I was not aware that the 1908 was the "only approved Graduale." I think you might find a number of scholars who will take strenuous exception to that assertion. In any event, I would hazard to guess that many exceedingly conscientious schola directors use the 1961 Solesmes Graduale, and not the 1908 edition (including a number of exceedingly careful folk involved with various TLM organizations around the country).

That said, I would assert on my own that if one traces a particular chant back from the 1961 edition through to the earliest editions (which thanks to the Corpus Christi Watershed are available as .pdf files at the Lalande Library of Rare Books), one discovers in some cases significant changes and examples of what can only be described as "scribal errors" or typesetting/editing errors that somehow became codified in the 1908 "Vatican edition" and persisted thereafter.

Your example notwithstanding, (and not nearly as glaring or obvious as the two I've discovered), here are my two instant examples:

1) In the Alleluia: Timebunt chant for the 18th Sunday after Pentecost, in the verse, at the word "Domine", there is a dramatic difference between the 1961, 1908 and 1903 versions. In the 1961 and 1908 versions, the clivus is "do-ti-do", and is preceded by a "re" on the second syllable of "tu-um." However, in the 1903 version (Solesmes/Mocquereau), the clivus is rendered as "do-TE-do", that is, with a flat sign.

All previous versions account for the whole-step relationship in several different ways, but it is very obvious from the paleography that the relationship between the two pitches of the clivus on "Do" of "Do-mi-ne" was always a whole step, not a half step. I would refer you to the Pustet, Pothier and Reims/Cambrai editions of this same chant, which you can examine for yourself at the Lalande library.

All one need do is sing through the passage as it appears in the various editions, and it becomes obvious that the absence of the flat sign is a typesetting or editing error. The phrase simply makes no sense without the flat.

2) In the Gradual Propter veritatem for today's feast, Our Lady of the Rosary, there's an even more glaring error.

At the word, "dextera" there is a bistropha on the flatted 7th scale degree (te), followed by a climacus or if you prefer, a virga and three rhomboids, beginning on "sol" with the last of the three on "mi", followed by a punctum on "sol" and on "te" (the flat still holding because it's within the same word), and continuing with a second puntum on "te" and a torculus ("do-re-te") to conclude the syllable. I cannot imagine that the pitches "mi-sol-te" are correct. Certainly one only need sing it to discover that there's something quite wrong.

The 1908 edition is the same, however in the 1903 version, the virga of the climacus begins on "te", and rather than skipping down to "sol", the first rhomboid moves stepward to "la" and then "sol-fa", then returns to "sol" and continues as in the 1908 version. It would appear, then, that it was likely a typesetting error in which the three rhomboids of the climacus were accidentally shifted downward by one note, thus creating the problematic "mi-sol-te" pattern in the "official" version.

I will leave this up to more experienced scholars, but it seems to me that these two examples suggest that there were significant errors made when the Vatican Press took over the typesetting and production of the "official" editions of the Graduale.

Can anyone else shed light on this?

It sounds like you are saying, to some extent, "certain melodies in 1908 or 1962 are weird and different from other relatively contemporary editions, thus they must be typo's." However, the impression which I have gotten is that the 1908 Vatican edition was very well done, since it was to be official for the whole church. They even cared greatly about the precise amount of space between notes, as this was crucial to the rhythmic interpretation.

I generally account for variances such as you mention based on my understanding of the various editions of the 19th-20th century chant revival, which is roughly as follows :

First stage A :
Pothier's editions (the Graduale, Antiphonale, and others, c. 1895) give his version of the one Platonic-ideal-form of each chant. He does not necessarily use the oldest versions as found in the mss., but gravitates towards what are in his view the better versions, which are later developments. Through research and comparison, he synthesizes what he finds in the mss. he can get his hands on to get this "Pothier-version".

For the office, at this stage, Roman and Monastic use the same chants, which are Pothier-style.

First stage B :
Mocquereau's Liber 1903 is a departure from Pothier's editions, because Mocquereau is doing more research, and finding more mss. which Pothier didn't have (or something like that). Mocquereau tends more towards the older versions and older mss., I think.

I don't know if the Liber 1903 varies from Pothier with respect to the office chants.

