Once more, medieval sources do give the Gradual text as is now found in the Graduale Romanum. Check this link: the Communion has the whole text, but the Gradual does not, and ommits the words you mention.

It is probably another example of the story of changed words in the Missale, then in the Graduale, and of the restoration of the Graduale but not of the Missale, mentioned in the previous discussion...

dvalerio:

Quite possible.

Robert:

"Or maybe the copying error was in the scriptural text that the composer was working with when it was set to music." Perhaps. I don't see how it could be a deliberate adaptation, though. It can hardly be argued that the omission is artistically justified since the abbreviated text results in a reading that is somewhat obscure, and the music is virtually the same in both instances.

All:

My point in giving these examples is that there are discrepancies between the texts of the 1961 LU and the 1962 Missal that disappear when the Missal is compared with late 19th and early 20th century editions of chant, and in many cases there is no reason these sources should not be used to harmonize the sung chant with the readings in the Missal.

dvalerio:

You seem quite impervious to the idea that copying errors occur.

Note that the 1961 LU is not in agreement with the Rossini, either.

Where the earlier sources I quoted have the missing phrase, “et non dixit Jesus: non moritur,” Rossini has “et non dixit Deus: non moritur,” the use of “Deus” rather than “Jesus” being a “slight discrepancy.” The 1961 LU is missing that phrase entirely.

Also, the 1961 LU includes the phrase, “tu me sequere,” which is absent from the Rossini.

The examples I’ve given of how one can harmonize the 1961 LU with the 1962 Missal are musically innocuous. Though the two versions of the chant from the feast of St. John described in this thread differ more than most of the examples I’ve mentioned, it is important to note that the piece in question is a gradual.

The use of standard phrases in graduals is well known. In a sense, they are really very elaborate reciting formulas, though some highly distinctive passages frequently occur, often towards the beginning of the chant. The passages I’m referring to occur with only minor differences in many mode 5 graduals. This is why it cannot be convincingly argued from aesthetic grounds that the use of the version with the complete text would be harmful. In such a situation it is naive to argue that there must have been a profound, yet to us, unknowable, reason for the omission.

One could argue in reference to all the examples I’ve given that the overall quality of the presentation is enhanced when the text is made consonant with that of the Missal.

“is it permissable for the '62 Missal?”

An excellent question.

The great chant scholar David Hiley says the 1908 Graduale Romanum is “in effect a new edition of Pothier’s Liber gradualis, re-edited in light of the Solesmes Liber usualis of 1903” (Western Plainchant, 627).

I’ve come across a couple of dozen discrepancies between the text of the 1962 Missal and the 1961 LU. With Hiley’s observation in mind, it is interesting to note that in all cases, the 1962 Missal is in agreement with Pothier’s two Graduales and the 1903 LU, and the 1961 LU agrees with the 1908 Graduale.

Apparently, the differences in the chant arose with the 1908 Graduale. A great source of division among the members of the commission responsible for the 1908 Graduale was the question of whether later sources, as representative of a “living tradition,” could be used in preference to earlier sources. Enormous controversy surrounded the compilation of the 1908 Graduale and it is difficult to know whose views prevailed in any particular situation. It seems evident, though, that the earlier readings were not always adopted. I don’t think this is relevant to the corrections I’ve suggested, though.

Regarding the discrepancies I’ve noted between the 1962 Missal and the 1961 LU (and the 1908 Graduale), Hiley’s comment that the 1908 Graduale was derived from Pothier’s two Graduales and the 1903 LU (three sources which are in agreement with the 1962 Missal), lends strong support to the contention that these discrepancies are copying errors.

One can be too concerned with the continuity between the chant sung now and that found in early manuscripts, and not attentive enough to congruence between the sung chant and the corresponding texts in the Missal, preferring to concentrate on “horizontal” rather than “vertical” considerations, if you will. Undoubtedly, enormous erudition was behind Pothier’s Graduales as well as the 1908 Graduale. I have no desire to second-guess the scholars responsible for these works. From a practical perspective, I think it highly desirable that the texts of the chants conform to the readings in the Missal, particularly since the current differences appear to be the result of errors, and congruence can be achieved without damaging the musical integrity of the chants.

