ARE THE SOLESMES EDITIONS

JUSTIFIABLE?

AN APPRAISAL OF METHODS' AND POLICIES IN ANSWER TORECENT CRITICISM

by

J. Hobert Carroll

GREGORIAN INSTITUTE OF AMERICA2132 JEFFERSON AVENUE • TOLEDO 2, OHIO

ARE THE SOLESMES EDITIONS JUSTIFIABLE?AN APPRAISAL OF METHODS AND POLICIES IN ANSWER TO

RECENT CRITICISM

by J. Robert Carroll

In the February, 1957, number of Caecilia, now restoredto its original role as sounding-board for the AmericanCaecilia Society, an article appeared under the by-line of DomGregory Murray, G.S.B., which took as its subject the ques­tion of chant" rhythm, and which also spent a considerableamount of its allotted space in discussing the Solesmesmethod. While we cannot enter into the various aspects ofthe problem as set forth by Dom Gregory, a man of soundmusicianship and excellent personal qualities, we should, forthe sake of clarification, discuss two points which, it seems tous, have been left unclear in the wake of this article, andwhich are vital in the very discussion proposed by DomGregory.

We suppose that Dom Gregory stated his true goal inhis peroration, where, among other things, he said in effectthat he hoped that his article would have as its principalresult the weakening of the "blind trust" in Solesmes whichhe suggests most of the Solesmes-method users now hold.He also says that a great many of the authentic signs of themanuscripts are neglected by Solesmes and that the blame forthe supposed "inaccuracy" of the Solemes editions is largelythe fault of Dom Mocquereau. Now we feel that DomGregory is perfectly free to hold whatever opinions- he mayprefer, and our own personal regard for him as a.man and asa musician would require that we limit any comment to thesefew remarks already made, except that we deem it imprudentto leave certain aspects of the question in danger of misinter­pretation. Let us take each of these points in turn, however.

-3-

The "Blind Trust" of Solesmes-Method Users

In regard to this so-called "blind trust", it seeIns obviousto us that we might just as properly speak of the "blindtrust" of users of Dineen's Gaelic dictionary, current man­uals on Assyrian or Sumerian, or any other archaelogicalstudy which is in about the same stage of development as thatof Gregorian chant. The simple fact is that most people haveneither the time for specialized study nor the inclination toattempt it in such questions. 1\fost practising musicians areeontent, through necessity, to use the best editions available,while keeping an ear cocked for news of any improvements.It has only been in comparatively recent years that musicianshave taken to playing Bach or other Baroque composers fromthe urtexts. It takes a certain length of tilne for the workof scholars to become so certain and so widely understood asto enable it to pass into the stylistic consciousness of theworking musician. Today we can speak with SOlIle degreeof intelli~ence about the "style" of Bach, or the "style"of Haydn, hut we must remember that it was not sover~' long ago that respected musicians felt duty-bound to"correct" Haydn's rough and noisy style into glossy andsophisticated anachronisms, or to question Beethoven's 'facul­ties of imaginative hearing* in such famous things as theanticipated recapitulation of the first theme of the openingmovement of the }l~r()ica Symphony. Chant is far from thepoint at which it may enjoy the relative security of stylewhich is hecoming more and more widely understood in therase of the elassical composers. I t is not to be wondered at,therefore, that church musicians, who do not always enjoy~he advantages of extensive musical training of the type whichIS commonplace for the concert artist, should seek editions ofsome kind, just as many fine concert artists seek one or an­other classical edition which they hold in respect.

. ~he Solesl~es e(~itions have gained immense popularity;nus faet, we thmk, Will he coneeded h~T their most rigid oppon­ents. ])id this popularity, then, come about in spite of, orhp('ause of ('ertain features of the editions f

• We di!ltinguish hetween his physical deafness and his inner perception, of course.