Second stage A :
A commission is set up to produce an official Vatican Edition of the Graduale. Because of quarreling among the experts of the comission, as well as pressure to get the thing done asap, the result of this effort, which is the Graduale 1908, ends up being the work mainly of Pothier, based on his earlier Graduale. However, since Mocquereau manages to get Pothier's ear, many emendations suggested by him are incorporated. Thus the Graduale 1908 can be expected to differ from both the Graduale 1895 and the Liber 1903, due to this Mocquereau-ish influence.

For the office, a similarly official Vatican edition of the Roman Antiphonale is produced in 1912.

Second stage B :
The Vatican edition melodies, since they are the most official, are used for all versions of the Graduale through the present day Graduale Triplex 1979. The experimental Graduale novum 2011 is the only one I know that departs from the Vatican edition.

For the office, the Roman books continue to us the Vatican edition melodies until the invention of the Liturgy of the Hours.

Third stage
Mocquereau puts out the Antiphonale Monasticum 1934, which is different from the Vatican edition. This is why the Roman and Monastic melodies for the office are henceforth different. Mocquereau, being left to his own devices, does it his way, all the way. (Bother - I can't remember if I read this about Mocquereau somewhere, or if I just assumed it. But it doesn't matter for my purpose.)

This is how I consider the relationship of these different editions.

So, we end up with three kinds of editions, that I call, even if they are not the best names: 1) Pothier, 2) Vatican = Pothier/Mocquereau, 3) Mocquereau. The Liber 1903, I suppose, would be Pothier/Early Mocquereau.

I generally consider that of these editions,

1) gives what is synthesis of all versions of a given chant, early (staffless) as well as later (written on a staff), but excluding the corrupt Renaissance-edited versions

2) gives something further towards...

3) gives a synthesis of the earliest (staffless) editions of a given chant

I don't think any of these three go as far as what must in this numbering be considered number four, which

4) would give a chant as it appeared in only one manuscript. This is what has been done in, for example, the Nocturnale Romanum, where it occurs frequently, as far as I can tell. In this work, when possible, the melodies correspond exactly with the staffless neumes of the Hartker Antiphonale.

What I am trying to say here is that there are different ways which editors come up with their chants - ranging anywhere from "I looked at every possible version of this, and can therefore conclude from comparison that my version, while not present in any of the mss. verbatim, nevertheless represents the ideal, the Ur-chant, as if must have existed when St. Gregory was first inspired to sing it." to "my version is exactly the same as that found on the fifty-sixth verso of Codex 1234 of the monastery of St. Thus-and-so."

Hope this is a useful concept. It has been helpful to me.

In the end, I would also like to say: these different approaches to chant editing have their advantages and disadvantages, practically, as well as artistically; but any chant book is like its own self-contained world or system, beautiful in its own way. In the end, for most of us, the best variant of a chant may very well be the chant from the books that we are authorized to use, in our particular monastery or church.

And let researchers take their time with any new editions they may have up their sleeves.

Mr. Andrew- what makes you think they are typos, just that the 1903 seems better?
The melody’s in the 1908 Vatican Gradual were made official by St. Pius X, previous melodies were suppressed. The melody’s in the 1961 are the same the only differences are a few necessary for calendar changes. The 61 conforms to the official and binding 08.

The 1908 is not perfect of course (nothing ever will be) some 1903 LU renderings are probably better or more authentic, but to demonstrate a typo you would need access to the original handed off to the printers to print from.

And, BGP, kindly provide the exact reference to St. Pius X's suppression of all previous versions of these chants.

So far as I know, he simply decreed that the monks of Solesmes were to be the official scholars and transcribers of the chants, not that any of their work prior to 1908 was to be deemed "supressed".

For good scholarly answers Mr. Ostrowski has researched these things in depth and is the go to man in this area.

I apologize if I came off as lecturing. I was trying to clearly distinguish why you were assuming these were typos. I myself would assume that some renderings in other Solesmes books from the same period would conform more closely to the expectations of scholarship, and draw a different conclusion.

Dom Johner in his book ‘a New School of Gregorian Chant’ states at the beginning of chapter VI that the Graduale was declared binging on the whole Church on 8. April 1908. I am looking for actual documentation. But the decree in the front of the 1908 Graduale is a good place to check as well, unfortunately my latin is not good enough to translate with precision.

At any rate my answers above reflect my (not a scholar just obsessive chant nerd) understanding of the 1908 GR in relationship to others and should be taken with salt.

