1961 Liber Usualis, errors
  • There are many places in the 1961 Liber Usualis where the text does not match that of the 1962 Roman Missal. Interestingly, most of the discrepancies I’ve come across do not occur when the Missal is compared with older chant sources, for example, Pothier’s 1883 and 1895 Graduales, and the 1903 Liber Usualis.

    In producing the Solesmes rhythmic editions that eventually led to the 1961 Liber Usualis, many copying errors where made. Sometimes one or two words (or parts of words) were left out, together with their music, or the music of the earlier editions was retained, but the words were not assigned to the notes properly and the compositor ran out of notes and left off the last word or two. The easiest errors to fix are incorrect words, sometimes mistakenly copied from other phrases in the chant, and word reversals.

    Thanks to Corpus Christi Watershed, the older sources can be examined online in the St. Lalande Library of Rare Books (jeandelalande.org), and many of the simpler errors can be corrected quite easily. Here are examples of the types of errors I’ve described, together with appropriate corrections. These examples will be much easier to follow if you have a copy of the Liber Usualis handy and have opened one of the older chant sources referred to earlier.

    __________________________________________________

    1) The Gradual “Liberasti nos” is missing the word “in.”

    1962 Roman Missal: “et in nomine tuo confitebimur”
    1962 Liber Usualis: “et nomine tuo confitebimur”

    - Insert the note A and word “in” between “et” and “nomine.”

    2) The Gradual “Domine, refugium” is missing the word “usque.”

    RM: “a saeculo et usque in saeculum”
    LU: “a saeculo et in saeculum”

    -Insert two F’s and the word “usque” between “et” and “in.”

    3) The Offertory “Vir erat” is missing the word “Hus.”

    RM: “Vir erat in terra Hus, nomine Job”
    LU: “Vir erat in terra nomine Job”

    -Remove the dots from the clivis at the end of “terra” and add the note G and the word “Hus.”

    4) The Introit “Gaudete” is missing the word “enim.”

    RM: “Dominus enim prope est”
    LU: “Dominus prope est”

    -Between “Dominus” and “prope” insert the word “enim” and three notes, a G and an A for the first syllable of “enim” and an A for the last syllable.

    5) The Offertory “Justitiae Domini” is missing the two words “judicia ejus.”

    RM: “laetificantes corda, et judicia ejus dulciora”
    LU: “laetificantes corda, et dulciora”

    -Between “et” and “dulciora” insert the words “judicia ejus” and the notes F, G, A, G, and F for the four syllables of “judicia,” placing two notes on the second syllable, and the notes A, F, G, A and G for “ejus,” four notes for the first syllable and one for the last.

    6) The Introit “Vocem jucunditatis” is missing the first syllable of “annunciate.”

    RM: “alleluia: annunciate”
    LU: “alleluia: nunciate”

    -Add “an” to “nunciate,” place it under the first note group and shift all the other syllables one note group, adding the note A to accommodate the last syllable.

    7) The Gradual “Benedictus qui venit” is missing the word “istud” because the preceding words are set incorrectly.

    RM: “A Domino factum est istud”
    LU: “A Domino factum est”

    -Reduce the first syllable of “factum” to one note, and set the second syllable to the next five notes. The following three note figure carries the word “est,” the next four notes the first syllalble of “istud,” and the last note the remaining syllable. (Note that in some sources the beginning figure has two more notes than are found in the LU.)

    8) The psalm verse in the Introit “Esto mihi” is missing the phrase “et eripe me.”

    RM: “in justitia tua libera me, et eripe me:
    LU: “in justitia tua libera me”

    -The psalm tones can easily be expanded to accommodate the longer phrase. Sing the last three syllables of “justitia” on A, “tua” on A, C and G, with two notes on the first syllable, “libera me” on F, “et” on G, and “eripe me” on F, D, F, G, F with two notes on the first syllable of “eripe.”

    9) The psalm verse of the Introit “Inclina, Domine” has “quoniam” instead of “quia.”

    RM: “quia ad te, Domine”
    LU: “quoniam ad te, Domine”

    -Replace the first two syllables of “quoniam” with “quia” and omit the last syllable and its note.

    It is likely this error occurred because the phrase “quoniam ad te” occurs earlier in the chant.

    10) The Communion “Qui manducat” has two pair of words reversed.

    RM: “Qui manducat meam carnem”
    LU: “Quit manducat carnem meam”

    RM: “et bibit meum sanguinem”
    LU: “et bibit sanguinem meum”

    -Reverse the words and maintain the same distribution of notes per syllable.

    __________________________________________________

    The level of agreement between the Proper texts in the Missal and the chant settings should be extremely high. Mistakes as obvious and easy to fix as those I’ve pointed out should have long since been corrected. It seems the Solesmes editors have not been called to task for such errors since those I’ve noticed in the 1961 Liber Usualis are repeated in the 1974 Solesmes Graduale.

