is that allowed?

kidding. Well, I rather like them. But then I like the Anglican Use Gradual!

Wheelock's Latin Grammer does have a copyright on the passive periphrastic.

I think they have antibiotics for that now...

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

I had assumed that introductory material was translated from the French, and that "our own translation" was the one in the French edition. Did Solesmes really do an additional English translation?

Well, knock me over with a feather. Solesmes went to the trouble of preparing an edition with English translations of the chant texts, and then just translated into English the explanation of where the French translations came from? Wow.

Um, I don't have my copy of the French edition in front of me (we do use the French editions at the French National Church) but it seems to me that yes, a lot of the introductory material is the same in French and English. I admit that I assumed the same of the chant translations. Don't forget that the rest of the translations were taken from ICEL and are not the work of Solesmes. It's not unreasonable to think that the translations of the antiphons might have come from another source (which I think was Jeffrey's original question) as well.

SkipR, the Missal does not give the Introit Psalm.

(as has been noted, the Missal propers are for spoken Masses, and lack the Offertories, Graduals, Alleluias, and Introit Psalm).

QUESTION: where did they get the Psalm? I assume the Revised Grail, which will probably appear in Lectionaries 10-20 years from now?

The Solesmes translations of the Propers seem to me to be a "modern" revision of what they put in Mass & Vespers. The two are similar, but not identical.

I should have been more clear: sorry.

I am asking about the Psalm for the Introit. Where did they get it? Revised Grail ?

And also, upon further inspection the chants themselves appear to have been re-engraved, although the musical content is the same (i.e. the pitches and set of neumes in use remains the same as in the Graduale, with rhythmic markings - but more music appears to have been fit on each line).

Oh, there are differences between the two books, all right.

• The GM 1990 adds the Solesmes rhythmic markings;
• At least some of the scores have been newly engraved: e.g., the gradual Custodi me on page 295 of the GR 1908 and page 498 of the GM 1990;
• The two books are arranged according to different liturgical calendars (the calendars in force respectively in 1990 and 1908);
• The GM 1990 adds vernacular translations.

Hm. I don't see the episemas in the 1908 book; is that what you have too?

In the year 1908:
- The Vatican published its own edition, THE official and approved version, without rhythmic signs. The book exists as itself but it was more destined as a draft for editors to make copies. It's big: height 24cm, width 16cm, thick as 8cm. Based on this edition, the major editors published their copy labelled as "Vatican edition":
- Solesmes through Desclée/"St John the Evangelist" as Desclée No 695
- Pustet
- Mechlin/Dessain
- Schwann

But Solesmes also published at the same time another Graduale with their rhythmic signs, under the supervision of Dom Mocquereau:
- numbered as Desclée No 696
- there also exists a "696A" which is similar, with some appendix in the end...

Dom Mocquereau also published later in the year the first volume of his "Le nombre musical grégorien" to explain and justify his theories on rhythm.

Needless to say that choirs quickly preferred the rhythmic signs edition and forgot about the official Vatican no-rhythmic-signs edition. It's much easier to sing together in a choir if you can read the horizontal and vertical episemas, the dot mora(e), etc.
So the 695 quickly disappeared and until the last edition in 1961, the number 696 remained as the main number for the Graduale Romanum from Solesmes. Like the famous 801 was the number of the English Liber Usualis.

More: http://www.gregorianbooks.com/gregorian_books.html

Jacques Perrière, are you saying that Solesmes published a Vatican Gradual sans rhythmic markings in 1908 ?

To Mr. Paul Onnonhoaraton:
Yes, Solesmes published both editions in 1908: 695 and 696.

- 1908 Desclée Lib. Grad. No. 695.
Graduale Sacrosanctae Romanae Ecclesiae de Tempore et de Sanctis. Ss. D.N. Pii X. Pontificis Maximi jussu restitutum et editum. Cui addita sunt festa novissima. Ad exemplar editionis typicae. Romae. Typis Vaticanis. Without rhythmic signs. Decretum 7 Aug 1907, 12 Aug 1908. Dated 1908.
http://www.gregorianbooks.com/gal.php?dir=1908_graduale_romanum_695|./2|./3

- 1908 Desclée Lib. Grad. No. 696.
Graduale Sacrosanctae Romanae Ecclesiae de Tempore et de Sanctis. Ss. D.N. Pii X. Pontificis Maximi jussu restitutum et editum. Ad exemplar editionis typicae concinnatum et rhythmicis signis a Solesmensibus monachis. Romae. Typis Vaticanis. With rhythmic signs. Decretum 7 Aug 1907, 16 Oct 1908. Dated 1908.
http://www.gregorianbooks.com/gal.php?dir=1908_graduale_romanum_696|./3

- 1908/1912 Desclée Lib. Grad. No. 696A.
Same as 696 but with an appendix for the saints of France.
http://www.gregorianbooks.com/gal.php?dir=1908_graduale_romanum_696a

(Some photos are mine. Some are collected from other sources.)
-----------------------------------------------------
There are a lot of reasons why there are two versions.
When the Vatican commission discussed about an official version, Dom Pothier, former monk of Solesmes, was the chairman of this commission. But Dom Mocquereau, current monk of Solesmes who continued and developped the work of Dom Pothier, was a member of this commission too. The book "The Restoration of Gregorian Chant: Solesmes and the Vatican Edition" by Pierre Combe will tell you more about this. There was a "friendly" but "tough" opposition between Dom Pothier and Dom Mocquereau. Dom Pothier would create the neumes in a way that the spaces between neumes indicate the rhythm, which is a bit difficult to decode when you sing. Another reason was to leave the interpretation of rhythm to the choir master. Dom Pothier did not like very much the rhythmic signs introduced by Dom Mocquereau after him. Anyway, St Pius X the pope at the time gently forced them to agree on a compromise and that gave the "Vatican edition", which has no rhythmic signs. At least they agreed on restored melodies: you can see little differences between Solesmes Graduale and Liber Usualis before and after 1908; for example "Intr. Dominus dixit" is different.
So they agreed on the melody and a no-rhythmic-signs edition.
Of course the choirs around the world (monk choirs, cathedral choirs) quickly preferred the rhythmic "Dom Mocquereau" version. That's why even though there is a no-rhythmic-signs version of the Graduale from Solesmes = 695, it did not sell as much as the rhythmic version = 696. To the limit of my knowledge there is no other 695 than the one from year 1908. All the later Graduale were with rhythmic signs and numbered 696.
Mr. Arthur Connick talks about a change in a later edition. Yes, it happens and that demands a good knowledge of the Gregorian chant repertoire to find out where the changes are. :-)

----------------------
As itself, the printed Vatican Graduale was big and not practical to handle for singing: 24cm x 16cm x 8cm.
http://www.gregorianbooks.com/gal.php?dir=1908_graduale_romanum_vatican|./1|./2
I think it was more to be used as an official master copy for editors and printers. Sometimes you can find this book on eBay/Abebooks/etc., makes me think they must have sold a few. Interesting to look at a Vatican edition: the pages are not properly cut like if the page binding was not its main priority.
Major editors around the world were allowed to published their own copy of the Vatican edition: Solesmes/Desclée, Pustet, Mechlin/Dessain, Schwann.

P.S.: My apologizes if I made some mistakes in this story telling.