and critiques of readings, these were carefully assembled in great detail by Dom Godehard Joppich and Dom Rupert Fischer into an organized course.


This work was called Semiologia gregoriana, and was soon translated into French, Japanese, English, Spanish and German.

This was the second layer of semiological progress. It presented in many languages the ensemble of work accomplished over some twenty years. The written symbols of various schools of notation still gravitated to signs associated with St. Gall, but they were at the point of detaching themselves and reclaiming their independence. This does not mean that comparative semiology, which studies the differences and similarities of various schools, will not always be of the greatest interest and will not be able to develop indefinitely. To all of those who helped me in this second period, I send my warmest and most cordial gratitude.

Even before the end of this second period, when it still bore the promise of rich fruits, a third period had already begun. We had hardly explained the meaning of each of the neums in a quick fashion, when a new group of questions was already raised by the scholars: for what use were "particular" signs designated? I mean here signs whose design reveals a choice made among forms which were more or less the same. Thus one moved from the meaning of the sign to its conscious use. Here is the progress made: a step was taken toward esthetics and interpretation. In the Festschrift previously refered to (p. 443-457), Dom Godehard Joppich gave good examples of the bivirga placed at the end of a word. Similarly, Professor Heinrich Rumphorst (Etudes Gregoriennes XIX, p. 27-88) gave examples of two forms of the pes subbipuncti. Instead of being exhausted, the world of research extended farther and farther.

Moreover, everything seems to favor this growth. The Associazione Internationale Studi de Canto Gregoriano, in its tenth year, has more than justified the happy initiative of its two founders; and the third conference currently taking place gives evidence of the zeal and competence of its members. Our secretary, so well assisted by Signora Albarosa, works generously in various scientific and practical areas, especially in the publication of the Bollettino and the organization of the courses in Cremona. In addition, the entrance into official teaching and the imminent growth in this area gives us hope of equal progress in depth. Such a balance sheet leads one to profound gratitude to those who are working so devotedly on preparing the future. I sincerely rejoice that there are people to carry on the work; those who are growing up today and those whose presence we can only guess at who will carry on tomorrow.

Thus Gregorian semiology is alive and well. It finds its roots in the "foundation which is the least lacking," that of the first musical notations, and it develops its
branches in the most promising milieu. The knowledge which results must bear fruit. Music is only learned in order to be performed and heard, to become pleasure and praise.

Interpretation is necessary in this last stage of bringing the chant to life, just as semiology is necessary to furnish the raw materials. The two must be in harmony or they will fail to reach their goal. If semiology is not respected, the work is treated without dignity and it is deformed. It can even be betrayed. If interpretation is lacking, interest in it will be lacking also. Success rests in the union of these two necessities.

I have affirmed several times that semiology alone is not enough to determine a performance of Gregorian chant. It seems to me correct to say that semiology "is not a method" in the common use of the term, but at the same time the use of this expression is sometimes interpreted too strictly. Some have used it with pleasure as if through it they were freed from a bothersome burden. "It is not a method? Then it has no practical use; let us leave to others this scientific pastime!"

It is impossible to be more seriously mistaken! With Dom Mocquereau we have already seen that the study of the original neums is the only way to know Gregorian chant, and elsewhere we have proved that this study is indeed worthy of the name of semiology. The conclusion is evident!

Indeed, what do most of our critics want? They pretend that they are faithful to an ideal which they have judged to be perfect once and for all without ever having made the effort to question its value. Since for them the musical world is a question of taste, they are fully satisfied with the comfortable habits they have acquired and enriched with so many memories of people, circumstances and places that they love.

Or on the other hand, they believe that if Gregorian chant is music, it has to be this way or that. Thus they think they are dispensed from all research into what sort of music it is. It is too easy! Therefore they cultivate, to their own liking, oppositions in tempo between phrases or clauses in the same piece, using crescendos, accellerandos or their opposites, instead of respecting the variety of syllables and the diverse values of the notes, allowing the Gregorian chant to express its own true character.

All the proposed rhythmic systems which are more or less measured, falter when compared with the first notations, whose obvious differences cannot be made to agree. The very notion of the neum is inconsistent if it is not attached to the syllables of the literary text, for the graphic signs were not conceived of as rhythmic entities. And what is there to be said about the coupures (breaks in the neums), which are evident everywhere in the manuscripts? Only that they are interpreted either more rigidly or with more elasticity, depending on the various schools of notation. All of that, along with the additions and styles of notation which vary depending on the region, constitute the "semiological givens" that can neither be denied or objected to. These are the beacons of which I have so often spoken!

