I think one of the most interesting things about these editions is the introduction of new neume forms in the "square" notes (a term which is becoming increasingly inaccurate) below the paleography. The obvious ones are the stropha, the various liquescent neumes, and the oriscus (as seen in the salicus at the unison on the final syllable in the example above). Easy to miss, though, are the descending notes in neume elements such as the climacus ("iustum") and the pes subbipunctis ("germinet"). Where in the Vatican edition the long and short forms are indiscernible, diamond shapes have been used for the short punctum and square shapes for the long tractulus.

Robert,

THANKS for that!

My dad always used to say, "Different strokes for different folks."

Here are two reasons I, personally, don't like these kind of transcriptions:

1. There are other important indications (e.g. spacing) that are not preserved by putting in adiastematic notation above box neumes.

2. By putting them over box neums, that would lead one to believe that those were the pitches sung by the monks writing the adiastematic notation (which, sadly, is not true).

Again: "Different strokes for different folks."

I must say, though, that these two attempts (listed above) make a lot more sense to the conscientious musicologist than, for example, the Graduale Triplex, WHICH PLACES ADIASTEMATIC NOTATION ABOVE THE NOTES OF THE EDITIO VATICANA!!!!! (not kidding!!!!!!!!!! The notes are placed above the Editio Vaticana!!!! An edition more-or-less completed in 1868!!!!)

Robert, thanks for the link. I tried to find other chants in the web, but I keep getting 'forbidden.' How do you find other chants in that site? thank you.

Jeffrey M.,

The square notes in the Triplex are derived from the 1908 Editio Vaticana. This in turn was based on the earlier Liber gradualis from the 1880s. This in turn was based on melodic reconstructions of Montpellier H. 159. The Montpellier manuscript has definitive pitch content in its use of the alphabetic notation, but there is no guarantee that the scribe of Montpellier H. 159 wrote the pitch content that is actually in Laon 239 and Sankt Gallen 359, both of which were far earlier. It's just too much a an uncritical stretch to assume that the later manuscript accurately captured the pitch content of the earlier musical practice. Do you not see it this way?

@ Doug Shadle: Very well said, and succinctly put. Although Montpellier wasn't Pothier's favorite 'tradition' (as he said) I'm sure he relied heavily on it. However, there was one manuscript in particular he relied on (more than any others) and close to ten years ago, the head of the Paleo announced that they planned on publishing that one. But we're still waiting . . . no doubt it looks very similar the 1883 Gradualis.

@ Jeff M.

The short answer to your queries would be: In my view, folks can do whatever they want. If they want to put 9th-century adiastematic notation above the EDITIO VATICANA, they are free to do this. (!!!) If they wanted to put the same neums above Nivers, I suppose they would be free to do that as well. I'm just suggesting that responsible scholars would demand that we realize what we're doing when we put 9th-century, adiastematic notation above the EDITIO VATICANA (!!!), an edition more or less completed by 1868.

The longer answer:

Jeffrey O, I'm curious, how are you able to say unequivocally that the adiastematic notation does not represent the pitches of the chant in the square note notation.

Jeff, by its very nature, adiastematic notation (so-called in campo aperto) does not indicate tones or pitches. Put simply, we do not and cannot know what pitches were sung. We can use conjecture. Many scholars have made guesses. Some believe quarter tones were sung. Others doubt the Church modes as we know them were used. Again, we simply don't know. If you know the notes they sang, Jeff, please do send me a transcription! :-D But, simply by looking at adiastematic notation, we cannot know.

What some scholars do is line up manuscripts over the decades from different countries (at least the ones that have come down to us) and try to guess off those. This was very popular in some circles around about 1900, when the spirit of the age claimed that "science can solve everything." The idea was, "We'll just line up all the fragments we have, in a scientific manner, and from that we'll know the 'true' original melody that everyone used to sing." But this has fallen out of favor, for numerous (and grave) reasons. It's not as simple as lining up the fragments that have survived the centuries. (I wish it were!). I suppose (if you looked hard enough) you could find a scholar that still believes in this method, but I (personally) do not.

