Proofreading / Typical Edition question about the Gallican Psalter
  • JonathanKKJonathanKK
    Posts: 542
    So, we have the Breviarium Romanum (1961) and the Missale Romanum (1962), each published as "Editio Typica" by Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis.

    For someone wanting to create new resources for the Mass or Divine Office in an EF context, these would be the definitive sources from which to excerpt the necessary texts, and against which to proofread them.

    However, given that the above Breviary uses the Pian psalter, what is the best source (legally, as far as an "Editio Typica") for the Gallican Psalter?

    E.g. what would, say, Nova et Vetera have been using to proofread THIS.

    My inquiring-proofreader-mind would like to be able to answer this question at some point.
  • igneusigneus
    Posts: 366
    Probably the last typical or "iuxta-typical" edition of the breviary with the Gallican Psalter. But it doesn't really matter, as the Gallican Psalter text hasn't changed during the modern era.

    by Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis


    "Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis" is an ablative, already containing the "by". You want to say either "by Vatican Polyglot Press" or "by the Vatican Polyglot".
  • JonathanKKJonathanKK
    Posts: 542
    The Gallican Psalter text may not have changed, but in my experience, different editions of it are quite susceptible to having instances of differing punctuation. Also, for a properly modern EF breviary, there is the problem that "i" should always be used instead of "j".

    Thus, for folks using the Gallican psalter with "i" instead of "j", was there an official edition somewhere with i's that they were checking themselves against?

    Or were they looking an older official edition with j's and doing the conversion themselves?

    That is what I am interested in - and the answer has to be some particular edition, because having a particular edition that can be selected as being the most official / relevant source provides a solution to the problem of differences between editions.

    When you can select the one most official source, and stick to it as much as possible, this eliminates a lot of the worry about what you should do with known variant readings.

    But, it seems as if the Pian psalter took over before the i's did, in which case an official edition of the Gallican psalter using i's looks unlikely.
  • igneusigneus
    Posts: 366
    As far as I know, since the Pian Psalter was introduced, no official edition of the Roman Breviary with Gallican Psalter has been printed. It means there would really be none with the new Latin orthography.
    Thanked by 1JonathanKK
  • JonathanKKJonathanKK
    Posts: 542
    I have been wondering if the best source might be the psalter as published separately when it was re-ordered by Pius X. There seem to have been published:

    1911 Psalterium Breviarii Romani — Editio typica
    1912 Psalterium Breviarii Romani — Editio typica iterum impressa
    1914 Psalterium Breviarii Romani — Altera editio typica

    (On grounds that these would have been the source for the psalter included in subsequent editions of the breviary.)

    But I haven't seen the latter for sale.
  • igneusigneus
    Posts: 366
    Liturgical Psalter published separately usually contains not only Psalms and canticles, but also the other elements normally printed in the Psalter part of the breviary and isn't meant as "the most official edition" of the text, but has practical purposes. It should be considered excerpt from the breviary, not vice versa.

    (The Pian Psalter as well as later the LH Psalter were both initially published in an edition containing only the biblical texts and editorial notices, but this again was no "editio most typica", but rather sort of a scientific edition.)
  • JonathanKKJonathanKK
    Posts: 542
    Hey! I just found a 1915 Editio typica iterum impressa for the Breviary.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,078
    I would also compare editions of the office ca. 1940 from Benziger and Pustet, if you have them available. Their books are the ones most commonly found. I’ve seen different placements of the asterisk from tine to time, but I suspect it was more consistent in prior editions than in 1962 editions, which, honestly, are embarrassing in the number of errors in spelling and punctuation. This seems to be common between both the original versions and new ones, such as the Baronius edition... The reprint of the Diurnale Romanum has “quam“ for “quod” in the canticle of Simeon, and the Baronius edition has at least one error in the canticle of the three youths.
  • JonathanKKJonathanKK
    Posts: 542
    Actually, I'm not after the asterisk this time around - my current perception is that the asterisk is typically consistent across different Roman Breviaries, and doesn't vary from edition to edition.