-4-

Like many similar manifestations of popularity in otherfields, this issue was decided in the first few years of publica­tion. The opposition to the Solesmes editions which is beingraised today is a feeble refleetionof the furore raised in theearly years. Highly distinguished scholars, among themGastone, Houdard, Dechevrens, Wagner, Jeannin and others,wrote more powerful and. more thoroughly documentedarticles than have appeared recently. 'Whole volumes weredevoted to this debate. It was, therefore, in the light of muchadverse criticism that the Solesmes editions became popular.It was very quickly apparent after the publication of the"pure" Vatican edition (without supplementary rhythmicsigns of any kind) that the average church choir wouldnever produce convincing or artistic chant without some addi­tional aid. The Solesmes editions, as no others before orsince, have supplied this aid.

The Soles~es Use of Manuscript Signs

To read the words of most anti-Solesmes writers, we wouldthink that Solesmes has conspired to avoid carefully any con­cOl'dance at all with the authentic manuscript indications.Some writers claim that all. the Solesmes signs are the prod­ucts of modern imagination, a sort of fictional exegesis with­out any real foundation. Other writers admit the exist.encein the manuscripts of rhythmic signs, but claim that Solesmestreats them capriciously, sometimes deleting, sometimes add­ing to them, all this without license and without reason. DomGregory has not taken an extreme point of view, but he doessay certain things which could be misleading. He notes thatthe Solesmes interpretation of the rhythmic signs which arefound in the manuscripts seems t.o him to be arbitrary.Sometimes Solesmes represents them with dots, sometinl~swith horizontal episemas, and sometimes with verticalepisemas. Sometimes they are not inserted at all.

Without going into the countless variants of the manu­scripts, we can say this: the placement of the Solesmes signsis by no means without reason. Considerable thought liesbehind every editorial decision in the printed books.

-5-

Let us examine a few cases to see just what this editorialpolicy is.

Firstly, the charge is made that Solesmes omits many ofthe manuscript signs. The validity of this charge depends onwhat one means by "signs". In certain manuscripts, thefamous Cantatorium of St. Gall, for example, which is stillavailable at this writing from Desclee & Co. in a photolitho­graphic copy, the copyists show certain habits of style whichare frequently interpreted as "signs" of length. Thus, inmany cases, the isolated punctum is represented in the MSS.by a somewhat lengthened dash: ..

instead of the more accurate dot:•

The long form of the note is, to be sure, a sign of length, andit nearly always is such in the more developed neume-forms:In the case of many of the isolated punctums, however, weare forced to conclude, through the comparative study ofother MBS., that the scribe simply let the pen drag slightly,without scrupling to ma]\:e a clear distinction between the thusaccidentally long shape of the brief punctum and the authen­tically long notes of the standard neumes. This habit-of-pencannot be construed seriously as representing "authentic"rhythmic signs.

In addition to these cases, we find many in which theepisema of one manuscript is found only in a very small per­centage of the hundreds of other manuscript examples of thesame piece which are available to us. When an episema isfound to occur so rarely, Solesmes is reluctant to mal{e it apart of the printed editions. There is too great a chancethat it is either a local variant or a copyist's error. Simi­larily, many real errors are known, and certain MSS. areknown to be unreliable to any extraordinary degree. Muchdepends on the care taken by the copyist, and on the state ofpreservat.ion of the chant in the area from which the manu­script originally came.

In addition to these cases, there are others in which theimperfect form of the existing Vatican edition (which cannot

--6-

T---·II

I

1r

be changed except by Rome) precludes the insertion of theauthentic episemas. Those who know how defective theVatican edition is will realize how the mistranscribing- of aneume or melodic formula sometimes disfigures the authentic.melody beyond the point at which the inserting an episemabelonging to the original melody would make sense.

Secondly, the charge is made that Solesmes adds sig-nswhere none exist in the manuscript version of the melodies.This is perfectly true as a statement, but it would be well touse a little common sense in examining the justifiability ofsuch an editorial policy.