I have read statements by you which are similar in other posts, and there have always been people who write in response saying the Saint Gall/Laon notation lines up quite well most of the time in the TRIPLEX

Actually, whether or not the neums line up has absolutely nothing to do with the pitches that would have been sung, and their intervallic relationship. The reason is because adiastematic notion does not tell us what pitches were sung, Jeff. Adiastematic notation was a mere REMINDER for folks who already had the pitches/tones/tunes memorized.

When one has studied St Gall and Laon it is often easy to see, for example where in the mode 8 canticles at the Easter Vigil that the adiastematic notation clearly shows the dominant on the ancient reciting tone of ti and not on doh as it is written

This is something that is very well known and documented, Jeff. The PIERRE COMBE book dedicates many, many pages to this very subject, and is fascinating. They were very much aware of this in 1905. As a matter of fact, Hermesdorff talks about this very issue in the Prefaces to BOTH his editions of the Graduale (1863 & 1876).

The conflict between TI and DO (throughout the centuries, as TI frequently turned into DO, due to TUNING issues) was very well known to the members of the Commission who put together the Vatican Edition --- as noted above, they spent hours talking about it. But, again, the intent of the Editio Vaticana was not to pretend to recreate (for instance) the melodies sung by a particular monastery in the 9th century. I highly recommend the Combe book, Jeff, when it comes to this subject.

and of course there are other little differences here and there, but the TRIPLEX with the ancient neumes above and below show an amazing continuity.

Mocquereau and others wrote about this at length. I'm not sure, Jeffrey, that any scholars doubt this fact. Do you know any who do?? I don't.

I generally stay away from commenting on the more outlandish posts,

I'm afraid I could only tell if individual posts are "outlandish" by looking at each one. I believe we owe it to each person who comments to weight their arguments, and then apply a "label" --- do you have particular "outlandish" statements in mind? Otherwise, I don't feel comfortable commenting....

but this statement needs to be backed up as it is certainly at odds with Gregorian Chant scholarship today, at least those in the main streams of academia.

Actually, Jeffrey, the facts are these: 1. Scholars for YEARS have been backing away from the Editio Vaticana as a "critical edition" (it certainly is not, at least in my view); 2. For at least 60 years, the trends of serious musicologists have been to transcribe and study INDIVIDUAL manuscripts, as opposed to lining up a series of fragments here and there and making a "one-size-fits-all" chant melody; 3. I believe that all serious scholars know PERFECTLY well what the Editio Vaticana is, what it was meant to be, and that it is not a critical edition.

So, far from being "at odds" with current scholarship, it is actually perfectly in agreement. But, really, I don't know what difference that makes: the truth is the truth, regardless of who agrees.

My problem is in making unequivocal statements without backing up such statements.

Jeffrey, it is very easy to make unequivocal statements about what the EDITIO VATICANA is. We know precisely what it is. It is not a secret. If you don't believe my take on it, then read Pierre Comb, or David Hiley (towards the very end of his book), or a hundred others.

Again, when it comes to what the Editio Vaticana is, I know perfectly well what it is. There is really no mystery here.

2. By putting them over box neums, that would lead one to believe that those were the pitches sung by the monks writing the adiastematic notation (which, sadly, is not true).

The best thing one could say is that this is perhaps "sometimes" not true, and then give examples.

I'm not sure how to respond to this, Jeff. Are you seriously saying that the notes of the Editio Vaticana were sung by every single monastery in the 8th and 9th centuries? Really?? Do you have any proof to back this up?

I would pay a lot of money to find a SINGLE, SOLITARY early music scholar at a major University who would DARE make that claim.

I am willing to EAT MY HAT if any scholar at any major university will make that claim (with a straight face!!!).

In other words, prove it when making a sweeping statement, especially when this is contrary to the bulk of modern scholarship on the subject.

Actually (please see above) the bulk of modern scholarship does NOT treat the Editio Vaticana as a critical edition. (. . . and for very good reasons, by the way!!!)