If we are asked how these well documented "givens" should be applied, it is necessary to answer: "With subtlety!" And once again it is semiology which teaches
us. Here is an easy way to prove it. It comes from a research paper presented in 1977 to the Pontificio Istituto di Musica Sacra (No. 33, St. Maria Luigina Pelizzoni, Festschrift, p. 494). Codex 381 from St. Gall contains a versicularium (a book of verses for the introit and the communion), written around the year 1000, which is entirely in campo aperto notation. In it there are only eight examples of the virga with an episema / : four times on the word rex and four times on cor. It is very obvious that the intention was to emphasize these two monosyllables which have a particularly lyric meaning. This is all the more evident because these eight examples always take place in unisonic recitation. However, these two monosyllables, which are sung recto tono, also are notated elsewhere with a simple virga / : three times on rex and five times on cor. All in all there are the following occurences: with virga 4 + 4 = 8 and without virga 3 + 5 = 8

There is therefore a numerical equality. But since the use of the episema on the isolated virga is very rare in this document, it indicates the will of the author. This is in contrast with those cases when the absence of the episema can, without fearing an error, be attributed to a lack of attention. In general, the scribe preferred the virga with episema "when he thought about it!" Given these conditions, would it be indicated to sing in a heavy fashion the words that were given the episema and to allow those same words to pass unnoticed among the neighboring syllables when their notation is the simple virga? It would be rigorously exact and would conform to the notation, but would it conform to an intelligent understanding of semiology?

It is possible to continue and elaborate on the conclusion. The possibility that we have to analyze this rich collection of psalm verses allows us to note specifically in simple examples what we remark so often in ornate compositions of the Gregorian repertoire. There are examples to be found in the first pages of the recently issued volume (No. XX) of Etudes gregoriennes in the article "Les formules centons des Alleluias anciens." In studying these superimposed notations, one sees here and there, next to very rare variants which are clearly opposed to one another, a certain number of imprecisions which cause us to question the attention of the copyists. The ensemble is quite different from a modern work, which is printed and checked several times to eliminate the smallest differences. In this case however, things that are considered as small defects give a certain kind of interest rather than being a detraction. It is like a play of light and shadow which brings out the proportions of the object admired.

Nevertheless, comparisons of this type are extremely profitable. They help us become more intimately connected with those who wrote the notation. If the Gregorian scholar is able to establish a serious contact with similar presentations, he will abandon little by little those aspects of his way of thinking that are too modern and will be able to acquire a sensitivity and a judgment which is more adapted to the music he wishes to bring to life again.

But then an important question is raised. Of what use are the charts of the "values of neumatic signs" that we are daring enough to publish? Let us recognize first that after having created them patiently, we sometimes hesitate to use them. We do not always know where to place a certain sign even though the value that was assigned to it originally in its context seems evident in most cases. It is the time to repeat once again that neums are not created to be put in a chart. If in spite of all this we do so, it is to facilitate explanations which are requested of us. A well-organized understanding of the most ordinary cases provides a frame which can be helpful, but we must be careful not to be caught in our own traps. Comparisons can be dangerous. The syllabic value placed between the "diminished" and "augmented" is obvious. But one must not add the two "values" on the left to make the equivalent of the "value" on the right or any other similar calculation. That would certainly be false!

The hesitations I make reference to are an obvious proof of our most perfect submission to the manuscript tradition. Indeed it would be very simple to classify automatically in all the examples in our chart all the signs that we run across, but we do not want to give into such facility. That is why in more than one case, after having considered the relationship of values on the positive side and on the negative side, we do not want to decide one way or the other. I remember having advised a student to write her examples of a stropha with episema 2. across the vertical line separating the syllabic value and the augmented value, because I could not decide, nor could she, in favor of one attribution or the other.

All this is to say clearly that we are here treating the limits of semiology with regard to the precise determination of values. Let us understand fully the meaning of this affirmation which does not negate the basic progress in this area made in the last few years, but which forbids all automatic classification of the signs, especially of those which are rare. Progress will no doubt be made in the future, but the very nature of a rhythm which is as free as that of Gregorian chant is associated with an elasticity and a suppleness which is opposed to rigorous precisions.

That is why we cannot accept the new Lagal edition which was invented recently to help chanters, but which, I am convinced, offers more difficulties than advantages, in the theoretical as well as the practical areas. It solidifies values in a deadly way and it is especially unable to translate their variety, because their relationship one to the other is relative.

Indeed, thanks to our knowledge of the neums, when it is understood that a certain note is more important than neighboring notes, or vice versa, it is easy to
understand a certain difference, which it will be prudent to reduce rather than augment, unless there are perfectly clear indications. But how to find a precise
dimension for that note, such as would be found in clockmaking, but not at all in Gregorian chant? A greater problem still is how to find a printed form of the sign
which can be easily measured by the eye of the chanter? It is bringing minutiae to impractical and inexact levels. I never thought of such a thing during my halfcentury with neums! The most explicit transcription of neums is not in any way rigid; it remains supple and human. In general, if the knowledge of plus or minus in the values of notes constitutes the essential part of semiology, the dose is determined by interpretation. On the other hand, instead of paying such scrupulous attention to the signs of the manuscripts, some Gregorian scholars take too great a liberty with the neums. They clearly separate the syllabic from the melismatic value, affirming that it is impossible to do otherwise. They say that long series of notes cannot be sung syllable by syllable. These series must be clearly heard to be understood.