To begin with, few of the manuscripts give what could hecalled a "complete" rhythmic plan for any melody. ,Vhatone- :MS. gives, another omits, but supplements with signswhere the first was defective. Thus it is that an authenticreading is }'econstructed only through the comparative exami­nation of many l\fSS. It is also quite ohvious that there ar('many long phrases of melody which are completely devoid ofsigns in all the manuscripts we now possess. Common sengetells us that a rhythmic scheme must have been applied tothese melodies. just as one was applied to those melodieswhich we can find signs for. This is particularly true of thechants of the J{JJriate, which were not written down until COlll­

paratively late in the development of the Chant, and were,therefore, usually notated without any signs whatsoever. ThiRlack of signs is more and more pronounced in later centurieg,even in the cases of pieces which are very fully marked in theearlier scripts. Solesmes, therefore, has attempted to appl~'

to the chants for which few or no signs can be found the samegeneral systelll as is used for the better-preserved ehants.Naturally, in the light of this editorial necessity, many gig-nswill be found in the modern editions which the manugeriptghave not supplied. In all cases, however, the Rolesmes edi­torial markings are used, not the horizontal episema, whichis the sign reserved for the truly authentic sig-ns of th('scripts. The melody of Credo I, for example, contains manydotted notes and many vertical episemas as rendered hySolesmes. These are placed in accordance with Solesmes'understanding of what principles can be deducted from the

-7-

scripts containing rhythmic signs. This placement is, ofcourse, a matter of judgment, but it is based on a study· ofauthentic tradition.

Solesmes does add signs, therefore, in order to fill in thegaps in chants which are not preserved in manuscripts oldenough to contain reliable rhythmic signs. It would be easyto criticize Solesmes, too, for applying a uniform system tochants which' range from the eighth century to the sixteenth;obviously representing many different styles and types ofchant, as well as having many different national origins.Solesmes will be the first to admit that such oversimplificationhas its drawbacks, but it would be well to point out that thereis a line beyond which it becomes impractical to go in suchmatters. It would, of course, be very helpful to restore someof the authentic neume-forms, such as the oriscus, the trigon,etc., but to enter into a new notation which would encompassenough variants and subtleties to express all the evolutions ofchant through the centuries of its history is not only a matterwhich must await official permission to alter the Vaticanedition, but a procedure which will pass along to the parishchoirloft problems which are still knotty enough for the bestmusicologists to spend years of study to solve.

What, then, do the Solesmes rhythmic signs represenUThe dot is a sign which calls for the doubling of the note it isapplied to.:Many people have asked why some other signcould not be used, or why it would not be better to invent adifferent note-shape to represent the long tones. Firstly,the Church will not pennit the notes of the Vatican editionto be altered in any way, nor can they be marked in such away that the markings form part of the notes. Supplemen­tary signs, whether those of Solesmes or of any other editors,must be detached from the Vatican notation. Secondly, asign had to be invented which was different enough frOIu theauthentic horizontal episema to preclude all possible con­fusion in performance. Thirdly, the sign had to be simpleenough to be easy to write by hand or to print in a book.

The vertical episema of Solesmes is the lnost controver­sial sign of all. Few people argue about the authenticity of

-8-

I~

the horizontal episema, and even some of the opponents ofSolesmes will admit that the notion of using a dot to marknotes which scholars think were intended to be doubled isjustifiable. Nearly all opponents of Solesmes, however, ob­ject strenuously to the use of the vertical episema, particu­larly to its application in syllabic chants.