No one in their right mind who knows anything about manuscripts would simply discard Montpellier H. 159.

Jeff, which scholars are you reading? I've never found one who would do this. Am I missing something???

On the other hand, finding a scholar who would claim that H. 159 gives the EXACT TONES that monks at a particular monastery were singing in the 8th or 9th century is a completely different matter.

Of course, when you speak of "pitch" are you speaking about actual pitches (A, F, G#), or relative? Montpellier shows us where the whole steps and half steps are using letters.

The normal thing, Jeff, is never to speak about "actual pitches" (as if they had a tuning fork in the 11th century where A=440).

The ordinary thing in chant scholarship, Jeff, is to talk about melodies (intervallic relationships) that can be sung "in any key."

adiastematic notation show the original "shape" of the melody

actually, not always even the shape --- sometimes there is literally no ROOM to show any real melodic shape (remember: the words were usually written first, then the neums ---- at least as far as I know).

and a clue to the subtle shading of the original rhythm.

I like the way you say "clue" --- because clues are not always helpful. Clues are subject to interpretation.

However, I would quibble when you say "original" rhythm. That's not technically correct. Strictly speaking, we don't know the "original" rhythm. We don't even know where these melodies came from or WHEN precisely they were composed. If we knew that, then perhaps we could talk about an "original" rhythm.

When I was studying Gregorian Chant at University, we would sometimes change the melody as given in the TRIPLEX to reflect what we were actually seeing in St Gall/Laon.

My response to that would be, "Why not?" That only makes sense. Of course, strictly speaking, it is guesswork (see above). After all, if you're trying to imagine how a melody might have sounded at a particular monastery during a particular period of time, WHY would you ever sing from the Editio Vaticana?? I just don't get it.

The square notes in the Triplex do not reflect note for note the melodies as found in St Gall/laon all the time,

Actually, as you pointed out (above) it would be impossible to prove that they DO, just as it is impossible to prove that they DON'T. The odds are a thousand to one (however) that they are NOT note-for-note what is found in the Editio Vaticana. Especially since Pothier, himself, did not look on the school of St. Gall as particularly "pure" (whether he was right or wrong, this was his view).

as the Gregorian melodies as we have them now in the modern book comes from a common reading of MANY manuscripts (see "Paleographie musicale-Justus ut Palma), there is no ONE manuscript which is thought to be THE manuscript which we should go back too.[sic]

Again, I'm not sure that any serious chant scholars are advancing that view. Or, at least, I would be very interested to learn that there ARE chant scholars advancing that view. Do you know any, Jeff?

In having the adiastemetic neumes above the notes in the TRIPLEX, one doesn't expect it to be ALWAYS note for note,

Again, it would be impossible to prove that they ARE, just as it is impossible to prove that they are NOT the same notes sung by the monks in a particular monastery in the 9th or 10th century.

the Gregorian melodies were simply not restored by Solesmes this way,

? By Solesmes you mean . . . Pothier? Mocquereau? Surely not the Editio Vaticana, because that was not the work of Solesmes.

and yet they show an amazing amazing similarity with those first manuscripts, the first musical notation in the Western world, often time note for note.

Of this, there can be absolutely no doubt whatsoever. But, this doesn't really justify the editors of the TRIPLEX choosing to place 9th-century neumes on top of the EDITIO VATICANA, which was an edition completed around 1868.

On the other hand, I think too much can be made of these things. I have in my possession a recording made by a prize pupil of Cardine, who taught chant at a major University for years and years, and was even awarded a special award (for excellence in Gregorian chant) by the Pope. This particular student of Cardine was virulently, violently anti-Mocquereau (almost to the point of derangement). This private recording was made in the late 1970's for a friend who was hard of hearing. What does it sound like? The Cardine student sings numerous hymns, canticles, psalms, antiphons, and pieces from the Roman Gradual. And the student FOLLOWS TO THE HILT the markings of Dom Mocquereau. (And it is beautiful!) So, I would suggest that too much can be made of these things.