Some of that doesn't sound right: the Graduale Novum book was published in Germany; it's based on critical editions of melodies published in the journal Beiträge zur Gregorianik since 1996.

For that matter, it's little used in the EF: most scholas seem to use the Liber Usualis and the Graduale 1961 as references.

In the meantime I apologize for wrongly attributing the work of the Graduale Novum to Saulnier and Solesmes.

Ultimately, I frankly don't care who came up with the source. What I do know is that credible, reliable scholars in the field are turning to it for the most recent paleographic research and interpretations, and it is informing how some are interpreting and performing the chants.

And isn't that important here? I say it is.

Your mileage, however, may vary.

It is inevitable that the Church will revise the 1908 Graduale, since an ecumenical Council requests this. The length of time this is taking reflects the complexity--not the impossibility--of the task.

In Europe it is common, even normal, to sing corrected melodies, outside of the traditionalist environments. I believe that corrected melodies have been employed in papal Masses (though not in Rome). Without question, the 1908 Graduale contains the officially approved melodies, but given the wide variety of music allowed at Mass, and the fact that the Graduale Novum is co-published by the Libreria Editrice Vaticana, it seems a bit rigorist to insist that only the 1908 melodies are permitted.

In America a certain conservatism seems to persist, due to the influence of Mrs. Ward and Theodore Marier. By conservatism, I mean that variations from the Vaticana melodies tend to be treated with suspicion. This is ironic, given that Dom Mocquereau and Dom Gajard, the key figures behind the "Solesmes Method," pushed for melodic corrections that for the most part are embodied in the Graduale Novum.

I agree with David Andrew that what is really at issue here is modal coherence. Where the Graduale Romanum and the Graduale Novum differ, the Novum is manifestly superior and more intuitively modally coherent. I can see why those who are used to the official versions would prefer them--everyone loves what is familiar--but for choirs learning the propers from scratch it would make sense to become familiar with the "more critical" versions.

Robert, the 1908 Graduale has been revised according to the dictates of the Council. Please refer to the Ordo Cantus Missae (1972, 1982). Where it was believed necessary, the melodies were revised.

In the Alleluia: Timebunt ... 1961 and 1908 versions, the clivus is "do-ti-do", and is preceded by a "re" on the second syllable of "tu-um." However, in the 1903 version (Solesmes/Mocquereau), the clivus is rendered as "do-TE-do", that is, with a flat sign. ... always a whole step...

Indeed, from those few sources I have looked into (Montpellier (XI c.), Valkenburg (OFM XIII c.), Reims-Cambray (1887), Liber gradualis (Pothier 1883)) it is always a whole step, however
1) everywhere, except the Pothier's work, melody is in 3rd, not 1st tone,
2) melodies vary greatly, you have do-te-do, re-do-re, mi-re-mi, and mi-re-do, respectively, other notes differ, too,
3) Graduale novum, therefore, restitutes it as re-do-re to have finale on mi.
Thus it remains a mystery to me where both Pothier and Mocquereau got the 1st tone version for this piece.

In the Gradual Propter veritatem ... At the word, "dextera" there is a bistropha on the flatted 7th scale degree (te), followed by a climacus or if you prefer, a virga and three rhomboids, beginning on "sol" with the last of the three on "mi", followed by a punctum on "sol" and on "te" (the flat still holding because it's within the same word), and continuing with a second puntum on "te" and a torculus ("do-re-te") to conclude the syllable. I cannot imagine that the pitches "mi-sol-te" are correct. Certainly one only need sing it to discover that there's something quite wrong.

There, too, is some variation (some transposed for comparison):
Montpellier: te-la-fa-mi(flat)-fa-sol-te
Valkenburg: te-sol-fa-mi-mi-sol-te
Reims-Cambray: te-sol-fa-mi(flat)-fa-sol-te
Pothier 1883: te-la-sol-fa-sol-te
And from a different tradition:
Bellelay (OCist, XII c.): ti-sol-fa-mi-fa-sol-ti
Carthusians: te-la-fa-mi-mi-sol-te
So, there are some precedents for "mi-sol-te", and Montpellier, too, sounds somewhat strange to me. I do not know what Graduale novum says (this piece is not on the Gregor-and-Taube site). Anyway, the picture is quite complicated, an it could be something else than a typesetting error in the Vaticana.