Antiphonale Romanum I antiphon error - Dicebant: Unde huic
  • GerardH
    Posts: 620
    On page 236 of the Antiphonale Romanum I, there is an error in the incipit for the antiphon Dicebant: Unde huic. Four neumes are given to only three syllables.

    Could anyone suggest what the correct notation should be?
    image
    20250522_184706.jpg
    4000 x 3000 - 2M
    Thanked by 1igneus
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 1,089
    The original text of the antiphon starts with ‘et’. See http://gregorianik.uni-regensburg.de/an/#id/4638.

    It’s also in AV 121; I’m in France until Saturday, so I can look it up when I’m home.

    Alberto Turco has a slightly other version: https://gregobase.selapa.net/chant.php?id=15834. He mentiones his sources quite well; I’ll look it up when I'm home.
    Thanked by 2GerardH CHGiffen
  • GerardH
    Posts: 620
    You're the man, van Roode!
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 1,089
    The 2015 OCO assigns the antiphon ‘Dicebant: Unde huic sapientia hæc et virtutes? Nonne hic est fabri filius?’ (Mt 13,54-55) and refers to the Antiphonale Romanum II 336.

    There, however, the antiphons starts with ‘Et dicebant…’, just as the Antiphonale Synopticum does.

    Alberto Turco says in Antiphonæ et Responsoria IV: ‘Fonti: AR [121]. La versione melodica dell’ AM.I.353 è una neo-elaborazione di genere semiornato.’

    The antiphon from the 1912 Antiphonale Romanum starts with ‘Et dicebant…’ and has a different melody, adapted by Alberto Turco to match the text that starts with ‘Dicebant…’. The 1983 OCO also assigns this antiphon, referring to AR [121], but quoting the text as ‘Dicebant…’ instead of ‘Et dicebant…’
    Scherm­afbeelding 2025-05-24 om 15.59.25.png
    1326 x 460 - 98K
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen tomjaw GerardH
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,210
    That’s more than an error, that’s people not agreeing and then introducing a mistake on top of it. Yikes. Whatever one makes of Solesmes (who obviously had a role in this, don’t get me wrong), perhaps it was good that we centralized chant with the monks in the end, all while people were free to ignore them…
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 1,089
    I assume it is a genuine mistake in the 1983 OCO, which was subsequently transferred to the 2015 OCO.

    Prior to the publication of the 2015 OCO, the monks of Solesmes created a more elaborate melody for AR II based on the 1912 AR antiphon, and probably made a mistake later on when adapting it to the text of the 2015 OCO (which is an editio typica) for AR I.

    Alberto Turco, on the other hand, just worked with the 1912 antiphon, making a small adaptation to account for the current typical edition of the text. I think I like the approach of Turco more.

    Mistakes happen. I don’t read too much in it. It was fun to compare the various editions.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen GerardH
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,210
    But that’s just it: the OCO not agreeing with the already-published AR II is tough toodles for the Vatican. That is how you multiply mistakes.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 1,089
    Please keep in mind that it is probably the other way around: the Antiphonale Romanum is a private publication by Solesmes, not an editio typica. Maybe Solesmes was too quick with the publication of AR II, while the new OCO was still in the workings. ‘The Vatican’ being here the (then) Congregation of Divine Worship and the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music.

    Anyway, I also noticed that Solesmes already had the more elaborate ‘Et dicebant’ antiphon in their Antiphonale Monsticum I from 2005.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,210
    I don’t care, because why, if it’s so dang important to sing the new office in chant, in Latin, is there not a book to sing from?

    But the point is that there are too many cooks. The Vatican does not want to publish a new editio typica of the chant, and once someone has published a private edition, one coming from the people to whom the Vatican entrusted chant once it gave up its own work, which gives it a certain amount of, you know, something to make it privileged among every other private edition (especially since the notes are familiar enough and we know, or probably know, what they mean — PrayTell has some damning comments about the new Liber Hymnarius). And the OCO can’t even get it right: is it with Et or not? How do you possibly miss a reference like this?

    Also you can link to Gregobase (scroll or use ctrl+f searching for [121]) and to the Internet Archive otherwise. I’m not, and most of us aren’t, able to scroll through a massive PDF in browser.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 1,089
    There is a book to sing from: Antiphonæ et Responsoria. Jörg Hundelmaier did a great job by transcribing it in gabc.

    And again, mistakes just happen once in a while. Working as an editor myself, I highly respect the work that has been done for the 2015 OCO.

    Also you can link to Gregobase (scroll or use ctrl+f searching for [121]) and to the Internet Archive otherwise. I’m not, and most of us aren’t, able to scroll through a massive PDF in browser.


    I added a scan of the antiphon from the Antiphonale Romanum [121]. But, here’s a direct link to the page in question: https://archive.org/details/antiphonale-romanum-1912/page/121/mode/2up
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,210
    Well your link went to the full antiphonal and mobile users can’t see scans (it is not obvious that you would have attached a scan from what you wrote so I wouldn’t bother to use the desktop version)

    The problem is the why that this mistake happened. Too many cooks as it were. But it just raises the question of if we are going to have to revise everything again in 100 years if a handful of musicologists get testy.
Add a Comment