But, I still think it is important (from a standpoint of musicology as well as history) to know what the TRIPLEX does.

It's true that the legend of "Gregory and the Dove" still has a grip on our imagination, and that from time to time someone says or writes something like "The Triplex shows clearly that the "Hosanna Filio David" in the books we sing from is deficient as it omits a note on 'Domini' and another note on the second 'Hosanna'". . . as though there is a single, definitive ur-version of the chant better preserved in one manuscript than another.

But I believe that the legend points to a truth: that, at least for the proper of the Mass, there is a consistency in the Gregorian repertoire spanning time and geography, a consistency that is more remarkable than the slight variations. This is the entire point of Dom Mocquereau's "war machine": the Paleo, meant to show the world the superiority of Pothier's editions. You can take two manuscripts from two different areas of Europe and see that they "line up" with each other, and with the editio vaticana: that is the melody clearly moves up or down according to the same pattern. Still more remarkably, the minute rhythmic indications are consistent with each other for the most part.

Now, someone might say that we only know that the melody is moving up or down in the early manuscripts because the theorists who explain the significance of the neumes have worked backwards from later manuscripts like H 159. But so what? This is a perfectly legitimate way of approaching the question. If you start from the hypothesis that the repertoire didn't change all that much from place to place or from time to time, you arrive at a much more coherent explanation of the significance of the neumes.

I would say that most people who find the Triplex useful are well aware that monks in the 9th century were not singing the exact pitches of the Vatican edition. It's not absurd to sing from the notes of the Vaticana (as nearly everyone does) and to use the indications of early manuscripts as a basis for refining the performance; it is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate method of interpretation.

We could take a skeptical position that we can never really know 100% how people sang chant in the 9th century, and that therefore all attempts to base performance practice on early manuscripts are pointless. But this would be unreasonable, like most arguments from extreme skepticism. Between the extremes of the naive position that our current editions reproduce the same music St. Gregory dictated to his scribes as the Holy Spirit whispered it into his ear, and the jaded position of that First Things editor who wrote that what we call Gregorian Chant is a purely 19th century invention, there is surely a reasonable middle position that better reflects the facts of the matter.

Adam,

Please don't sell Dom Saulnier short. He knows perfectly well what the Editio Vaticana is, and I highly doubt he considers it a critical edition.

I'm very interested in the fact that you seem not to want to "let the secret out" about what the TRIPLEX is, Adam. I've stated that I, personally, find it more useful to look at the actual manuscripts, rather than a transcription PLACED OVER the notes of the Editio Vaticana (an edition substantially finished in 1868). Dom Saulnier is perfectly aware of what the Editio Vaticana is: there's no doubt about it.

Adam, I agree about the limitations of what can be done in an internet forum.

I can tell you, from my heart, that I look forward to (hopefully) learning A LOT MORE from you and your amazing contacts & teachers.

I hope, Adam, that you will start some THREADS that talk about the Gregorian Repertoire.

I also encourage you, Adam (if at all possible) to include images (like I did at the start of this thread).

I think images are very, very important, ESPECIALLY if images of the actual MSS can be included for reference.

I hope that there is nobody here on this forum who does not understand my love and appreciation for the Gregorian Repertoire, which is so unbelievable in so many ways. So beautiful. So holy. So unified, from the earliest times, even in different countries very far from one another.

That being said, I do think scholarship has moved beyond the idea that there is only one "correct" edition of chant. I think it's clear that different monasteries had their own traditions. Quite frankly, although it pains me to say it, Guéranger's famous dictum ("just line up all the manuscripts, take this note from here and that one from there, and the result is the 'true' Gregorian reading, straight from St. Gregory") is fundamentally flawed, especially because of the paucity of ancient manuscripts. I don't know any musicologist who now believes in his dictum. If anyone knows any, please let me know. Pothier himself never believed this dictum: he felt that one had to take into consideration later traditions, and also use one's artistic sense. I think he's been vindicated.

The Editio Vaticana is a wonderful, powerful, unbelievable and fantastic edition. It has become the traditional edition of the Church, and has been sung by millions of Catholics. I love it!