    (At least, my theory on the variances in asterisk placement that I am aware of is holding water at present: it is just that the breviary uses the asterisk differently than chant books.)

    By the way, the "salutem tuam, Quam parasti" is what the typical edition gives for the text you mention in the Nunc dimittis. It also has "cotidianum" in the Pater noster. This kind of change is another nuisance.

    You start to feel that folks took all of the toys out of the cupboard to re-organize it, and then moved on to other things before putting half of them back.

    Although, come to think of it, changes like these were probably promulgated with the Pian psalter, and are thus tied up with it: such that if you aren't obligated to use the Pian psalter, you aren't obligated to use these other changes either. Because the "psalter" would not have been strictly the 150 psalms, but rather the psalter of the breviary, which of course contains these other items as well.

    Interesting thought.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,078
    “Cotidianum” bothers me less.

    We had to make a few changes between the diurnale and the N&V edition.

    Can you explain the difference between chant books and breviaries regarding the asterisk?

    As far as your theory goes, I agree, because the diurnale uses the Vulgate psalter but the ordinary uses the annoying text of the Nunc dimittis, which I’ve never used. If Compline was in common, we always used a book designed for chant (L.U. or books from the SSPX/FSSP, depending on the house and the ordo’s instructions).
  • JonathanKKJonathanKK
    Posts: 542
    For longer verses in chant editions, you will have the flex, thus:

    A + B * C


    However, in the Roman Breviaries, for these verses you may not only find:

    A B * C


    but also:

    A * B C


    So I do not find that there is a predictable way to go from Breviary divisions to chant divisions, alas.

    My working theories at present are:

    Firstly, I no longer worry about where other traditions place the asterisk, e.g. Dominicans or Cistercians, because this is not relevant for Roman stuff. It seems that they do have the same divisions of the text as far as verses; well and good.

    The flex seems to have been introduced into our Roman chant books from the monastic books with the promulgation of the Vatican Edition of the Antiphonale Romanum in 1912 (or the Cantorinus in 1911, I suppose). It may have been a novelty. For example, the Roman chant books prepared by Solesmes prior to this, in the 1890's, seem to follow the breviary divisions, and therefore have no flexes.

    On the other hand, the placement of the asterisk in the Roman Breviaries seems to have remained constant for a long time [probably for centuries]. At any rate, it is the same say in 1945 as it is in 1888. Thus, the advent of the Vatican Editions of the chant books had no effect on this tradition, which remained separate.

    The placement of the asterisk and flex in the Vatican Edition is what is proper to use for chant. However, Matins was never covered by the Vatican Edition, thus for some psalms, we are left guessing.

    A complication to this issue is the question of * / + placement when psalms are included in Solesmes editions that are not found in the AR.

    In some cases, these are included as part of liturgies for which there was some sort of typical edition promulgated, e.g. for Christmas Matins, or for the Holy Week liturgies. Or in other cases, we are given things taken "from the editions of Solesmes" e.g. Matins for Pentecost or Corpus Christi.

    I have definitely come across a couple of discrepancies in asterisk placement in Lauds for Holy Week as given in the LU, versus what you would get if you were singing the same services from the AR 1949 and referring to the weekly psalter section of this book to locate the necessary psalms. I am guessing that somehow the LU felt bound to retain the breviary divisions (inserting flexes only when it would not disturb the existing asterisks) because of some technicality in how these liturgies were promulgated: maybe they were promulgated as "here are the chants you need; refer to the breviary for the psalms, etc."
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,078
    Fascinating. Thank you for such a detailed response.
  • igneusigneus
    Posts: 366
    It existed! Breviarium Romanum, Romae-Turonibus-Parisiis: Mame 1961: Vulgate psalter, new Latin orthography.

    (The link will probably only work for members of this facebook group)
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,182
    It may be coincidence, but the typographic style in that photo resembles that of the Fulton Sheen Sunday Missal:
    image