Praying with Gregorian Chant, Part I: the Latin texts
  • AngelaRAngelaR
    Posts: 319
    I wasn’t originally intending to write an article devoted to this subject, but to talk about the relationship of Gregorian melodies to Latin texts, first one must know what those Latin texts mean. Included in the article:

    +a brief historical background for the development of the chanted proper texts
    +a number of original charts with root words and scriptural references
    +some vocabulary: antiphon, proper, adiestematic, melisma, etc.
    +a comparison of Gregorian and vernacular chant
    +basic overview of Latin, with a focus on root words
    +lots of links to recordings, and to the Latin Vulgate with English translations
    +links to several other useful resources (many of them housed on the CMAA site)
    +did I mention some really cool, original charts?!?

    I hope some here find the article to be helpful!

    https://www.chantacademy.com/post/praying-with-gregorian-chant-part-i
  • What you have called an antiphon is a responsory (or a respond), not an antiphon. Remember that responsorial psalmody has 'responsories' and antiphonal psalmody has 'antiphons'. The genres are quite distinct. It is a common error to call everything that is 'refrain-like' an 'antiphon'. It isn't.

    Responsorial Psalmody=

    responsory (all)
    verse(s) (solo or choir)
    responsory (all)
    verse(s) (solo or choir)
    responsory (all)
    etc.

    Antiphona
    l Psalmody =

    antiphon - groups A & B (All)
    group A
    group B
    antiphon - groups A & B
    group A
    group B
    antiphon - groups A & B
    etc.

    This notwithstanding that there are many brief stand-alone verses with no connexion to psalmody which are called 'antiphons'.

    Your article is commendable, beautifully presented, and should have wide usage by those wishing to graduate to something better and more authentic.
  • AngelaRAngelaR
    Posts: 319
    I think you might want to check on your definitions again. Your distinction of responsorial and antiphonal is correct, but the definition of antiphon as a noun is considerably broader.

    In the Ordinary Form, what I have written is very standard usage. I chose this terminology because many who are entirely unfamiliar with the propers will have at least heard of entrance and communion antiphons. The Roman Missal, for instance, specifies "Entrance Antiphon" and "Communion Antiphon", and even the Breaking Bread prints entrance and communion antiphons along with the readings.

    Also, with regard to Gregorian chant specifically, in his book Gregorian Chant, Willi Apel speaks of both Office Antiphons and Mass Antiphons, and of Mass Antiphons, he mentions Introit, Communion, and Offertory.

    However, your broader point about a wider application is well taken, and I can make an addendum to the article in that respect. Thank you. :-)
  • This is a very nice article. I just want to offer some slight nuance on the question of which Mass chants are antiphons. The introits and communions are definitely antiphons, but the offertory is more of a grey area, since it could be argued to take more of a responsorial form like the gradual, only that it has lost its verses over time. Within the responsorial Mass chants, the verses are equally ornate or more ornate compared to the respond, which also applies to the offertory.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,329
    In the Ordinary Form, what I have written is very standard usage.


    MJO's point is thus relevant, whether we wish to take it or not.

    To Dr. Weaver's observation: the Requiem offertory is certainly a responsory even in the Roman tradition, though I think that in the Solesmes gradual of 1974, the verse is optional. I don't really care for doing the Offertoriale verses myself; both of the offertories beginning Jubilate Deo are long enough. So too Precatus est Moyses. (I know, the Mass isn't about how long people suffer, but the reality is that the priest would wait an awfully long time to continue with the preface if we did the verses.)

    Also, FWIW (not much perhaps!): the term "lesson" is sometimes used in handmissals when the sole reading is from a prophet or another book of the Old Testament or from Acts or Revelation, but invariably in the ceremonial books, it's always an "epistle", even on Epiphany and above all on weekdays of Lent except for Ember Saturday, where the readings are from the OT, and then "lectio" is used to distinguish this for the first reading etc. on Ember Wednesday, Ember Saturday (on those days), and on Good Friday. Conversely, all of the readings (four or twelve) of the Paschal Vigil before the Mass of the vigil are prophecies, but they are not technically all from the prophets. It's why it's inappropriate to use the "prophecy tone" for the main reading that is sung after the collect.
  • AngelaRAngelaR
    Posts: 319
    @MatthewRoth to clarify, my response to MJO was specifically with reference to the usage of the word "antiphon" in my article, which is (I thought) what MJO was replying to. In the article, the chants sung during the processions are referred to as antiphons, and there is an ecclesiastical precedent for this usage. For the record, I do not disagree with MJO in general that the term "antiphon" is indiscriminately used.