Is it permissible to sing the passages I've referred to as presented in the Pothier Graduales or the 1903 LU in order to correct copying mistakes? I would hope so, but I really don’t know.

One wonders why disagreements between the Missal and the Graduale persist. My copy of the 1962 Missal was published in 2004 and is a “fully revised and updated” edition of an earlier one. The 1908 Graduale is more than 100 years old and the 1961 LU almost fifty. Surely it is high time to harmonize the texts of the chant with those of the Missal.

____________________________

“the appearance of the proper texts of the Missal is simply the importation of texts from the chant books”

Is this so? The earliest manuscripts of proper texts predate the earliest chant manuscripts.

"Regarding the discrepancies I’ve noted between the 1962 Missal and the 1961 LU (and the 1908 Graduale), Hiley’s comment that the 1908 Graduale was derived from Pothier’s two Graduales and the 1903 LU (three sources which are in agreement with the 1962 Missal), lends strong support to the contention that these discrepancies are copying errors."

Patrick, the point has already been made on this and the previous thread that the textual changes introduced with the 1908 Graduale were deliberate. They are not "errors", although I suppose you are free to disagree with them. In particular, the text of the Gradual "Exiit sermo" in the 1908 GR is the same as the 10th century manuscript linked to in Robert's post above (except for the spelling of one word). It's also the same as the text in the Henry Bradshaw edition of the Missale Romanum from 1474 (called Mediolani, pub. 1899) - see attached page.

You haven't produced a shred of evidence that any portion of the text of the 1908 GR is the result of early 20th century "copying errors".

All:

Does anyone have access to the Missal in use during the years the 1908 Graduale was compiled?

I’m assuming the readings in my 1962 Missal are congruent with those in use at the time of Pius X. I also have a 1936 Missal, and the texts I’ve posted about are the same in both my Missals. I don’t have access to a Missal from the early 1900’s. I welcome any information that could confirm or contradict my assumption.

If the 1962 Missal is indeed consonant with the Missal in use when the 1908 Graduale was compiled, then either chants were adopted that did not conform to the Missal, or copying errors took place. Both are real possibilities. In the examples I’ve described, however, the differences in the chants are musically insignificant and it is unreasonable to suppose the divergent text was chosen for aesthetic reasons. Also, considering the layout of the chants and their texts, and the nature of the discrepancies, as well as the practicalities of compiling such a massive work, the existence of copying errors is quite probable.

I think there are two other aspects to be considered here.

1. While changes under Pope Pius XII have the celebrant at a Solemn High Mass simply listening to the subdeacon and deacon chanting the Epistle and Gospel, rather than reading it silently simultaneously, he does still read the Propers at the Altar. Therefore, it is the Missal text which he must read. Minor variations in the chanted texts are not illegal or inapropriate. I stand to be corrected by a canon lawyer on this, but I'm pretty sure.

2. Are we looking at Missals and Graduals published for use specifically in the USA? If not, there have been variations in other countries, as well as other time periods. Some Propers in France were kept from the Gallican Missal. St. James the Greater is a national feast day and solemnity in Spain, and some of those Propers are drawn from the Mozarabic repertoire, I believe.

The point is that, neither over the centuries nor across the seas, has the Missale Romanum ever been absolutely, word for word, universal.

> Is the Graduale Triplex available for viewing online?

Unfortunately no.

But you can:
a) check several manuscripts on-line at the site Robert mentioned;
b) check these revised versions by Anton Stingl, that include the neums from the Hartker codex (notice that the site is in German, the versions are not official, and the work is still not complete).

You can find many editions of the MR in Google Books and in archive.org. The question is if any of them was the one in force in 1908, and I do not know the answer. Differences are of course minimal: but what you want is exactly to check small differences in propers, so...