Let us recognize that examples performed by a virtuoso soloist may be captivating because of the differences established between the slowing down and the hurrying of the sounds. But the beauty of a voice is not enough to be convincing, nor are certain similarities with Eastern music. One cannot manage to bend the notes to these fantasies! The most important thing is to accept this challenge: "If you think that the value of the syllable and the value of the neum can be made equal to each other, prove it!" I willingly return the package to the sender! If a proof must be given, it is through those who attribute different values to the same signs. When we consider a punctum equal to a punctum, and an uncinus equal to a uncinus, proof seems unnecessary. Here we still remain faithful to our total submission to the signs of the first manuscripts! Moreover, if there really was such opposition in the middle ages, would it not be normal to find some trace of that opposition? We are waiting for some evidence that would make us change our mind.

In these conditions, what advice should be given to the gregorianist who knows semiology at least in its broad outlines and who truly wants to sing and have others sing? How can he make the best use of his knowledge without running the risk of running into the reefs that we just mentioned?

Since semiology is the entrance necessary for all knowledge of Gregorian chant, semiology should be allowed to function freely without encumbrances under the
pretext that it could stifle or hinder interpretation! Indeed, if from the beginning, before even having studied the original neums, one pronounces exclusions against a melodic reconstitution, a vocal technique, or any other musical phenomenon which would be declared contrary to good taste, to accepted practices, to ease of execution or even to the dignity of the liturgy or of prayer, by that very fact, one places an obstacle to the proper functioning of the semiological science and one establishes oneself as a pretentious judge of an art which is much beyond us. It is the duty of the person interpreting to accept all the conclusions of semiology (that is certainly obvious), even those which are surprising or seem abnormal. However, he will try to harmonize them with his own artistic imagination, for it is impossible to imagine a performance which would be judged by the person doing it as a contradiction or an obvious example of ugliness. It will always be possible to present objections which are historical, liturgical, or physiological, or still others which will allow for fruitful debate. The important thing is to arrive at a fundamental understanding which will permit one to apply to concrete cases principles verified in the rest of the repertoire.

That is a true semiological type of reasoning which normally ought to be developed and enriched, in relationship to conscientious work, revised constantly and without end. This is a program which is too beautiful for a single researcher, but one that an association like ours can establish and carry out.

If we have referred here exclusively to the values of notes in Gregorian chant, it is not to reduce the area of semiology to that rhythmical given. It is because the variety of values constitutes a very thorny question, in which ignorance greatly harms our performances. It goes without saying that nothing will be neglected with regard to the different schools of notation. Everything must be taken into consideration as historical witnesses; we would be guilty if we allowed them to be lost.

It is at this point that the interpreter comes in. He uses various semiological givens in order to establish a living and harmonious whole. He organizes and places in hierarchical order the various parts of the composition and in each one organizes the subdivisions and principal points, going from one to the other down to the smallest details. In this work he will especially have to take note of breaks in the neums (graphic separations), recognizing those which are cesuras and those which, quite to the contrary, represent accents. The difference is one of size because for the most part, the accents join the preceding to the following notes, while the cesuras establish one kind of break or the other, from the tiniest hesitation to a real pause (which nevertheless will not be complete because the breaks are found within the neum and thus one must not destroy its unity). This opposition in the meaning of the breaks indicates rather well the necessity for a true interpretation. This is all the more so because between the two extremes, there are many other breaks which are less clear and which should be treated as articulations of the melody which are more or less important. The role of the interpreter is to make a choice between the various possibilities and how much they can be harmonized. In the last analysis it is his work to judge and decide. Without a doubt he will be able to draw much information from the study of contexts and from the signs used for the neums, but he will also and of necessity need to have taste which is formed by his experience with Gregorian chant. These varying talents will need to be used when it comes to the immediate preparation of chanters and even more so the actual singing. This will be the time to apply what we have analyzed previously, and even to go beyond it, as must be the case, to create a new living synthesis. If all music begins "beyond the sign," this is even more true of Gregorian chant. Its notation is as supple as its rhythm is free. After having pleaded for respect for the sign, we must beg gregorianists to surpass it!

The danger that is lying in wait for us is too well known: it is to lose oneself in the details which are identified and learned with difficulty and to forget the whole. In particular, the notes that we pay special attention to become too long. They muddy the movement and make it heavy. Excessive attention paid to a thousand details stifles what is spontaneous and natural. One can hear a voice which is constrained by fear and thus does not produce a good sound. In paying attention to the analysis, will we miss the synthesis? To prevent this, we must so greatly assimilate the result of our work that we end up by forgetting technique so that the listener does not hear it either. This ideal will not be achieved from one day to the next and perhaps never completely, but we will have to try for it as much as possible. May good sense guide us and keep us halfway between inaccessible perfection and a routine which is too easily satisfied with anything at all!

Let us accept this obligation willingly because it will reward greatly both those who look to Gregorian chant for pleasure for themselves, their students or their listeners, and those who consider the sung liturgy as praise of God and a source of spiritual life. For all of you, I wish the abundant fruits whose taste I know, and I hope to meet you in a harmonious progression on the path to Paradise. This is my last will and testament.

Solesmes, April 11, 1984 DOM EUGENE CARDINE