    I am also aware that threads here in the forum are famous for going off-tangent, but since you quoted me directly above, I felt it necessary to respond.

    @Charles_Weaver, thank you for that clarification. The offertory is a little niche all of its own, and you are right to point out that what has been called an antiphon is more properly a respond. Here I should make an addendum to my earlier remark regarding Apel's reference to the Mass Antiphons. For clarity, I will write out the entire paragraph:

    "THE ANTIPHONS
    "The general meaning of the term 'Antiphon' is that of a short text sung at the Office Hours before and after a Psalm or a Canticle, originally also between the verses, as a refrain. It represents an addition to the antiphonal (i.e., double-chorus) method of singing, from which it derived its name. Properly speaking, the term includes also the Antiphons of the Mass--that is, the Introit, the Communion, and possibly the Offertory--but each of these constitutes a separate category and has been previously considered, so that we are here concerned only with the Antiphons of the Office." p. 392
  • Scholarly opinion now holds that the offertory was originally a responsorial form which over the years has been shorn of its verses.
  • AngelaRAngelaR
    Posts: 319
    Regarding the Offertory and its verses, the Offertoriale with verses is available on the CMAA's resources here: https://media.churchmusicassociation.org/books/offertoriale1935.pdf
  • A good and commendable book about the offertory is
    'Inside the Offertory: Aspects of Chronology and Transmission',
    by Rebecca Maloy,
    Oxford, 2010.
  • FSSPmusic
    Posts: 286
    Although totally optional except in the case of the Requiem Mass, I think a strong case could be made that the offertory verses are nonetheless really and truly a part of the Mass in a way that a motet or other supplementary music isn't—singing the Mass versus singing at Mass. The Ott Offertoriale has many melodic errors, which have been corrected in more recent editions including Maloy's, omnigreg/Graduale Synopticum, and Stingl's. A more critical edition of the offertory verses has been published piecemeal in the journal Beiträge zur Gregorianik since 2019, vol. 67. The corrections generally agree with what Stingl has published on his website, which is updated regularly.
  • This thread becomes more and more interesting, even if we've wandered a little far from the original discussion. I love singing the offertory verses at Mass, and I would be interested in hearing how others incorporate them; I will describe my own practice below. Of course Patrick has his own edition of several of them as well at his site.

    I often sing a verse at the novus ordo Masses at my parish. This is easy because I'm the only one singing and I usually sing à la Cardine/Guilmard for the propers, so I use the Offertoriale triplex, which I believe I got from Andrew Mills some time around 2009. Even though we always use incense, I still find I seldom have time for anything but the first verse and a short repetendum. When I'm by myself I sometimes sing straight from Maloy's edition, but I find her "Hiley" engraving style (what Tom Kelly once called "tadpoles") minimally helpful with regard to rhythm and performance style.

    Usually what we do at our Sunday Mass in the old rite is that we sing the offertory chant and then we sing a polyphonic setting of the same text (Lassus, Palestrina, etc.). Occasionally, we will sing verses, especially if the chant is already so long that singing a polyphonic setting would require the ministers to wait. In such cases, i have generally added Mocquereau rhythm signs to the Gregobase versions, and I base them roughly on the indications in the Offertoriale triplex, together with phrase architecture and the like. I do this mainly because my schola is used to singing in that style and we don't really rehearse. It's very much a Mocquerellian house style heavily influenced by my predecessor David Hughes and by my own teachers. From the point of view of Gregorian rhythm studies, it's a pretty interesting exercise, since it is decidedly not the same as using an episema or dot to mark every sign of length in the old MSS. It's more like trying to conform the aesthetic of the verses to the more well known rhythmic profile of the respond. It's humbling to mark a certain thing that seems successful when alone and then realize that it doesn't lead to such good results with a Mocquerellian schola. Of course, Ott is also much heavier with the use of half bars than the Vatican Edition, which also requires some adjustment.
  • All five propers are in the the Ordinariate's Missal and are required to be sung at all masses - or to be said by the priest if there is no cantor or choir. At Walsingham at the high mass the introit follows the entrance hymn and the others are sung where one would expect (notwithstanding that in Sarum usage the Communion was sung during the ablutions rather than at the beginning of Communion) . They all are sung from P-B or the AUG. An offertory motet or anthem is sung after the Offertory antiphon respond. A communion motet or anthem follows the communion antiphon respond. Every once in a while the gradual is replaced by the psalm sung in directum to Anglican chant. All this is done at the high mass and the 'family mass' that precedes it.