The purpose of the vertical episema in Solesmes think­ing is merely that of a placemark. It is inserted in ·the edi­tions, in most cases, to clarify a passage which might be vaguewithout it. Since all rhythmic groups in any music can bereduced to basic patterns of two or three counts, even whenthe compounding of these produces a complex-appearing- af­fair in the finished composition, Solesmes feels that it isimportant that the singers sense the articulation of thesegroups. In many cases the natural shape of the neumes, orthe pattern of word accents, or some similar factor alreadypresent in the notation or text can convey the groupings.Where doubt can enter, or where two solutions to a case arepossible, Solesmes attempts to offer a uniform procedure byinserting the vertical episema. Now, of course, since thisclarification of the groups sometimes is necessary in placeswhere the MSS. give no sign at all, the cry goes up thatSolesmes is tampering with authentic tradition. This is non­sense. Solesmes is merely trying to provide for modernsingers the indications which the medieval singer, in his near­ness to the sung tradition, simply did not need. This, wereiterate, does not luean that no such rhythm was used in themiddle ages. It merely means that a great deal of the mu­sical rhythm came more naturally to the singers of thosedays, and that it needed no special notation. Habit and tra­dition sufficed. Today, lacking both habit and tradition, weuse a supplementary sign. Still, in many places, Solesmesrefrains from a decision, simply because one solution is oftenas justifiable as another. When a grouping is vague and nosign is added, a good solution is obtainable from personaljudgment, adequately trained, of course.

How about the many syllabic chants in which verticalepisemas march row on row, usually in complete independenceof the 'word-accent, often giving the impression to the casual

-9-

observer that the editors have perverted the prerogative ofthe accent (as we think of it in modern languages) to fall onthe downheaU The fact of the lnatter is that Solesmes is ofthe opinion that in the earl~' middle ages the Latin accent wasindepenclent of the downheat or "ictus". It is important,however, to realize that this ictus, as conceived bv Solesmesdoes not eall for stress or intensity per see The ~ord-accentis sung with a brisk, warm intensity, even when it occurs onwhat we would consider an upbeat. Thus those who railag-aim;t the "unnatural" detracting- of intensitv from theae('ent and ih; placement on the "thetic ictus" ~re drawingswords ag-ainst one of the flimsiest straw men in this wholedehate. The simple faet is that intensity belongs to the wordnee-ent. reg-ardless of t.he pmdtion of the ictus, and this is whatthe :-:;ole~';}lles theOl'~' of the independence of the accent and theie-tm.; l'ean~· means. If the ietus were to draw intensity toitReH', in the manner of lllOdern metrical downbeats in' ourmore vig-orous dance-musie, what would be the point in rlis­('w;;sing- the aecent at all f

Two further points, however, should he made. Firstly,the ie.tus, when softer than the accented syllable on the up­heat, ]s perceptihle in the singing-. There are those who saythat this if' not true, and that when the word accent is loude~than the ietie final syllable, the ictus is imperceptible. Wesay that they have not heard it sung- properly. The ictus,pven when subtle to the extreme, is perceptible to the experi­enre(l ear. Tt iR yet more pereeptihle, even to the inexperi­elH'ed par, when it is eontrasted with a chant in whieh sueh ani('tu~ is laeking. \Yhen the anti-Holesmes choirmaster directshi~ g-!'onp ip an i('tic-a<,.('ent performance, there is lacking a{'ertam dphherateness m word ending'S and in articulatedmelismas whieh is present in g-ood Solesmes-method perform­ane-PH. rehus, whether it is ('onsidered g-ood 01' had, the ietuscannot he said to he impen·eptihle. Recondly, the intendedvalue of the Solesmes idm:; cannot he jung-ed from all per­fOrInanees of the average parish choir, an~' more than thet'sthetic value of a Bepthoven ruhato can he judg-ed by itsrpnder.ing in a, 8c.11001ho." '8 recital. When done well, "it issplendId; when It IS not " .. well, he who has eal'S to hear lethim hear. J~~ven excellent perfOl'lllaneeS have some ineq~ali-

-10-

1I

:

ties; it is the inconsistency of human nature. Judgment isformed, however, by moments of light, not those of obscurity.The rarity of glorious performances is no reason to declal:ethe experienees of Beethoven out-ot'-hounds for the sch~)()lhoY. ,or, for that matter, the use of <'hant for the parish choir.

",Ve should remark that Blost of the assumptions in DOlll

Oreg-ory's artide, whi('h states ver~' clearly the usual ohjec­tions to the Holesmes method, are hased on an llnden:;tandingof the ictus \\'hieh presumes it to he the exad equivalent of amodern downlwat. The ~illl})le faet is that the word a('('ent,sung properl~' in accord with Solesllle~ theory, KoundR tht:'l"ame, as far a~ intensit~· i~ concerned, ,vhether ieti(· or not.'Ye have previou~l~' stated that the differenee lim; only in til('~uht]e footfall of the idus, "rhieh, however, we ag-ain state, iRllot eonRidered aR intt'nsive or stressed.

Our final point at this writin~ deals with Dom ~Io('que­

reau, the principal figure in the develoIJment of the Roleslllesmethod. He is usually the hutt of critieislll of the methods,as though no other s('holar~ were ever involve(l in its working­out. That he is a Ringle link, alheit important, in a elmin ofmen devoted to respareh in the chant, is usualh- not men­tioned. That he drew many of his ideas from' his l))"ede­cessors, notahl~' Dom Pothier, is undeniahle. He is slw('eededtoday l1y a full team of paleog-raplwrs and lilUsieians undpl'the lea(len~hip of Dom :Joseph Oajanl. 'Yp should point out,too, that Ho}esmes has ('ome a long- way sinee tilt' wor1, of ])oml\[ocquereau waR f1ni~hed. li~verY vpar sees lWW materialf;athered in evidenep, new understan~lingdeye]opell. At thismoment a eritieal pclition of the C/rad1wle is lwing preparedat Hole~mles in order to enahle HlP scholars of the world toexamine the sources of the ehant from whi('h Solesllws haRsought to develop its method. Improvement in l'espare'h isreflected in certain small details of the puhlishe(l editions.Here or there an episema is altered, or a horizontal ppi~ellla

sullstituted for a dotted note. ThoHe who have pur('has~d

Hol('smes editions recently have undouhtedlY oh~erved thiH.Larg-e ehang-es cannot, of' ('ourRe, he made. 'It would he im­prudent to insert in a sinA'le edition all the discoveries and

-11-

RI-

On the final syllable (-pe) the :MS. gives a torculus, po­datus subbipunctis, and clivis, all formed of short notes.Solesmes renders them precisely. An editorial verticalepisema is added by Solesmes, however, to clarify the junc-

On the next syllable (-ri-) the MS. gives a four-notegroup, consisting of a virga, quilismatic note, and a clivisformation which carries an episema on the first note. Thisis rendered exactly by Solesmes, except that the virga is givenas a punctum and is attached to the quilismatic note. Thisdoes not change the performance of the passage, of course.

IJ

cFirst word: Eripe -e-

"·n wf'T- ~e cr,

improvements made since the Vatican edition appeared, evenif this were possible in view of the decree against alteringthe melodic form of the 1908 books. Sudden change wouldbring chaos to choirlofts throughout the world. Change willcome, of course, gradually.

Let us examine the case of the Gradual Eripeme, foundon p. 84 of the aforementioned manuscript, No. 359 of St.Gall.· It is given in the Solesmes edition of the chant, LiberUsualis, p. 570. We shall see to what extent the manuscriptand edition of Solesmes agree.

The manuscript gives a lengthened punctum for the firstnote. Solesmes, obliged to preserve the note-shape of theVatican edition, gives a lengthened virga. Then the MS.gives a tristropha, also given by Solesmes. The next neumeis a clivis, marked with a letter t in the MS. This letter, theabbreviation for" tarditer", is the equivalent of the horizon­tal episema which in other cases is given by the various reli­able manuscripts. Solesmes includes this episema in theedition. Gm4. t---E:...~

-12- -13-

Fourth word: de

ti(m of the last two nemnes, whieh, aecording to the Vaticanedition, mal,e their transition at the unison.

•I.,It.. '-PE

Second word: me

meThe manuscript g-ives a simple tristropha. Rolesmes

preserves this, of {'om·ge.

me,Third word: Domine

"J I'l. ,._.f A J~ Jl

"DO me ner.Phe lllanu~('ript g-ives a five-note group on the first syl­

lahle. The first two notes are lengthened punet.umB, the thirda quilislllatie note, the last two a e1ivis formation, joined tothe pre('eding quilismati(' note. Solesuw,s lengthenl:" the firl:"tpundmn h:,' adding a dot, douhling- the note. rrhe next. note,although marked as long in the ~l So, is not marked as ~u('h

11y Holesmes. This is not to he pounced on, however, as adefeet. ~()leHmes always and by rule lengthens the notebefore a quilisma. On the fourth note, howev~r, RoleSllll'Sha51. aetuan~' inserted an epiHema where none is found in our~rK TIli:::::, m; may he realized hy the experi(m('ed reader, iHa case in which other good manuseriptH have supplied ~trong

evidem'e that the episema helongs here, even when the presentNt. Gall :\1 k. omits it, probahly through an oversight of theeopyist. ~

=PD6-

The second syllable (-mi-) receives a clivis in the manu­script, marked with a letter c, representing H celeriter", theindication given hy a scribe when he wants to he certain that

-14-

••

no note will be lengthened in a given passage. Solesmes,therefore, gives a regular clivis.

t!:mi-

The final syllable (-ne) is marked with a long ornamentalpassage, consisting of a lengthened podatus, two lengthenedpunctulIls, a quilismatic nole, virga (end of quilismaticneume), clivis containing an indication of brevity plus an­other of length, a distropha, and a final torculus. The initialpodatu8 seems to be long in hoth elements, hut Rolesmes,through comparative study of other scripts, has thought thatonly the first note seems indisputably long, and has so markedit. The two long punctuUls are accurately rendered h:.;Solesmes as a dotted note and by the conventional lengthen­ing of the note before the quilisma. The tOI'culus followingthe quilismatic not.e is marked with a c, ealling for hrevity,but it also has a lengthened quality in its final element. Thec is not contradicted hy this indication of lenAth, but we lnayInake the final descending note more deliherate, a treatment\I,rhich is in accord with the general Rolesmes style. Ru('hpoints of style are not evident from notation, of ('ourse, hutthey must he considered in any fair criticism of the method.Th~ distropha is then given, followed hy the final toreulus.Note, however, that Solesmes has added an editorial dot tothe last note of the torculus. It is not nmrked as long in themanuscript, but because we have a division of the phrasemarked at this point in the Vatican edition, plus an elementof }Jun<.'tuation, lenJ:.,rthening this note is a lnatter of lll'acticaljudg·ment. l.b----...Il=----

.,... I-~ A.

net

c/)

"l)e

.A simple divis is given in the :AIS., and this is followedby Solesmes.

1'ir"de

-15-

in-

// ./ .' .

tA I lItl Clf

The first syllable has a simple virga in the MS., renderedby a simple punctum in the edition. This is not a seriousdifference as the manuscript virga merely indicates that thenote is hi~her than the preceding clivis. Since in an editionprinted on a staff such an indication is unnecessary, it is notgiven.

Fifth word: inimicis Sixth word: mets

,." /-- h'" /m~ I{

The first syllable bears a long melisma, formed of a sin:­gle apostropha, two distrophas, a climacus and a porrectus,all short in the :MS. Except for the rendering of the firstnote as a punctum, rather than an apostropha, Solesma givesthe passage in perfect fidelity to the scripts. The sign forthe apostropha does not exist in the printed edition, but thisdoes not affect the length of the note......, ~. .....

The second syllable has a simple podatus in both MS. andedition.

The third syllable (-mi-) has a salicus in the MS., seem­ing to call for three rising notes in succession. The p~inted

edition gives two notes at the unison, followed by one hIgher.This group is sometimes referred to by modern writers as a"second salicus form ", but it is increasingly apparent fromrecent studies that it is simply a melodic variation producedby the accidental raising of the first note of t~e s!Llicus t.othe pitch of the second. Dozens of cases of thIS kind, nor­mally associated with a semitone interval similar to the pres­ent one, may be found. If it were possible to resto:e thetrue salicus form, Solesmes would place the rhythmIC fallon the second note, but because the Vatican edition may notbe altered, Solesmes cannot tamper with the existing passage.....

mi-

The last syllable has a simple punctum in both MS. andedition.

cis

-16-

me-The final syllable also has a long ornamental passage.

In the published books, a single punctum falls to the le~t ofa melodic division. The rest of the ornamental passage IS tothe right of the bar line. Because of this fact, 80lesma hasdecided to respect the division by lengthening this simplepunctum. This, again, is a matter of judgme~t. Th~ .barcannot be omitted,since it is part of the VatIcan edItIOn,which may not be alt.ered. The single punctum we refer to,however, is a virga in the MS., which does not make anydifference in its length.

is:

The next two neumes are given as torculus-forms in theMS., both long in all notes. 80lesmes marks them both withthe horizontal episema, exactly as called for. Then comes afour-note climacus, marked with a c. Solesmes renders itwithout long notes, of course. This is fol~owed by a three­note climacus, marJ\:ed as long on its first element. Solesmeshas found by comparative study, however, that this lengthis less reliable than most of the others, .as far as other 1f8S.are concerned, and it is not included in the edition. Note,too .that two vertical episemas are included in the passagejust referred to. . These are placed on modally impo~t8;ntnotes in accord WIth what Solesmes has felt to be the IdIO­matic shape usually given to such a passage in the hundreds

-17-

me

Seventh· word: doce

ceEighth word: .me

fa-

The second syllable has a siInple podatus in both versions.

-I-

Ninth word: facere

ht J SeF. ~fa cere

T

.../11"DO ce

The first syllable has a podatus in the MS., which seemsto be long on the first note. Here, too, comparative studyleads us to omit the sign of length as questionable.

~

do-

The clearly lllarked tarditer of the second syllable, how­ever, is authentic, and is rendered by Solesmes as an episema,drawn over the first note of the divis.

A simple porrectus fiexus IS given by both MS. andprinted edition.

The first syllable has a simple porrectus fiexus in 'both:hIS. and edition.

of cases now tabulated. They can be eliminated, however,without doing serious damage to the character of the passage,if one wishes to refrain from any such editorial points. Thevertical episema has the advantage in such cases of beingclearly and obviously editorial.

iFi-\ ~,.,. I! ••

The quarter bar which follows the above passage is notimportant enough to need a lengthened final note.

Going on, we have a distropha, clivis with a sign ofbrevity and one of length, three-note climacus, another cliviswith both c and episema, a virga, a pressus, and a punctum.The printed edition gives the distropha, the clivis with ashort first note, and an editorial sign indicating the deliber­ate thetic fall of the final note (which is what Solesmes con­siders to be a good interpretation of the somewhat indefiniteenisema of the MS. (This, too, is based on wide study ofother sources.) The three-note climacus is rendered asgiven, the following clivis in the same way the first is han­dled, but the concluding notes are quite different from theprinted ones. Instead of the virga, pressus and punctum ofthe MS., we have a double clivis in the Vatican edition, whichSolesmes has dotted on the final note. The reason for thedifference is this: there is a special sign for t~e pressus inthe MS., for which there is no equivalent in the printed edi­tion. The pressus is represented in the printed edition,therefore, by the fusion of the two clivis groups at the unison.Those familiar with the Solesmes method know how this isdone. The effect to the ear, of course, is the exact equivalentof the manuscript version. The lengthening of the final noteis again occasioned by the use of the phrase-bar in the Vati­can edition, marking a major pause. The use of the long notecannot be questioned if we accept the division given by theVatican edition.

ce-

--18--19-

The final syllable has an ornamental passage, beginning,in the MS., with a long torculus, followed by a podatus subbi­punctis, concluded with a group which seems to be a clivis,fused to a pressus sign, followed by a punctum. This entirepassage is rendered as given. Note that the concludingpressus group is to be viewed in the light of the previousexplanation of this kind of neume. Note, too, that an e.ditor­ial vertical episema is added to this passage in order toclarify the rhythmic flow. It does not affect the length ofany of the notes, however, and the group would sound thesame in any case.

re

Tenth word: voluntatem

,/..1 r..·(1/ T , " I.' » f),v,

'10 LuI') 1: CL L ~mAgain we have a salicus in the MS. where the published

edition gives the so-called "second form". See our com­ment above on the accented syllable of inimicis.

lun

The third syllable has a long virga, short podatus, por­rectus, long virga, apostropha, three distropha, and a clivis­pressus-punctum group, in that order. All are given exactlyas indicated by the manuscripts.

r-a ~"1 ,'.UI- tem

-20-

Last wo·rd: tuam

...1 IfI·. ... ,.-c;::.l.L a.>n

We ·have in the MS. two long punctums, quilismatic notefused with a concluding virga, clivis with an episema, three­note climacus, trigon, and distropha. The two long punc­turns are again rendered by a dotted note and pre-quilismaticlong note. The quilisma and virga are given as indicated, asare the epismatic clivis and the three-note climacus. Thetrigon, however, is not given correctly by the printed edition,

Ct ~~·.·It··1tu- am.

probably because it was not clearly recognized in studies inthe years during the compilation of the Vatican edition. In­stead of the two notes at the unison, plus a lower tone, rep­resented in the books by a punctum and clivis, we might havethe following:

printed version:.n. probable version of MS. •••

The exact difference in interpretation of the trigon incontrast with the usual torculus has not been determined, butthere is little doubt about its melodic meaning, or its essen­tial brevity in all three notes.

The concluding distropha is given in the Solesmes edition.

It is interesting to note that the long ornamental melis­ma, published in the printed edition, is not found in MS. 359vf St. Gall, probably because of an error of the copyist. Ithas been reconstructed through study of other MSS.

In summary, the manuscript gives 27 clearly markedsigns of length, apart from the special neumes which arelong by formation (distropha, tristropha, pressus, etc.).Four of these are doubtful by comparison with other manu­scripts, and they are omitted in the present edition with theunderstanding that they can be inserted if future' researchshould indicate the adv-isability of this. The other twenty-three are given by Solesmes. .

-21-

There are 3 examples of a clivis which seems to have anepisema on the final note, although the neume is markedabove by a c, indicating brevity of the notes. (The one casein which the c is omitted seems to have been an oversight..)These cases are either treated stylistically or marked withthe thetic episema by the editors, in order to give what wouldseem to be a proper treatment t.o this kind of group.

Five notes are marked as long by Solesmes which arenot so marked in the manuscript. Two of these cases arethe final notes of pressus-groups, which are lengthened be­cause of their falling at a cadence point. One case is takenfrom other manuscripts in order to clarify a passage whichis unmarked in the present MS. The other two cases areboth editorial decisions, made in order to provide long notesat the melodic divisions indicated by the Vatican edition.

Seven vertical (editorial) episemas are used. Two arelIsed to convey the special cases of the clivi!'; forms men­tioned above. Three others are placed to clarify rhythmicdivisions in ornamental passages. The remaining two areplaced on modally important notes in accord with decisionsreached by long study of many similar passages onother MSS.

Of thirty-two signs added to the portion of the piece wehave examined, six are editorial in nature, twenty-six basedon manuscript indications.

This, perhaps, can give some idea to our readers of thet.rue nature of the Solesmes editions of the chant and theconservative and cautious manner in which the Solesmespaleographers work Naturally there is much yet to be done,and many improvements in the editions will be made in yearsto come. The principles followed, however, as we have seen,are drawn from serious study of the best sources nowavailable.

-22-

•