However, the odds are a thousand to one that those are the exact notes sung by individual monasteries in the 9th century. Then, as we all know, the question becomes whether it makes sense to attempt to apply rhythmic markings (of any kind) and rhythmic nuances to a different (changed) melody, that may even use a different scale. One very valid approach is to say that it does not make sense to do this. Imagine, if you will, that the rhythmic marking came into being ONLY BECAUSE it wanted to stress a particular note. Even if we could definitely say, with assurance, what that rhythmic nuance meant, would it make sense to apply it if the notes were different?

Again, Adam, I always look forward to learning others' opinions and theories, and I really hope you will continue to post yours, with examples.

Due to time contraints, I will not be adding more to this conversation.

Jeff, please do read the above, because many of your misunderstandings and the various points that you are confused about will be cleared up (without even going to a different country: a public library will suffice!). Peace!

Jeffrey Morse, may our Blessed Savior, Jesus Christ, bless you.

Incantu- there is no disagreement about the fact that the St Gall/Laon notations in the TRIPLEX do not correspond exactly with the square note notation found there. The melodies as we have them now were reconstructed from a common reading of many manuscripts which is clearly shown in the volume of Paleographie Musicale I mentioned above. I do not think it is possible to point to any one manuscript and say "this is it"! In a certain way even with a new critical edition of the Graduale there will still be differences I should think. However, having used the TRIPLEX for over 25 years with various choirs, I can attest to its usefulness as the paleography agrees more often with the square notes than disagrees and I find this a very important tool as the preface to the Triplex states that the paleography "remains the basis for an adequate performance of the Gregorian melodies"

@Jeff O: I was present at your colloquium talk about the vatican edition (i braved the rain!) and was hitherto inspired to purchase the combe book...bravo.

@Jeff M: although I'm not qualified to comment on this manuscript or that manuscript, i would point out that your point about the paléographie musicale is not relevant...for the simple reason that the basis of the vatican edition (pothier's gradual) was completed years before the institution of the paléographie musicale. i would encourage you to look up the combe book, which is on google books (at least substantial excerpts). the interplay between card. r.m. del val and solesmes is not to be missed...

ok...just wanted to be clear that these later reconstructions done at solesmes and explained in the paléographie musicale really had nothing to do with what pothier did in the 1850-1860 era, and that was the book upon which the vatican edition ended up being based. the paléographie musicale is also online (archive.org)...from what i can tell, this forum post is about the vatican edition.

I thought that some images might be helpful for this very interesting discussion.

Here is the same chant from the images in the initial post:

...from Laon, F-LA 239:



...from St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 339:



...from Montpellier, F-MOf H 159

Mon ami, Jeff O.
Disclaimer: I'm not in this, the SHOW, happy just to be in a ballpark.
Do you remember how you boiled this all down for us in your schola this last June? Especially at our first meeting on Tuesday, which was a bumpy launching? And, I could be mistaken, didn't that subtext underly your wonderfully, headspinning presentation on the "monk's brawl?"
I think I'm in the same neighborhood as Chrism.

Dom Gueranger started early in collecting manuscripts, sending monks out to copy manuscripts by hand as early as the 1840's and 50's. They were greatly helped in their work by the advent of photography, especially as with copying by hand there was the distinct possibility of error. Indeed, there are HUNDREDS of manuscripts in the paleography room, and manuscripts continue to come their way, and the collecting continues, so yes, the bulk were collected after Pothier's work, though the principle manuscripts were known to him and the other monk scholars by mid 19th century. The paleography room at Solesmes is set up much the same as it was over a century ago with examples how the melodies of the Gradual were restored, it really is fascinating, and you can see just what manuscripts were consulted, often times over one hundred examples lined up for a single phrase.

Robert, I could not agree with you more. You've hit the nail on the head. As long as we realize the extent of what we can know, there is no problem whatsoever. And kudos to you for backing up your statements. This is what will advance the discussion.