    At the other 'sung masses' the cantor sings the propers from P-B or the AUG. It cannot be stressed enough that singing the propers is the sole duty of the cantor! No announcements or anything else is made by the cantor or anyone else.

    When Walsingham was younger I established that the 'gradual' psalm was sung to Anglican chant, as I wanted to ensure its continued use by our people and in our church. While this was, I believe, a laudable decision I would not repeat it today. Anglican chant is intended for the office and should be sung by the choir, not the people. So, it is good that all the propers are now sung by a cantor or the choir - and Anglican chant is reserved for the psalter and choir at choral mattins or evensong - and for Te Deum after mass on great occasions (which our people sing with gusto).

    As for Anglican chant for the propers at mass, this, I think is a valid and lovely option for those who want to use AC at their masses.

    I don't know if congregational AC was an innovation of the 1940 hymnal, which has a generous selection of it. As far as I know, it seems to have been. I have fond memories of growing up singing AC by the congregation. That, of course, was the time when the office of matins (Morning Prayer) was the norm for most Sundays - except in Oxford Movement parishes and predominantly Anglo-Catholic dioceses.

    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • AngelaRAngelaR
    Posts: 319
    Since the conversation has shifted, for the sake of future readers, I'll include last year's article which I wrote on the offertory chant and its verses.

    https://www.chantacademy.com/post/advent-ave-maria

    Full disclosure: I do use the word "antiphon" for the offertory chant, for the reasons stated earlier. (You'll notice that I do also use the word "respond".) These blog articles are meant to be entry-ways for people new to Gregorian chant, so some of the academic subtleties pointed out earlier in this thread, particularly by Patrick, are not noted.

    @CharlesWeaver makes an interesting observation about the schola singing the verses. Willi Apel posits in his book that the verses may have been written for different soloists, as they often have widely different ranges and and characteristics. I find Apel's perspective to be rather convincing, especially after attending a couple of Marcel Pérès' workshops here in Saint Louis, Missouri, last year, in which he spoke quite a bit on the Oral Tradition and the established practice of improvisation in Gregorian chant. The reading that I've done supports the idea that verses for the more elaborate chants were originally sung by soloists, or at least by a smaller subgroup of the schola.

    Edited to add: I shared this article in a social media group last year and was soundly pounced upon by an established author of the PrayTell blog, who said that the Offertory is a thing of the past, and that the word itself should no longer be used with regard to the post-Conciliar Mass. Numerous references to the GIRM which explicitly name the Offertory did not dissuade him. SMH.
  • In my opinion, some of the most spectacular offertory verses are in this coming Sunday's offertory in the old rite, which was last Sunday's in the new rite. Look at verse 4 of this chant:

    Vir erat

    Offertories are pretty unusual among the chant propers in that they often include text repetition, but this example is quite extreme and very beautiful.
  • FSSPmusic
    Posts: 286
    some of the academic subtleties pointed out earlier in this thread, particularly by Patrick
    I'm not sure I pointed out any academic subtleties, but ok.
  • AngelaRAngelaR
    Posts: 319
    @FSSPmusic, I was referring to different melodic restitutions of the Offertory verses. :-)
  • Angela - could you say more about Marcel Peres' comments about the oral tradition and improvisation in chant?
    Thanked by 1AngelaR
  • AngelaRAngelaR
    Posts: 319
    @M. Jackson Osborn, I feel like I am still just getting my feet wet on this subject, to be honest. I’d have to dig through my notes to make sure I don’t mis-quote him on anything. I did summarize a few thoughts in — wait for it — another blog post that I wrote last year: https://www.chantacademy.com/post/marcel-peres-and-saint-louis-ix

    The second half of the post is devoted to Pérès’ thought and approach. His workshops connected so many missing dots for me. I do realize that he is a controversial figure in many circles, especially those who espouse the Solesmes Method. And with that in mind, full disclosure: devotees of the Solesmes Method might not like some of the things I present in this article…but before shooting the messenger, please bear in mind that while I do not follow the Method in my own chanting, I personally do believe a tremendous amount of good can be found the Method, and do teach it to many of my students at the ICA.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,329
    @Charles_Weaver I don’t know if you’re the one adding them to Gregobase (which as Olivier Berten seems to have disappeared, is quickly becoming a repository for unpublished editions which by definition cannot be proofread by others)… but despite my preference and situation, if you do get around to publishing your edition as a complete PDF, that’d be useful.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen