That it was or wasn't sung in (North?) Africa would be an archaeological issue, and as such of interest in itself, but not directly relevant to the form in which chant has developed and been transmitted to us in the extant western Rites.

Just go to a Coptic church sometime, and then you'll know. They're still in AD 451 liturgically, tell you what. There's tradition for you.

There are different kinds of chant, of course. Gregorian chant is the inheritance of the West right now, and it's named after St. Gregory the Great, who was alive in the late 500s early 600s... but the chant that was named after him didn't really get going until the 800s. so yeah if someone is looking for liturgy and/or chant to be uniform throughout the Christian world, or even the Christian world united with Rome, they're forgetting about the existence of other Catholic churches (aka rites).

Ian, I truly appreciate your thoughtful posts and engagement. It's why I joined this forum!

I don't think we are really diverging in our understanding of tradition; I am just miscommunicating by discussing two related ideas at once. I don't have qualms with the notion of a chant tradition in the sense of "the spirit" of chant (theological tradition) or "the practice" of chant (liturgical tradition). Do these phrases resonate with how you are using the word tradition? If so, I see a clear chant tradition, but with polyphony, I don't see it at all. Hence Josquin in Africa. Putting the two side-by-side as if they are one is my sticking point.

I will never let go of the idea that specific historical, cultural, and musical factors outside the Church led to the development of polyphony. I don't think this is a very controversial idea, because William Mahrt has stated very eloquently that the polyphonists spiritualized or sacralized secular music. Did certain elements of polyphony "grow out of" chant? Sure; this point is undeniable, but can we also think of "L'homme armé" masses? Is the relationship between polyphony and chant so organic as to see the one as freely flowing from the other? Not so much. If we were to take that route, then we can add all tonal music and practically all Western music since polyphony to the "tradition." Giving polyphony any pride of place, in my opinion, is based more on its beauty than any relationship to the chant tradition. And of course we speak endlessly over whether or not polyphony is truly beautiful...is it?

I have to add that as a musicologist I am definitely a sucker for "the music itself." On that level it bothers me ever so slightly that we don't sing exactly what they sang in the first century ("there's tradition for you!"), but I certainly celebrate the living tradition as we understand it today. I roll my eyes at the uncritical adoration of specific musical chant texts that I have encountered here from time to time, because as I said before, the actual notes we sing are more or less just made up, tied only loosely to the far distant past. Maybe that makes them great; who knows?! This brings up the idea of Josquin in Africa again. The musical texts of the polyphony we sing today are so strongly tied to specific historical circumstances in which they were written and first disseminated that I just fail to see how they fit into that more mysterious tradition of chant. It's not like we are "more or less" approximating Palestrina like we are with chant--we have the originals. Does that make them any less great or diminish them in any way? No it doesn't, but it should make us (and Church leaders) think twice about why we value one style over another. The details matter.

No, I didn’t have the Copts in mind, either (though I’m glad Jam mentioned them, and would like to know more). My suggestion was that the absence of a continuous, unbroken North African Catholic tradition was beside the point; it’s a shame there isn’t one, but it doesn’t change the fact of a wider Catholic tradition of liturgical music at the point the Jesuits came to North Africa, and now (or any point in-between).

In relation to tradition you’re right to distinguish between plainsong and late medieval/renaissance polyphony; polyphony is after all (as these things go) a relatively recent innovation, and the label is such a catch-all of technique and style. I wouldn’t go so far, though, as to class polyphony as just another (albeit wonderful) element of the treasury of sacred art, in contrast to chant as the Rites’ own particular music. Rather, I would observe its origins in that music, and its close interaction with Church and Liturgy, to the point where it was deemed to be a particularly fine example of music that can capture and support the ethos of the Rite it serves (cf. Tra le Sollecitudini, Sacrosanctum Concilium, Musicam Sacram etc for explicit recognition of this in key modern documents). That particular kinds and examples have had other influences, sometimes closely scrutinised by the Church, is again neither here nor there, as is our evolving and many-faceted knowledge and understanding of the repertoire. The tradition is as it is at this point in time, and will certainly evolve over the years to come. It is our duty and joy as Catholic musicians to immerse ourselves in it and play our own small part in its life. Knowledge of the rules and texts around it can be helpful (and in some circumstances essential), but without our active engagement it looses its context, both for us and for those whom we seek to persuade.

I’ve enjoyed this conversation, too, dshadle. I must thank you, the CMAA and the inventors of the intertubes for making it possible. Little did I know when I began to read Sacred Music what other benefits would accrue!

@ singing mum; yes, as jahaza noted, i was referring to the "piety and probity" part. pius xii already solved the 'women' part in the 1950's

Thank you, dshadle. I enjoyed reading your post myself also.