Also: a private note to the musicologist who recently sent me a confidential note. Thank you so much for writing me and telling me that my statements were 100% in line with current scholarly thinking on this topic. I will honor your request of confidentiality, but I must tell you that the particular musicological association you work for was always spoken of in awed tones by my musicology graduate professors (Paul Laird, Dan Politoske, and others). A more illustrious or respected musicological association than yours does not exist, so your comments meant a lot to me.

I don't see how anyone could suggest that these three examples are not of the same basic melody.

incantu: Agreed. I, at least, have never found any serious musicologist who has ever claimed that they're not the same basic melody. On the other hand, we do know that different melodic traditions ("variations" if you will) sprung up in different monasteries, and that's what makes all this so...fun! As detailed (in depth) above, the fact of these different traditions could lead one to ask the question: why use the Editio Vaticana as the basis for the Triplex? Different people have different thoughts on this matter, and all should be respected. As detailed (above), I myself have reservations about the logic behind this. But as Robert points out: as long as you REALIZE what you are doing, there's no problem.

I do have a question for speculation, though, incantu. Would you agree that there can sometimes be a 'temptation' or a 'danger' to (perhaps) put too much emphasis on the particular tradition reflected by H. 159, for the mere fact that it is the earliest and clearest indication of the notes we have?? Pothier himself warned against this (although it seems obvious he relied heavily on it like we all do).

. . . and, incidentally, would you also agree that it would be much easier to speak with complete certainty about these matters if we had, let's say, 4-5 other bi-lingual manuscripts from the same time period of Montpellier H. 159 . . . from different countries? [ so...somebody needs to go discover these! :-D ]

Then, too, Pothier has been accused of following H. 159 too closely (and ignoring other traditions). This is one reason why I hope that the editors of the Paleo hurry up and release the manuscript I mentioned above (upon which, allegedly, Pothier relied heavily when he created the Editio Vaticana). I'd love to see what he was looking at!

My dad always used to say, "When all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail." To those who say, "Pothier relied to heavily on H. 159, and ignored other legitimate traditions," I suppose the correct answer would be, "Then please show me some comparable examples of MSS with the same degree of antiquity and clarity as H. 159, and we'll talk."

BachLover2 was 100% correct about Mocquereau amassing many MSS after Pothier's time, and Mocquereau also took advantage of the camera, to help him in his work. I believe Montpellier H. 159 was subsequently destroyed (in WWII), so we owe Mocquereau an awful lot, because it lives forever though its publication in the Paleo. As Combe points out several times, it was a tremendously sad thing that Mocquereau did not allow Pothier to use any of these manuscripts when he was creating the Editio Vaticana Graduale and Antiphonale. This is one of the reasons why the Editio Vaticana cannot be considered a critical edition, as wonderful as it is.

And BachLover2, you could not be more right about the Combe book. It helps clear up many misunderstandings in this area, and I've been recommending it for years! Ted Marier did most of the translations, but died before he could finish it. He hated translating it (he found it very difficult to get just the right nuance), but we in America are the reaping the benefits of his hard work. And CUA deserves a lot of credit for printing this book in America.

BachLover2, thank you for pointing out that the Paleo is on archive.org. Now I can start throwing away my photocopies which (over the years) have become quite worn!

Jeff, I would say yes -- there is a temptation. There is also a temptation to rely more heavily on what we understand. They say "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." The more one can look at a particular manuscript in context, the more its meaning will reveal itself.

This is the example I give to my choir:

#1 = number one
5# = five pounds
G# = g-sharp

Context tells us how to interpret the symbol. The same can be said of the virga, punctum, tractulus, strophae, significative letters, etc.

Jeff Morse: please do read my comments again: that's precisely what i said.....(!)

i realize that 'curiosity killed the cat,' but i would love to know, Jeff Morse, where you got your ideas that the st. gall mss. don't have rhythmic markings....who told you this, or where did you read it? i did not know that this was in dispute....

having been in JO's chant schola at the colloquium, he definitely is aware of these markings, but JO (rightly) points out that their interpretation is anyone's guess....