    It is very easy to check the text of the chant against the Missal, and looking through the older sources does not take much time since they are now available online.

    My sincere thanks to the folks at Corpus Christi Watershed for the St. Lalande Library of Rare Books!
  • mahrt
    Posts: 517
    These are not really "errors," but variants, most of which have long historical precedent. I checked a few of them in the Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex, the collation of the six earliest manuscripts of the texts of the propers of the Mass, and against the Graduale Romanum of 1908. The Liber Usualis agrees with these. I suspect that what happened is that after the Council of Trent the Clementine Vulgate was issued, a standardization of the Bible text in Latin, after which the texts of the Missal were corrected in accordance with the Clementine. The texts of the gradual were not, however, because they were set to specific melodies. Potier and the other nineteenth-century editors may have thought it necessary to bring the gradual in agreement as well, and did so, but the final edition of the Graduale Romanum of 1908 kept the traditional readings of these Mass propers. I would not change them; after all, not all Mass propers keep the texts exactly as they are in the scriptures; if you look at the offertory Vir erat, for example, with its verses, you see quite a wonderful story, but one that is simply told on the basis of the scripture but not in its exact words.
  • Chrism
    Posts: 872
    It is required to SING the text as it appears in the Graduale, NOT in the Missale.

    IMPORTANT

    The official book containing the Proper-Chants of the Mass for use of the Liturgical Choirs is the GRADUALE ROMANUM (now inserted in the LIBER USUALIS) as restored by the Pontifical Commission, approved by Pope Pius X and published in 1908.

    Since the purpose of the present volume is to provide less experienced church choirs with an arrangement of the prescribed chants, it was my logical duty to adopt the same liturgical text as given in the GRADUALE ROMANUM, even when the latter reads somewhat differently from the text of the ROMAN MISSAL.

    The existence of such slight discrepancies of text between the GRADUALE ROMANUM and the ROMAN MISSAL has been recognized and sanctioned by the Congregation of Sacred Rites in its decree of August 7th, 1907, which appears in the Preface to the Graduale Romanum.

    Rev. Carlo Rossini
    Proper of Mass (1944), p. IV (emphases in original)
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    FIRST OF ALL, thank you for sharing this information Patrick Joseph et al.

    My understanding is that some Propers are so old that many of them come from the ITALA, not the Vulgate. However, let me say in advance this is not my area.

    Thus, you find, for instance, "ex Egypto" rather than "de Egypto" if I remember correctly, and things like this.

    To a large extent, Pothier's goal was to match the Missale texts, I think, but not in all cases. One thing he DID insist on, much to Mocquereau's dismay, was "Kyrie Eleison" rather than the Medieval "Kyrieleyson" and he CHANGED the music accordingly.

    It is wonderful to have this FORUM, where all this information is shared !!

    Patrick Joseph, it is fun to compare those variants, no? ;-) Pothier and his crew were work-aholics!
  • Dear Jeff:

    You're most welcome.

    It is indeed fun to compare the different sources, and very productive, too!

    Thanks again for the tremendous work you are doing!
  • Jeff O - Thanks for the ex/de description. I've wondered why some versions of the same music (i.e., Ave Verum Corpus) differ in little things such as "ex Maria Virgine" vs "de Maria Virgine". Nice to know!
  • In many cases, the differences between the Graduale and Missale propers were introduced with the 1908 Graduale. Compare, for example, the Communion antiphon, "Venite post me", from the Feast of St. Andrew (p. 1306 in the 1961 Liber Usualis 801) to the 1962 Missale Romanum (p. 430) and the 1896 Graduale Romanum (p. 235).

    Liber Usualis/Graduale Romanum 1961
    Veníte post me: fáciam vos piscatóres hóminum: at illi, relíctis rétibus et navi, secúti sunt Dóminum.

    Missale Romanum 1962/Graduale Romanum 1896
    Veníte post me: fáciam vos fíeri piscatóres hóminum: at illi contínuo, relíctis rétibus, secúti sunt Dóminum.
  • > In many cases, the differences between the Graduale and Missale propers were introduced with the 1908 Graduale.

    Actually they were introduced for the first time when the revision of the Missale Romanum changed the text as it had always been sung (or, in low Masses, said). Then the chant books were ammended, so that the chant should match the new words. And then the 1908 Graduale Romanum reintroduced the differences by restoring the chant as it was when composed. The Missale Romanum was never brought back to the original wording. That's the story Professor Mahrt told above.

    The particular example you quote shows this clearly: medieval liturgical sources do follow the wording still found in the latest edition of the Graduale Romanum. (See e.g. this list, though there's a typo in that site: «secuti sunt», not «secuti sun».)
  • Jeff:

    A good point about "ex" and "de."

    Not all discrepancies are copying errors, neither are they all variants!